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.