Fundamental Rights & Rights Issues

Combating Hate Speech: Constitutional and Judicial Safeguards

Context: Rising instances of hate speech in India have raised serious concerns about social harmony, constitutional morality, and public order. The issue has placed the judiciary at the centre of balancing freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) with the need to protect dignity, equality, and fraternity. Courts have repeatedly intervened to interpret existing laws and fill gaps where legislative clarity is lacking.

image 5

Hate Speech in India

Hate speech refers to speech, expression, or conduct that promotes hatred, discrimination, or hostility against individuals or groups based on identity markers such as religion, caste, ethnicity, gender, or language.

Such speech can appear in multiple forms including public speeches, written content, symbols, gestures, images, or online communication through social media platforms.

A key challenge in India is that hate speech is not explicitly defined in statutory law, creating ambiguity in enforcement. Instead, various provisions indirectly regulate such speech by focusing on public order and communal harmony.

Legal Framework Regulating Hate Speech

India regulates hate speech through a combination of constitutional provisions and statutory laws.

Article 19(2) of the Constitution allows the State to impose reasonable restrictions on free speech in the interests of public order, security of the State, and prevention of offences.

Several laws address hate speech in specific contexts:

  • Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Sections 8, 123(3A), and 125 penalise communal appeals and hate speech during elections.
  • Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 – prohibits speech that promotes untouchability or caste discrimination.
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023
    • Section 196 (earlier IPC 153A) – penalises promoting enmity between groups.
    • Section 299 (earlier IPC 295A) – punishes deliberate acts outraging religious feelings.
    • Section 353 – penalises statements likely to incite offences or disturb public order.

Supreme Court Judgements

The Supreme Court has played a crucial role in interpreting the limits of free speech.

  • Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India – The Court declined to create a new offence but directed the Law Commission to recommend a clear definition of hate speech.
  • Ramji Lal Modi v. State of Uttar Pradesh – Upheld restrictions on speech that threatens public order by insulting religious beliefs.
  • Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) – Struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, reaffirming that vague laws cannot suppress legitimate free speech.
  • Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018) – Directed governments to appoint nodal officers to prevent hate crimes and mob lynching, recognising the State’s duty to protect citizens’ dignity.

Need for Stronger Criminalisation

The rise of online hate campaigns and communal mobilisation highlights the need for stronger regulation.

First, criminalisation helps protect vulnerable communities from discrimination and social exclusion. For instance, inflammatory online posts were found to have contributed to tensions during the 2020 Delhi riots.

Second, clear legal provisions can prevent violence and communal clashes by deterring provocative speech.

Third, stronger enforcement ensures accountability of both offenders and authorities, addressing gaps seen during elections or on social media platforms.

Conclusion

Hate speech threatens constitutional values of equality, fraternity, and dignity. While India possesses multiple legal safeguards, the absence of a clear statutory definition and inconsistent enforcement weaken their effectiveness. Strengthening legislation, improving enforcement mechanisms, and upholding judicial oversight will be crucial to maintaining democratic freedoms while safeguarding social harmony.

Whose Memory Is the Internet? The Debate over the Right to Be Forgotten

Context: The Supreme Court of India is examining whether the Right to Be Forgotten (RTBF) can be invoked to remove accurate online news reports. The case squarely pits the Right to Privacy under Article 21 against Freedom of the Press under Article 19(1)(a), raising foundational questions about memory, reputation, and public interest in the digital age.

image 1

What is the Right to Be Forgotten (RTBF)?

RTBF allows individuals to seek removal or delisting of personal information from public platforms when it is outdated, irrelevant, excessive, or harmful. The Supreme Court recognised privacy—including informational self-determination—as a fundamental right in K.S. Puttaswamy (2017), from which RTBF flows. Internationally, it mirrors the EU’s “Right to Erasure” under GDPR.

However, the Court has consistently held that RTBF is not absolute and must yield when disclosure serves a larger public interest such as public safety, transparency, or historical record.

India currently lacks a dedicated RTBF statute; disputes are therefore adjudicated case-by-case. Although the DPDP Act, 2023 (Section 12) provides a “Right to Erasure,” its application to news archives and public records remains legally unsettled, and the IT Rules, 2021 do not empower intermediaries to resolve such complex normative claims.

Why RTBF in News Is Being Demanded

  1. Reformative Justice: Permanent digital footprints can punish individuals indefinitely—even after acquittal—hindering rehabilitation.
  2. Dignity & Autonomy: Puttaswamy affirms citizens’ control over personal data and protection from unnecessary public exposure.
  3. Algorithmic Harm: Search rankings can create biased “digital profiles” affecting jobs, loans, or social standing.
  4. Power Imbalance: Individuals often lack the means to challenge sensational or context-stripped reporting amplified by platforms.

Why Blanket RTBF Is Problematic

  1. Press Freedom: Compelling deletion of factually correct reporting threatens Article 19(1)(a) and investigative journalism.
  2. Integrity of Public Record: Erasing archives risks “memory laundering,” distorting history and accountability.
  3. Chilling Effect: Fear of future takedowns may deter reporting on crime, corruption, or public wrongdoing.
  4. Technological Limits: True erasure is nearly impossible due to mirrors and archives; suppression can trigger the Streisand Effect—greater attention to the very content sought to be hidden.

Emerging Middle Path (Likely Judicial Approach)

  • Delisting over Deletion: Remove search-engine visibility while preserving archival records.
  • Contextualisation: Require updates noting acquittals, settlements, or changed legal status.
  • Balancing Test: Weigh time elapsed, role of the person (public figure vs private citizen), nature of offence, and current public interest.
  • Independent Oversight: Empower the Data Protection Board of India (DPBI) to frame sector-specific norms for media–privacy conflicts.

Why This Matters for India

As India’s digital footprint deepens, RTBF will shape reputation rights, media freedom, platform governance, and historical memory.

The Court’s ruling will likely set a precedent for how democracies reconcile privacy with transparency in the age of permanent digital archives.

Way Forward: India needs clear statutory standards—defining when news can be delisted, how long records should remain prominent, and who adjudicates disputes—to avoid ad-hoc decisions while protecting both privacy and press freedom.

Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Rules, 2025 – Key Provisions and Concerns

Context: The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Rules, 2025 were notified on 14 November 2025, completing a long regulatory journey that began after the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) upheld privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21. The new rules operationalise the DPDP Act, 2023 through phased compliance mechanisms and define obligations for data fiduciaries, rights of data principals, and regulatory structures.

Key Features of the DPDP Rules 2025

1. Phased Compliance Timeline

The Rules provide an extended rollout period:

  • Full compliance by May 2027 (18 months from notification).
  • Data Protection Board (DPB) provisions become effective immediately.
  • Consent Manager framework operational from November 2026.

This phase-wise approach aims to help government bodies, firms, and startups transition without service disruption.

2. Consent and Notice Framework

  • Processing requires clear, informed, specific consent.
  • Notices must be plain-language, purpose-specific, and accessible.
  • Children’s data requires verifiable parental consent, and tracking, behavioural monitoring, or targeted advertising for minors is strictly prohibited.

3. Rights of Data Principals (Users)

The Rules operationalise key user rights:

  • Right to access, correction, and erasure
  • Right to withdraw consent
  • Right to grievance redress

Implementation timelines are staggered, with full enforcement expected in 2027.

4. Obligations on Data Fiduciaries

  • Purpose limitation: Data may be used only for the stated objective.
  • Data minimisation: Only necessary data may be collected.
  • Retention limits: Data must be deleted once the purpose is completed.
  • Audit readiness: Fiduciaries must maintain accurate records for regulatory scrutiny.

5. Data Breach and Incident Reporting

All data breaches, unauthorised disclosures, or security incidents must be reported to the Data Protection Board of India (DPBI) within stipulated timelines.

6. RTI Amendment – A Major Shift

The Rules operationalise Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, which amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Under the new regime:

  • Personal information is exempt from disclosure,
  • The earlier “larger public interest” override has been removed.

This marks one of the most significant changes to India's transparency framework since 2005.

Concerns and Criticisms

  • Delayed Protection: Citizen rights are fully enforceable only by 2027, despite years of deliberation.
  • RTI Dilution: Removal of the public-interest test may weaken accountability.
  • Regulator’s Independence: DPBI is housed under MeitY, raising conflict-of-interest concerns.
  • Weak Oversight: No mandatory data protection impact assessments, independent audits, or proactive disclosures.
  • Cross-Border Ambiguity: A “negative-list” approach permits transfers by default, raising data sovereignty issues.
  • Consultation Gaps: Final rules reflect limited incorporation of public comments.

Foundational Judgments Supporting Digital Rights

  • Maneka Gandhi (1978): Expanded Article 21 to include fairness and reasonableness.
  • Faheema Shirin (2019): Declared internet access part of the right to education and life.
  • Anuradha Bhasin (2020): Affirmed internet access as essential for freedom of speech and occupation.
  • Puttaswamy (2017): Recognised privacy as a fundamental right, prompting data protection legislation.

SC Affirms Arrest Must Be Communicated in a Language Understood by the Arrestee

Context: The Supreme Court of India has ruled that an arrest will be deemed illegal if the written grounds of arrest are not provided in a language understood by the person being arrested.
This extends the earlier protection — which applied only to arrests under special laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) — to all arrests, including those made under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Background and Constitutional Basis

The judgment draws upon the fundamental rights enshrined in:

  • Article 22(1): Requires that any person arrested must be informed “as soon as may be” of the grounds for arrest and has the right to consult a legal practitioner of their choice.
  • Article 21: Protects life and personal liberty, implying that liberty cannot be curtailed except through a fair, just, and reasonable procedure established by law.

The Court clarified that these provisions must be read together to ensure meaningful protection of the arrestee’s rights.

Supreme Court’s Key Observations

  1. Right to Know: The person being arrested has a constitutional right to be informed of the specific reasons and charges against them.
  2. Language of Communication: Merely reading out the grounds or handing over documents in an unfamiliar language does not satisfy the constitutional mandate.
  3. Written Clarity: The grounds must be given in writing and in a language the person can read or comprehend, enabling them to seek legal counsel or apply for bail effectively.
  4. Procedural Fairness: Failure to comply renders the arrest illegal and liable to be struck down.

Significance of the Ruling

  • Uniform Safeguard: Extends protection to all types of arrests, ensuring parity between special and general laws.
  • Empowerment of Citizens: Safeguards linguistic and educationally disadvantaged groups.
  • Administrative Accountability: Compels police and investigating agencies to adhere to due process, reducing arbitrary arrests.
  • Reinforcement of Rule of Law: Emphasises that liberty can only be curtailed through transparent and comprehensible procedure.

Implications

  • Police manuals and arrest procedures across states will require updating.
  • Translations and local-language templates of arrest memos will need to be developed.
  • Judicial scrutiny of arrest documentation is likely to increase, strengthening the procedural integrity of criminal justice.

Conclusion

This ruling deepens the meaning of “due process” under Articles 21 and 22, reaffirming that the right to liberty is not merely a legal formality but a substantive, communicative right.

By ensuring that every citizen — regardless of language or literacy — understands the reason for their arrest, the Supreme Court has reinforced constitutional morality and inclusivity in the justice system.

Secularism and the Mysuru Dasara Case

Context: The Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the Karnataka government’s decision to invite Booker Prize winner Banu Mushtaq, a Muslim, to inaugurate the Mysuru Dasara festivities. 

The Court reminded the petitioner of the Preamble, which enshrines secularism, liberty of thought and faith, equality, and fraternity as core ideals of the Indian Constitution.

Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: Preamble, Article 25, landmark cases related to secularism.
Mains: Indian model of secularism.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

  • The Court noted that the inauguration was a State function and not a purely religious ritual, and hence no citizen could be excluded on the basis of religion. 
  • Denying participation on religious grounds violates the Preamble’s ideals of equality and fraternity.
  • The Court reaffirmed the M. Ismail Faruqui (1994) case judgment,“the State has no religion of its own and must act with neutrality”

Constitutional Position on Secularism

India follows a model of secularism that ensures respect for all religions while maintaining State neutrality.

  • The Preamble explicitly declares India to be a secular State (42nd Amendment, 1976).
  • Secularism has been upheld as part of the basic structure of the Constitution in Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and S.R. Bommai (1994).
  • Article 25 guarantees freedom of religion while allowing the State to regulate secular activities associated with religious practice. 
  • In R.C. Poudyal (1993), the Court observed that secularism means equal treatment of all religions without discrimination.
  • In Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India (2024), the Court held that secularism allows the State to intervene to eliminate practices that impede equality and development.

The Mysuru Dasara judgment underlines that Indian secularism is not about a rigid separation of religion from the State, but about principled equidistance and equal respect for all faiths. 

Also Read: What makes the Indian Constitution Secular? 

Queer Couples’ Rights in India 

Context: Recently, a same-sex couple moved the Bombay High Court challenging the discriminatory levy of gift tax under the Income Tax Act.

Relevance of the Topic : Mains: Evolution of Rights of Transgenders/ Queer Couples’ and related issues. 

Under the Income Tax Act, no such tax on gifts is levied on heterosexual couples. No such exemption exists for queer couples, which violates Articles 14 and Article 15 of the Constitution.

The case highlights the persistent problem of how to operationalise queer rights recognised in court verdicts and government advisories without a legal framework of relationship recognition.

Who are Queer Couples?

  • Queer couples are partners where one or both identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or other non-heteronormative identities.
  • Such couples do not fall within the conventional legal framework of marriage in India, as the marriage laws (like the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or Special Marriage Act, 1954) recognise only heterosexual unions.
  • They may cohabit, share financial and emotional responsibilities, and live as families, but the state does not currently grant them the same legal status and protections as heterosexual couples.

Evolution of Queer Rights in India: 

  • Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): The SC decriminalised consensual same-sex relations by striking down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.
  • Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal (2022): The SC expanded the definition of family beyond marital ties to include non-traditional households. ​​The legal understanding of “family” may include manifestations like queer families as well as single parents.
  • Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India (2023): The SC upheld the validity of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and held that the right to marry is not a fundamental right for queer persons. There is no unqualified fundamental right to marry under the Constitution. But it unanimously recognised that queer persons have the right to relationship, cohabitation, and choice of partner. The SC also directed the Union Government to set up a Cabinet Secretary-led committee to identify entitlements of queer couples in the absence of marriage recognition.

Right To Marry in India:

  • As per Article 21 of Indian Constitution, Marriage is an element of the Right to Life. Article 21 guarantees the Right to Marry the person of one's choice.
  • For Queers: The government has already acknowledged the right to love, right to cohabit, right to choose one’s partner, right to one’s sexual orientation as fundamental rights under Article 21.

Policy Measures after the 2023 Verdict

  • The Department of Food and Public Distribution issued an advisory directing states to treat queer partners as members of the same household for ration cards.
  • The Department of Financial Services issued an advisory clarifying that queer persons can open joint bank accounts and nominate their partners.
  • The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare issued guidelines prohibiting discrimination in hospitals and allowing queer partners to claim the body of a deceased partner.

These measures are steps forward, but they remain limited to advisories and face challenges in practical implementation.

Challenges in Realising Queer Rights: 

  • Even if courts or government issue favourable orders, queer couples require a recognised mechanism to prove that they are in a partnership.
  • Departments and authorities lack a uniform way to identify queer couples who should receive entitlements.
  • Without a recognised proof of association, advisories and court verdicts risk remaining ineffective in practice.

The Bombay High Court admitted the petition of the same-sex couple challenging discriminatory taxation of gifts. A favourable ruling could extend equality in tax treatment to queer couples. However, implementation of such a verdict will still require a credible method to verify who qualifies as a partner in a queer relationship.

The Deed of Familial Association (DoFA) as a Possible Solution

  • In 2023, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court suggested that the Tamil Nadu government should consider recognising a Deed of Familial Association (DoFA).
  • A DoFA would allow queer partners to submit affidavits of their free will to a District Magistrate or other authorised officer to register their association.
  • The issuance of a DoFA would give official proof of a queer relationship that could be presented before departments or institutions.
  • It could help operationalise court orders, advisories, and government circulars by creating a uniform recognition of queer partnerships.

Such a mechanism would reduce arbitrariness, help protect rights, and ensure that entitlements already granted are actually accessible.

Also Read: Embracing Diversity: Paving the Way for Transgender Inclusivity and Equality 

Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act 

Context: Recently, a sitting legislator (MLA) in Jammu and Kashmir was detained under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA) for one year. 

Relevance of the Topic : Prelims: Key features of PSA; Preventive Detention; Article 22

About Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act: 

  • The Public Safety Act was enacted in 1978 by the J&K Legislative Assembly to curb timber smuggling in the state.
  • Over time, the Act has become a tool for preventive detention of political opponents, dissenters, journalists, and protesters. E.g., On the eve of Article 370’s abrogation, hundreds, including former Chief Ministers, were detained under PSA.

After the abrogation of Article 370, the PSA is now deemed a law passed by the Indian Parliament.

Key Provisions of the Public Safety Act: 

  • Preventive Detention: The Act authorises detention without trial for up to 2 years, if individuals are considered a threat to the security of the state. Allows detention up to 1 year if they are deemed a threat to public order.
  • Grounds of Detention: Individuals can be detained if the administration is satisfied that they might act in a manner prejudicial to security or public order. The power is based on “subjective satisfaction” of the executive authorities (District Magistrates/Divisional Commissioners).
  • Communication of Grounds: Grounds of detention must be conveyed to the detainee. However, Section 13(2) allows the government to withhold grounds if disclosure is deemed against “public interest.”
  • Advisory Board Review: Detention orders must be reviewed by an Advisory Board (of High Court judges). 
  • Restrictions on Legal Remedies: Individuals cannot directly represent themselves before the Advisory Board. Courts often avoid probing into the merits of detention if the executive claims satisfaction.

Concerns associated with J&K Public Safety Act: 

The Act has been repeatedly flagged by UN Human Rights bodies as a “lawless law” because it:

  • permits prolonged preventive detention without trial
  • relies on vague definitions like public order
  • restricts legal remedies
  • undermines rights guaranteed under both the Indian Constitution and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). 

Also Read: Preventive Detention laws in India: How preventive detention works?

Form Guidelines to regulate Conduct on Social Media: SC 

Context: The Supreme Court has directed the Union government to frame guidelines to regulate conduct on social media. The SC noted that influencers often commercialise free speech in ways that may offend the sentiments of vulnerable groups. 

Relevance of the Topic: Mains: Freedom of Speech and Expression in Digital Era. 

Form Guidelines to regulate Conduct on Social Media: SC 

  • The guidelines to regulate conduct on social media, including online shows such as podcasts, should be framed in consultation with the National Broadcasters and Digital Association. 
  • Rationale: To balance free speech with the equally important right of varied communities to live in society with dignity, and sensitisation of social media users.

Article 19 of Indian Constitution: Right to Free Speech & Expression

  • Article 19 outlines the fundamental rights of Indian citizens related to freedom of speech and expression.  
image 27

When can limits be imposed on Free Speech? 

Article 19(2) specifies the grounds for reasonable restrictions on Article 19. These include:

  • 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

However, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the state cannot impose restrictions beyond these constitutionally prescribed limits.

Regulation of Commercial Speech: 

The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence has consistently recognised that even commercial speech falls within the ambit of Article 19(1)(a). 

Sakal Papers v. Union of India (1962): 

  • The government sought to limit the number of pages a newspaper could publish. The SC struck this down as unconstitutional as such a measure curtailed both the dissemination of news and the circulation of newspapers. 
  • It affirmed that the freedom to publish any number of pages and to reach as many readers as possible is an essential component of the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a). The same logic extends to other forms of expression. 
  • Tata Press Ltd. v. MTNL (1995): The SC ruled that advertising, as a form of commercial speech, also comes under the ambit of freedom of speech and expression Article 19(1)(a).  

The fact that speech is commercial or perceived to be driven by profit cannot in itself justify its regulation. 

Associated Criticism and Concerns:

1. Legal Mechanisms for Prosecution already Exist: 

  • Digital media is already governed by a robust statutory framework. Social media companies are bound by the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 under the IT Act, 2000 which require them to prevent their platforms from being used to disseminate obscene, pornographic, or otherwise harmful content. 
  • The IT Act 2000 further establishes a censorship framework that permits the removal of online content pursuant to court orders or executive directions. 
  • Social media influencers can be held accountable for what they say online under the ordinary criminal law. The existing takedown regime under Section 69A of the IT Act and the Blocking Rules, 2009, is already opaque. Aggrieved individuals are often not given notice before their content is removed. 

In practice, the legal mechanisms are frequently invoked without adequate adherence to principles of natural justice. Thus, the court’s apprehension appears misplaced.

2. Reasonable Restrictions already exist under Article 19(2): 

  • The reasonable restrictions on free speech under Article 19(2) of the Constitution are already exhaustive. The SC has consistently held that the state cannot impose restrictions beyond these constitutionally prescribed limits. Any additional regulation could impinge upon the fundamental right to freedom of expression.

3. Framing legal definition of Dignity and risk of Expansive Censorship: 

  • Reasonable restrictions on free speech under Article 19(2) do not include the protection of individual dignity. But, it is challenging to legally define the amorphous concept such as dignity. 
  • To treat dignity as an independent ground for restricting speech, particularly when invoked on the basis of individual sensibilities, risks inviting expansive censorship. Such regulations are likely to exert a chilling effect on speech. 

Associated Court Cases: 

  • Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015):
    • The SC struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, holding that vague grounds such as “annoyance,” “insult,” or “hatred” cannot justify the criminalisation of speech. 
    • The ruling affirmed that speech which “offends, shocks, or disturbs” remains constitutionally protected, and restrictions on free speech must satisfy the test of reasonableness under Article 19(2). 
  • Rehana Fathima case (2021): The Supreme Court overturned a Kerala High Court order that prohibited activist Rehana Fathima from posting her views on social media, citing free speech concerns.
  • Mohammed Zubair’s bail case (2021): The Uttar Pradesh government sought to ban Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair from tweeting while he was out on bail. The SC rejected the request holding that such restrictions would create a "chilling effect" on free speech. The restriction was an unjustified violation of his right to practice his profession.
  • Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023): The Constitution Bench held that the grounds enumerated in Article 19(2) are exhaustive and cannot be expanded, however well-intentioned the attempt. The judges underscored that no one can either be taxed or penalised for holding an opinion which is not in conformity with the constitutional values.
  • Imran Pratapgadhi Case (2025): The SC emphasised that Article 19(1)(a) protects not only agreeable speech but also views that may offend or disturb. It remains the court’s “duty to uphold” and “zealously protect” the fundamental freedom to free speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). 

Arguments in Favour of Comprehensive Guidelines: 

  • Uphold dignity and do complete justice: The concerns regarding the participation of differently-abled persons in public life and the preservation of their dignity are legitimate. The SC possesses inherent jurisdiction under the Constitution to do “complete justice” to account for the wider social ramifications of online speech.
  • In the Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016), the SC upheld the constitutionality of criminal defamation, recognising individual dignity as one of the bases for sustaining the remedy. 

However, any limitation on the freedom of speech and expression must be imposed through a duly enacted law, and such restrictions must also withstand the test of proportionality.

Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and Delhi Riots Bail Case 

Context: Delhi High Court declined to grant bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, and seven others charged as key conspirators of the February 2020 Delhi riots saying the riots were a “premeditated, well-orchestrated conspiracy”.

Relevance of the Topic: Mains: UAPA 1967: Provisions and related issues. 

The accused have been charged under various provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), including Section 16 which prescribes the death penalty for committing Terrorist Act.

What is Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967?

  • UAPA was enacted to give the state powers to deal with activities that threaten the sovereignty and integrity of India.
  • Initially, it targeted unlawful associations, but successive amendments expanded it into India’s principal anti-terror law.
  • Amendments in 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2019 broadened its scope allowing the central government to designate not just organisations but also individuals as terrorists.

Key Provisions of UAPA: 

  • Definition of Terrorist Act (Section 15): Covered acts intended to threaten India’s unity, integrity, security, or sovereignty, or to strike terror in people. Means can include bombs, explosives, firearms, or any other means.
  • Punishments (Section 16): Death penalty or life imprisonment for terrorist acts causing death.
  • Unlawful Activities: Criminalises acts supporting secession, cession of Indian territory, or disrupting sovereignty.
  • Designation of Terrorists (2019 amendment): Individuals can be listed as terrorists without judicial process, based on executive decision.
  • Bail Provisions: Bail is extremely restrictive. Bail cannot be granted if the court finds reasonable grounds to believe accusations are prima facie true (effectively reverses the presumption of innocence).
  • Extended Detention: Police can seek 180 days of detention without filing a charge sheet (compared to 60-90 days under ordinary criminal law).

Delhi Riots Case: 

  • In February 2020, large-scale communal violence broke out in North-east Delhi during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
  • The violence resulted in the death of 54 people and damage to more than 1500 properties.
  • The Delhi Police alleged that the riots were not spontaneous but a “premeditated, well-orchestrated conspiracy” involving activists and student leaders.
  • Based on this, several persons including Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam were charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, apart from provisions of the IPC.
  • The prosecution argued that conspiracies were hatched through WhatsApp groups, secret meetings, and mobilisation of protest sites, including calls for a “chakka jam”, which allegedly escalated into riots.

Why Bail Was Denied in the Delhi Riots Case?

  • The court applied Section 43D(5) of UAPA, which bars bail if accusations appear prima facie true. 
  • Testimonies of protected witnesses, who claimed that the accused discussed escalation of violence and setting Delhi on fire, were presumed true at this stage. Their credibility cannot be tested during bail.
  • The court emphasised that bail proceedings cannot turn into a detailed evaluation of evidence. Explanations offered by the accused could not be weighed against prosecution material at this stage.
  • The alleged plan to organise a chakka jam was treated as falling under the broad phrase “any other means” in Section 15, thereby qualifying as a terrorist act.
  • Although the accused have spent over five years in jail, the court held that delay alone cannot justify bail, and that an expedited trial conducted in undue haste may compromise fairness and due process.

Issues and Criticism of UAPA: 

  • Stringent Bail Conditions: Almost amounts to “bail not jail” being reversed, as courts presume prosecution’s case true.
  • Prolonged Incarceration: Accused may remain in jail for years without trial, thus the process itself becomes punishment. E.g., In Delhi riots case, accused have spent 5 years without trial raising concerns of violation of Article 21. 
  • Overbroad Definition of ‘Terrorist Act’: The phrase “any other means” under Section 15 expands the scope excessively, creating scope for misuse against peaceful protest and dissent. E.g., A chakka jam was classified as terrorism in the Delhi riots case.
  • Protected Witness System: Limits cross-examination, raises concerns of fair trial and natural justice.
  • Executive Overreach: Power to declare individuals as terrorists without judicial scrutiny undermines separation of powers.
  • Low Conviction Rate: NCRB data shows conviction rate under UAPA is below 30%, yet thousands spend years in pre-trial custody.

Broader Democratic Concerns

  • UAPA is criticised for blurring the line between legitimate dissent and terrorism.
  • It raises questions about Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and Article 19 (freedom of speech, assembly, and association).
  • In a democracy, misuse of anti-terror laws against protesters risks a chilling effect on free speech.

Way Forward

  • Judicial Safeguard : Courts need to evolve stricter standards of evidence scrutiny at bail stage.
  • Timely Trials: Fast-track courts must ensure UAPA trials are not indefinitely delayed.
  • Narrowing Definitions: Parliament should reconsider vague terms like “any other means” under Section 15.
  • Balance between liberty and security: National security is vital, but so is constitutional liberty; laws must not criminalise dissent.

Justice D.Y. Chandrachud observed in K.A. Najeeb case (2021), “Courts cannot remain mute spectators when citizens languish in jails under stringent laws with little hope of trial concluding.” While the state must act against orchestrated violence, prolonged incarceration without trial risks turning the “process into punishment”. 

Mains Practice Question:  

Q. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 has been criticised for reversing the principle of ‘bail not jail’. Critically analyse in the context of recent bail rulings in the Delhi riots case.

Should Reservations Exceed the 50% Cap?

Context: The opposition leader in Bihar has pledged to raise the quota limit to 85% if voted to power. At the same time, the Supreme Court has issued notice to the Union government on a petition seeking the introduction of a ‘creamy layer’ system for SCs and STs.

Relevance of the Topic: Mains: Should reservations exceed the 50 % cap ?

Reservation in the Indian Constitution is envisaged as a corrective mechanism to redress historical injustices and ensure substantive equality. Mere formal equality could not dismantle entrenched social hierarchies in India, and thus reservation empowered the State to adopt affirmative action for disadvantaged groups.

What are the Constitutional Provisions? 

  • Article 15(4) and 15(5) empower the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, including SCs and STs, particularly in educational institutions.
  • Article 16(4) allows the State to provide reservations in public employment for backward classes not adequately represented in services.
  • Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B), inserted through constitutional amendments, permit reservation in promotions for SCs and STs and allow the carry forward of unfilled reserved vacancies.
  • Article 46 directs the State to promote the educational and economic interests of weaker sections, especially SCs and STs.

The reservation in the Centre at present stands as follows: OBCs (27%), SCs (15%), STs (7.5%) and for the Economically Weaker Section (10%), resulting in a total reservation of 59.5%. 

image 19

Important Court Rulings in this Context: 

  • In Balaji v. State of Mysore (1962), the SC held that reservations should remain within reasonable limits and should not exceed 50%.
  • In State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1975), the SC observed that reservation is not an exception to equality, but a facet of equality of opportunity under Article 16; though it did not rule on the 50% ceiling.
  • In Indra Sawhney (1992), the SC upheld 27% reservation for OBCs, and introduced the concept of a creamy layer within OBCs. The court laid down the 50% ceiling rule, subject to extraordinary circumstances. 
  • In Janhit Abhiyan (2022), the SC upheld the 103rd Constitutional Amendment and the validity of 10% EWS quota. It clarified that the 50% limit applies only to backward class reservations, and not to the EWS category. 
  • In State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024), the SC upheld the power of states to make sub-classification within SCs/STs. 

Arguments for Exceeding the 50% Cap: 

  • Proportional Representation: Backward classes form a majority of the population, and proportional representation requires a higher quota share.
  • Substantive equality demands going beyond formal equality, as historical injustices and deep-rooted discrimination cannot be addressed with a 50% limit.
  • Address persistent underrepresentation of SCs, STs, and OBCs which still continues, with many reserved posts remaining unfilled.
  • States with higher percentages of marginalised populations argue that a rigid 50% ceiling undermines their autonomy to design policies that reflect their demographic realities. 

Arguments against Exceeding the 50% Cap:

  • Critics argue that excessively high quotas (such as 85%) would violate the constitutional principle of equality of opportunity.
  • Judicial precedents have consistently upheld the 50% ceiling as a safeguard against excessive reservations that may harm merit-based selection.
  • Large numbers of reserved vacancies remain unfilled, suggesting that higher quotas alone may not ensure representation and could worsen backlog vacancies. In the absence of creamy layer exclusion for SCs/STs, benefits get concentrated among advanced sub-groups, leaving the most deprived behind.

Way Forward

  • Policymaking on reservation should be based on empirical evidence from the 2027 Census, which is expected to include caste enumeration.
  • Implement the Rohini Commission’s sub-categorisation to distribute OBC benefits more equitably.
  • Introduce a two-tier system for SCs/STs prioritising the most marginalised sections.
  • Efforts on complementary measures such as skill development, access to quality education, and inclusion of marginalized groups in the private sector.

India needs a consensus-driven solution which balances equality of opportunity with the demands of social justice.

RTE Exemption to Minority Institutions should be Revised: SC

Context: The Supreme Court has questioned the validity of the blanket exemption granted to minority institutions from the applicability of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009. The SC has called for reconsideration of the Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust vs. Union of India (2014) judgment by a larger bench.

Relevance of the topic:

Prelims: Article 21A; Article 30(1) 

Mains: Conflict between the Right to Education (Article 21A) and the Rights of Minorities to establish and administer educational institutions (Article 30(1)).

Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India (2014) Case

The RTE Act, 2009 was enacted to guarantee free and compulsory education to all children aged 6-14 years under Article 21A of the Constitution.

  • In the case, a five-judge Constitution Bench held that applying the RTE Act to minority institutions (aided or unaided) was unconstitutionalas it violated Article 30(1).
    • Article 30(1) guarantees the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
  • As a result, minority institutions were granted a blanket exemption from RTE provisions, including the 25% reservation for disadvantaged groups under Section 12(1)(c). 
image 16

Supreme Court’s Recent Observations (2025) 

  • The SC expressed serious doubts about the correctness of the Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust (2014) ruling that gave minority institutions blanket exemption from the RTE Act.
  • The SC held that the RTE Act ought to apply to all minority institutions (aided or unaided) without eroding their minority character under Article 30(1).
  • The bench clarified that Article 21A and Article 30(1) are not in conflict; they can and must co-exist mutually.
  • Section 12(1)(c), mandating 25% reservation for disadvantaged groups was described as serving the broader purpose of social inclusion and universalisation of education. Section 12(1)(c) does not alter school demographics to compromise minority identity and comes with a reimbursement mechanism ensuring financial neutrality.
  • Any conflict can be reconciled by admitting minority children who also belong to weaker sections or disadvantaged groups under the quota.
  • On the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), the SC reaffirmed it as a minimum qualification under the RTE Act binding on minority institutions as well.

Article 21 and Indefinite Detention of Non-Citizens in India

Context: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to a Bangladeshi woman accused of forgery, cheating, and staying in India without valid documents, holding that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 applies to foreigners too.

Relevance of the Topic:Prelims: Key facts about Article 21. 
Mains: Right to Personal Liberty: Evolution and threats to personal liberty. 

Recent Verdict by Punjab and Haryana High Court: 

  • The High Court has granted regular bail to a Bangladeshi woman accused of forgery, cheating, and staying in India without valid documents, holding that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 applies to foreigners too. 
  • The court held that prolonged pre-trial custody, especially for an undocumented migrant unable to arrange sureties, would amount to irreversible injustice.

Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty:

  • Article 21 states that: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty, except according to the procedure established by law.
  • The word ‘person’ in Article 21 is wide enough to cover not only citizens but also foreigners. The State has an obligation to protect the liberty of such foreigners and ensure that their liberty is not deprived except in accordance with the procedure established by law. 

Rajubala Das v. Union of India Case (2020):

  • The Rajubala Das v. Union of India case challenged the legality of indefinite detention of non-citizens in India.
  • The SC ruled that prolonged and indefinite detention, in the absence of any real possibility of deportation, amounted to a gross violation of his fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. 

Also Read: Foreigners Tribunals: Detaining Non-Citizens and Rule of Law 

Trending now

State of India’s Environment 2026: Rising Climate Risks and the Need for Resilience
Karnataka Announces Ban on Social Media for Children Under-16
India–France “Special Global Strategic Partnership”: A New Indo-Pacific Anchor
Front-of-Package Labelling: A Preventive Strategy to Address India’s Rising Lifestyle Diseases