Polity
Fundamental Rights
Right to Equality and Freedom (Articles 14–22)
Articles 14 to 22 for CGPSC: equality, reservation (Indra Sawhney), Art 19 freedoms, Art 20, Art 21 after Maneka Gandhi and Puttaswamy, Art 21A and Art 22.
Prerequisites
- Overview: Articles 12 to 35 — what “State” means, the six categories, and which rights are citizens-only.
- Preamble and Salient Features — equality of status and opportunity, and liberty of thought and expression, are promised in the Preamble.
The Hook: The Job You Are Preparing For
Connect
The post you are aiming for through CGPSC (Deputy Collector, DSP, Naib Tehsildar) is public employment. Who decides whether such a post can be reserved, and up to what share? Can a State reserve posts on the basis of residence? Can it reserve seats in promotions?
Every one of these questions is answered in Articles 14 to 16. The freedoms you use to discuss them (speech, assembly, movement) come from Article 19, and the liberty you would defend if you were wrongly detained comes from Articles 21 and 22. This page covers all of them.
Why it matters: These nine articles generate more Prelims statements than any other part of Part III, especially amendment numbers, the grounds in Arts 15 and 16, and Art 20 versus Art 22. Mains repeatedly asks about the expansion of Article 21 and about reservation.
Right to Equality (समता का अधिकार): Articles 14–18
Article 14: Equality before law and equal protection of laws
“The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”
| Equality before law (विधि के समक्ष समता) | Equal protection of laws (विधियों का समान संरक्षण) |
|---|---|
| British origin | American origin |
| Negative concept: no special privileges, everyone subject to the same ordinary law (the rule of law) | Positive concept: equal treatment in equal circumstances |
Reasonable classification: Article 14 forbids class legislation but allows reasonable classification. A classification is valid only if:
- it is based on an intelligible differentia, and
- the differentia has a rational nexus with the object of the law.
In E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974), the Supreme Court added that arbitrariness is the antithesis of equality, so an arbitrary State action violates Article 14.
Constitutional exceptions include the immunity of the President and Governors (Art 361) and the privileges of legislators (Arts 105, 194).
Article 15: Prohibition of discrimination (citizens only)
- 15(1)–(2): The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth (five grounds). Clause (2) also binds private persons with regard to shops, hotels, wells, roads and similar public places.
- 15(3): Special provisions for women and children are allowed.
- 15(4): Special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes, SCs and STs. Added by the 1st Amendment (1951) after State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951).
- 15(5): Reservation in admission to educational institutions, including private ones (aided or unaided), except minority institutions. Added by the 93rd Amendment (2005).
- 15(6): Up to 10% for economically weaker sections (EWS). Added by the 103rd Amendment (2019).
Article 16: Equality of opportunity in public employment (citizens only)
- 16(2): No discrimination in State employment on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence (seven grounds).
- 16(3): Parliament may prescribe residence as a condition for certain jobs in a State or Union Territory. Under Art 35, only Parliament can do this.
- 16(4): Reservation for backward classes not adequately represented in State services.
- 16(4A): Reservation in promotion for SCs and STs. Added by the 77th Amendment (1995). The 85th Amendment (2001) added consequential seniority.
- 16(4B): Unfilled reserved vacancies can be carried forward without counting against the 50% ceiling for that year. Added by the 81st Amendment (2000).
- 16(5): An office connected with a religious institution may be reserved for members of that religion.
- 16(6): EWS reservation up to 10%. Added by the 103rd Amendment (2019). Upheld in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022) by a 3:2 majority.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), the 'Mandal case'
A nine-judge bench:
- upheld 27% reservation for OBCs in central government jobs
- excluded the creamy layer among OBCs
- held that total reservation should not ordinarily exceed 50%, except in extraordinary situations
- held that there can be no reservation in promotions under Art 16(4). Parliament later responded with Art 16(4A).
- struck down the 10% reservation for economically backward sections among non-reserved castes that the government had notified, because economic criteria alone were not then a constitutional basis
Chhattisgarh angle: On 20 September 2022, the High Court of Chhattisgarh set aside the State’s 2012 decision raising total reservation in government jobs and admissions to 58%, holding that no exceptional circumstance justified breaching the 50% ceiling. On 2 May 2023, the Supreme Court stayed that High Court order. Check the current status before using this in an exam answer, because the matter was pending in the Supreme Court as of that date.
Article 17: Abolition of untouchability (अस्पृश्यता)
- “Untouchability” is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. Enforcing any disability arising from it is a punishable offence.
- The term is not defined in the Constitution.
- Law under it: Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, renamed the Protection of Civil Rights Act in 1976.
- It applies against private persons as well.
- See Social Legislation and Human Rights for the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Article 18: Abolition of titles
- The State shall not confer any title except a military or academic distinction.
- A citizen shall not accept a title from a foreign State. A foreigner holding an office of profit or trust under the State needs the President’s consent to accept one.
- In Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court held that national awards such as the Bharat Ratna and Padma awards are not “titles” under Art 18, but they should not be used as a prefix or suffix to one’s name.
Right to Freedom (स्वतंत्रता का अधिकार): Articles 19–22
Article 19: Six freedoms (citizens only)
| Clause | Freedom | Restrictions allowed under |
|---|---|---|
| 19(1)(a) | Speech and expression | 19(2): sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to an offence |
| 19(1)(b) | Assemble peaceably and without arms | 19(3): sovereignty and integrity, public order |
| 19(1)(c) | Form associations, unions or co-operative societies (“co-operative societies” added by the 97th Amendment Act, 2011) | 19(4): sovereignty and integrity, public order, morality |
| 19(1)(d) | Move freely throughout India | 19(5): interests of the general public, protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe |
| 19(1)(e) | Reside and settle in any part of India | 19(5): same as (d) |
| 19(1)(g) | Practise any profession, or carry on any occupation, trade or business | 19(6): interests of the general public, professional or technical qualifications, State monopoly |
- 19(1)(f) (property) was deleted by the 44th Amendment (1978).
- Freedom of the press is not separately mentioned. Courts treat it as part of 19(1)(a).
- Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000 as violating 19(1)(a), because it was not saved by 19(2).
Chhattisgarh angle: Article 19(5)
Article 19(5) lets the State restrict the freedom to move and settle to protect the interests of Scheduled Tribes. Chhattisgarh has large Fifth Schedule (Scheduled) Areas. Restrictions on outsiders acquiring tribal land or settling in such areas fit this constitutional logic, so it is a useful point in Mains answers on tribal rights. See Tribes of Chhattisgarh.
Article 20: Protection in respect of conviction for offences (all persons)
| Clause | Protection | Key limit |
|---|---|---|
| 20(1) | No ex-post-facto criminal law. No one can be convicted for an act that was not an offence when it was done, or given a heavier penalty than the law then allowed | Applies only to criminal laws, not civil or tax laws |
| 20(2) | No double jeopardy (दोहरा दंड): no one can be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once | Applies only to proceedings before a court or judicial tribunal, not departmental proceedings |
| 20(3) | No self-incrimination (आत्म-अभिशंसन): an accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself | Covers oral and documentary evidence. In Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010), the Supreme Court held that involuntary narco-analysis, polygraph and brain-mapping tests violate 20(3) |
Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty (प्राण और दैहिक स्वतंत्रता) (all persons)
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
flowchart LR
A["A.K. Gopalan (1950)
Narrow view: any procedure
enacted by law is enough"] --> B["Maneka Gandhi (1978)
Procedure must be
fair, just and reasonable"]
B --> C["Art 21 widened:
dignity, livelihood,
speedy trial, privacy, etc."]
C --> D["Puttaswamy (2017)
Privacy is a
Fundamental Right"]| Case | Holding |
|---|---|
| A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) | Narrow reading: “procedure established by law” means any procedure laid down by a valid law. Each Fundamental Right was treated in isolation |
| Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) | Impounding of her passport. The procedure must be “fair, just and reasonable”, not arbitrary. Arts 14, 19 and 21 are read together. This brought in substantive due process in effect |
| Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) | Speedy trial is part of Art 21 |
| Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) | The right to livelihood is part of the right to life |
| Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P. (1993) | Right to education up to age 14 flows from Art 21. This led to Art 21A |
| Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) | A nine-judge bench unanimously held that privacy is a Fundamental Right, intrinsic to Art 21 and Part III |
| Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) | Section 377 IPC was read down to decriminalise consensual same-sex relations between adults (Arts 14, 15, 19, 21) |
“Procedure established by law” is commonly said to be borrowed from the Japanese Constitution. The American concept is “due process of law”.
Article 21A: Right to education
- Added by the 86th Amendment (2002). The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children aged 6 to 14 years in the manner the State determines by law.
- The law is the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009.
- The same amendment changed Art 45 (DPSP, now early childhood care up to age 6) and added Fundamental Duty 51A(k) (parents and guardians to provide opportunities for education). See DPSP and Duties and Education and HRD.
Article 22: Protection against arrest and detention
Part 1: Ordinary (punitive) arrest, under 22(1)–(2). The arrested person has the right:
- to be informed of the grounds of arrest
- to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice
- to be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours, excluding journey time, and not to be held longer without the magistrate’s authority
These safeguards do not apply to an enemy alien or to a person held under preventive detention (22(3)).
Part 2: Preventive detention (निवारक निरोध), under 22(4)–(7). A person is detained to stop a possible future offence, not to punish a past one.
- Detention beyond three months needs an Advisory Board (persons who are, have been, or are qualified to be High Court judges) to report sufficient cause. The 44th Amendment (1978) sought to cut this to two months, but that provision has not been brought into force, so three months still applies.
- Grounds must be communicated, and the detainee must get the earliest opportunity to make a representation. Facts against the public interest may be withheld (22(6)).
- Parliament has exclusive power to make preventive detention laws for defence, foreign affairs and the security of India. Parliament and State Legislatures both can make them for the security of a State, public order and essential supplies.
Memory Tricks
Grounds: 15 has 5, 16 has 7
Art 15 — “R-R-C-S-P” (5): Religion, Race, Caste, Sex, Place of birth.
Art 16 — “R-R-C-S-P + D + R” (7): the same five plus Descent and Residence. Jobs ask about your family (descent) and your address (residence).
Reservation amendments ladder
1 → 77 → 81 → 85 → 93 → 103
1st (1951) 15(4) · 77th (1995) promotion 16(4A) · 81st (2000) carry forward 16(4B) · 85th (2001) consequential seniority · 93rd (2005) 15(5) education · 103rd (2019) EWS 15(6)/16(6)
Art 20 in three words
“Ex-post, Double, Self”: 20(1) ex-post-facto, 20(2) double jeopardy, 20(3) self-incrimination.
Don’t Confuse
| This | vs | That |
|---|---|---|
| Art 15 — 5 grounds, all State action (and some private access) | vs | Art 16 — 7 grounds (adds descent, residence), public employment only |
| Art 20(2) — double jeopardy: court or judicial proceedings only | vs | Departmental inquiry plus criminal trial for the same act — allowed |
| Art 22(1)–(2) — punitive arrest, 24-hour rule | vs | Art 22(4)–(7) — preventive detention, 3 months and Advisory Board |
| Procedure established by law (Japan; Gopalan) | vs | Due process of law (USA; Maneka in effect) |
| Art 21A (86th Amendment, 2002) — Fundamental Right, 6–14 years | vs | Art 45 — DPSP, early childhood care up to 6 years |
Common Mistakes
MCQ traps
- “Art 16 prohibits discrimination on grounds of residence, so Parliament can never prescribe residence.” Wrong. 16(3) expressly lets Parliament (not State Legislatures) do so.
- “Article 19 is available to all persons.” Wrong. It is for citizens only. Foreigners cannot claim it.
- “Art 20(1) bars retrospective tax laws.” Wrong. It covers criminal laws only.
- “Indra Sawhney fixed an absolute 50% ceiling.” The 50% limit applies ordinarily. The Court allowed exceptions in extraordinary situations.
- “Puttaswamy was a five-judge bench.” It was a nine-judge bench.
- “Art 22 safeguards apply to everyone.” Enemy aliens and preventive detainees do not get the ordinary 22(1)–(2) safeguards.
Practice
All questions below are original practice questions written in CGPSC style. They are not previous-year questions.
Level 1: Foundation
- Article 16(2) lists seven grounds. Name the two that are not in Article 15(1).
- Article 21A was inserted by the ______ Amendment Act, ______.
- Under Article 22(2), an arrested person must be produced before the nearest magistrate within ______ hours.
Answers
- Descent and residence.
- 86th Amendment Act, 2002.
- 24 hours, excluding journey time.
Level 2: Prelims MCQs
Q1. Consider the following statements about the judgment in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992):
- It upheld 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes in central government jobs.
- It held that the creamy layer among OBCs must be excluded from reservation.
- It upheld reservation in promotions under Article 16(4).
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- (a) 1 only
- (b) 1 and 2 only
- (c) 2 and 3 only
- (d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer and explanation
(b) 1 and 2 only. The nine-judge bench upheld 27% OBC reservation and excluded the creamy layer. Statement 3 is the trap. The Court held that Article 16(4) does not permit reservation in promotions. Parliament then inserted Article 16(4A) through the 77th Amendment (1995) for SCs and STs.
Q2. Match List I (Constitutional Amendment) with List II (Provision):
| List I | List II |
|---|---|
| A. 1st Amendment, 1951 | 1. Article 21A |
| B. 86th Amendment, 2002 | 2. Article 15(4) |
| C. 93rd Amendment, 2005 | 3. EWS reservation |
| D. 103rd Amendment, 2019 | 4. Article 15(5) |
- (a) A-2, B-1, C-4, D-3
- (b) A-4, B-1, C-2, D-3
- (c) A-2, B-4, C-1, D-3
- (d) A-1, B-2, C-4, D-3
Answer and explanation
(a) A-2, B-1, C-4, D-3. The 1st Amendment inserted 15(4) after Champakam Dorairajan. The 86th made education a Fundamental Right (21A). The 93rd inserted 15(5) for admissions to educational institutions, including private ones. The 103rd inserted 15(6) and 16(6) for EWS.
Q3. Which of the following rights are available to a foreign national staying in Raipur?
- Equality before law (Article 14)
- Freedom to reside and settle (Article 19(1)(e))
- Protection against self-incrimination (Article 20(3))
- Protection of life and personal liberty (Article 21)
- (a) 1, 3 and 4 only
- (b) 1 and 4 only
- (c) 2, 3 and 4 only
- (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4
Answer and explanation
(a) 1, 3 and 4 only. Articles 14, 20 and 21 are available to all persons. Every freedom in Article 19, including residence, is for citizens only.
Q4. The phrase “fair, just and reasonable” as a requirement of the procedure under Article 21 is associated with which case?
- (a) A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
- (b) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
- (c) Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
- (d) Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation
Answer and explanation
(b) Maneka Gandhi (1978). The Court overturned the narrow Gopalan approach. It held that a procedure depriving a person of liberty must be fair, just and reasonable, and it read Articles 14, 19 and 21 together. Kesavananda is about the basic structure. Olga Tellis is about the right to livelihood.
Q5. Consider the following statements regarding preventive detention under Article 22:
- A person may be detained beyond three months only if an Advisory Board reports sufficient cause.
- Only Parliament can make a law of preventive detention for reasons connected with public order.
- A preventively detained person is not entitled to the 24-hour production rule of Article 22(2).
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- (a) 1 and 3 only
- (b) 2 only
- (c) 1 and 2 only
- (d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer and explanation
(a) 1 and 3 only. Statement 2 is wrong. Public order is in the Concurrent List, so both Parliament and State Legislatures can make preventive detention laws on that ground. Parliament’s exclusive field covers defence, foreign affairs and the security of India. Article 22(3) excludes preventive detainees from clauses (1) and (2), so statement 3 is correct.
Level 3: Mains Answer Writing
Q1. (150–200 words) “Article 21 has become the repository of a wide range of rights.” Discuss with the help of judicial pronouncements.
Model answer outline
- Intro: The text of Art 21 is short: life and personal liberty, subject to procedure established by law. Its scope has grown through judicial interpretation.
- Body:
- Gopalan (1950): narrow, positivist reading.
- Maneka Gandhi (1978): procedure must be fair, just and reasonable. Arts 14, 19 and 21 are read together, giving due process in effect.
- Derived rights: speedy trial (Hussainara Khatoon, 1979); livelihood (Olga Tellis, 1985); education (Unni Krishnan, 1993, leading to Art 21A in 2002); privacy (Puttaswamy, 2017); dignity and sexual autonomy (Navtej Johar, 2018).
- Non-suspendable even in an emergency since the 44th Amendment.
- Critique: Expansion has strengthened rights but raised concerns of judicial overreach and of rights that remain difficult to enforce.
- Chhattisgarh angle: In Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2011), the Supreme Court used Arts 14 and 21 to check the deployment of tribal SPOs in counter-insurgency.
- Conclusion: Art 21 is now the core of Part III, linking civil liberty with socio-economic dignity.
Q2. (60 words) Distinguish between “equality before law” and “equal protection of laws”.
Model answer outline
- Equality before law: British origin. A negative concept: no one is above the law and there are no special privileges (the rule of law).
- Equal protection of laws: American origin. A positive concept: equals are treated alike and unequals differently, which allows reasonable classification (intelligible differentia plus rational nexus).
- Conclusion: Together in Art 14, they secure both formal and substantive equality. This is the basis of protective discrimination under Arts 15(4) and 16(4).
Quick Revision Table
| Fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| Art 14 | Equality before law (British) + equal protection (American); arbitrariness test (Royappa, 1974) |
| Art 15 grounds | Religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth (5) |
| Art 16 grounds | Above + descent, residence (7) |
| 15(4) / 15(5) / 15(6) | 1st (1951) / 93rd (2005) / 103rd (2019) |
| 16(4A) / 16(4B) | 77th (1995) / 81st (2000) |
| Indra Sawhney | 1992; 9 judges; 27% OBC; creamy layer; 50% ordinarily; no reservation in promotion under 16(4) |
| Art 17 law | Untouchability (Offences) Act 1955, renamed PCR Act 1976 |
| Art 18 | Military and academic distinctions allowed; Balaji Raghavan (1996) |
| Art 19 | Six freedoms; “co-operative societies” added by 97th Amendment (2011) |
| Section 66A IT Act | Struck down, Shreya Singhal (2015) |
| Art 20 | Ex-post-facto (criminal only), double jeopardy, self-incrimination |
| Art 21 cases | Gopalan 1950 → Maneka 1978 → Puttaswamy 2017 (9 judges, privacy) |
| Art 21A | 86th Amendment 2002; 6–14 years; RTE Act 2009 |
| Art 22 | 24-hour rule; preventive detention: 3 months, then Advisory Board |
Key Takeaways
Key Takeaways
- Art 14 allows reasonable classification but not arbitrariness. Arts 15–16 build protective discrimination on top of it.
- Reservation law runs from the 1st Amendment (1951) to the 103rd (2019). Indra Sawhney (1992) set the 50% norm and the creamy layer.
- The six Art 19 freedoms are citizens-only and each has its own list of reasonable restrictions. 19(5) protects Scheduled Tribes.
- Art 21 moved from Gopalan to Maneka Gandhi to Puttaswamy and now contains many unwritten rights.
- Art 22 has two parts: safeguards on ordinary arrest and preventive detention (three months, Advisory Board).
What’s Next
- Constitutional Remedies and Writs — how to enforce these rights through Arts 32 and 226
- Fundamental Rights — Quick Revision
- Social Legislation and Human Rights — laws that give effect to Arts 17, 21A, 23 and 24
- Judiciary — the Supreme Court and High Courts that decided these cases
Advertisement