In India, voting cannot remain merely a statutory right

* 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.

* 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.

* Option (a) is correct: The concept of 'Due Process of Law' primarily means that the procedure through which a person is deprived of life or liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable, following the principles of natural justice. It ensures that laws are not only enacted properly but also applied fairly and reasonably. * Option (b) is not correct: The phrase 'Procedure established by law', used in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, refers to any procedure laid down by law, even if it is unfair. However, after the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) judgment, the Supreme Court read into Article 21 the American concept of ‘Due Process of Law’, ensuring fairness and reasonableness in both substance and procedure. * Option (c) is not entirely correct: While fair application of law is part of due process, the phrase ‘Due Process of Law’ has a broader meaning that encompasses substantive fairness, procedural justice, and conformity with natural justice. Hence, option (a) captures its essence more accurately. * Option (d) is not correct: Equality before law (Article 14) is a distinct constitutional principle and not equivalent to due process.

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.

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.

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.

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 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).

* Statement I is correct: It has frequently been argued that reservation is contrary to efficiency and merit. Even the Supreme Court of India appeared to have agreed with this argument in some of its judgments, holding that Article 335 mention of the term efficiency of administration will limit the scope of Article 16(4) provision for reservation in services.  * Statement II is incorrect: Article 335 of the Constitution of India states that the claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State.  * Article 335 of the Indian Constitution only mentions the efficiency of administration and does not define the same.

Statement 1 is incorrect: The Supreme Court ruled that Aadhaar metadata cannot be stored for more than six months, which invalidated the provision in the Aadhaar Act that allowed the storage of such data for up to five years. Statement 2 is correct: The Supreme Court struck down Section 57 which allowed private corporations to verify Aadhaar data. The Court held this provision unconstitutional, as it was seen to violate privacy rights. Statement 3 is incorrect: The 2018 Supreme Court judgment declared that making Aadhaar mandatory for services beyond welfare schemes, including financial services like insurance or for preventing money laundering, was unconstitutional. In response to this ruling, the IRDAI issued an advisory in 2019, clarifying that Aadhaar is not mandatory for obtaining insurance. It also withdrew its earlier 2017 policy that had made Aadhaar compulsory for insurance in the context of anti-money laundering measures. Statement 4 is correct: In the Aadhaar verdict, the Supreme Court upheld Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act, which allows the Central or State Governments to make Aadhaar authentication mandatory for receiving subsidies, benefits, or services funded by the Consolidated Fund of India. The Court defined welfare schemes as those funded by the Consolidated Fund of India, thus validating the use of Aadhaar for such schemes. Therefore, the correct answer is B. 2 and 4 only.

The article clearly states that traditionally, the Supreme Court has held the right to vote as a statutory right (N.P. Ponnuswami, Jyoti Basu). However, in recent jurisprudence (Association for Democratic Reforms, People’s Union of Civil Liberties, NOTA judgment), many facets like the right to know, freedom of informed choice, and the right to reject have been linked to Article 19(1)(a), thereby acquiring constitutional protection. Option C accurately captures this nuanced position.

The article explicitly mentions N.P. Ponnuswami (1952) and Jyoti Basu & Others vs Debi Ghosal & Others (1982) as judgments that consistently held the right to vote as a statutory right. Union of India vs Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) and People’s Union of Civil Liberties vs Union of India (2003) are cited as cases where the Court began constitutionalizing facets of the electoral process by linking them to fundamental rights.

The article states that the right to know (Association for Democratic Reforms, 2002), the freedom of informed choice (People’s Union of Civil Liberties, 2003), and the right to reject all candidates (NOTA judgment, 2013) have been linked to Article 19(1)(a). The right to contest elections, while mentioned in the context of Ponnuswami as a statutory right, is not listed among the facets that have been constitutionalized under Article 19(1)(a) in the evolving jurisprudence section.