Right to Freedoms [Part-III: Articles 19–22]: Scope, Limitations & Judicial Interpretation

1. Introduction #

Articles 19–22 of Part III constitute the “Charter of Fundamental Freedoms” in the Indian Constitution.
They guarantee civil liberties essential for the development of individual personality and democratic governance.
These rights are not absolute; they are subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, morality, and national security.

---

2. Article 19 — Six Fundamental Freedoms #

2.1. Text #

Article 19(1) guarantees to citizens only the following freedoms:

Each of these is qualified by clauses (2)–(6), which empower the State to impose reasonable restrictions.

---

2.2. Doctrine of Reasonable Restrictions #

Restrictions must be:
1️⃣ Imposed by law (not by executive order),
2️⃣ Reasonable — balancing individual liberty and social control,
3️⃣ In the interests of the grounds mentioned in clauses (2)–(6).

---

2.3. Judicial Interpretation (Key Cases) #

(i) Freedom of Speech — Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950 AIR SC 124) #

Facts: Ban on a political journal under “public safety.”
Issue: Whether “public safety” is a valid ground.
Rule: Restrictions must fall strictly within Article 19(2).
Conclusion: Ban struck down; “public safety” not in Article 19(2) (pre-First Amendment).

---

(ii) Reasonableness of Restriction — Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1951 AIR SC 118) #

Facts: Total prohibition of bidi manufacturing during agricultural season.
Rule: Restriction must not be excessive; must have reasonable nexus.
Conclusion: Struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable.

---

(iii) Freedom of Press — Bennett Coleman v. Union of India (1973 AIR SC 106) #

Facts: Government limited newsprint quota.
Issue: Whether freedom of press is part of Article 19(1)(a).
Held: Yes — restriction violated freedom of expression.

---

(iv) Business & Profession — State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005 AIR SC 212) #

Held: Ban on cow slaughter upheld as a reasonable restriction in public interest.

---

2.4. Significance #

Article 19 is the “Magna Carta of personal liberty” in India, ensuring that freedom is not absolute but harmonized with collective welfare.

---

3. Article 20 — Protection in Respect of Conviction for Offences #

3.1. Three Constitutional Safeguards #

---

3.2. Judicial Illustrations #

(i) Ex-Post-Facto Law — Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh (1953 AIR SC 394) #

Retrospective increase in punishment held unconstitutional under Article 20(1).

---

(ii) Double Jeopardy — Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953 AIR SC 325) #

Customs confiscation not “prosecution”; hence no double jeopardy.

(iii) Self-Incrimination — State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1962 AIR SC 1808) #

Providing fingerprints or handwriting specimens not self-incrimination — applies only to testimonial compulsion.

---

4. Article 21 — Right to Life and Personal Liberty #

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

4.1. Evolution of Interpretation #

---

4.2. Expanded Meaning of “Life” #

The Court has interpreted “life” to mean more than mere animal existence — includes the right to live with dignity and allied rights.

---

4.3. FIRAC Example — Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978 AIR SC 597) #

Facts: Petitioner’s passport impounded without reason.
Issue: Whether such arbitrary action violates Article 21.
Rule: “Procedure established by law” must be fair, just, and reasonable.
Application: Impounding without hearing was arbitrary.
Conclusion: Violated Articles 14, 19, 21 — introduced “triple test of fairness.”

---

4.4. Right to Education (Article 21-A) #

Inserted by 86th Amendment (2002) — guarantees free and compulsory education to children aged 6–14 years.

📘 Case: Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993 AIR SC 2178) — recognised education as an essential part of life under Article 21, leading to the constitutional amendment.

---

5. Article 22 — Protection in Respect of Arrest and Preventive Detention #

5.1. Two Parts #

---

5.2. Ordinary Arrests — Rights of a Detained Person #

• Right to be informed of grounds of arrest.

• Right to consult and be defended by a lawyer.

• Right to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours.

• No detention beyond 24 hours without magistrate’s order.

📘 Case: DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997 AIR SC 610) — Laid down detailed guidelines on arrest and detention, including preparation of arrest memo, informing family, medical examination, etc.

---

5.3. Preventive Detention #

• Permitted under Article 22(3)–(7).

• A person can be detained without trial to prevent him from acting prejudicially to security of State or public order.

• Parliament enacted National Security Act (1980) and similar laws.

• Maximum detention: 12 months (subject to review by Advisory Board headed by a High Court judge).

📘 Case: A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) — upheld validity of preventive detention law but later restricted by Maneka Gandhi principles of fairness.

---

6. Summary Table — Articles 19 to 22 #

---

7. Conclusion #

Articles 19–22 collectively preserve individual liberty and State security.
They demonstrate the constitutional balance between freedom and order, ensuring that liberty thrives within a framework of law.
Judicial interpretation has progressively humanised and expanded these freedoms, making them living guarantees rather than static clauses.

“Personal liberty makes life worth living; without it, the Constitution itself would lose its meaning.” — Justice Bhagwati, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)