Fundamental Rights

Statement 1 is incorrect: The national awards such as Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan, and Padma Shri do not amount to titles within the meaning of Article 18(1) of the Constitution. Statement 2 is incorrect: Padma awards were instituted in the year 1954 and have been suspended in years 1978, 1979, 1993, and 1997. Statement 3 is incorrect: Although there is a general guideline to limit the Bharat Ratna to three recipients per year, this rule has been exceeded twice: In 1999, four awards were conferred (Jayaprakash Narayan, Amartya Sen, Gopinath Bordoloi, and Ravi Shankar) and in 2024, Five awards were conferred (M.S. Swaminathan, P.V. Narasimha Rao, Chaudhary Charan Singh, Karpoori Thakur, and L.K. Advani).

* 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 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.

Previously a Fundamental Right
- Before 1978, the Indian Constitution guaranteed the right to property as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31.
- This meant citizens had the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of their property.
- Article 31 also ensured that the government couldn't take over private property without due compensation and for public purposes only. Change in 1978
- The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 changed the status of the Right to Property.
- Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 were removed from the list of fundamental rights.
- A new Article, 300-A, was introduced under Part XII of the Constitution. Current Status: A legal right available to any person.
- Article 300-A states, "No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law."
- This means the government can still acquire private property, but only under legal authorization.
- The law should be fair and reasonable, and the government has the power to decide the quantum of compensation.

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.

Untouchability is a form of discrimination that violates the principle of equality among citizens, regardless of caste. To uphold this principle, Article 17 of the Constitution explicitly abolishes untouchability, making it one of the five rights under the broader Right to Equality (Articles 14-18). Therefore, the correct answer is option D.

A constitutional government is, by definition, a limited government. In a constitutional government, the powers of the government are restricted by a constitution. This document sets out the rules, principles, and framework within which the government must operate. One of the core features of a constitutional government is the separation of powers. This principle divides the governmental authority into distinct branches (legislative, executive, and judiciary) to ensure that no single branch gains too much power. It also guarantees fundamental rights, ensuring government actions remain within a legal framework. Thus, a constitutional government operates under checks and balances, preventing absolute power and upholding the rule of law.

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 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.