Media Independence

Statement 1 is incorrect. The “Right to the City” is not a formally agreed universal human right in international law. It is a normative and political concept. UN-Habitat uses the idea in the New Urban Agenda, but: it does not legally monitor binding national commitments. Statement 2 is correct. The Right to the City is the right of all inhabitants (present and future, permanent and temporary) to inhabit, use, occupy, produce, transform, govern, and enjoy cities, towns, and human settlements that are just, inclusive, safe, sustainable and democratic, defined as common goods for enjoying life with dignity and peace. The right to the city further implies responsibilities on governments and people to claim, defend, and promote this right. Statement 3 is correct. “Right to the City” is interpreted as an inclusive urban citizenship right. The concept says that all city dwellers, including: migrants, slum dwellers, residents of unauthorized colonies, have a claim to urban services and dignity. It views residents not as “encroachers” but as rights-bearing urban citizens who contribute to the city economy. Hence: denial of water, sanitation, waste management, etc. merely because a settlement is “unauthorized” is seen as violating the spirit of Right to the City. Indian courts have also held that basic services cannot be denied even to illegal settlements, as they are part of Article 21 – Right to Life. Note: UPSC usually takes welfare centric approach in questions.

Article 13 of the Indian Constitution provides for the protection of Fundamental Rights and declares that any law inconsistent with or in derogation of Part III of the Constitution shall be void to the extent of the inconsistency. To prevent the State from bypassing Fundamental Rights through executive or traditional means, Article 13(3)(a) provides a highly expansive definition of the term "law". It explicitly states that "law" includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law. Therefore, the view of 'Y' that the term 'law' includes custom or usage is absolutely correct. Because "custom or usage" is expressly listed in the constitutional text, uncodified traditional practices that hold the force of law are subject to the exact same constitutional scrutiny as formal legislative statutes. 'X' is incorrect in doubting or rejecting the inclusion of custom or usage within the definition of law under Article 13. Thus, regarding the point of contention, only the view of 'Y' is correct. Therefore, the correct option is D.

Right to Privacy and Article 21: Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. In the landmark 2017 judgment of K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India unanimously held that the right to privacy is an intrinsic part of Article 21. This ruling reinforced privacy as a fundamental right, ensuring protection against unwarranted state and private intrusions. Part III of the Constitution covers Fundamental Rights, which include: - Article 19: Right to freedom of speech and expression, freedom of movement, and other essential liberties. - Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty, which now includes privacy after the Puttaswamy judgment. Article 14: Ensures equality before the law, but does not explicitly deal with privacy. Article 17: Abolishes untouchability. Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) are non-enforceable guidelines, not fundamental rights. Article 24: Prohibits child labor but has no relation to privacy. Thus, the right to privacy is most closely linked to Article 21 and the freedoms guaranteed in Part III of the Indian Constitution. Hence the correct answer is option (c).

* The legislation described would violate Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. * Article 14 guarantees Equality Before Law and Equal Protection of Laws. This means that laws must be applied fairly and consistently, and everyone should be treated equally under the law. * Legislation that gives unchecked power to the executive or administration to apply the law violates this principle. Option B is incorrect. Article 28 is related to the right to freedom of religion. Option C is incorrect. Article 32 confers the right to remedies for the enforcement of the fundamental rights of an aggrieved citizen. Article 32 affirms the right to move the Supreme Court if a fundamental right is violated. Under this article, the Supreme Court can issue writs for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights of the citizens. Option D is incorrect. Article 44 provides for one of the Directive Principles of State Policy. Article 44 says that the State shall endeavor to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.

Statement 1 is correct: Mandamus is a command issued by the court to a public official asking him to perform his official duties that he has failed or refused to perform. It can also be issued against any public body, a corporation, an inferior court, a tribunal, or a government for the same purpose. It is usually not usable against a private entity unless it is entrusted with a public duty. Statement 2 is correct: As explained above, Mandamus can be used against a government corporation and/or company when it is discharging a "public duty", so the statement is incomplete. Public Duty is Key: Mandamus aims to compel performance of a public duty, not just private functions. Statement 3 is correct: Quo Warranto is issued by the court to inquire into the legality of the claim of a person to a public office. Hence, it prevents illegal usurpation of public office by a person. Unlike the other writs, this can be sought by any interested person and not necessarily by the aggrieved person. Note (on Statement 2): In UPSC Prelims, statements must be judged as written, without adding extra conditions. A company does not become subject to the writ of Mandamus only because it is a Government company. Government ownership by itself is not enough. Since Statement 2 is framed in this limited and absolute sense, and no additional condition like “public duty” is mentioned, the statement is treated as correct.