Article 19 

Article 19(1) guarantees six basic freedoms to citizens only:

• Freedom of speech and expression
  Right to express opinions and ideas through any medium – spoken, written, printed, digital, artistic etc.
  
• Freedom to assemble peaceably and without arms
  Right to hold meetings, rallies and processions in a peaceful manner.
  
• Freedom to form associations or unions or cooperatives
  Right to create political, social, economic, professional, or cultural organisations.
  
• Freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India
  Right to travel and transit across all states and UTs.
  
• Freedom to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India
  Right to choose place of residence and permanent settlement anywhere in India, subject to special protections (for example tribal areas).
  
• Freedom to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business
  Right to choose and pursue any lawful work, trade or profession.
  

(The original seventh freedom – Right to property – was removed from Article 19 by the 44th Constitutional Amendment, 1978, and is now a legal right under Article 300A.)

Reasonable Restrictions

These freedoms are not absolute. Clauses (2)–(6) of Article 19 allow the State to impose “reasonable restrictions” on specified grounds like:

• Sovereignty and integrity of India
• Security of the State
• Friendly relations with foreign States
• Public order
• Decency or morality
• Contempt of court
• Defamation
• Incitement to an offence
• Protection of the interests of Scheduled Tribes
• General public interest (particularly for movement, residence and profession)

Example:

• Hate speech or incitement to violence can be restricted under public order or security of the State.
• Practising a profession like medicine or law can be subject to qualifications and licensing.

Article 20 – Protection in Respect of Conviction for Offences

Article 20 applies to citizens and non-citizens and is non-suspendable even during Emergency. It provides three key safeguards:

• No ex post facto criminal laws
  No person can be convicted for an act that was not an offence at the time it was committed, nor can a harsher penalty be imposed retrospectively.
  
• No double jeopardy
  A person cannot be prosecuted and punished more than once for the same offence in criminal law.
  
• No self-incrimination
  No accused person can be compelled to be a witness against themselves in a criminal case.
  

These protections seek to ensure fairness and certainty in criminal justice.

Article 21 – Protection of Life and Personal Liberty

Article 21 states:

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

Key features:

• Available to all persons (citizens and foreigners).
• Originally interpreted narrowly (A.K. Gopalan), but later expanded drastically (Maneka Gandhi) to mean that the procedure must be fair, just and reasonable, not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive.

Over time, the Supreme Court has read several implied rights into Article 21, such as:

• Right to live with human dignity
• Right to livelihood
• Right to shelter
• Right to health and clean environment
• Right to pollution-free water and air
• Right to speedy trial
• Right to legal aid
• Right to privacy (Puttaswamy case, 2017)
• Right to die with dignity (passive euthanasia, Common Cause)

Thus, Article 21 has become the widest, most dynamic fundamental right.

Article 21A – Right to Education

• Inserted by the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002.
• Mandates the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children between 6–14 years of age “in such manner as the State may, by law, determine”.
• Operationalised by the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), which lays down norms for schools, admission, pupil-teacher ratio, no-detention policy (modified later), and 25% reservation for weaker sections in private unaided schools (as upheld by the Supreme Court).9

Article 21A is closely linked with dignity, equality and the long-term realisation of other rights.

Article 22 – Protection Against Arrest and Detention in Certain Cases

Article 22 provides safeguards in two situations: ordinary arrests and preventive detention.

Safeguards in Ordinary Arrest (Article 22(1)–(2))

Every arrested person has the right:

• To be informed, as soon as possible, of the grounds of arrest.
• To consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice.
• To be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of arrest (excluding travel time).
• Not to be detained beyond 24 hours without the magistrate’s authority.

These are basic due-process rights and apply to all persons who are not enemy aliens and not preventively detained.

Preventive Detention (Article 22(3)–(7))

• Article 22 acknowledges that Parliament and state legislatures may enact preventive detention laws to prevent individuals from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State, public order, defence etc.
• Such laws can curtail some of the protections of 22(1)–(2), but Article 22 itself builds in minimum safeguards:

Key safeguards include:

• The detenu must be informed of the grounds of detention as soon as possible.
• The detenu must be given an opportunity to make a representation against the order.
• No preventive detention can ordinarily exceed three months without the opinion of an Advisory Board (composed of persons qualified to be High Court judges).
• Parliament may authorise longer detention in specific conditions, but subject to procedures laid down.

India has several preventive detention statutes like the National Security Act (NSA) and UAPA, which are frequently debated for potential misuse versus security needs.

Important Case Laws on Right to Freedom

• Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950)
  Recognised freedom of speech and expression as a cornerstone of democratic order; restrictions must fall strictly within Article 19(2).
  
• A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
  Initially took a narrow, compartmentalised view of fundamental rights, treating Articles 19 and 21 as separate silos. This was later overruled in effect.
  
• Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1963)
  Struck down certain police surveillance regulations; the famous dissent helped lay intellectual groundwork for the later recognition of right to privacy.
  
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
  Landmark judgment that transformed Article 21. Held that “procedure established by law” must be just, fair and reasonable, and that Articles 14, 19 and 21 are mutually interlinked.
  
• Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986)
  Protected three Jehovah’s Witness schoolchildren who refused to sing the national anthem on religious grounds. Court held that they were not being disrespectful and that forcing them violated freedom of conscience and religion, read with freedom of expression.
  
• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
  Struck down Section 66A of the IT Act as unconstitutional, affirming that online speech is protected by Article 19(1)(a), and restrictions must be precise and reasonable.

Way Forward

A rights-respecting way forward would require:

• Narrowly tailoring restrictions to meet the tests of legality, necessity and proportionality.
• Stronger judicial and parliamentary oversight of preventive detention and surveillance.
• Transparent, rule-based frameworks for digital restrictions.
• Strengthening institutional independence of media and regulatory bodies.
• Greater legal literacy among citizens about their fundamental rights and available remedies.