Privacy was declared a fundamental right flowing from Article 21 in which case?
- A.Shreya Singhal v Union of India
- B.D.K. Basu v State of West Bengal
- C.K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India
- D.Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation
Correct answer
Explanation
The correct answer is C, K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India. A bench of nine judges held unanimously in 2017 that the right to privacy is intrinsic to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and to the freedoms guaranteed by Part III, and it overruled the older view taken in the M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh cases. Option A is wrong because Shreya Singhal, in 2015, struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act as an unreasonable restriction on free speech. Option B is wrong because D.K. Basu, in 1997, laid down the safeguards to be followed during arrest and detention. Option D is wrong because Olga Tellis, in 1985, held that the right to livelihood is part of the right to life while deciding the case of pavement dwellers in Bombay. All three, like Puttaswamy, are Article 21 cases, which is why they make good distractors.
Read the full article: Landmark Supreme Court Judgments: Cases and Doctrines
Practice Questions
View allThe doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution was laid down by the Supreme Court in which case?
- A.Golaknath v State of Punjab
- B.Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala
- C.Minerva Mills v Union of India
- D.Shankari Prasad v Union of India
Show answer
The judgment was delivered on 24 April 1973 by a bench of thirteen judges, the largest ever assembled in the Supreme Court, and the majority of seven to six held that Parliament may amend any provision of the Constitution but cannot damage or destroy its basic structure.
Read the full explanation →In which case did the Supreme Court hold that a constitutional amendment is law within the meaning of Article 13 and that fundamental rights cannot be abridged?
- A.Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan
- B.I.C. Golaknath v State of Punjab
- C.Waman Rao v Union of India
- D.I.R. Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu
Show answer
Golaknath v State of Punjab. In 1967 an eleven-judge bench held by six votes to five that an amendment of the Constitution is law for the purposes of Article 13, so Parliament could not abridge fundamental rights, and it softened the blow by applying the doctrine of prospective overruling to…
Read the full explanation →The judgment in Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) is chiefly remembered for widening the scope of which Article?
- A.Article 19
- B.Article 21
- C.Article 32
- D.Article 368
Show answer
The case arose from the impounding of a passport, and the court held that the procedure by which the state takes away life or personal liberty must be just, fair and reasonable, which read the substance of due process into Article 21 and replaced the narrow view taken in A.K.
Read the full explanation →In Minerva Mills v Union of India (1980), the Supreme Court struck down clauses inserted by which constitutional amendment?
- A.Twenty-fourth Amendment
- B.Thirty-ninth Amendment
- C.Forty-second Amendment
- D.Forty-fourth Amendment
Show answer
That amendment had added clauses to Article 368 declaring that an amendment could not be questioned in any court and that there was no limit on the amending power; the court held those clauses void because judicial review and the balance between fundamental rights and directive principles are part of…
Read the full explanation →The National Judicial Appointments Commission and the Ninety-ninth Constitutional Amendment were struck down by the Supreme Court in which year?
- A.2013
- B.2014
- C.2015
- D.2017
Show answer
In the case known as the Fourth Judges Case the court held by four to one that the commission would let the executive influence the appointment of judges, that the independence of the judiciary is part of the basic structure, and that the collegium therefore revived.
Read the full explanation →