Fundamental Rights & Rights Issues

Right to Life and Personal Liberty: Evolution and Challenges

Context: As we mark 75 years of the Constitution of India, we need to look at the right to personal liberty, which is a core constituent of an idea of justice.

Relevance of the Topic: Mains: Right to personal liberty: Evolution and emerging threats to personal liberty.

Right to Personal Liberty

Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty, except according to procedure established by law.

Evolution of Personal Liberty under Article 21 over the past 75 years

Initial Interpretation: In 1950, Article 21 was interpreted narrowly, emphasis was laid primarily on the physical aspect of personal liberty.
A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras (1950): The landmark case established that personal liberty was limited to the physical body, without wider rights such as freedom of movement.
Maneka Gandhi Case (1978): It expanded the scope of Article 21, the right to life includes the right to live with dignity and lead a meaningful life. The Supreme Court held that personal liberty encompasses various rights, including the right to travel abroad and right to livelihood.
Olga Tellis Case (1985): Right to livelihood as an integral part of the right to life. The court ruled that deprivation of livelihood without due process violates Article 21.

Expansion of Rights

Over the period, Article 21 has been interpreted to include wider rights such as privacy, health, clean environment etc., which reflects a more inclusive understanding of personal liberty. The Supreme Court has emphasised that these rights are essential for ensuring individual dignity and a meaningful existence.

Right against Illegal Detention: In the case of D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court laid down the guidelines to be followed by the Central and the State investigating authorities in all cases of arrest and detention.
Right to Speedy Trial: Indian Judiciary in the case of Hussianara Khatoon vs. the State of Bihar, has made it settled decision that the right to speedy trial is an inalienable right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Right to Privacy: In the recent and the most debated case of Justice K.S. Puttuswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India and Other, the Supreme Court’s 9 judges constitutional bench held privacy to be a fundamental right under the Constitution of India. The Privacy Bench unanimously held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right protected under the Constitution.
Right over one's Intimate Relations: In the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), SC said that the Right to dignity means the right to "full personhood", and "includes the right to carry such functions and activities as would constitute the meaningful expression of the human self." In this case, a very important aspect of human dignity was talked about - the control over one's own intimate relations.

Role of Judiciary in Upholding Constitutional Justice and Personal Liberties

The judiciary has been instrumental in advancing constitutional justice and safeguarding personal liberties. Landmark rulings such as the Puttaswamy case affirmed privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, setting a significant precedent for individual rights.
Recently, in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2024), the Supreme Court struck down the 2018 Electoral Bond Scheme, declaring it unconstitutional for infringing on voters’ right to information under Article 19(1)(a).

Emerging Threats to Personal Liberty

Despite judicial interventions, threats to personal liberty persist, which is exacerbated by legislative and executive actions in the form of:

Preventive Detention Laws: Authorities frequently misuse preventive detention laws to hold individuals without trial on vague pretexts.
Arbitrary Arrests: Laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) are often invoked without substantial evidence, leading to prolonged detentions and undermining the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”
Curtailment of Free Speech: Increased governmental censorship restricts dissenting voices, with websites, social media accounts, and media outlets often blocked or sanctioned for dissent. This stifles public discourse and compromises the right to information under Article 19. (Recent case of Wikipedia)
Crackdown on Activists and NGOs: Civil society organizations and human rights activists face growing challenges such as raids, asset freezes, and cancellation of licenses under stringent foreign funding laws.
Internet Shutdowns: Despite Anuradha Bhasin verdict, India continues to lead globally in the frequency of internet shutdowns, which disproportionately affects marginalized communities by denying access to education, healthcare, and essential services.
Data Privacy: The increasing use of surveillance technologies raises concerns about data privacy and state overreach. Without robust safeguards, individuals risk unlawful intrusion into their personal lives. (Pegasus issue)
Judicial Delays: Delayed hearings in sensitive cases, including habeas corpus and bail applications (Bhima Koregaon), weaken the judiciary’s ability to act as a timely protector of rights.

Steps to Address these Issues

Reforming Preventive Detention Laws: Tighten legal frameworks to limit the use of detention without trial, ensuring strict judicial oversight and accountability.
Ensuring accountability in Arrests: Courts must rigorously evaluate the grounds of arrests under stringent laws like PMLA and UAPA to prevent misuse and uphold due process.
Safeguarding Free Speech: Enact legislative protections against arbitrary censorship and ensure that media and digital platforms can operate independently.
Empowering Civil Society: Create a supportive regulatory environment that enables NGOs and activists to operate without fear of reprisal, fostering transparency and accountability.
Ending unjustified Internet Shutdowns: Introduce clear, enforceable guidelines to prevent arbitrary shutdowns, ensuring continuous access to digital infrastructure for all.
Strengthening Privacy Protections: Comprehensive data protection legislation to regulate surveillance practices and safeguard personal data from misuse.
Improving Judicial Efficiency: Improve judiciary’s capacity by appointing more judges, modernizing court infrastructure, and leveraging technology to expedite case resolutions.
Enhancing access to Legal Aid: Increase funding and support for legal aid programs to ensure that marginalised communities can effectively defend their rights.

Sedition law: Section 152 of BNS

Context: The Rajasthan High Court, in Tejender Pal Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2024) has raised caution about the misuse of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) to stifle legitimate dissent.

Relevance of the Topic: Mains: Challenges posed by Section 152 of BNS to citizens rights and freedom.

Background:

Section 152 of BNS:
- Section 152 of BNS criminalises acts related to secession, rebellion, and activities endangering national integrity.
- Whoever, purposely or knowingly, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or by electronic communication or by use of financial mean, or otherwise:
  - excites or attempts to excite, secession or armed rebellion or subversive activities
  - encourages feelings of separatist activities or endangers sovereignty or unity and integrity of India indulges in or commits any such act.
- shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 152 of BNS has its genesis in Section 124 A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
Despite the Supreme Court’s suspension of sedition trials under Section 124A of the IPC in 2022 and verbal assurances from the government regarding the repeal of sedition, Section 152 of BNS has retained elements that can serve as a proxy for sedition.

Problems with Section 152 of BNS

Vagueness and expansive interpretation:
- Section 152 criminalises ‘acts endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India’ without clearly defining what constitutes such endangerment.
- This vagueness creates scope for expansive and subjective interpretations by law enforcement. E.g., A speech criticising a political figure or sympathising with a controversial ideology could be construed as endangering unity, leading to legal action.
Lower threshold for offence – Use of ‘Knowingly’:
- The inclusion of the term ‘knowingly’ in Section 152 lowers the threshold for prosecution.
- Even if a person does not intend to incite secession or rebellion, merely sharing a post on social media with the knowledge that it might provoke such feelings can result in arrest.
Chilling effect on freedom of expression:
- Since Section 152 is a cognisable and non-bailable offence, individuals can be arrested without sufficient prima facie evidence, leading to harassment, prolonged detentions, and a chilling effect on free speech.
Scope of Misuse:
- According to NCRB data, between 2015 and 2020, out of 548 persons arrested under Section 124A IPC, only 12 people were convicted. The broader scope of Section 152 suggests the potential for even higher misuse.
Absence of Safeguards Against Misuse:
- Unlike Section 124A, which had judicial interpretations limiting its misuse, Section 152 lacks clear statutory safeguards as of now.

Argument of Government for Section 152 of BNS:

The government has argued that there is a notable distinction between IPC Section 124A and BNS Section 152.
- While IPC Section 124A deals with acts against the Government.
- BNS Section 152 shifts the focus to actions endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.
Colonial interests have been replaced by needs of the democratic interests in Independent India.
Criticism of the Government policies and actions are not punished under the new law. The requirement of ‘intent’ in law further raises the threshold for applicability of the provision.

Judicial approach and precedents in case of Section 124A of IPC:

Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962): The Supreme Court upheld the validity of sedition law but restricted its application to cases where speech incites violence or public disorder by differentiating between ‘disloyalty to the government’ and ‘strong criticism of government policies’.
Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995): The Court acquitted individuals for shouting slogans like “Khalistan Zindabad”, as it found no direct link between the slogans and any actual threat to national integrity.
Javed Ahmad Hazam v. State of Maharashtra (2024): The Court ruled that the impact of words must be judged from the perspective of reasonable and courageous individuals, not overly sensitive or weak-minded persons.
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997): The Supreme Court laid down guidelines for arrest and detention, ensuring personal liberty is not infringed arbitrarily.

Way Forward

Judicial guidelines for Section 152: The Supreme Court should frame specific guidelines for the enforcement of Section 152, ensuring clear demarcation of what constitutes an offence.
- Similar to D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, guidelines should focus on protecting personal liberty and preventing arbitrary arrests.
Statutory safeguards: Parliament should consider incorporating statutory safeguards in the BNS to prevent abuse regarding:
- Mandatory judicial oversight before initiating arrests.
- Requirement for prima facie evidence of incitement or public disorder.
Promoting a marketplace of ideas: Drawing on Justice Holmes’ concept of the ‘marketplace of ideas’ (Abrams v. United States), liberal spaces for thoughts, beliefs, and dissent must be preserved. In a democracy, the best way to test the validity of ideas is through free and open discussion.
- In the age of social media, it is critical to protect speech while maintaining a balance with national security.

While national security is paramount, laws like Section 152 of BNS must not be allowed to become instruments for curtailing free speech. Ensuring checks against misuse and protecting personal liberty are essential in safeguarding democratic values. The judiciary, through its careful interpretation and well-defined guidelines, can play a pivotal role in striking this balance.

Background of Section 124A of IPC:

Section 124A: Sedition: Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.

Judicial Pronouncements to restrict the application of Section 124A of IPC:

Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962): The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 124A but limited its application.
- Criticism of the government, unless it incites violence or public disorder, cannot be considered sedition.
Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995): Merely shouting slogans (e.g., "Khalistan Zindabad") without incitement to violence does not constitute sedition.

Criticism of Sedition Law:

Restricts Freedom of expression: The law infringes upon Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression.
- E.g.: Cartoonist Aseem Trivedi (2012) was charged for depicting political corruption in his cartoons.
Vagueness: Phrases like "disaffection" and "visible representation" are vague, leading to subjective interpretation and potential misuse.
- E.g.: Disha Ravi (2021), a climate activist, was arrested for allegedly sharing a toolkit related to the farmers' protests.
Misuse to curb political dissent: Often used as a tool to suppress dissent and target critics of the government.
- Vinod Dua (2021), a journalist, was charged with sedition for criticizing the handling of the COVID-19 crisis. The Supreme Court later quashed the FIR.
Overzealous application of this law to please political masters (important particularly considering the lack of police reforms)

Subsequently, Section 124A of IPC has largely been retained in the form of Section 152 in the new Bhartiya Nyaya Samhita.

Draft Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025

Context: The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has published the Draft Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 on January 3, 2025 for public consultation. The Draft Rules have evoked a mixed response, with criticism that the rules might go against the concept of privacy.

Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: Right to Privacy; Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023; Draft Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025.

Right to Privacy in India

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India Case, 2017: In the landmark case, the Supreme Court held that Right to Privacy is a distinct and independent Fundamental Right under Article 21 of Indian Constitution.
Privacy is essential to the dignity and autonomy of individuals, the Right ensures protection from state overreach.
The SC held that the Right to Privacy was not absolute in nature. It may be restricted, but such restrictions must meet the three-fold requirement, to ensure that the restrictions are not arbitrary or excessive.
- Legality (Restrictions on privacy must be backed by an existing law. A mere Executive order or arbitrary action is insufficient).
- Need (Restrictions must serve a legitimate purpose of the state).
- Proportionality (Restrictions must not be excessive or disproportionate to the objective sought)

Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act received Presidential assent in August 2023.
Need: Digitisation using the personal data of individuals has transformed the delivery of services enhancing ease of living, but it is also increasingly at risk of misuse. Therefore, it is imperative that digitised personal data be protected.
The DPDP Act 2023, obligates data fiduciaries to protect personal data and makes them accountable.
- Digital platforms can collect only those data that are required for their functioning and providing services which users have opted for.
- E.g., Users will not have to give a microphone or contact access to use a torch app on their mobile phone.
The Act 2023 has provisions to impose penalties of up to ₹250 crore on data fiduciaries. The Act provides for graded financial penalties in case of violation of the Act and the rules.

Key Terms:

Data Principal: Individual to whom the personal data belongs to.
Data Fiduciary: Entities such as social media platforms, e-commerce companies and online gaming platforms, etc. that collect and process an individual's personal data. They can use such data only after the individual's consent for specified purposes.
Significant data fiduciaries: Digital platforms with a large number of users such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Amazon, Flipkart, Netflix, etc.

Draft Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025:

Aim: To operationalise the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and ensure robust protection and privacy of personal data in the digital realm.

Notable provisions of the Draft Rules are mentioned below

1. Notice for Consent:

To obtain informed consent from a Data Principal, a Data Fiduciary must provide the Data Principal with a clear and standalone notice outlining- what data is to be collected, the purpose for the processing, and how consent can be withdrawn.

2. Consent Managers and Rights of Data Principals:

Defined under the DPDP Act, a Consent Manager is registered with the Data Protection Board and serves as a single point of contact for Data Principals to give, manage, review, and withdraw consent through a transparent and secure platform.
Data Fiduciaries and Consent Managers must clearly publish on their website or app the process for Data Principals to exercise their rights under the Act, including the right to request access to or deletion of their personal data.

3. Security Safeguards:

Data Fiduciaries must implement adequate security measures to protect personal data, such as encryption, access control, monitoring for unauthorised access, and data backups.
Contracts between Data Fiduciaries and Data Processors must also ensure that security measures are in place to prevent data breaches.

4. Data Breach Notification:

In the event of a breach, Data Fiduciaries must promptly notify affected Data Principals, with explanation of the nature, extent, and timing of the breach.
Within 72 hours, Data Fiduciaries must additionally notify the Data Protection Board of the breach.

5. Data Retention:

Certain e-commerce entities, online gaming intermediaries, and social media platforms with a significant number of registered users in India must delete personal data within a specified period of time, unless the user actively maintains their account.
Generally, these entities may only retain personal data for up to three years from the date of a user’s last interaction.

6. Processing Personal Data Of Children:

A Data Fiduciary is required to adopt technical and organisational measures to ensure verifiable consent of parents is obtained for processing the personal data of a child.
Certain Data Fiduciaries, such as healthcare providers or educational institutions, may be exempt from specific obligations, under defined conditions.

7. Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs):

If the Central Government identifies an entity as a Significant Data Fiduciary based on certain enumerated factors (including volume, sensitivity of data) that entity must conduct annual DPIAs to assess risks associated with their data processing activities.

8. Cross-Border Data Transfers:

The rules provide for the transfer of personal data outside India, but only of certain as approved by the government from time to time.
The draft rules envisage a committee that may recommend restrictions on such transfer by a significant data fiduciary with respect to specified personal data.

9. Penalty provisions:

The draft rules do not elaborate on the penalty but spell out a mechanism to set up a Data Protection Board that will levy penalties based on the nature of the breach as listed in the DPDP Act 2023.

Unlawful Activities Prevention Act

Context: On January 7, Delhi Police opposed the bail pleas of activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and others, who are accused in the 2020 north-east Delhi riots case. These activists have been jailed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967.

Relevance of the topic:

Prelims: Key facts about Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.

Mains: Significance of UAPA. Challenges Posed by the UAPA Act, 2019.

Background:

UAPA was first introduced, during the British era, in the form of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908, aimed at curbing dissent against the Crown.
Post-independence, it remained in place, and in 1967, after wars with Pakistan and China, it was expanded to grant extensive powers for identifying unlawful associations and penalizing those involved in activities supporting India’s secession.
Amendments in 2004 introduced a chapter on ‘terrorist activities,’ while post the 2008 Bombay attacks, further amendments allowed for prolonged detention based on personal information, restricted anticipatory bail, and permitted the categorization of individuals as ‘terrorists’ in the 2019 amendment.
Over the years, UAPA which was originally designed to combat terrorism with a focus on national security, has evolved over the years into a tool criticized for suppressing dissent. It faces criticism for its vague definitions and the extensive discretionary powers it grants to the government in designating individuals as terrorists.

About The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967:

Act defines “Unlawful activity” as “any action taken by individual or association that leads to cession of a part of the territory of India, questions the sovereignty of India or disrupt the integrity of India etc.
Terrorist act: Section 15 of UAPA defines terrorist act as any act with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, economic security, or sovereignty of India or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country.
Powers with the government: Under the Act, Central government can declare a person or an organization as a terrorist/ terrorist organisation, if it/ he:
- commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes terrorism, or is otherwise involved in terrorism.
- Government can impose all-India bans on associations which are declared ‘unlawful’ under the Act.
- Both Indian nationals and foreign nationals can be charged under the Act.
- Act holds offenders accountable in the same manner if crime is committed on foreign land outside India.
- It provides for the death penalty and life imprisonment as the highest punishments for terrorist acts.
- It allows for the detention of suspects without charge or trial for up to 180 days, and for the denial of bail to the accused unless the court is satisfied that they are not guilty.

Investigating powers: Cases can be investigated by both State police and National Investigation Agency (NIA).
Appeal mechanism: It provides for tribunal to review or to hear an appeal against the ban.

Significance of UAPA in present time for India:

Uproot terrorism from India: Terrorists and insurgents continue to receive material support and funds, UAPA provides law enforcement agencies with enhanced powers to prevent and investigate terrorist activities. It allows for the designation of individuals and organizations as terrorist entities, enabling authorities to take proactive measures to disrupt their operations and networks.
Focus on individuals: Not designating individuals as terrorists, would give them an opportunity to circumvent the law and they would simply gather under a different name and keep up their terror activities.
- This is also important in the context of lone wolf attacks, which do not belong to any organisation.
Quickens process of justice delivery by empowering officers in the rank of Inspector to investigate cases and investigation has to be completed within 90 days.
Reduces delay in attaching proceeds: Act allows seizure of property connected with terrorism without taking approval of Director General of Police in case investigation is conducted by an officer of National Investigation Agency (NIA).
Preventing Radicalization: Act includes provisions for preventing radicalization and promoting deradicalization initiatives by targeting individuals and organizations involved in promoting extremist ideologies.

Challenges Posed by the UAPA Act, 2019:

Erosion of Fundamental Rights, including Article 14, 19(1)(a), 21: The Act denies individuals labeled as terrorists the opportunity to present their case before arrest, allowing detention for up to 180 days without a formal charge sheet, thus significantly infringing upon their fundamental rights.
UAPA being used against journalists: In recent times, there is a trend of UAPA being slapped against journalist which is contrary to the fundamental rights enjoyed by press in India (NewsClick case)
Contrary to the Principle of ‘Innocent Until Proven Guilty’: The Act contradicts universally recognized principles by not upholding the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty, which is a fundamental tenet of justice.
Excessive Discretionary Authority: There is a lack of objective criteria for classifying individuals as terrorists grants the government almost unchecked authority to designate anyone as a terrorist, posing a significant risk of misuse of power.
Ambiguous and Unclear Definitions: Vagueness in definitions of terms like “terrorism” and its broad definition of ‘unlawful activity’ create confusion and leave room for differing interpretations, impacting the Act’s effectiveness and fairness.
Concerns in the Appeals Process: While the Act provides for appeals, the establishment of a government-appointed three-member review committee, including serving bureaucrats, raises concerns about the independence and fairness of the appeals process.
Rise in number of cases: There has been a drastic rise in UAPA cases in recent years. As per a report of the National Crime Bureau Records, 814 UAPA cases were filed in 2021, while 1,005 cases under the UAPA were filed in 2022.
Low Conviction Rates: Less than 3% of cases registered under the UAPA Act between 2016 and 2020 (PUCL report) resulted in convictions underscores significant challenges in effectively prosecuting cases under the Act, although this is less immediate but still a notable issue.
Criticism of government being considered as terrorist act: Over the period, the critics of government and its policies are also being prosecuted under UAPA. (Peerzada Shah Fahad v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Anr. (2023))

Recent cases and opinion of judiciary on UAPA:

Arup Bhuyan vs State of Assam (2011): Supreme Court held that mere membership of a banned organisation will not incriminate a person. It can be done if a person resorts to violence or incites people to violence or does an act intended to create disorder.
K.A. Najeeb v. Union of India (2021): The Supreme Court concluded in Union of India v. K A Najeeb (2021) that, despite the UAPA’s restrictions on bail, constitutional courts can nevertheless grant bail if the accused’s fundamental rights have been violated.
Asif Iqbal Tanha v. Union of India: The Delhi High Court carried this logic a step further in Asif Iqbal Tanha v. State of NCT (2021), saying that courts should not wait until the accused’s right to a speedy trial has been completely revoked before releasing them.

Conclusion:

Terrorism is an important security issue in contemporary times, but laws need to be balanced with the fundamental rights and spirit of the constitution. There should be checks and balances in the system and UAPA should not be used in haste against mere criticism of government and issues arising out of socio-economic unrest in the country.

Right to Property is a Human Right: SC

Context: Noting that Right to Property is a Human Right, the Supreme Court directed compensation to people who lost their land for the over 20,000-acre Bengaluru-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor (BMIC) project, two decades ago. The compensation must be paid according to the market value prevailing in April 2019.

Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: Developments regarding ‘Right to Property’.

Historical Context

Government of India Act, 1935: It secured the right to property and contained safeguards against expropriation without compensation and against acquisition for a non-public purpose.
Inception of Constitution of India: At the inception of the Constitution, the right to property was a fundamental right. Two Articles Art. 31 and Art. 19(1)(f) ensured that any person's right against his property is protected.
Land reforms: The prevailing socio-economic condition necessitated land reforms.
- Objective of land reforms: Government needed land to carry out land/ agrarian reforms and construction of public welfare assets, for this, following changes were introduced:
  - (1) Intermediaries were abolished.
  - (2) Ceiling was fixed on land holdings.
  - (3) The cultivating tenant within the ceiling secured permanent rights.
  - (4) In some states, the share of the landlord was regulated by the law.
  - (5) In some states, the tiller of the soil secured cultivating rights against the absentee landlord, and in some states, the rural economy was re-adjusted in such a way that the scattered bits of land of each tenant were consolidated in one place by a process of statutory exchange.
First Amendment Act, 1951: It introduced Article 31 A and 31 B.
- Article 31A defined estate to encompass effectively the entire agricultural land, as per the amendment: no law providing for acquisition by the state of an estate could be questioned on the ground that it was inconsistent with or took away or abridged any of the rights conferred by Articles 14, 19 or 31.
- Article 31-B declared that none of the acts or regulations specified in the Ninth Schedule nor any of the provisions thereof shall be deemed to be void on the ground that they are inconsistent with Part III.
Twenty Fifth Constitutional Amendment Act 1971:
- Curtailed the fundamental right to property.
- Permitted the acquisition of private property by the government for public use, on the payment of compensation which would be determined by Parliament.
- Provided that any law made to give effect to the Directive Principles contained in Article 39 (b) or (c) cannot be challenged on the ground of violation of the rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 19 and 31.
GolakNath case: The Supreme Court held that the Parliament has no power to amend the Constitution so as to take away or abridge the fundamental rights of the people.
Kesavananda Bharti case: Upheld the validity of Article 31 C but made it subject to judicial review. Justice H R Khanna held that Right to Property Under Article 19(1)(f) did not pertain to the basic structure of the Constitution.
Minerva Mills case: Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution was limited, and it could not be used to remove limitations and grant itself “unlimited” and “absolute” powers of amendment. It further said that the Constitution exists on a harmonious balance between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs.
The 44th Amendment Act of 1978:
- It abolished the right to property as a Fundamental Right by repealing Article 19(1)(1) and Article 31 from Part III.
- Instead, the Act inserted a new Article 300A in Part XII under the heading 'Right to Property'.
- Thus, the right to property remains a legal right or a constitutional right, though no longer a fundamental right.
- It is not a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Present legal status of Right to Property

Constitution, 44^th Amendment Act: By 44th Amendment Act 1978 of the Constitution of India, a new article namely 300A was inserted and titled as Right to Property. It read as:
- No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. This article provides restrictions on the State that it cannot take anybody's property without the force of law also interpreted can be deprived of the force of law.
- The word 'law' here means a validly enacted law which is just, fair, and reasonable. Thus, making the right to property as a legal and constitutional right, but not a fundamental right.
The right to property as a legal right (as distinct from the Fundamental Rights) has the following implications:
- It can be regulated i.e., curtailed, abridged, or modified without constitutional amendment by an ordinary law of the Parliament.
- It protects private property against executive action but not against legislative action.
- In case of violation, the aggrieved person cannot directly move the Supreme Court under Article 32 (right to constitutional remedies including writs) for its enforcement. He can move the High Court under Article 226.

Recent cases in this Context

Vidya Devi v. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others (2020):
- The Supreme Court ruled that the state cannot take over citizens' property without following due process. The state cannot use the doctrine of adverse possession to claim land without acquisition proceedings.
Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd. v. Mast Ram (2024):
- The Supreme Court ruled that the right to property is a human right, not just a constitutional or statutory right. The court also ruled that the state must pay compensation in a timely manner.
Property Owners Association & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2024):
- The Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot take over private properties and call them "community resources". The court further ruled that not all private properties are automatically considered "material resources of the community".
BMIC land acquisition case (2025):
- Right to property is a human right in the welfare state and constitutional right under Article 300-A Article 300-A provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.
  - The state cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law.
  - The compensation for acquisition must be paid according to the prevailing market value of the acquired land and not as per the value of the property at the time of the acquisition.

What is a Safe Harbour?

Context: The legal action initiated by the French authorities against Pavel Durov impinges on the protection that is accorded to social media platforms across jurisdictions under a provision known as “safe harbour”.

What are ‘Safe Harbour’ Rules?

Since social media platforms are generally understood to be crucial tools of free speech, safe harbour is viewed as a basic tenet of enabling freedom of expression on these platforms.
The basic premise of safe harbour protection is: since social media platforms cannot control at the first instance what users post, they should not be held legally liable for any objectionable content that they host, provided they are willing to take down such content when flagged by the government or courts.

Legal Protection in India

Section 79 of Information Technology Act, 2000 it classifies social media platforms as intermediaries and broadly shields them from legal action over the content that users post.
However, this protection extends to companies operating in India with some caveats.
- Under The Information Technology Rules, 2021, social media companies with more than 5 million Indian users have to appoint a chief compliance officer who can be held criminally liable if the platform does not adhere to a takedown request, or violates other norms.
Hence, certain officials from the social media company in question can be legally prosecuted if the platform violates laid-down rules.

Reasonable limit to free speech

Context: The concept of free speech is under discussion after the arrest of Telegram Founder Pavel Durov. In this context let us understand the concept of Free Speech and Article 19 of Indian Constitution.

Article 19 of Indian Constitution guarantees to all citizens the six rights, these are:

Right to freedom of speech and expression.
Right to assemble peaceably and without arms.
Right to form associations or unions or co-operative societies.
Right to move freely throughout the territory of India.
Right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India.
Right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

Originally, Article 19 contained seven rights. But the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property was deleted by the 44th Amendment Act of 1978.

These six rights are protected against only state action and not private individuals. Moreover, these rights are available only to the citizens and to shareholders of a company but not to foreigners or legal persons like companies or corporations, etc.

The State can impose 'reasonable' restrictions on the enjoyment of these six rights only on the grounds mentioned in the Article 19 itself and not on any other grounds. The six rights contained in Article 19 and the grounds of imposing reasonable restrictions on them are mentioned below:

Sl. No.	Rights	Grounds of Restrictions
1	Right to freedom of speech and expression - Article 19(1)(a)	Under Article 19(2): (i) Sovereignty and integrity of India (added by the 16th Amendment Act, 1963) (ii) Security of the State (iii) Friendly relations with foreign states (added by the 1st Amendment Act, 1951) (iv) Public order (added by the 1st Amendment Act, 1951) (v) Decency or morality (vi) Contempt of court (vii) Defamation (viii) Incitement to an offence (added by the 1st Amendment Act, 1951)
2	Right to assemble peaceably and without arms - Article 19(1)(b)	Under Article 19(3): (i) Sovereignty and integrity of India (added by the 16th Amendment Act, 1963) (ii) Public order
3	Right to form associations or unions or co-operative societies - Article 19(1)(c)	Under Article 19(4): (i) Sovereignty and integrity of India (added by the 16th Amendment Act, 1963) (ii) Public order (iii) Morality
4	Right to move freely throughout the territory of India - Article 19(1)(d)	Under Article 19(5): (i) In the interests of the general public (ii) Protection of the interests of any scheduled tribe
5	Right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India - Article 19(1)(e)	Under Article 19(5): (i) In the interests of the general public (ii) Protection of the interests of any scheduled tribe
6	Right to acquire, hold and dispose of property - Article 19(1)(f) (Omitted by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978)	No longer applicable
7	Right to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business - Article 19(1)(g)	Under Article 19(6): (i) In the interests of the general public (ii) Requirement of necessary professional or technical qualification (iii) Any trade, business, industry or service carried on by the State to the exclusion of citizens (added by the 1st Amendment Act, 1951)

Right against climate change is a fundamental right

Context: The Supreme Court in MK Ranjitsinh And Ors. v. Union of India has ruled that people have a “right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change”, which should be recognized by the combined reading of Article 14 and Article 21.

The court further said that the environment-related aspects of the Directive Principles of State Policy, the court said that these must be read together with the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.

Brief overview of the case:

Habitat and Species Status: Desert National Park in Rajasthan shelters the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard and Lesser Florican.
Threats to Species: Overhead cables, particularly in solar parks, pose a significant threat to the survival of these birds.
Mortality Statistics: The Power Line Mitigation, 2018 report highlighted that around 1 lakh birds die annually due to collisions with power lines, necessitating urgent action to prevent the extinction of the Great Indian Bustard.
Ministry of Power's Statement: The Ministry of Power acknowledged the vulnerability of Great Indian Bustards to power lines due to their lack of frontal vision, emphasizing the risk of collision and electrocution.
Case filed: A writ petition filed in 2019 (MK Ranjitsinh And Ors. v. Union of India) sought conservation directives amid the declining population of Great Indian Bustards.
Court Orders: In April 2021, the Supreme Court ordered all power lines be buried in Bustard habitat.
However, the court later agreed to review its order due to practical challenges highlighted by the centre and considering the importance of renewable energy and climate commitments.
Recent Developments
- Revision by Supreme Court: In 2024, while the Supreme Court underscored the importance of protection of Bustard, it modified its order with respect to conversion of overhead transmission line to underground transmission lines. Court has further said that other factors such as low fecundity, fragmentation, habitat loss, predators, and loss of prey must be addressed.

Article 14 and climate change: Supreme Court held that climate change affects the right to equality, the Court reasoned that “If climate change and environmental degradation lead to acute food and water shortages in a particular area, poorer communities will suffer more than richer ones. The right to equality would be impacted in each of these instances”.

Article 21 and right to clean environment: Article 21 of the constitution states that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. Article 21 has received liberal interpretation from time to time after the decision of the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, Article 21 guarantees fundamental right to life. Right to an environment, free of danger of disease and infection is inherent in it.

Environmental jurisprudence in India

In the 1980s, the SC read the right to a clean environment as part of Article 21. A bundle of rights, including the right to education, the right to shelter (in the context of slum dwellers), the right to clean air, the right to livelihood (in the context of hawkers), and the right to medical care have all been subsequently included under the umbrella of Article 21.
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State: Right to a healthy environment is an important attribute of the right to live with human dignity. The right to live in a healthy environment as part of Article 21 of the Constitution was first recognized in the case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State. It is the first case of this kind in India, involving issues relating to environment and ecological balance in which the Supreme Court directed to stop the illegal mining under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
In M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India: Supreme Court treated the right to live in a pollution free environment as a part of fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991): the Supreme Court held that the right to life includes the right to a healthy environment, and it is the duty of the government to protect and improve the environment. The court observed that the right to life and personal liberty cannot be enjoyed in the absence of a clean environment.
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union of India: The Supreme Court held that though industries are vital for the country’s development, having regards to the pollution caused by them, the principle of ‘sustainable development’ has to be adopted as the balancing concept.
M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1996) and Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana: Recognized the right to a clean environment as a part of Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the Court underlined that “it is yet to be articulated that the people have a right against the adverse effects of climate change.” Observing how climate change is increasing year by year, the Court underscored the need to recognize this right as a distinct one.
Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India (1995): The right to health has also been recognized as a part of the right to life under Article 21. In Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India (1995), the Supreme Court held that the right to health is a fundamental right under Article 21, and the government has a duty to provide adequate medical facilities to its citizens.
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board vs C Kenchappa, 2006: Supreme Court took note of the adverse effects of rising sea levels and rising global temperatures.
Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Bombay Environmental Action Group, 2006: Supreme Court recognized that climate change posed a “major threat” to the environment.

Outcomes of the judgment:

Impact of climate change on health: The right to health (which is a part of the right to life under Article 21) is impacted due to factors such as air pollution, shifts in vector-borne diseases, rising temperatures, droughts, shortages in food supplies due to crop failure, storms, and flooding. The inability of underserved communities to adapt to climate change or cope with its effects violates the right to life as well as the right to equality.
The judgment acknowledged the right to a healthy environment, safe from the ill-effects of climate change, was a “fundamental human right”.
Expanded scope of Article 14: Judgment has expanded the purview of Article 14. It was observed that if climate change and environmental degradation lead to acute food and water shortages in a particular area, poorer communities will suffer more than richer ones.
Important legal precedent: This judgment will set an important legal precedent and will influence the broader public discourse on environmental matters and has the potential to shape future government policies.
Importance of solar power: Judgment also highlighted the importance of solar power for arresting ills of climate change.
- Increased energy demand: 25%of global energy demand is likely to be from India in the next two decades.
- Enhanced energy security: Renewable energy provides enhanced energy security by reducing reliance on fossil fuels.
- Improved public health: adoption of renewable energy technologies helps in curbing air pollution, thereby improving public health and reducing healthcare costs.

Cannot legalise same-sex marriage: SC

Context: A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) refused to grant legal status to same-sex marriages.

Four key issues:

The judgement revolved around the four key questions:

Whether there is a fundamental right to marriage in India?
Whether the words in the Special Marriage Act 1954 could be given a gender-neutral meaning?
The question over queer couples’ right to adopt a child.
Whether a civil union be realised under Indian law?

Evolution of Rights for Homo-sexuals:

Some key milestones:

2014: National Legal Services Authority vs. Union of India: A significant development occurred with the Supreme Court of India recognizing transgender people as a third gender. This landmark judgment acknowledged their rights and provided legal recognition and protection to the transgender community.
2017: Justice K. S. Puttaswamy vs. Union Of India: Another important step was taken in 2017 when the Supreme Court of India ruled that privacy is a fundamental right. This decision had far-reaching implications for the LGBTQ+ community as it paved the way for greater recognition and protection of their rights to privacy and personal autonomy.
2018: Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India: In a historic verdict, the Supreme Court of India struck down the colonial-era law known as Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. This law criminalized consensual same-sex relationships, and its decriminalization was a crucial step towards ensuring equality and dignity for homosexual individuals. The judgment emphasized that sexual orientation is an inherent aspect of an individual's identity and discrimination based on it is a violation of fundamental rights.
2022: Supreme Court noted that all types of atypical family units (single parents, transgenders, same-sex couples) are also entitled to legal recognition and protection under various social welfare legislation like typical heterosexual family units.

Key issues

1. Right to Marry:

Petition: The petitioners had argued that there exists a fundamental right to marry a person of one’s own choice under the Constitution and that the court must address the denial of that right. If the court recognised this as a fundamental right (like it did in the case of privacy in the 2017 Aadhaar ruling), then it would cast an obligation on the state to protect this right.
The majority view upheld that the right to marriage is not a fundamental right. SC has underlined that the issue of same-sex marriage can only be resolved through the legislative route. However, the right to enter into a union/relationship is unrelated to sexual orientation and is a feature of fundamental rights in Articles 19 and 21.
- Present status: Govt. has already acknowledged the right to love, the right to cohabit, the right to choose one’s partner, right to one’s sexual orientation as fundamental rights under Artice 21.

2. Interpretation of Special Marriage Act 1954:

Petition: The SMA was enacted in 1954 to enable marriage between inter-faith or inter-caste couples without them giving up their religious identity or resorting to conversion. The petitioners had asked the SC to recognise same-sex marriage by allowing a gender-neutral interpretation of the legislation that governs a civil marriage, in which the state rather than religion, sanctions the marriage. The petitioners had asked the SC to interpret the word marriage as between “spouses” instead of “man and woman”. Alternatively, the petitioners had asked for striking down provisions of the SMA that are gender-restrictive.
The majority ruling stated that the court could not interpret the SMA to include same-sex couples since the objective of the legislation is not to include same-sex couples within the realm of marriage. The provisions and the objects of the SMA clearly point to the circumstance that Parliament intended only one kind of couples, i.e., heterosexual couples belonging to different faiths, to be given the facility of a civil marriage.

3. Queer couples’ right to adopt a child:

Petition: The petitioners had argued that the guidelines of the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA), which does not allow unmarried couples to jointly adopt children, are discriminatory against queer couples who cannot legally marry.
- The guidelines allow only a couple who have been in at least two years of a stable marital relationship to be eligible to adopt.
- Individually, queer persons can adopt as single people. However, a single male is not eligible to adopt a girl child — even though a single female is eligible to adopt a child of any gender.
The majority view largely agreed with the discriminatory aspects of preventing queer couples from adopting children, and that couples tied together in marriage are not a ‘morally superior choice’, or per se make better parents. But the majority view said that this change cannot be “achieved by the judicial pen”, rather the remedy is to be provided by legislature.
- The fact that Parliament has made the legislative choice of including only ‘married’ couples for joint adoption (i.e., where two parents are legally responsible), arises from the reality of all other laws wherein protections and entitlements flow from the institution of marriage.

4. Civil unions for queer couples:

Petition: Before full marriage rights were recognised for same-sex couples by the US Supreme Court, several states had allowed civil unions. However, the petitioners argued that civil unions are not an equal alternative to the legal and social institution of marriage, and relegating non-heterosexual relationships to civil unions would send the queer community a message that their relationships were inferior to those of heterosexual couples.
The majority view disagreed that the court can prescribe a choice of civil unions to queer people. It is difficult to create the right to civil union through a judicial diktat.

Positives of the judgement:

The Supreme Court of India has issued directives to both the Union government and state governments to prevent discrimination against the queer community based on their sexual orientation. Here are the key directives:

Non-Discrimination: The government must ensure that there is no discrimination against the queer community in terms of access to goods and services.
Public Awareness: Efforts should be made to sensitize the public about the rights of the queer community. (including that it is natural and not a mental disorder)
Helpline for Queer Community: A dedicated helpline should be established to provide support and assistance to the queer community which they can contact when they face harassment and violence in any form.
Safe Houses: Safe houses (Garima grehs) should be created in each district to offer protection/shelter to queer couples who may face threats or harassment.
Forced operations of Inter-Sex Children: Treatments offered by doctors or other persons, which aim to change gender identity or sexual orientation, cease with immediate effect. Inter-sex children are not forced to undergo operations with regard only to their sex, especially at an age at which they are unable to fully comprehend and consent to such operations.
Formation of Committee: The SC recorded the statement of the Solicitor General that the Union government will constitute a committee to decide the rights and entitlements of persons in queer unions. The issues before the committee will be mentioning queer couples as family in ration cards, allowing queer couples to nominate for joint bank account, allowing them all the rights that from from pension, gratuity, etc.

The Supreme Court has also issued specific directions to the police:

No Harassment: Police should not harass queer couples by summoning them to police stations or visiting their residences solely to inquire about their gender identity or sexual orientation.
Freedom of Choice: Queer individuals should not be forced to return to their families if they do not wish to do so.
Protection of Freedom: When queer individuals file complaints alleging that their family is inhibiting their freedom of movement, the police should verify the genuineness of the complaint and ensure their freedom is not curtailed.
Protection against Violence: If a complaint is filed apprehending violence from the family due to the complainant's queer identity or relationship, the police should verify the genuineness of the complaint and provide appropriate protection.
Preliminary Enquiry: Before registering an FIR against a queer couple or an individual in a queer relationship, the police should conduct a preliminary enquiry to determine if the complaint discloses a cognizable offence, following the guidelines set in the Lalita Kumari vs Government of UP case.

India needs a separate anti-discrimination law which inter alia prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. Presently, several laws have an anti-discrimination aspect to them but they are fragmented and may fail to capture the multitudinous forms of discrimination.

SC urges woman to rethink plea to end 26-week pregnancy

Context: Recently, a three-judge bench of Supreme Court has urged a married woman to reconsider her decision to abort her pregnancy which has crossed twenty-six weeks.

Medical termination of pregnancy in India is governed by Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971.
Section 3 of MTP Act deals with the termination clause, the pregnancy can be terminated if:
Length of pregnancy does not exceed twenty weeks (requires opinion of one practitioner) or
Twenty to twenty-four weeks (requires opinion of at least two practitioners) provided that:
- Continuance of pregnancy would involve life risk for the pregnant woman or of grave injury to her physical or mental health.
- Or if the child were born, it would suffer from serious physical or mental abnormalities.
Beyond 24 weeks if the termination is recommended by a Medical Board after diagnosis of substantial fetal abnormalities.

Issues with respect to the time frame

(twenty-six weeks) for termination of pregnancy:

Women’s right to reproductive choices is part of ‘personal liberty’ under Article 21 of Constitution as observed in Suchita Srivastava vs Chandigarh administration case.
Socio-economic and mental health condition: In XYZ v. Maharashtra, a minor was allowed to terminate her pregnancy in 26^th week after considering her socio-economic and mental health condition.
Right to privacy: In KS Puttaswami case, SC held that right to privacy enables individual to retain and exercise autonomy over body and mind.
Laws in over 60 countries allow women to get an abortion on request at any point in the gestation period.
Rights of unborn child: State also has to think about the rights of unborn child, there is an ethical dilemma to strike a balance between the rights of mother and rights of unborn child.

Critical appraisal

Unsafe and illegal abortions: As per a lancet study in 2018, there are around 16 million abortions accessed in India, 73% of which were medicated abortions accessed outside health facilities.
Shortage of doctors: MoH&FW 2019-20 report on Rural Health Statistics indicates that there is a 70% shortage of obstetrician-gynecologists in rural India, pushing women for illegal abortions and high maternal mortality.
Since law does not permit abortion at will, it pushes women towards illicit and unsafe conditions.
Lack of comprehensive sex education: In India, lack of sex education contributes to unplanned pregnancies, and the MTP Act alone is not enough to address this issue.
Sex-selective abortions: There is need to strike a balance between female reproductive rights keeping in mind that the rights do not lead to increased female feticide.

Supreme Court Judgement in X vs Union of India

In this case, a women pleaded the court to abort her fetus after 26-weeks of pregnancy.

CJI has opined that women cannot claim an absolute, overriding right to abort as reports from AIIMS have confirmed that the pregnancy is not a cause of immediate danger to her life or that of fetus.

Reasoning given by S.C.:

S.C. went into Section 5 of MTP Act which provides exception to Section 3 and 4 of the MTP Act.
Section 5 says that Section 3 and 4 shall not apply when termination of such pregnancy is necessary to save the life of pregnant woman.
Court opined that, the term ‘life’ in Section 5 cannot be equated to the broader meaning in which ‘life’ is used in Article 21 of the constitution.
While life in Article 21 deals with right to dignified, meaningful life, Section 5 of MTP act uses ‘life’ in context of life and death situations.
Section 5 allows abortion only if pregnancy poses actual, physical, and immediate risk to woman’s life and health.
Court also raised concerns towards the rights and well-being of unborn child.

Rights of unborn child:

In international law, there is no “right of the fetus” or “right of the unborn child.”
UDHR also explicitly bases human rights on birth.
However, Indian legal scenario is unclear on whether fetus is a living being or not.
Pro-choice discourse is not conducive: Absolute pro-choice discourse is not conducive to the values of Indian society.
The test of “fetal viability” as a limit to allow abortions (developed in Roe v Wade) is gaining grounds in India. (Fetal viability is the time after which a fetus can survive outside the womb.)
In the instant case, court has remarked that there are rights of unborn child too and should be balanced with women’s autonomy.

Way forward

In India, where sex selective abortions are prevalent, the state needs to be watchful of anything that might be adversarial for efforts against female feticide.
There is a need for increasing awareness and information dissemination with respect to responsible sexual conduct and reducing unwanted pregnancies.
State must ensure that all parts of society are able to access contraceptives to avoid unintended pregnancies.
Medical facilities and Registered Medical Practitioners must be present in each district and are affordable to all.
Treatment must not be denied based on one’s caste or other socio-economic factors.

Freedom on the Net 2023: The Repressive Power of Artificial Intelligence

Context: The report, titled “Freedom on the Net 2023: The Repressive Power of Artificial Intelligence”, has raised the issue of increasing use of artificial intelligence by governments for censorship and spread of disinformation.

Freedom on the Net 2023 Report

The report is an annual study of human rights online conducted by Freedom House, a non-profit organisation. It evaluates Internet freedom in 70 countries on a range of 1 to 100, where ‘100’ represents the highest digital freedom.

Evaluation Criterion

The report evaluates countries on five censorship methods:

Internet connectivity restrictions.
Blocks on social media platforms.
Blocks on websites.
Blocks on VPNs.
Forced removal of content.

Freedom House Organisation

Freedom House is a Washington based non-profit organisation. It was founded in 1941 to rally policymakers and a broadly isolationist American public around the fight against Nazi Germany, and to raise awareness of the fascist threat to American security and values. Since then, it has established itself through its advocacy, programs, and research as the leading American organisation devoted to the support and defence of democracy around the world.

Global Finding

India Specific Findings

India's Internet freedom is ranked at 50 on a scale of 1 to 100. In contrast, Iceland has the highest Internet freedom score of 94.
According to a report India is found to engage in all the methods used for censorship except VPN blocking.
The report said that AI-enabled digital repression in India has incorporated censorship, including the use of automated systems, into the country’s legal framework.
For example, The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules require large social media platforms to use AI-based moderation tools for broadly defined types of content.
India also figured among the list of countries that blocked websites hosting political, social, or religious content and conducted technical attacks against human rights organisations.

The Censoring Power of Artificial Intelligence

Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) are amplifying a crisis for human rights online. AI has allowed governments to enhance and refine their online censorship.

AI-based tools that can generate text, audio, and images have quickly grown more sophisticated, accessible, and easy to use, leading to escalation of disinformation tactics.
AI can serve as an amplifier of digital repression, making censorship, surveillance, and the creation and spread of disinformation easier, faster, cheaper, and more effective.
Automated systems have enabled governments to conduct more precise and subtle forms of online censorship.
Suppliers of disinformation are employing AI-generated images, audio, and text, making the truth easier to distort and harder to discern.
Sophisticated surveillance systems using AI rapidly trawl social media for signs of dissent, and massive datasets are paired with facial scans to identify and track pro-democracy protesters.
AIs uptake has increased the scale, speed, and efficiency of digital repression.

Way Forward:

To protect the free and open internet, democratic policymakers working side by side with civil society experts from around the world should establish strong human rights-based standards for both state and nonstate actors that develop or deploy AI tools.
To protect internet freedom, democracy’s supporters must adapt the lessons learned from past internet governance challenges and apply them to AI.
Democratic policymakers should establish a positive regulatory vision for the design and deployment of AI tools that is grounded in human rights standards, transparency, and accountability.
AI carries a significant potential for harm, but it can also be made to play a protective role if the democratic community learns the right lessons from the past decade of internet regulation.

Draft Guidelines on Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns

Context: Central Consumer Protection Authority under the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution has Draft Guidelines on Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns.

Draft Guidelines on Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns

These guidelines have been issued under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the Central Consumer Protection Authority for prevention and regulation of dark patterns.
These guidelines will apply to all platforms offering goods and services in India, advertisers and sellers.
The guidelines bars any person or platform to engage in any dark patterns.
These guidelines have defined Dark Patterns and specified what constitutes dark patterns.

DEFINITION OF DARK PATTERNS

Any practice or deceptive design patterns using UI/UX (user interface/user experience) interactions on any platform which is designed to mislead or trick users to do something they originally did not intend or want to do by subverting or impairing the consumer autonomy, decision making or choice which amounts to misleading advertisement or unfair trade practice or violation of consumer rights.

Specified dark patterns

False Urgency: Falsely stating or implying the sense of urgency or scarcity so as to mislead a user into making an immediate purchase or take an immediate action, which may lead to a purchase.
Basket sneaking: Inclusion of additional items such as products, services, payments to charity/donation at the time of checkout from a platform, without the consent of the user, such as that the total amount payable by the user is more than the amount payable for the product/service chosen by the user.
Confirm shaming: Using a phrase, video, audio or any other means to create a sense of fear or shame or ridicule or guilt in the mind of the user to nudge the user to act in a certain way
Forced action: Forcing a user into taking an action that would require the user to buy any additional good(s) or subscribe or sign up for an unrelated service, to buy or subscribe to the product/service originally intended by the user.
Subscription trap: It is the process of:
- Making cancellation of a paid subscription impossible or a complex and lengthy process.
- Hiding cancellation option for a subscription.
- Forcing a user to provide payment details and/or authorisation for auto debits for availing a free subscription.
- Making instructions related to cancellation of subscription ambiguous, latent, confusing and cumbersome.
Interface interference: A design element that manipulates the user interface in ways that highlights certain specific information, obscures other relevant information relative to information being highlighted to misdirect a user from taking an action desired by her.
Bait and switch: Practice of advertising a particular outcome based on the user's action but deceptively serving an alternative outcome.
Drip pricing: It is a practice whereby:
- Elements of prices are not revealed upfront or are revealed surreptitiously within the user experience.
- Revealing price post-confirmation of purchase i.e., charging an amount higher than the amount disclosed at the time of checkout.
- A product or service is advertised as free without appropriate disclosure of fact that
Disguised advertisement: Practice of posing, masking advertisements as other types of content such as user generated content or new articles or false advertisements.
Nagging: A dark pattern due to which users face an overload of requests, information, options or interruptions which is unrelated to the intended purchase of goods or services, which disrupts the intended transaction.

About Central Consumer Protection Authority

Central Consumer Protection Authority is an authority provided by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which was to be notified by the Central Government.
Main aims of CCPA is to regulate unfair trade practices and false or misleading advertisements which are prejudicial to the interests of public and consumers and to promote, protect and enforce the rights of consumers as a class.
CCPA consists of a Chief Commissioners and Commissioners who are appointed by Central Government.
CCPA has an investigation wing headed by Director General for conducting inquiry or investigation under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
District Collector may, on a complaint or a reference made to him by CCPA or Commissioner of a regional office, inquire into or investigate complaints regarding violation of rights of consumers as a class, violation of consumer rights, unfair trade practices and false or misleading advertisements, within his jurisdiction and submit his report to CCPA or Commissioner of a regional office.

Functions of Central Consumer Protection Authority are:

Protect, promote and enforce rights of consumers as a class and prevent violation of consumer rights under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Prevent unfair trade practices and ensure that no person engages himself in unfair trade practices.
Ensure that no false or misleading advertisement is made of any goods or services which contravenes the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Ensure that no person takes part in publication of any advertisement which is false or misleading.
Inquire or investigate into violations of consumer rights or unfair trade practices, either suo moto or on a complaint or on directions of central government.
File complaints before District Commission, State or National Commission as the case may be under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Intervene in any proceedings before district, State or National Commission in respect of any allegation of violation of consumer rights of unfair trade practice.
Review matters relating to inhibition of enjoyment of consumer rights and recommend remedial measures for their effective implementation.
Recommend adoption of international covenants and best international practices on consumer rights to ensure effective enforcement of consumer rights.
Undertake and promote research in the field of consumer rights.
Spread and promote awareness on consumer rights.
Encourage NGOs and other institutions working in the field of consumer rights to cooperate and work with consumer protection agencies.
Mandate the use of unique and universal goods identifiers in such goods to prevent unfair trade practices and to protect consumers' interest.
Issues safety notices to alert consumers against dangerous or hazardous or unsafe goods or services.
Advise Ministries and Departments of Central and State Governments on consumer welfare measures.
Issue necessary guidelines to prevent unfair trade practices and protect consumers' interest.