---
title: Fundamental Rights, DPSP & Fundamental Duties
syllabus_ids: [GS2-POL-01]
gs_paper: GS Paper II
subject: Polity
last_updated: 2026-07-22
---

# Fundamental Rights, DPSP & Fundamental Duties

> **GS Paper:** GS Paper II | **Subject:** Polity | **Last updated:** 2026-07-22

---

## Prelims

### Right to Be Forgotten — Delhi HC (May 29, 2026) *(The Hindu, 04-06-2026)*
- Delhi HC order (Justice Sachin Datta) on **right to be forgotten** in digital judicial records
- **K.S. Puttaswamy (2017):** SC recognised **right to informational privacy** under Art. 21
- HC ruled: open justice does not require a person's name to be searchable in judicial records — privacy can override discoverability
- **Art. 19(1)(a)** (freedom of expression/press) vs **Art. 21** (right to privacy) — classic FR tension
- **Open justice principle:** Public scrutiny of courts, historical record of justice administration
- HC reasoning: Search engines excerpt content without context; updating official record doesn't update copies on other websites

### Operation Langda — UP Encounters *(The Hindu, 04-06-2026)*
- 16,000+ encounter operations in UP (2017–2025); ~97% survive with leg shot
- **PUCL v. State of Maharashtra (2014):** SC laid **16 principles** for police encounters; independent inquiry mandatory in every case — not followed in UP
- **Allahabad HC (Jan 2026):** Encounter practices driven by official rewards; punishment power belongs exclusively to judiciary
- Art. 21: right to life and personal liberty; extra-judicial punishment violates this

### Transgender Act Amendment 2026 — SC Stays HC Cases *(The Hindu, 16-06-2026)*
- The **SC stayed proceedings in four High Courts** (Rajasthan, Delhi, Karnataka, Kerala) hearing challenges to the **Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026**, and may **transfer/consolidate** them to avoid conflicting rulings (**Art. 139A** = SC's power to transfer cases raising the same legal questions)
- Petitioners argue the amendment's **Section 3 omits the right to self-perceived gender identity**, undermining **NALSA v. Union of India (2014)** (which recognised self-identification as a fundamental right + OBC reservation); the Centre says it only regulates **coercive/forced** gender-affirming procedures

### Preventive Detention Misused — Allahabad HC *(The Hindu, 16-06-2026)*
- In *Chander Pal Singh*, the **Allahabad HC** flagged "highly irresponsible" use of **preventive powers** (e.g. **BNSS Sections 126/170**) to jail people over petty/neighbourhood disputes — **~2,500 preventive-detention proceedings in Ghaziabad** (May 2025–Apr 2026), despite a 2021 state policy
- New guidelines: executive magistrates must **justify** orders; **compensation for unlawful detention is recoverable from the magistrate's/officer's salary**; the court criticised using "peace/communal tension" as a pretext to silence dissent (noting **Sonam Wangchuk's NSA** detention)

### 'Bulldozer Justice' — Demolitions of Religious Structures *(The Hindu, 26-06-2026)*
- Major Muslim bodies — **Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind** (president **Arshad Madani**), **Jamaat-e-Islami Hind**, and the **All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB)** — condemned a **spate of demolitions of mosques, madrasas and dargahs** across Rajasthan (**Jaisalmer, Barmer, Bikaner**), Maharashtra, Uttarakhand and UP, and resolved to **seek legal relief** in the Rajasthan & UP High Courts
- Their constitutional argument: **"the government cannot act as a judge"** — *"determining legality and illegality is the responsibility of the judiciary alone"*; demolishing homes/places of worship **disregarding due process and court rulings** is contrary to the **rule of law** and Constitution ("justice through bulldozers instead of courts")
- **Judicial backdrop:** in *In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures* **(Nov 2024)**, the **Supreme Court** held that **demolition as punishment/retribution is unconstitutional**, laid down **pan-India guidelines** (15-day prior **show-cause notice**, reasoned order, opportunity to contest, videography) and invoked **separation of powers** + **Art 21** (shelter) — making **extra-judicial demolition** a rule-of-law violation

### The expanding Article 21 — a cluster of recent inferred rights *(surfaced while writing Polity lec16 — Abhey sir, Art 21; all web-verified)*
- **Menstrual hygiene = right to life (Art 21)** — *Jaya Thakur v. Government of India* (**30-01-2026**, Justices J.B. Pardiwala & R. Mahadevan): the SC held **dignified menstrual health** part of **Art 21** (read with **Art 14 & 21A**) and issued **binding directions** to States/UTs and all schools (public & private) — **free biodegradable sanitary napkins** (ASTM/oxo-biodegradable), gender-segregated functional toilets, water, safe disposal, **MHM "corners"**; "financial constraints cannot excuse non-compliance."
- **Right to walk on safe footpaths = fundamental right** — *Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz v. P. Ayyappan* (**2026**, Division Bench P.S. Narasimha & A.S. Chandurkar): traced to **Art 19(1)(d)** + **Art 21**; **pedestrian rights are primary** over motorised movement; urban-development authorities/municipalities/panchayats bear an **enforceable duty** to demarcate & maintain footpaths (landmark urban-governance ruling).
- **Right against adverse effects of climate change (Art 14 & 21)** — *M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India* (**21-03-2024**, 3-judge bench, CJI Chandrachud): new constitutional right drawn from **Art 21** (life) + **Art 14** (climate impact is *unequal* — hits the poor/agri-dependent harder); Great Indian Bustard vs solar-power dilemma → expert committee.
- **Mental health = integral part of Art 21** — *Sukdeb Saha v. State of Andhra Pradesh* (**Jul 2025**): guidelines for schools/coaching (counsellors for 100+ students, district monitoring, alignment with the **National Suicide Prevention Strategy**). *(Govt helpline: **Tele-MANAS 14416**.)*
- **Right to die with dignity — first actual passive euthanasia** — *Harish Rana* (**2026**): SC permitted **withdrawal of life support** for a 32-year-old in a **persistent vegetative state since 2013** — the **first application** of the *Common Cause v. UoI* (2018) **living-will / Advance Medical Directive** framework (built on *Aruna Shanbaug*, 2011). **Active euthanasia still barred** in India.

### Preventive detention — Art 22(5) safeguards tightened *(SC, 2024; web-verified)*
- *Jasleela Shaji v. Union of India* (**2024**): the right under **Art 22(5)** is to be given the **earliest opportunity** to make a representation against a detention order; **advisory boards must not act as "rubber-stamping authorities"** but as a genuine safety-valve between capricious state power and personal liberty — procedural safeguards are **substantive**, not formalities. *(Complements the Allahabad HC misuse finding below.)*


### Criminal Law Used Against Criticism of Rulers — the Tamil Nadu Arrests *(The Hindu editorial "Allowing dissent", 21-07-2026)*
- In the **first couple of months of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) government in Tamil Nadu**, at least **10 people** have been **subjected to police action on account of speaking against the Chief Minister or his Cabinet colleagues**
- **The specific instances reported:** the arrest of former Minister **Anitha Radhakrishnan** for criticising **Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay**; the arrest of **DMK MLA G.V. Markandayan** (Vilathikulam) by the **Thoothukudi District Crime Branch Police** over allegedly "derogatory" remarks at a public meeting; a **Facebook post** by **James Raja of Tirunelveli** and **V. Vishnuprabhu / T. Manojkumar** of Coimbatore; a **YouTuber, Maridhas**, arrested by the **Chennai Cyber Crime police**; **RJ Saran Jayaraman** arrested **for content posted on Instagram** supporting a woman who supported the TVK; and the police searching the residence of **DMK's A. Anbanantham**
- **The sections invoked against the MLA (worth noting for the BNS transition):** **Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita §351(3)** (criminal intimidation), **§352** (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), and **§353(2)** (statements conducing to public mischief). Over **100 DMK workers** were detained after staging a sit-in; the party alleged **no case was filed** against a TVK MLA facing charges of sexual assault — the **selective-enforcement** complaint
- **The editorial's constitutional argument, which is the examinable core:** "**At the heart of a democratic disposition is tolerance of dissent and upholding of the rule of law; threats to these can undo the knit of a democracy.**" **Political actors of all hues have normalised using the police and criminal law as a shield to protect their reputation, whenever they come to power. This creates a structural risk for democracy.** The pattern of **speech-related arrests** indicates "a wider pattern of **authoritarianism**", with **defamation, the IT Act and cyber-crime provisions invoked for any criticism** of those in government or the ruling party
- **The specific mechanism of misuse identified:** complaints being **filed by the TVK cadre** and the ***suo motu* action of the police targeting dissenters** — i.e. the criminal process is set in motion by **party workers** and then carried by the State, which is how private political grievance is converted into public prosecution
- **The prescription:** "**A new government has the opportunity to rewrite the rules of engagement with the public, to be tolerant of dissent, and not to misdirect the power it is vested with.**" Every government keen on development "could be enriched by criticism and dissent articulated on public platforms, if it is willing." The editorial closes with the necessary balance: **the restriction of harmful, obscene and indecent content must be balanced with the overwhelming supremacy of freedom of speech**
- **Why this pairs well with the 20-07 obscenity ruling already in this file:** both concern the **over-criminalisation of speech** — one at the level of **judicial interpretation** (vulgarity is not obscenity), the other at the level of **executive practice** (arrests for criticism). Together they make a complete answer on **Article 19(1)(a), the Article 19(2) restrictions, and the gap between declared rights and policing practice**

---

## Mains

### 'Bulldozer Justice' & the Rule of Law *(The Hindu, 26-06-2026)*
- **Executive arrogating judicial power:** demolitions used as **collective/retributive punishment** invert the constitutional order — only courts can adjudicate guilt and order penalties. Even where a structure is genuinely unauthorised, **selective, punitive demolition without due process** breaches **Art 14 (arbitrariness), Art 21 (shelter/dignity)** and **separation of powers**
- **Minority-rights & secularism dimension:** targeting **places of worship of one community** raises concerns of **discriminatory state action** and erosion of **secularism/equal protection** — the bodies frame it as **social and political marginalisation**, not mere municipal action
- **Enforcement gap:** despite the **2024 SC guidelines**, demolitions recur — exposing the limits of judicial directions without **accountability for officials** and **contempt enforcement**; remedies sought now are HC petitions to **restore/halt** demolitions
- **UPSC angle:** rule of law & due process, separation of powers, Art 14/21, *In Re: demolition* (2024) guidelines, secularism & minority rights, accountability of the executive

### Right to Be Forgotten — Open Justice vs Privacy *(The Hindu, 04-06-2026)*
- **The tension:** Open justice (public accountability of courts, legal certainty) vs informational privacy (an individual's control over their digital footprint). Both are legitimate, both are constitutional
- **Problem with HC's approach:** Obfuscating a person's name from records preserves the accusation but removes context of acquittal — a searcher finds the charge but not the verdict. This is incomplete, not accurate
- **Better approach (editorial view):** Digital accuracy — ensure court records are complete (acquittals as prominent as charges); require platforms to refresh databases; impose conditions on Indian Kanoon-type sites
- **Broader digital governance question:** As court records are digitised and indexed, the consequences of old accusations persist indefinitely. This creates asymmetry — the state moves on, the individual does not
- **Europe's GDPR model:** Right to be forgotten balanced against freedom of expression and public interest — more sophisticated than blanket de-indexing
- **GS2 exam angle:** FR conflicts (Art. 19 vs Art. 21), judicial interpretation, right to privacy evolution from Gobind (1975) → Puttaswamy (2017) → digital age applications

### Operation Langda — Rule of Law vs Pragmatic Policing *(The Hindu, 04-06-2026)*
- **Self-sustaining system:** Political endorsement + promotion incentives + media amplification + weak criminal justice → half-encounters reproduce themselves without legislative sanction
- **Why legally defensible:** Accused survives → produced in court → self-defence claim. State records arrest, not death. Different from "fake encounter" tradition
- **But rule of law violation:** Power to punish belongs to judiciary alone (Allahabad HC). Extra-judicial punishment — even disabling — bypasses due process
- **Pre-2017 context:** Conviction rates below 20% in violent crimes; understaffed investigation → encounters as "pragmatic" shortcut. But state capacity failure cannot justify rights violations
- **GS4 linkage:** Ethics of ends vs means in public service; accountability; integrity under pressure
- **GS2 exam angle:** Fundamental rights (Art. 21 — right against extra-judicial punishment), rule of law, police reforms, accountability mechanisms

### Personal Liberty vs the Preventive State *(The Hindu, 16-06-2026)*
- **Preventive detention** — a constitutionally permitted *exception* (**Art. 22**) — is increasingly used as **routine policing**, hollowing out **Art. 21**; the Allahabad HC's remedy (cost recovered from the magistrate) is welcome but historically hard to enforce against the executive's own officers. The **Transgender-Act** challenge poses the parallel question of whether a statute may **dilute a judicially-recognised right (NALSA)**
- **UPSC angle:** Art. 21/22 (preventive detention, procedure established by law), NALSA & transgender self-identification, judicial review of rights-diluting legislation, dissent & personal liberty

### Article 21 as a "living / organic document" — the expanding right to life *(surfaced via Polity lec16, Art 21)*
- **The evolution story:** from *A.K. Gopalan* (1950, narrow view: personal liberty = bodily freedom, mere "procedure established by law") → *Maneka Gandhi* (1978, **due process** read in; personal liberty = widest; **golden triangle** Art 14-19-21 linked by non-arbitrariness) → *Francis Coralie Mullin* (1981, **life = life with dignity**) — Art 21 now carries the **largest number of judicially inferred rights** (privacy, livelihood, clean air/water, education, menstrual health, mental health, dignified death, walking on a footpath). A ready **Mains illustration** of the Constitution as an *organic, evolving* document driven mainly by **judicial interpretation** (internal) rather than amendment (external).
- **The double-edged theme — expansion vs enforcement:** each new inferred right (menstrual hygiene, right to walk, climate) creates **positive obligations** on the State and local bodies; the gap between **declaration and delivery** (footpaths, MHM corners, mental-health counsellors) is where governance capacity and accountability are tested — cite alongside the *In Re: demolition* and preventive-detention **misuse** examples where declared rights outrun on-ground compliance.
- **Right to die with dignity (GS2 + GS4 crossover):** *Aruna Shanbaug* (2011) → *Common Cause* (2018, living will) → *Harish Rana* (2026, first application) — passive euthanasia is permitted with safeguards, **active euthanasia is not**; frame as the **autonomy-vs-sanctity-of-life** and **misuse-risk** balance under Art 21.