Articles 19, 20 and 21 of Indian Constitution
In this article we will discuss article 19 article 20 article 21 and 21A of the Indian constitution with simple explanation and case laws that will clear you these articles. Moreover stay connected with you for new topics and also subscribe our youtube channel.
Article 19 of Indian Constitution
Article 19:Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc. —
Article 19(1): All citizens shall have the right —
(a) to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;
(c) to form associations or unions or co-operative societies;
(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;
(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India;
(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
However, these rights are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the State for maintaining public order, decency, morality, national security, etc.
Article 19(1)(a)Right to freedom of speech and expression
This means that every individual in India has the right to express their thoughts, opinions, and ideas freely through speech, writing, pictures, videos, art, or any other form of communication.
For example, a person can speak about political issues, criticize government policies, write blogs or social media posts, take part in peaceful protests, or express their views through creative works. However, this freedom is not unlimited.
This right is available only to a citizen of Indian and not to foreign nationals. Similarly, the rights are also not given to corporations and juristic persons.
Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution says that the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute, which means it can be restricted. The government can make laws that put reasonable limits on this freedom to protect important national interests.
These restrictions are allowed if the law is made to safeguard the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign countries, public order, decency or morality, or to prevent contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence. This means you cannot misuse your freedom to say or do anything that could harm the country, insult others, disturb peace, or break the law.
These limits ensure that one person’s freedom of expression does not become harmful or dangerous to others or to the nation as a whole.
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950)
In this case, the government of Madras banned the entry of a political magazine called Cross Roads because it criticized the government. The Supreme Court held that this ban was unconstitutional because it violated the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).
The Court said that citizens have the right to criticize the government, and such expression cannot be banned unless it clearly threatens public safety under valid restrictions. This was one of the first cases where the Supreme Court strongly protected free speech.
Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi (1950)
Here, the government, imposed pre-censorship on a newspaper, meaning it had to get approval before publishing anything. The Supreme Court ruled that such pre-censorship was a direct violation of Article 19(1)(a). The Court made it clear that the government cannot stop someone from speaking or publishing in advance, except under specific, reasonable restrictions allowed by Article 19(2).
Article 19(1)(b) Right to assemble peaceably and without arms:
Article 19(1)(b) of the Indian Constitution gives every citizen the right to hold peaceful gatherings or meetings, as long as they do so without carrying any weapons. This means people in India have the right to come together in public places for lawful purposes like protests, rallies, public meetings, or demonstrations, as long as they are peaceful and non-violent.
For example, if a group wants to protest against a government policy, they can gather at a public place and express their views, but they must not carry weapons or create any violence.
Article 19(3) says that although every citizen has the right to assemble peacefully and without arms under Article 19(1)(b), the government can still make laws that put reasonable restrictions on this right.
These restrictions are allowed if they are necessary to protect the sovereignty and integrity of India or to maintain public order. This means that if a public gathering or protest poses a threat to national unity, public peace, or can lead to violence or disturbance, the government has the power to regulate or stop it.
The restriction must be reasonable, meaning it should not completely take away the right but should only limit it when absolutely necessary to protect the safety and stability of the country.
Himmat Lal Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad (1973)
In this case, Himmat Lal Shah was denied permission to hold a public meeting on a public road. The police had issued rules under a state law that gave them absolute power to control such gatherings. The Supreme Court held that citizens have a constitutional right to hold peaceful public meetings, and the State cannot deny this right completely.
The Court ruled that while the government can regulate the use of public places to ensure public order, it cannot ban all assemblies altogether. This case reinforced the idea that reasonable restrictions must not destroy the right itself.
Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra (1961)
Here, a Section 144 order (used to prevent disturbances) was passed to stop people from assembling during a political movement. Babulal Parate challenged this as a violation of his right to assemble. The Supreme Court held that Section 144 is not unconstitutional if used to maintain public order and prevent violence or threats. The Court said that the right to assemble is not absolute, and if the government feels a gathering may cause disturbance, it can impose temporary restrictions.
Article 19(1)(c) Right to form associations or unions or co-operative societies.
This means that people in India have the freedom to come together and form groups or organizations for lawful purposes. These can include political parties, trade unions, clubs, societies, NGOs, student unions, and cooperative groups. The main idea behind this right is to allow individuals to collectively express their opinions, work for a common goal, or protect their interests—something that may not be possible if they act alone.
For example, workers can form a trade union to demand better working conditions, or farmers can form a cooperative society to sell their produce collectively. Article 19(1)(c) Right to form associations or unions or co-operative societies. Co-operative societies was added by 97th constitutional amendment act 2011.
Article 19(4) allows the government to put reasonable restrictions on the right given under Article 19(1)(c), which is the right to form associations, unions, or cooperative societies. These restrictions can be made in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, public order, or morality.
This means that while people are free to form groups or organizations, the government can regulate or even ban any association if it threatens the unity of the country, disrupts peace, or is formed for immoral or illegal purposes. The restriction must be reasonable, meaning it should not completely destroy the right but only limit it to protect larger public interests.
For example, if an organization promotes violence or hatred, or works against the security or unity of India, the government has the power to take action against it.
O.K. Ghosh v. E.X. Joseph (1962)
This case involved a government servant who was barred from joining a trade union. The Supreme Court ruled that while every citizen has the right to form associations, the government can place restrictions on its employees to ensure discipline and efficiency in public services. The Court upheld that the restriction was reasonable under Article 19(4), as it was related to maintaining proper conduct in public service.
Article 19(1) (d) Right to move freely throughout the territory of India.
This means that any citizen can travel, visit, or stay in any part of the country — whether it’s Kashmir, Kerala, Delhi, or any other state —without needing any special permission. The purpose of this right is to promote national integration, a sense of unity, and to allow citizens to explore opportunities (such as work, education, or travel) anywhere within India without restrictions based on region or state borders.
However, this right is also not unlimited. Under Article 19(5), the government can impose reasonable restrictions on this freedom in the interest of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe.
For example, some tribal areas or protected regions may restrict outside entry to preserve their culture, land, and resources, or for reasons of security or public health. These restrictions must be reasonable and not arbitrary or discriminatory.
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1963)
In this case, the police were conducting surveillance on a man suspected of being a criminal by regularly visiting his house at night. He argued that this restricted his freedom of movement. The Supreme Court held that such unauthorized police surveillance is a violation of Article 19(1)(d) unless done under valid legal authority. This case highlighted that state actions that discourage free movement without legal backing are unconstitutional.
Article 19(1) (e) Right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India
This means that you can live or make your home anywhere in the country—whether in Delhi, Mumbai, Kerala, Ladakh, or any other state or union territory—without needing permission from the government. The purpose of this right is to promote freedom of choice, equality, and national integration, so that people are free to move, work, and live in any place of their preference.
However, this right is also subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(5). The government can make laws to restrict this right in the interest of the general public or for the protection of the interests of Scheduled Tribes.
For example, if settling in a particular area could harm the environment, displace tribal communities, or cause disturbance to public health or order, then the State can legally restrict people from settling there. These restrictions must be reasonable and not arbitrary.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bharat Singh (1967)
In this case, the government issued an order externing (forcing someone to leave) a person from a district because he was considered a threat to public order. The person challenged this as a violation of his right to reside in that area.
The Supreme Court held that while citizens have the right to reside anywhere, the State can restrict this right under Article 19(5) if it is necessary for maintaining public order. However, such restrictions must be reasonable and not excessive or arbitrary.
Article 19(1) (g) Right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
Article 19(1)(g) gives every Indian citizen the freedom to choose any profession or career, and to start or run any lawful occupation, trade, or business of their choice, whether someone wants to become a doctor, lawyer, teacher, shopkeeper, entrepreneur, or start a business, they are free to do so anywhere in India.
This right ensures economic freedom, allowing people to earn a livelihood by pursuing the work they are interested in or skilled at. It promotes self-reliance, employment, and the development of trade and industry.
However, this right is also not absolute. Under Article 19(6) explains the limits of the right given under Article 19(1)(g), which allows every citizen to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade, or business. It says that the government can make laws that impose reasonable restrictions on this right in the interest of the general public. This means that the government can regulate or control professions and businesses to protect public welfare, health, safety, or order.
Specifically, Article 19(6) allows two major things:
- The government can make laws that require professional or technical qualifications for certain jobs. For example, you must have a law degree and be enrolled with the Bar Council to practice as a lawyer, or have an MBBS degree to work as a doctor. This is to ensure quality and protect public interest.
- The government can run any business or service by itself, either completely or partially, even if it excludes citizens from entering that business. For instance, the government may control public transport, electricity, or defence production, and private individuals may not be allowed to operate in those areas unless permitted.
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005)
In this case, the Gujarat government banned the slaughter of cows, bulls, and bullocks under a law meant to protect animals. The butchers challenged this law, claiming it violated their right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g).
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the ban, stating that reasonable restrictions can be placed in the interest of the general public, especially when it comes to protecting animals, public morals, and sentiments. This case clarified that the economic interests of a few can be restricted if there is a larger public interest.
Excel Wear v. Union of India (1978)
In this case, a company wanted to close down its business, but a law required prior permission from the government to do so. The company challenged the law, saying that it violated its freedom to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g).
The Supreme Court held that the right to close a business is also a part of the right to carry on trade. If the law makes it too difficult or impossible to shut down, it becomes unreasonable. So, the Court struck down the law as a violation of Article 19(1)(g), emphasizing that even exit from business is part of economic freedom.
PROTECTION IN RESPECT OF CONVICTION FOR OFFENCES Article 20
Article 20 of the Constitution of India enshrines fundamental rights related to the protection of individuals accused of offences. It serves as a bulwark against arbitrary state action and ensures that accused persons are afforded fair treatment and due process under the law. Article 20 deals with three principles:
Under Article 20 (1) which deals with Ex-post facto laws.
Under Article 20 (2) which deals with Double Jeopardy
Under Article 20 (3) which deals with Self Incrimination.
Protection Against Ex-post Facto Laws [Article 20(1)
Article 20(1) provides that no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of commission of the Act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a greater penalty which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of commission of offence.
EX-POST FACTO LAWS
Ex-post facto means a law which is enacted subsequent to some occurrence i.e., the commission of some act or omission.
Ex-post facto laws are of following three kinds:
New Act or Omission as an Offence: A law which declares some act or omission as offence for the first time after the completion of the act or omission.
Enhancement of Punishment: A law which enhances the punishment or penalty for an offence subsequent to the commission of that offence.
New or Different Procedure: A law which prescribes new and different procedures for the prosecution of an offence subsequent to the commission of that offence.
Article 20 clause (1) provides protection only in respect of the above first two categories of ex-post facto laws.
Protection Offered by Article 20 (1)
No Conviction for Offence Except for the Violation of Law at the Time of Commission of Act Charged
First part of Article 20(1) provides that “no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of commission of the act charged as an offence”.
It means a person can only be convicted of an offence if the charge against him is an offence at the date of its commission and not subsequent to an act.
Article 20 (1) incorporates the principle that a penal statute which creates new offences is always prospective and no one can be convicted except for the violation of a ‘law in force’.
In the case of Om Prakash v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1957), it was held that the accused could not be punished under Section 165 A of Indian Penal Code for offering bribery in 1948 as it was not an offence in 1949 but was made offence through an Amendment under Section 3 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1956 which inserted Section 165A in the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
OFFENCE
The Constitution doesn’t define ‘offence’ Section 3(38) of the General Clauses Act defines it as any punishable act or omission under current law.
In Mahipal Singh v. CBI (AIR 2014 SC 1817), the Supreme Court ruled that an offence’s essential elements must exist at the alleged crime date for prosecution. Retroactively applying offence criteria to penal provisions is impermissible.
In Shiv Bahadur v. Vindhya Pradesh (AIR 1953 SC 394), the Court clarified law in force’ as laws practically operative at the offence time.
No Penalty Greater than that at the Time of Commission of the Offence
Article 20(1) further stipulates that an individual cannot face a penalty exceeding what was enforceable under the law at the offence’s time.
Thus, if the penalty was lower at the time of the offence but later increased, the person cannot be subjected to the heightened penalty. They remain liable only for the penalty applicable at the time of the offence.
Prescription of Minimal Sentence
It may be noted that Article 20 (1) prohibits the enhancement of punishment or penalty for an offence retrospectively. It does not prevent the prescription of a minimum sentence where the law in force does not prescribe any such limitation.
In the case of Maru Ram v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held Section 433A of Criminal Procedure Code, 1974 as not violative of Article 20 (1).
This Section was inserted by the Amendment Act of 1978 provided that a person sentenced to life imprisonment for an offence for which death was one of the punishments or where the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment under Section 433 of the code, such person would not be released from prison unless he had served at least 14 years of Imprisonment.
Since Section 433-A did not enlarge punishment retrospectively and that it merely prescribed a minimum sentence 14 years imprisonment for a murderer, the court held it is not bad under Article 20 (1).
Beneficial Provision
Article 20 (1) prohibits imposition of enhanced penalty but does not bar any reduction in the punishment. Accused can take advantage of a beneficial provision under ex post facto laws.
If ex post facto law is ameliorative it may be retrospective. (Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Ch. Gandhi, (2013)
In Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab
where an accused who was 16 years was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine. Later, the Probation of Offender Act, 1958, came into force, which provided that a person below the age of 21 years should not ordinarily be sentenced to imprisonment. The Supreme Court held that the ex-post facto law which was beneficial to the accused did not fall within the prohibition of Article 20 (1).
Imposition of Civil Liability Retrospectively not barred
Article 20 (1) does not apply to facto law laying down any manner for the recovery of government dues
Further, the prohibition contained in Article 20(1) applies only where punishment imposed for offences is criminal in nature, thus civil liability retrospectively can be imposed.
Protection is only against Conviction and Sentence and not against Trial
In Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, AR 2015 SC 2098 It was held that under Article 20(1) only conviction or sentence is prohibited, trial is not prohibited.
Under American law the prohibition applies even in respect of trial.
Article 20(1) also does not apply to the change in procedure or change in forum of trial. A trial under a procedure different from what was present at the time of commission of offence cannot be held unconstitutional
In other words, a person has no fundamental right of being tried by a particular procedure or a particular court. It was clarified in Union of India v. Sukumar, (1966) that Article 20(1) does not make a right to any course of procedure a vested right. A law which retrospectively changes the vence of trial of an offence is not hit by Article 20(1)
Protection Against Double Jeopardy
Article 20(2) states that no individual shall face prosecution and punishment for the same offence more than once.
This principle stems from the Latin maxim “nemo debet vis vexari pro una et eadem causa, which means that a man must not be put twice in peril for the same offence. Once a person is convicted by a competent court, further criminal proceedings for the same offence are barred.
In Delhi Judicial Service Association.v. State of Gujarat,
(1991) the Supreme Court clarified that the mere issuance of a notice of contempt of court to an individual facing contempt proceedings does not trigger Article 20(3). This is because the individual receiving the notice of contempt is not formally accused of an offense.
Further, the right to remain silent guranteed under Article 20 (3) is not limited to the case for which the person is examined but extends to other offences pending or imminent, which may deter him from voluntary disclosure of incriminating matter. Even a suspect of an offence could also claim protection under Article 20 (3).
Article 20 (3) does not extend also to searches made in pursuance of a warrant under Section 96 Crpc as it is not the act of accused but a third person i.e., police officer.
Compulsion to be a Witness
This provision is a protection against compulsion to be a witness. Compulsion, defined as duress, can manifest in various ways, including physical or mental coercion.
In Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, (1977)
the Supreme Court expanded the concept of compulsion beyond physical threats to encompass psychic torture, environmental coercion, and similar methods.
In M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, (1954)
the Supreme Court broadly interpreted “to be a witness” to include oral, documentary, and testimonial evidence, extending beyond mere verbal testimony to encompass document production or gestures.
However, in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu, (1961)
the Court narrowed this interpretation, clarifying that being a witness does not equate to furnishing evidence. Self-incrimination is limited to conveying information based on personal knowledge and excludes mechanical actions like producing documents or providing finger Impressions or blood samples, which are not prohibited by Article 20(3).
Self-incrimination under Article 20 (3) only means conveying information based upon personal knowledge of the person giving information. Thus, if an accused is compelled to produce a document in his possession, which is not based on the personal knowledge of accused then there is no violation of Article 20 (3).
Compulsion to give Evidence Against Himself
Protection is against compulsion to give evidence against himself. In Laxmipat Choraria v. State of Maharashtra, (1968), the Supreme Court ruled that Article 20(3) is not violated when an accused offers evidence against themselves voluntarily.
Similarly, in State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhaya, (1960)
the Court held that self-incriminating information provided by an accused without coercion is admissible and not covered by Article 20(3).
Additionally, in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu, (1961), the Court determined that Section 27 of the Evidence Act falls outside Article 20(3)’s prohibition unless obtained under compulsion. Article 20(3) applies to testimony given unwillingly. while voluntary self-incrimination does not contravene its provisions.
Article 21 of the Indian constitution
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.
Article 21 is a shield that protects your basic human rights. It ensures you can live freely and with dignity — and if anyone tries to take that away, they must follow the law properly and fairly.
The supreme court of India has described this right as the Heart of the Fundamental right.
Article 21 provides two rights;
1. Right to life; and
2. Right to personal liberty
Right to life
Life means more than just staying alive — it includes dignity, health, shelter, education, and a safe environment.
Despite Right to Life being the most precious fundamental right, the term ‘life’ has not been defined in the constitution of India.
In Francis Coralie v. UT of Delhi
The supreme court emphasized that the right to life extends beyond mere existence it encompasses the right to live with human dignity and the essentials of life.
It further includes the basic necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow human beings.
Samatha vs. state
The court observed that life becomes meaningful only when an individual enjoys the social, cultural and intellectual life.
Personal liberty
Personal liberty means the freedom to make your own choices, like where to live, what to say, or what job to do.
A.K Gopalan vs State of Madras
The court determined that personal liberty in Article 21 pertains solely to physical freedom, such as freedom from arrest and detention without lawful authority. However, this restrictive interpretation of the expression personal liberty has not been followed by the supreme court in later decisions
Satwant singh vs Assistant passport officer
The court held that the right to personal liberty included the right to go abroad
Maneka Gandhi vs union of India 1978
Justice Bhagawati observed the expression personal liberty in article 21 is of widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man and some of them have risen to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under article 19.
Restrictions on Right to life and personal liberty:-
The right guaranteed in the Article 21 is not an absolute right. State can impose reasonable restrictions by adopting procedure established by law. The expression procedure established by law in Article 21 does not mean any arbitrary law, rather it should be reasonable, fair and just
Procedure established by law means in accordance with the law duly enacted by the legislature. The framers of the constitution deliberately avoided the use of word due process of law which was included in the US constitution.
In A.K. Gopalan v. Union of India (1950), the big question was:
Does Article 21 mean any legal procedure made by the government is okay, or does it have to be fair and reasonable? The Supreme Court said: “Law” here means only a law passed by the government. It does not have to follow extra ideas like natural justice or fairness unless the law itself says so. As long as the procedure is written in a proper law made by Parliament, it counts — even if it’s not very fair.
In short: Back then, the court believed that if the government made a law and followed it, your liberty could be taken away — fairness wasn’t a requirement yet.
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
the Supreme Court gave Article 21 a wide and liberal interpretation. The case arose when the government impounded Maneka Gandhi’s passport without giving reasons.
The Court held that the phrase “procedure established by law” does not mean any procedure laid down by a valid law is sufficient; the procedure must also be just, fair, and reasonable, and not arbitrary or oppressive.
It ruled that Articles 14, 19, and 21 are interconnected, and any law restricting life or personal liberty must satisfy all three—ensuring equality, freedom, and fairness together.
This judgment introduced the “fairness test” into Article 21, expanding its scope to protect a wide range of rights necessary for living with dignity.
Thus, article 21 requires the following conditions to be fulfilled before a person deprived of life and personal liberty:
1. There must be a valid law.
2. The law must be fair and reasonable.
3. The law must satisfy the requirement of article 14 and 19 i.e. it must be reasonable.
Various aspects of Right to Life and Personal liberty.
Over time, the Supreme Court has expanded its meaning from mere “existence” to living a life of dignity. Through various judgments, the Court has recognized several rights as part of the right to life and personal liberty. The most important among them are:
1. Right to live with dignity – Life isn’t just about being alive; it’s about living respectfully with basic needs met. (Francis Coralie Mullin, 1981)
2. Right to health and medical care – In an emergency, hospitals must treat you immediately; health is part of life. (Parmanand Katara, 1989)
3. Right to clean environment – You have the right to air and water that won’t harm your health. (M.C. Mehta cases)
4. Right to shelter – Everyone needs a safe place to live; homelessness undermines dignity. (Shantistar Builders, 1990)
5. Right to education – Education helps you live a meaningful life and grow as a person. (Mohini Jain, 1992)
6. Right to livelihood – If your job or means of living is taken away unfairly, your right to life is affected. (Olga Tellis, 1985)
7. Right to privacy – Your personal life and choices should be free from unnecessary government or public interference. (Puttaswamy, 2017)
8. Right to speedy trial – Legal cases must be handled quickly; long delays violate justice. (Hussainara Khatoon, 1979)
9. Right to travel abroad – You’re free to leave and return to India unless restricted by fair legal procedure. (Satwant Singh Sawhney, 1967)
10.Right against cruel or degrading treatment – No one can be tortured or treated in a way that destroys dignity. (Sunil Batra, 1978)
Article 21A of the Indian Constitution.
Article 21A. Right to education.—The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine.
This right was made a Fundamental Right in 2002 by the 86th Constitutional Amendment. Before that, education was only a Directive Principle (Article 45), not enforceable in court.
The Supreme Court, even before Article 21A existed, had already interpreted right to education as part of the right to life under Article 21.
Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992)
The Court said education is part of the right to life. Without education, you can’t live with dignity. Charging huge fees that block poor students from studying is against the Constitution.
Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993)
The Court said free education is a right for all children up to 14 years. After that, it depends on the government’s money and resources. This set clear limits on the right to education.