Right to Walk as a Fundamental Right

Article 21: This article states that "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." Over the years, the Supreme Court of India has expanded the scope of personal liberty to include various fundamental rights, including the right to marry a person of one's choice. Shamima Begum vs. State of Assam (2018): The court ruled that a woman has the right to marry a person of her choice, reinforcing that personal decisions related to marriage fall under individual autonomy and personal liberty as guaranteed by Article 21. Hadiya's case (Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M): The Supreme Court upheld the right to marry as a fundamental right under Article 21. It ruled that an adult woman is free to make decisions regarding her marriage, rejecting attempts to interfere in personal choices. The court emphasized that state or societal disapproval cannot restrict an individual’s right to marry.

* The First Amendment Act, of 1951, added the fourth clause to Article 15 that empowered the government to make any law for the upliftment of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled * Tribes. The added clause elucidates that in case such special provisions are introduced, they cannot be said to be breaching Article 15 and Article 29(2) of the Constitution. * The need to insert this clause was felt after the decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Madras v. Srimathi Champakam (1951). According to the facts of this case, the Madras government issued an Order that provided reservation on the grounds of religion, race, and caste. This Order was contended to be in breach of Article 15(1) of the Indian Constitution. The Court also gave a literal interpretation to the constitutional provisions and held that reserving seats in public institutions for backward classes violates Articles 15(1) and 29(2). Therefore, to nullify the effect of similar judicial pronouncements, Article 15 was amended. * Similarly, Article 19(1)(a) grants the right to free speech and expression to Indian citizens. This right is considered an essential feature of democracy. However, Article 19(2) specifies the restrictions that can curtail this freedom. The First Amendment to the Indian Constitution altered these restrictions by widening their ambit. The second change, via the Amendment Act of 1951, was made to Clause 6 of Article 19. Note: UPSC deleted this question when the final answer key was issued.

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.

* The Supreme Court of India, in its landmark judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union of India (2017), declared that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution of India. * The court held that this right is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the Right to Life and Personal Liberty. *  Article 21: States that 'No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.' The court interpreted 'personal liberty' broadly to include various aspects of privacy. _While the other options are fundamental rights, they are not directly where the Right to Privacy is placed:_ * Article 15: Prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. * Article 16: Guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. * Article 19: Guarantees certain freedoms like speech and expression, assembly, etc.

The right to privacy in India is not explicitly mentioned in a single article of the Constitution. However, it is considered an intrinsic part of the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21. This recognition came about through a landmark Supreme Court judgment in 2017, K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) vs Union of India. The court ruled that the right to privacy is an inseparable part of the right to life and personal liberty, and is protected under Article 21.