Question map
Right to Privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of Right to Life and Personal Liberty. Which of the following in the Constitution of India correctly and appropriately imply the above statement ?
Explanation
The correct answer is option C because the right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution[1]. This was definitively established in the landmark K.S. Puttaswamy case (2017), where the Supreme Court declared right to privacy as a fundamental right[1]. The Court held that privacy safeguards individual autonomy and recognizes the ability of the individual to control vital aspects of his life[1].
Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, has been interpreted expansively by courts to include the right to privacy as one of its intrinsic components. Part III of the Constitution contains all fundamental rights (Articles 12-35), and privacy is protected as part of these freedoms. The other options are incorrect as Article 14 deals with equality, Article 17 with untouchability, and Article 24 with child labor—none of which directly relate to the constitutional basis for the right to privacy as established by judicial interpretation.
Sources- [1] Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 90: Landmark Judgements and Their Impact > K.S. PUTTASWAMY CASE (2017) > p. 641
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Full viewThis is the quintessential 'Current Affairs driven Static' question. The 2017 K.S. Puttaswamy judgment was the biggest legal event of the year. The strategy is simple: When the Supreme Court announces a new right, you must memorize exactly which existing Article it was 'read into' (usually Art 21 or 19).
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Statement 1: Do Article 14 and the provisions under the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution of India imply that the right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty?
- Statement 2: Do Article 17 and the Directive Principles of State Policy in Part IV of the Constitution of India imply that the right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty?
- Statement 3: Do Article 21 and the freedoms guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution of India imply that the right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty?
- Statement 4: Do Article 24 and the provisions under the 44th Amendment to the Constitution of India imply that the right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty?
States that the Supreme Court (K.S. Puttaswamy) declared right to privacy as intrinsic to right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
A student could use this precedent as a baseline and then check whether Article 14 or the 42nd Amendment were relied upon or discussed in that judgment to support privacy.
Notes that rights such as travel abroad and privacy have been deduced from Article 21 (and sometimes Article 19) in landmark cases like Maneka and Puttaswamy.
One could examine the patterns of judicial deduction from Article 21 to see whether Article 14 or amendment provisions have been used similarly to ground privacy.
Shows an exam question that explicitly asks which constitutional provisions (including 'Article 14 and the provisions under the 42nd Amendment') correctly imply the given statement — indicating this combination is a recognized line of inquiry.
A student could trace the sources tested by such questions to find legislative text or case law tying Article 14/42nd Amendment to privacy claims.
Records that Article 31D was inserted by the 42nd Amendment (and later repealed), showing the 42nd Amendment did alter fundamental-rights-related provisions.
A student might inspect the specific provisions added by the 42nd Amendment (and their subject matter) to judge whether they could be read to affect privacy or Article 21 interpretations.
Clarifies that Article 14 (equality before law/equal protection) is a fundamental right available to any person, distinct from Article 21 which protects life and personal liberty.
One could analyze whether principles of equality under Article 14 have been used by courts to support privacy claims as an incident of Article 21 rights.
Reports that the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) held right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
A student could use this as a precedent linking privacy to Article 21 and then ask whether Article 17 or Directive Principles reinforce or affect that linkage.
Explains Article 21's scope: protection of life and personal liberty and that it is available to all persons.
Use the definition of Article 21 to test whether privacy plausibly fits within 'life and personal liberty' as recognized by courts (per Puttaswamy).
States Article 37 makes Directive Principles 'fundamental in the governance' and 'it shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws' despite being non‑justiciable.
A student can reason that if Directive Principles endorse values that overlap with privacy (e.g., welfare, dignity), they could influence lawmaking that protects privacy even if not directly enforceable.
Asserts that Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are 'two wheels of the chariot' and that judiciary harmonises them.
One could extend this to argue that courts may interpret Directive Principles alongside Article 21 (and Puttaswamy) to support privacy protection indirectly.
Notes Article 36 gives the term 'State' in Part IV the same meaning as in Part III, linking the subjects of Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights to the same State organs.
A student might infer that because both parts address the same State actors, directives could guide state action affecting Article 21/privacy even if directives themselves are non‑justiciable.
- Explicitly states the Supreme Court declared right to privacy a fundamental right.
- Directly says privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as part of Part III freedoms.
- Notes the judgment overruled earlier contrary precedents, indicating authoritative legal position.
- Specifically records that right to privacy was deduced from Article 19 and Article 21 in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (nine-judge Bench).
- Connects the doctrinal basis (deduction from Articles 19 & 21) to the Supreme Court decision referenced.
States the legal doctrine that right to privacy was held to be an intrinsic part of Article 21 in the K.S. Puttaswamy judgment (privacy recognized as part of life and personal liberty).
A student could use this as an example of judicial expansion of Article 21 to include privacy and compare it to other rights reinterpreted by courts to see if Article 24 or the 44th Amendment have been similarly read expansively.
Explains the scope of Article 21 (no person deprived of life or personal liberty except by procedure established by law) and notes its application against arbitrary executive action.
Use the general principle of Article 21's broad protective scope to test whether privacy concerns (e.g., bodily and personal autonomy) logically fall within 'life and personal liberty'.
Identifies Article 24 as part of 'Right against Exploitation' (Articles 23–24) within Part III, showing Article 24's textual location among fundamental rights.
A student could examine Article 24's specific content (prohibiting employment of children in hazardous work) against privacy themes to see whether Article 24's protective aims have privacy implications or require reading with Article 21.
Describes the 44th Amendment's effect of removing the right to property from Part III and relocating it outside Part III, showing that the Amendment altered what is and is not a fundamental right.
A student can use this pattern (Amendment reclassifying rights) to ask whether the 44th Amendment's reclassification affects interpretive space for reading unenumerated rights like privacy into Article 21.
Again notes that the 44th Amendment abolished right to property as a fundamental right and created Article 300A outside Part III, illustrating constitutional change in Part III's content.
Compare how rights explicitly removed or shifted by amendment were treated by courts; this helps judge whether privacy (not explicitly in Part III) might instead be inferred under Article 21 despite amendments.
- [THE VERDICT]: Sitter. This was headline news in 2017-18. Source: The Hindu/Indian Express headlines on K.S. Puttaswamy judgment + Laxmikanth (Rights Chapter updates).
- [THE CONCEPTUAL TRIGGER]: The 'Expansion of Article 21'. Understanding how the Supreme Court interprets 'Life and Personal Liberty' to include unwritten rights.
- [THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION]: Memorize other 'Inferred Rights' under Art 21: Right to Livelihood (Olga Tellis), Right to Speedy Trial (Hussainara Khatoon), Right to Clean Environment (MC Mehta), Right to Sleep (Ramlila Maidan), and Right to Marry a person of choice (Hadiya Case).
- [THE STRATEGIC METACOGNITION]: Do not stop at 'Privacy is a Fundamental Right'. Always ask: 'Where is the Constitutional Peg?' The Court cannot invent rights; it must anchor them in Part III. The anchor for Privacy is primarily Art 21, read with Art 19.
Reference [1] (Puttaswamy) and [3] explicitly link the right to privacy to Article 21 and Part III freedoms rather than to Article 14 or the 42nd Amendment.
High-yield: Puttaswamy (2017) is the definitive Supreme Court articulation that privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21; mastering this helps answer questions on fundamental rights, judicial interpretation, and scope of Article 21. Connects to cases like Maneka (procedural fairness) and to doctrinal debates on personal liberty vs other rights.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 90: Landmark Judgements and Their Impact > K.S. PUTTASWAMY CASE (2017) > p. 641
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > REFERENCES > p. 164
References [6] and [2] describe Article 14 as equality before law and contrast it with Article 21's protection of life and personal liberty, indicating different constitutional roles.
Important for UPSC: differentiating Article 14 (equality) from Article 21 (life/liberty) prevents conflation in answers; useful for questions on classification, arbitrariness, and tests of reasonableness. Links to broader topics: fundamental rights structure, judicial review, and liberty-equality tensions.
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > CHAP. 8 Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties 97 > p. 98
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights > G Protection of Life and Personal Liberty > p. 89
Reference [10] notes that Article 31D was inserted by the 42nd Amendment and later repealed, showing the Amendment altered Part III provisions but that such insertions may not permanently determine rights like privacy.
Useful for constitutional history and amendment questions: knowing what the 42nd Amendment changed (and subsequent repeal) helps answer how amendments can affect fundamental rights and why one must cite current law/case law (e.g., Puttaswamy) rather than historical insertions. Helps in questions on amendment power and judicial response.
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties IJl > p. 176
Reference [1] states the Supreme Court declared right to privacy a fundamental right and protected as intrinsic to Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty).
High-yield for UPSC: landmark judgments redefining Article 21 are frequently asked. Understand the Puttaswamy holding and its consequence for personal liberties, judicial review, and subsequent governance issues. Links to civil liberties, digital rights, and criminal procedure topics.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 90: Landmark Judgements and Their Impact > K.S. PUTTASWAMY CASE (2017) > p. 641
References [2] and [8] explain Directive Principles are non‑justiciable but are 'fundamental in governance' and the State has a duty under Article 37 to apply them.
Essential for questions on constitutional scheme and policy-making: distinguishes enforceable Fundamental Rights (Part III) from non‑justiciable goals (Part IV), yet shows how directives guide legislation. Useful for essays and mains answers on welfare state, policy conflicts, and constitutional interpretation.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 9: Directive Principles of State Policy > FEATURES OF THE DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES > p. 108
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 9: Directive Principles of State Policy > SANCTION BEHIND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES > p. 111
Reference [3] notes the role of the judiciary in harmonising Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles; reference [9] notes parts of the Constitution are read together.
Important for UPSC: explains constitutional interpretation practice — courts reconcile competing constitutional norms rather than treat them as strictly separate. Helps answer questions on landmark cases where Part III and Part IV interact and on judicial activism vs restraint.
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 9: Directive Principles of State Policy > DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY > p. 180
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 9: Directive Principles of State Policy > DIRECTIVES OUTSIDE PART IV > p. 117
The Puttaswamy judgment (cited in references) is the primary source declaring privacy as a fundamental right linked to Article 21 and Part III freedoms.
High-yield topic for UPSC law and polity segments: know the Puttaswamy ruling, its holding that privacy is intrinsic to Article 21, and that it overruled earlier cases. Helps answer questions on fundamental rights expansion, judicial review, and landmark judgments.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 90: Landmark Judgements and Their Impact > K.S. PUTTASWAMY CASE (2017) > p. 641
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > REFERENCES > p. 164
The 'Right to Internet Access' was declared a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech) and Article 19(1)(g) (Trade) in the Anuradha Bhasin case (2020). This is the logical sibling to the Privacy (Art 21) question.
Keyword Association Hack: The question explicitly mentions 'Right to Life'. In the Indian Constitution, 'Right to Life' is the heading of Article 21. Option C is the ONLY option that contains Article 21. Options A (Equality), B (Untouchability), and D (Child Labour) are thematically irrelevant to 'Personal Liberty'.
Connects to GS-3 (Internal Security & Cyber Warfare): The Puttaswamy judgment is the legal foundation for the Digital Personal Data Protection Act. Without this Art 21 protection, data sovereignty laws would lack a constitutional basis.