Introduction

• The article 20 is one of the pillars of FR

guaranteed by the Constitution of India.
• It mainly deals with the protection of certain
rights in case of conviction for offences.
• When an individual as well as corporations are
accused of crimes, the provisions of art. 20
safeguard their rights.
• The striking feature of the art. 20 is that it can’t
be suspended during an emergency period.
• The article has set certain limitations on the
legislative powers of the Union and State.
Article 20: protection in respect
of conviction for offences
(1) No person shall be convicted of any offence except for
violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the Act
charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than
that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the
time of the commission of the offence.
(2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same
offence more than once.
(3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a
witness against himself.
Explanation of Article 20
• Article 20 grants protection against arbitrary and excessive
punishment to an accused person, whether citizen or foreigner or a
legal person like a company or a corporation.
• It contains three provisions in that direction:
Article 20(1): No ex-post-facto law
(a)No person shall be convicted of any offense except for violation of a
law in force at the time of the commission of the act.
(b) No person shall be subjected to a penalty greater than that
prescribed by the law in force at the time of the commission of the act.
• Ex-Post-Facto Mean legislature can make such law which affect the
offences which done in past. But here article 20(1) protect accused
by denying this type of law.
• Legislature can make both type of law prospective and retrospective
but in criminal case legislature can not make retrospective laws.
• An ex-post-facto law is one that imposes penalties retrospectively
(retroactively), that is, upon acts already done or which increases the
penalties for such acts. The enactment of such a law is prohibited by
the first provision of Article 20.
• However, such protection is available only in case of criminal laws
and not civil laws or tax laws. In other words, civil liability or a tax can
be imposed retrospectively.
• Further, this provision prohibits only a conviction or sentence under
an ex-post-facto criminal law and not the trial thereof. Finally, the
protection (immunity) under this provision cannot be claimed in case
of preventive detention or demanding security from a person.
Important Cases
• Kedar Nath Vs State of West Bengal 1953
• Ratanlal Vs State of Panjab [If retrospective law give benefit to
accuse then it applicable]
Article 20(2): No Double Jeopardy
• No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offense more than
once.
• The protection against double jeopardy is available only in proceedings before a
court of law or a judicial tribunal.
• In other words, it is not available in proceedings before departmental or
administrative authorities as they are not of judicial nature. [Maqbool Hussain Vs
State of Bombay 1953]
• Thomas Das Vs State of Panjab:-To take protection under Article 20(2) need to
fulfil three requirement
1. Accuse of offense
2. Prosecution run on him for this offense
3. The result of Prosecution was punishment
• Then person can take protection under Article 20(2)
• Punishment has been done once for a crime, then it cannot be punished a
second time for the same crime.
• Example: Mr. Y murders someone and erases evidence than Mr. Y guilty of two
crime Murder and erasing evidence. In this case, he has punished for both
crimes.
Article 20(3): No Self-incrimination
• No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a
witness against himself.
• This provision added to protect accused from force acceptance
of crime by Police atrocity.
• If there have any questions that answer expose the victim or
accused then they may be denied giving the answer. This same
thing also provided in CrPC section 161.
• Section 25,26 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act say that there
is not the admissible value of statement given by the accused or
victim which harms himself. But the accused accept crime with
evidence then it admissible.
• The protection against self-incrimination extends to both oral
evidence and documentary evidence.
• However, it does not extend to [State of Bombay Vs Kathi Kalu
Oghad 1961]
• Compulsory production of material objects,
• The compulsion to give thumb impression, specimen signature,
blood specimens, and
• Compulsory exhibition of the body.
• It extends only to criminal proceedings and not to civil
proceedings or proceedings which are not of criminal nature.
• Selvi vs. State of Karnataka SC has put restrictions on narco
analysis and brain mapping. However, DNA testing and other
samples can be taken.
Controversies
Vodafone Case
• In 2012, the Government of India made a budgetary proposal to
amend the Income Tax Act with retrospective effect from 1962
to assert the government’s right to levy a tax on merger and
acquisition (M&A) deals involving overseas companies with
business assets in India.
• It was partly to override the Supreme Courts’ ruling favoring
Vodafone in a tax dispute. Notably, the government could bring
in such an amendment because it was tax law, not criminal law.
• However, the Parthasarathi Shome committee later
recommended that either the retrospective tax amendment be
withdrawn or penalty/interest, if covered under taxes, be waived
off.
The aftermath of 16th December 2012, Nirbhaya Incident
• After the notorious gang-rape incident in Delhi, even though
public sentiment favored harsher punishment for all the six
accused in the Nirbhaya gang-rape case, one of them being a
minor, any revision in the juvenile age would not help the case
as the amendment shall not apply with retrospective effect.
 Article 21:
protection of
life and
personal
liberty
• Article 21 (and its many interpretations) is the perfect example
of the transformative character of the Constitution of India. The
Indian judiciary has attributed wider connotation and meaning to
Article 21, extending beyond the Constitution makers’
imagination.
• In Francis Coralie Mullin vs The Administrator (1981), Justice P.
Bhagwati had said that Article 21 ’embodies a constitutional
value of supreme importance in a democratic society’. Further,
Justice Iyer characterised Article 21 as ‘the procedural Magna
Carta protective of life and liberty’.
• Article 21 is at the heart of the Constitution. It is the most
organic and progressive provision in our living Constitution.
• Article 21 can only be claimed when a person is deprived of his
‘life or ‘personal liberty’ by the ‘State’ as defined in Article 12.
Thus, violation of the right by private individuals is not within the
preview of Article 21.
• It is also fundamental to democracy as it extends to natural
persons and not just citizens. The right is available to every
person, citizen or alien. Thus, even a foreigner can claim this
right.
• ‘Life’ in Article 21 of the Constitution is not merely the physical
act of breathing. It does not connote mere animal existence or
continued drudgery through life.
• It has a much wider, including, including the right to live with
human dignity, Right to livelihood, Right to health, Right to
pollution-free air, etc.
EXPANDING SCOPE OF RIGHT TO LIFE AND LIBERTY UNDER ARTICLE 21
Since the enactment of Indian Constitution, the scope of Article 21 has widened according to the changing needs
of society. Article 21 is a proof the law is not static rather it is evolving.
1st Case: Supreme Court’s take on meaning of word, “Law” for article 21 in A. K. Gopalan Case: Due process of
law and procedure established by law
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras was the 1st landmark case in the process of evolution of article 21. This case
challenged the validity of the Preventive Detection Act. 1950:
Supreme Court in this case took a narrow interpretation of ‘procedure established by law’. In this case it was held
that under article 21 protection is available only against the arbitrary actions of executive i.e. against the procedure
that has been established by a law.
• This protection does not include the arbitrary legislative actions by which laws are formulated.
• It means when a law has been formulated by the legislature for taking away personal liberty then a law itself
cannot be held invalid. The only protection that will be available is against how this law has been implemented by
the executive.
• If the executive has taken any arbitrary decision in the use of specific law than this action can be held invalid by
the Court but not the law itself on the grounds that law is unreasonable, unfair or unjust.
• Whereas the term ‘due process of law’ means law and procedure both should be reasonable which basically
means principles of natural justice.
Other important aspects of the judgment
• SC said the meaning of the word law is not to be interpreted as inclusive of Principles of Natural Justice.
• In essence, SC said Article 21 is not a substantive right, it is a mere procedural right.
• SC said that Article 14, 19 and 21 are mutually exclusive. That is, one article need not come in the way of
implementation of another article.
• 2nd Case: Habeas Corpus case- ADM Jabalpur Versus Shivkant
Shukla case 1975
• Emergency Article 352 read with Article 359: Right to Constitutional
Remedies under Article 32 and 226 is also suspended.
• Article 352: Proclamation of Emergency.
• Article 359. Suspension of the enforcement of the rights conferred by
Part III during proclamation of Emergency.
• Supreme Court submitted before the State by agreeing that Right to
approach the Court U/A 32 and 226 is also suspended during
Emergency even in case of violation of Right to Life and Personal
Liberty.
Takeaway from Supreme Court’s judgement in Habeas Corpus Case:
1. Parliament and Executive have unrestrained powers during
Emergency.
2. Even Right to Life can be dispensed with during Emergency.
3. Part III was subservient to Part XVIII.
3rd Case: Maneka Gandhi Case, 1978:
Summary of the Case:
• In this case, Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded and she was restrained from
travelling abroad. There was no violation of any Fundamental Right per se.
• Maneka Gandhi challenged the Supreme Court’s stance in A.K. Gopalan Case, in which
SC had propounded the Doctrine of Mutual Exclusivity of Fundamental Rights under
Articles 14, 19 and 21.
• Outcome: A law has to be Just, Fair & Reasonable.
• Fortunately, S.C. took a 180 degree turn on this issue in the Maneka Gandhi case of
1978.
• The provocation was the arbitrary law that had allowed the Janata Party government to
take away Maneka's passport without any remedy.
• Importing the American concept of due process, the Supreme Court ruled that the
procedure established by law for depriving somebody of their life or personal liberty had to
be "just, fair and reasonable".
• Takeaways from Maneka Gandhi’s case:
• [I] The meaning of “Liberty” under Article 21 is of widest amplitude.
• [ii] Articles 19 and 21 are not mutually exclusive. That is, a law coming under article 21
must also satisfy article 19. In other words, a law made by the legislature which seeks to
deprive a person of his personal liberty must prescribe a procedure for such deprivation.
And the procedure must not be arbitrary.
• Implied Fundamental Rights
• The interpretation of the Article 21 by the Supreme Court has
opened a new chapter of human rights jurisprudence. In several
cases, the court has held the following as implied fundamental rights,
though not all of them have been specifically mentioned. These all
are called Implied Fundamental Rights.
1. Right to Privacy
2. Right to Dignity
3. Right to Speedy Trial
4. Right to Travel Abroad
5. Right to Clean Environment: Ban on polluting vehicles
6. Right to Livelihood
7. Right to marriage
8. Right against torture
9. Right against Bonded labour
10. Right to legal aid
11. Right to Food.
Some important developments linked to article 21
• Right to travel abroad
• In the case of Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India, SC held
that right to travel abroad is an important basic human right.
• SC was hearing an appeal filed by IPS Officer Satish Chandra
Verma, who was denied permission to travel abroad on account
of a pending departmental inquiry against him.
• The court also placed reliance on its judgment in the case of
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, where the right to travel was
upheld.
• Recent developments on article 21
• Vishaka & ors. v/s state of Rajasthan is a landmark judgment case in
the history of sexual harassment.
• Sexual Harassment means an uninvited/unwelcome sexual favour or
sexual gestures from one gender towards the other gender.
• The court ordered that the fundamental rights under Article 14, 19
and 21 of Constitution of India provides that, every profession, trade
or occupation should provide safe working environment to the
employees. It hampered the right to life and the right to live a
dignified life.
• Sexual harassment hampers the right to life and the right to live a
dignified life. The basic requirement was that there should be the
availability of safe working environment at workplace.
• In this case, SC defined sexual harassment and established the
guidelines that has to be followed by all workplaces also known as
‘Vishakha guidelines.
• Right of prisoners
• In the case of Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration, a prisoner on the
death row was held in the solitary confinement since the date of
conviction by the jail authorities.
• A writ petition was filed against this order in Supreme Court. SC held
that solitary confinement itself is a substantive punishment under the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and conviction of a person for a crime does
not reduce him to non-person vulnerable to a major punishment
imposed by jail authorities without observance of due procedural
safeguards, thus violative of Article 21.
• Right to legal aid
• In the case of Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar, it was held that
an accused who cannot afford legal services due to some valid
established reasons, has right to free legal aid at the cost of the
State.
• This aid will form a part of fair, just and reasonable procedure under
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
• Right to privacy
• In Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd.) Vs. Union of India (2018 SC) the nine judge Constitutional Bench
of the Supreme Court in rare unanimity ruled that individual privacy is intrinsic to life and liberty and
an inherent part of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Article 21 of the Constitution.
• The right to privacy is not just a common law right, not just a legal right, not just a fundamental right
under the Constitution. It is a natural right inherent in every individual.
• The decision in Khadak Singh case and MP Sharma case to the extent that it held that right to
privacy is not protected by the constitution was overruled.
What are the various features of Right to Privacy?
• It includes the preservation of personal intimacies, sanctity of family life, marriage, procreation, the
home and sexual orientation.
• Privacy connotes a right to be left alone. It safeguards individual autonomy and recognizes one’s
ability to control vital aspects of his/her life.
• Privacy is not an absolute right, but any invasion must be based on legality, need and
proportionality.
A violation of privacy in the context of an arbitrary State action would attract an enquiry under
following 3 points test, a law: Must be “reasonableness” enquiry under Article 14
• would have to be ‘just, fair and reasonable’ under article 21.
• Must fall under the specified restrictions under article 19(2).
• Informational privacy is a facet of this right. Dangers to this can originate from both state and non-
state actors.
• Right to health and livelihood
• In a recent judgment, while hearing Supreme Court refused to put a
blanket ban on firecrackers and allowed the manufacture and sale of
only “green” and reduced-emission or “improved” crackers.
• On the other hand, it banned all firecrackers that are loud and toxic
to man, animal and the environment.
• The court had said that it needs to strike a balance between
fundamental right of livelihood of firecracker manufacturers and the
right to health of population. Both aspects are covered under Article
21 (right to life) and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
• RIGHT TO SLEEP
• The Supreme Court broadened the ambit of right of life to bring in a
citizen's right to sleep peacefully under it.
• A citizen has a right to sound sleep because it is fundamental to life,
the Supreme Court said while ruling that the police action on a
sleeping crowd at Baba Ramdev's rally at Ramlila Maidan amounted
to violation of their crucial right.
• RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL
• Supreme Court directed courts to dispose of bail pleas within 1
week.
• It also issued directions to tackle pendency of criminal cases,
reiterating that speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just
procedure as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
• Supreme Court in a 2:1 majority in a separate judgment held that an
accused is entitled to statutory bail (default bail) under Section
167(2)(a)(2) of Code of Criminal procedure if the police failed to file
the charge-sheet within 60 days of his arrest for the offence
punishable with ‘imprisonment up to 10 years.
• Section 377
• One of the grounds provided by SC against section 377 is that it
violates the rights to life, dignity and autonomy of personal choice
under Article 21.
• Right to Die
• Initially The Court held that the right to life under Article 21 of the
Constitution does not include the right to die.
• But later in Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India the
Supreme Court held that passive euthanasia can be allowed under
exceptional circumstances under the strict monitoring of the Court.
• In Common Cause (A Regd. Society) Vs. Union of India (2018 SC), a
five-judge constitution Bench, judgment delivered by Chief Justice
Dipak Mishra, gave legal sanction to passive euthanasia, permitting
‘living will’ by patients on withdrawing medical support if they slip into
irreversible state of coma.
• The SC held that the right to die with dignity is a fundamental right.
• Fundamental right to life and dignity includes right to refuse
treatment and die with dignity because the fundamental right to a
"meaningful existence" includes a person's choice to die without
suffering (including terminally ill).
• Right to live with family
• In a very recent case, Delhi High Court quashed the 'Leave
India Notice' served on a Pakistan citizen, who is the wife of an
Indian citizen and a mother of two kids.
• Bench stated that "family‟, being the natural and fundamental
unit of society, is entitled to protection of its integrity against
arbitrary interference by the State.
• The right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
would include the right of young children to live with their
mother and the right of a husband to consortium with his wife.
Imposing capital punishment is no violation of Art. 21
• In several instances before the SC, the validity of the death
sentence has been raised.
• The SC held in the case of Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar
Pradesh that freedom to live cannot be refused under the law
unless it is appropriate in the interests of the public.
• However, in the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, it was
ARTICLE 22: PROTECTION AGAINST ARREST
AND DETENTION IN CERTAIN CASES
• 22(1): No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody
without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for
such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be
defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.
•
22(2): Every person who is arrested and detained in custody
shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period
of twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the time
necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of
the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody
beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate.
• 22(3): Nothing in clauses (1) and (2) shall apply—
(a) to any person who for the time being is an enemy alien; or
(b) to any person who is arrested or detained under any law
providing for preventive detention.
• 22(4): No law providing for preventive detention shall authorise the
detention of a person for a longer period than three months unless—
[44th Constitutional Amendment 1978]
• (4)(a): an Advisory Board consisting of persons who are, or have
been, or are qualified to be appointed as, Judges of a High Court
has reported before the expiration of the said period of three
months that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for such
detention:
• Provided that nothing in this sub-clause shall authorise the detention
of any person beyond the maximum period prescribed by any law
made by Parliament under sub-clause (b) of clause (7); or
• (4)(b): such person is detained in accordance with the provisions of
any law made by Parliament under sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause
(7).
• 22(5): When any person is detained in
pursuance of an order made under any
law providing for preventive detention,
the authority making the order shall, as
soon as may be, communicate to such
person the grounds on which the order
has been made and shall afford him
the earliest opportunity of making a
representation against the order.
• 22(6): Nothing in clause (5) shall
require the authority making any such
order as is referred to in that clause to
disclose facts which such authority
considers to be against the public
interest to disclose.
• 22(7): Parliament may by law prescribe—

• 22(7)(a): the circumstances under which, and the class or

classes of cases in which, a person may be detained for a
period longer than three months under any law providing for
preventive detention without obtaining the opinion of an
Advisory Board in accordance with the provisions of sub-clause
(a) of clause (4);
• 22(7)(b): the maximum period for which any person may in any
class or classes of cases be detained under any law providing
for preventive detention; and
• 22(7)(c): the procedure to be followed by an Advisory Board in
an inquiry under sub-clause (a) of clause (4).
Explanation of Article 22
• Article 22(1):
• This part of article provide two rights
(I) Right to be informed of the grounds of arrest
• At a time of arrest, a detained person has the right to know on which
ground he was an arrest. So that he defend himself and prepare for
trial or apply for bail.
(II) Right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner
• Police can’t deny an arrested person to consult or meet the legal
practitioner of their choice. Like Advocate, Counselor, etc
• In Hussainara Khatoon vs Home secretariate, Bihar 1979 case
supreme court held that “If accuse can’t afford legal practitioner then
he has the right to demand free legal practitioner from the state”.
• The essence of this case right to free legal aid we observe in article
21 also.
• Article 22(2):
• This part of article provide two rights
• (I) Right to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours,
excluding the journey time.
• Example: Crime happen in Karol Bag, Delhi. Karol Bag police
arrest accuse from Hyderabad then traveling time from
Hyderabad to Delhi not calculated.
• Or not calculate days which are declared official holiday or a
public holiday like Sunday, New year, etc.
• (II) Right to be released after 24 hours unless the magistrate
authorizes further detention.
• In any circumstances accused persons not to be in police
custody for more than 24 hours. It can be in judicial custody
only.
• Article 22(3):
• Some exception in above provision of protection against
punitive detention.
• These safeguards are not available to an enemy alien or a
person arrested or detained under a preventive detention law.
• The Supreme Court also ruled that the arrest and detention in
the first part of Article 22 do not cover arrest under the orders of
a court, civil arrest, arrest on failure to pay the income tax and
deportation of an alien.
• They apply only to an act of a criminal or quasi-criminal nature
or some activity prejudicial to the public interest.
• Clause 22(3)(b) says that if any person detains under the
preventive detention act then they can not enjoy protection
given under clause (1) and clause (2) of Article 22.
• Preventive Detention
• This protection is available to both citizens as well as aliens and includes the following
provision.
• Article 22(4)
(I) The detention of a person cannot exceed three months.
• The advisory board can increase detention time after sufficient proof up to describe in
related law.
• Advisory board consist High court judge or qualified for become HC judge.
(II) The detenu should be afforded an opportunity to make a representation against the
detention order.
• Article 22(5):
• As rights are given under clause(1) for punitive detention that same rights given in
clause(5) for preventive detention.
• Right to be informed (Duty of Police)
• Right of Representation (Duty of State)
• Article 22(6):
• If the authority finds information disclosure is against public interest then information not
given to the accused.
• Article 22(7):
• This article gives power to parliament to make law, mention procedures for advisory board
inquiry, and define detention time.
• Power To Make Preventive Detention Law
• The constitution has divided the legislative power with regard to
preventive detention between the parliament and the state
legislatures.
• Both center and state legislature can make law.
Parliament
• Parliament has exclusive authority to make law under the 7th
Schedule center list for Defence, Security, and Foreign Affair of
India.
State Legislature
• The state legislature can make law with parliament concurrently
under the 7th Schedule concurrent list for Public order and the
maintenance of supplies, Security of state, and services
essential to the community.
• List of Preventive Detention Laws
• Preventive Detention Act, 1950. Expired in 1969.
• Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), 1971. Repealed in
1978.
• Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of
Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA), 1974.
• National Security Act (NASA), 1980
• Prevention of Black-marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of
Essential Commodities Act (PBMSECA), 1980.
• Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA),
1985. Repealed in 1995.
• Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act (PITNDPSA), 1988.
• Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), 2002. Repealed in 2004.
Article 23: prohibition of
traffic in human beings and
forced labour

23. (1) Traffic in human beings and begar

and other similar forms of forced labour are
prohibited and any contravention of this
provision shall be an offence punishable in
accordance with law.
(2) Nothing in this article shall prevent the
State from imposing compulsory service for
public purposes, and in imposing such
service the State shall not make any
discrimination on grounds only of religion,
race, caste or class or any of them.
• This right is available to both citizens and non citizen.
• In Indian society, the zamindars, kings nawabs or other
powerful or rich people used to provide begar to the weak and
poor and did not even give them wages. Due to poverty, people
used to trade and sell human beings in the Greed of money.
• It was necessary to remove these inhuman practices. Therefore
these provisions have been incorporated in the constitution.
• The 13th amendment 9f the American Constitution has the same
provision. The term slavery is defined very well in the American
Constitution, we’re in the Indian constitution slavery is not
defined.
• Article 23 clause 1 prohibits traffic in human beings, begar (
forced labor) and other similar forms of forced labour.
• It protects the individual not only against the state but also
against private persons.
• The expression “ traffic in human beings” include,
1. Selling and buying of men, women and children like goods.
2. Immoral traffic in women and children, including prostitution.
3. Devadasis
4. Slavery
• To punish these acts, the Parliament has made the Immoral
Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
• Article 23 prohibits other “similar forms of forced labour” like
bonded labour.
• The term “ forced labour” means compelling a person to work
against his will.
• The word “force” includes not only physical or legal force but
also force arising from the compulsion of economic
circumstances, that is, working for less than the minimum wage.
• In this regard, some act were made:
1. The minimum wages Act, 1948
2. The Contract Labour Act,1970
3. The Equal Remuneration Act, 1976
4. The Bonded Labour System ( abolition) Act, 1976
• Article 23 Clause 2 provides for an exception to forced labor
provision.
• It permits the State to impose compulsory service for public
purposes, as of example, military service, social service, health
service, relief services etc., for which it is not bound to pay.
• This clause reflects in Article 51A(d) as a fundamental duty of
citizen that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to defend
the country and render national service when called upon to do
so.
• However, in imposing such services, the state is not permitted to
make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or
class.
CASE LAWS:
1. Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan, it was held- the payment of
wages lower than the minimum wages to the person employed on
famine relief work is violative of Art. 23. Whenever any labour or
service is taken by the State from any person who is affected by
drought and scarcity condition, the state cannot pay him less wage
than the minimum wage on the ground that it is given them to help
to meet famine situation. The state cannot take advantage of their
helplessness.
2. In State of Gujarat v. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, it was held-
the labour taken from prisoners without paying proper
remuneration is “forced labour” and violation of Art. 23 of the
Constitution. The prisoners are entitled to payment of reasonable
wages for the work taken from them and the court is under duty to
enforce their claim.
• Acharaj Singh v. State of Bihar, it has been held that toncompel
a cultivator to bring food grains to The Government godown
without remuneration for such labor in a scheme for
procurement of food grains as an essential commodity for the
community, there shall be no contravention of Art. 23 of the
Constitution because the compulsory service is for “public
purpose”.
• People’s Union for Democratic Rights and others v. UOI also
known as Asiad Workers Case gave the following explanation:
When a person provides labour of service to another for
remuneration which is less than the minimum wage, the labour or
service provided by him clearly falls within the scope and ambit of
the words forced labour under art. 23 of the Indian constitution.
• Neeraja chaudhary v. State of MP: the state also has a duty to
rehabilitate the saved Bonded labor.
• Dubar Goala v. UOI, overtime done voluntarily is not forced
labor.
• Deena v. UOI, prisoners have the right to get fair wages for their
work.
Article 24: prohibition of
employment of children in
factories, etc.
• No child below the age of fourteen years shall
be employed to work in any factory or mine or
engaged in any other hazardous employment.
• This article, as laid down in Articles 39(e) and
(f) of the state principles of directives, allows
for the security of children’s safety and power
under the age of 14.
• The SC in Peasants union for democratic rights
v. UOI rules that building work was unsafe in
areas where children under age of 14 should
not be working and that the prohibition inherent
in Art. 24 should be extended to everyone,
including State or private persons.
Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 2016
• The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Amendment Act,
2016, amended the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation)
Act, 1986.
• It has renamed the Principal Act as the Child and Adolescent
Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986.
• The Amendment Act prohibits the employment of children below
14 years in all occupations and processes. Earlier, this
prohibition was applicable to 18 occupations and 65 processes.
• Further, the Amendment Act prohibits the employment
of adolescents (14 to 18 years of age) in certain hazardous
occupations and processes.
• The Amendment Act also introduces more stringent punishment
for the offenders.
• In the case of repeated offenses, imprisonment is from 1 year
to 3 years.
• This amendment allows the child labour in “the family or family
enterprises” or allows the child to be “an artist in the audio-
visual entertainment industry”.
• Working hours not mentioned, Only the mention that children
may work after school hours or during vacations.
• This provision is not beneficial for families trapped in
intergenerational debt bondage, even it is a known fact now that
kids in reality TV shows suffer from depression and anxiety and
pressure to perform better.
• Laws that were passed in pursuance of Article 24 in India.
• The Factories Act, 1948
• This was the first act passed after independence to set a
minimum age limit for the employment of children in factories.
The Act set a minimum age of 14 years. In 1954, this Act was
amended to provide that children below the age of 17 could not
be employed at night.
• The Mines Act of 1952
• This Act prohibits the employment of people under the age of 18
years in mines.
• The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986
• This was a landmark law enacted to curb the menace of child
labour prevalent in India. It described where and how children
could be employed and where and how this was forbidden. This
Act designates a child as a person who has not completed
his/her 14th year of age. The 1986 Act prohibits the
employment of children in 13 occupations and 57 processes.
• Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Amendment Act,
2016
• This Act completely forbids the employment of children below
14 years of age. It also bans the employment of people
between the ages of 14 and 18 in hazardous occupations and
processes. Punishments to violators of this law were made
stricter by this amendment act. This Act allows children to be
employed in certain family occupations and also as artists.
• Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Amendment
Rules, 2017
• The government notified the above Rules in 2017 to provide a
broad and specific framework for prevention, prohibition,
rescue, and rehabilitation of child and adolescent workers. The
Rules clarified on issues concerning the employment of family
enterprises and also provides safeguards for artists in that the
working hours and conditions are specified.
Article 25: Freedom of conscience and
free profession, practice and
propagation of religion
• 25(1): Subject to public order, morality and health and to the
other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to
freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise
and propagate religion.
• 25(2): Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any
existing law or prevent the State from making any law—
• 25(2)(a): regulating or restricting any economic, financial,
political or other secular activity which may be associated with
religious practice;
• Explanation I.—The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be
deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion.
• Explanation II.—In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference
to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to
persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the
reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed
accordingly.
ArTICLE 26: freedom to manage
religious affairs
• Article 26. Freedom to manage religious affairs Subject to public
order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any
section thereof shall have the right
• (a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and
charitable purposes;
• (b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion;
• (c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and
• (d) to administer such property in accordance with law
• What is a religious denomination?
• The definition of the religious denomination was clarified based
on the Sri Shirur Mutt case. A body to be categorized as a
religious denomination, it must have a
• Common Faith
• Common Organisation
• Distinctive Name;
• sect or sub-sect of religion is also part of Article 26 due to the
existence of the word “section” in the article.
• In both Sabarimala case and Haji Ali dargah case, the religious
denominations in question were denied the rights under article
26(b), because their activities cannot be categorized under the
definition of religious denominations for the purpose of article
26(b).
• The relation between article 25 and 26
• Initially, it appeared that article 26 is not subject to the restrictions of
article 25.
• But in the case of Sri Venkataramana Devaruand Ors. v. The State of
Mysore & Ors, the court declared that article 25(2) has a wider scope
of application.
• And article 26 is subject to the restrictions of article 25.
Analysis of article 26
• This article includes denomination of any religion, whether it is a
majority or a minority religion.
• It does not deal with the rights of individual rather it deals with the
rights of religious denominations.
• The state cannot interfere in the matters of the religion of
denominations subject to the grounds provided in article 25(2) (b).
• But the state can interfere in the secular activities of the religious
denominations and organizations.
CASE STUDY:
• For a religious denomination to claim the right of maintaining a
religious institution, the institution should have been established
by the denomination. In Azeez Basha v. Union of India, SC
Aligarh Muslim University, Muslims were denied the right to
administer the university and was denied protection under
article 26(a). because the university was constituted by an act,
not by any Muslim denomination.
• Article 26(b) of the constitution provide for the protection of the
right of denominations to manage religious affairs, contrary to
article 15 (2)(b), which provides individuals with protection
against discrimination. These inconsistencies were resolved by
Shirur Matt’s case and Devaru’s case, it was established by
these judgments that those tenets and practices of a religion
that are basic to the religion fall within its ambit. As a result
‘Essential Religious Functions Test’ was evolved.
• In Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India, the Supreme Court
was dealing with the question of acquisition of the religious
property by the State.
• In this case, the Supreme Court stated that under article 26
mosque, temple and churches are immovable properties and it
is not an essential component of religions; thus, the state can
acquire immovable properties.
• Until and unless the place has certain intrinsic value, right to
worship at any and every place is not protected under the
constitution. Court also held that the acquisition of immovable
property of any religion must only be made in the larger public
interest under extraordinary situations.