Towards a dialogue on adolescent sexuality

* 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 correct: Under Article 128, the Chief Justice of India may, at any time, with the previous consent of the President, request a retired Judge of the Supreme Court or a retired Judge of a High Court (who is duly qualified) to sit and act as a Judge of the Supreme Court. Statement 2 is not correct: Although there is no explicit Article in the Constitution equivalent to Article 137 (which grants review power to the SC) for High Courts, the High Courts are "Courts of Record" under Article 215. As a Court of Record, a High Court has the inherent power to review its own orders and judgments to correct any patent error or prevent a miscarriage of justice. This has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in various rulings.

A custodian is a person entrusted with the custody or care of something. - Whenever Fundamental Rights are denied or restricted, it can be challenged in the Supreme Court under Article 32; - The dispute between Centre and State can be settled in the Supreme Court under Article 131; - the Law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all the courts in India under Article 141; - For the enforcement of decrees - Article 142; - President of India consulting Supreme Court under Article 143; - After all, under Article 13, all laws that are inconsistent with or in derogation of any of the fundamental rights shall be void ( Doctrine of Judicial Review). - Supreme Court judgments are the law of the land; Based on the above facts, the Supreme Court takes care of the Constitution. So, simply the Supreme Court is the Custodian of the Constitution.

Statement 1 is incorrect: The term "basic structure" is not explicitly mentioned in the Indian Constitution. It was first propounded by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). The Court ruled that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, there are certain features of the Constitution that form its basic structure and cannot be altered or destroyed through amendments by Parliament. Although the basic structure doctrine includes elements such as federalism, secularism, democracy, and fundamental rights, these features are not explicitly listed as the 'basic structure' in the Constitution itself. Statement 2 is incorrect: The Constitution of India does not explicitly mention the power of judicial review. Instead, this power is derived from various provisions, particularly Articles 13, 32, 131-136, 143, 226, and 246. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court and High Courts to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions, ensuring they do not violate fundamental rights or other constitutional provisions. This power is essential in maintaining the supremacy of the Constitution and protecting citizens' rights. Hence, neither of the statements is correct.

* 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.

Statement 1 is not correct: The Government had launched a scheme viz Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of Government of India, 1993. As per the scheme, Temporary status would be conferred on all casual labourers who were in employment and who have rendered a continuous service of at least one year, which means that they must have been engaged for at least 240 days (206 days in case of offices observing 5 days week). Statement 2 is correct: The Supreme Court has decreed that casual workers are also entitled to social security benefits as stipulated in the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. The Court's ruling stemmed from its interpretation of Section 2(f) of the EPF Act, wherein the definition of an "employee" encompasses a broad scope, including any individual engaged directly or indirectly in connection with an establishment's work and receiving wages. A bench of the Supreme Court affirmed this viewpoint. Statement 3 is correct: The government has the authority to specify through a notification that an establishment or industry is obligated to disburse wages exclusively via its bank account.

The Ninth Schedule was introduced by the First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951 to protect certain laws, particularly those related to land reforms, from judicial review. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru introduced the Constitution (First Amendment) Bill in the Lok Sabha in 1951. This amendment aimed to safeguard progressive socio-economic legislation from being struck down by courts on the grounds of violating fundamental rights, particularly the right to property under Article 31 (which was later repealed by the 44th Amendment in 1978).

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.

Statement 1 is correct: The Ninth Schedule was introduced through the First Constitutional Amendment (1951) to protect certain laws from judicial review, even if they violated Fundamental Rights (Part III of the Constitution). Statement 2 is incorrect: The protection under the Ninth Schedule is not absolute. As per the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) and reaffirmed in the I.R. Coelho case (2007), laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, can still be challenged if they violate the "Basic Structure" of the Constitution. Thus, while the Ninth Schedule provides a degree of protection, the Supreme Court retains the power to review laws that undermine the Constitution’s core principles. Hence, the correct answer is option (a) 1 only.