Fundamental Rights: Equality, Art 19 and Arts 20–24

Article 16(1) guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Its reach follows the Article 12 meaning of 'State': the Union, the States, local authorities and bodies such as public sector undertakings that are government instrumentalities. It does not extend to private employment; private employers are regulated by statutes such as the labour codes, not by Article 16 itself. It is also available only to citizens, unlike Article 14. Attempts to reserve private jobs have come from State laws, not Article 16: the Punjab and Haryana High Court in November 2023 struck down Haryana's 2020 law reserving 75% of private-sector jobs for local residents. By contrast, Article 15(5) does reach private educational institutions, but only for admissions.

Statement 1 is correct: 'equality before law' is of British origin (Dicey's rule of law) and is a negative concept, meaning no special privileges for anyone and equal subjection of all to the ordinary law. 'Equal protection of the laws' comes from the 14th Amendment of the American Constitution and is a positive concept, meaning equal treatment in equal circumstances, which permits reasonable classification. Statement 2 is incorrect: Article 14 says the State shall not deny to 'any person' equality before the law or equal protection of the laws within the territory of India, so foreigners and legal persons such as companies are also protected. Because Article 14 speaks of 'any person', it protects citizens and foreigners, and natural as well as legal persons such as companies and statutory corporations.

All three are correct. Article 23(1) prohibits traffic in human beings, begar and other similar forms of forced labour, and makes any contravention an offence punishable by law; Article 23(2) allows compulsory service for public purposes, such as military or social service, without discrimination on religion, race, caste or class. To give effect to Article 23, Parliament enacted the Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act, 1956, renamed the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act in 1986, and the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, among others. In PUDR v. Union of India (1982), the Court held that paying less than the minimum wage can amount to forced labour. Parliament also enacted the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 under Article 23. The 1956 trafficking law was renamed the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act in 1986.

The recognised exceptions to equality before law include Article 361: the President and Governors are not answerable to any court for the exercise of their powers, no criminal proceedings lie against them during their term, and they cannot be arrested. Article 105(2) and Article 194(2) protect MPs and MLAs from court proceedings for anything said or any vote given in the House. Foreign sovereigns and ambassadors enjoy immunity under international law. Ministers have no such immunity: they can be prosecuted like any other person, subject only to sanction requirements under ordinary law such as the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Under Article 361(4), civil proceedings against the President or a Governor for personal acts can begin only after two months' written notice. Article 361A protects the publication of true reports of legislative proceedings.

Both statements are correct. In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), a PIL filed after the gang rape of a social worker in Rajasthan, the Supreme Court found no domestic law on sexual harassment at the workplace. It read Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21 with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), which India had ratified, and laid down binding guidelines, including complaints committees headed by a woman, under Article 32 read with Article 141. The guidelines held the field until Parliament enacted the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, which requires Internal and Local Committees. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013 requires an Internal Committee in every workplace with ten or more employees and a Local Committee at the district level for others.

Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification. From Chiranjit Lal (1950) and State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) onwards, the courts apply a two-part test: the classification must rest on an intelligible differentia that separates those grouped together from those left out, and the differentia must have a rational nexus with the object of the law. Later, E.P. Royappa (1974) and Maneka Gandhi (1978) added that arbitrariness is itself a denial of equality. No special majority, citizenship limit or executive form is part of the test. Royappa's view that arbitrariness is the antithesis of equality was later used in Shayara Bano (2017) and Joseph Shine (2018) to strike down laws as 'manifestly arbitrary'.

Statement 1 is correct: the 2016 amendment, which renamed the law the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, extended the ban on employing children below fourteen to all occupations and processes. The exceptions are helping the family or a family enterprise after school hours or during vacations, in non-hazardous work, and working as an artist in the audio-visual entertainment industry or sports (other than circus), without affecting schooling. Statement 2 is incorrect: adolescents aged fourteen to eighteen are barred only from hazardous occupations and processes listed in the Schedule, such as mines and inflammable substances, not from all work. Adolescents are persons aged fourteen to eighteen; for them only hazardous occupations are banned.

Statement 1 is correct: Article 23 is one of the few Fundamental Rights enforceable against private persons as well as the State. Statement 2 is incorrect: Article 23(2) allows compulsory service for public purposes (such as military or social service) and bars discrimination on grounds only of 'religion, race, caste or class or any of them'. 'Sex' is not in this list, unlike Article 15. Statement 3 is correct: in People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (Asiad Workers' case, 1982) the Court held that labour given for less than the minimum wage is 'forced labour'. Hence 1 and 3 only.

Protection against untouchability falls under the Right to Equality (d). Article 17 abolishes untouchability and forbids its practice in any form. Enforcing any disability arising from it is a punishable offence. It sits in the Right to Equality group, Articles 14 to 18, along with equality before law (14), no discrimination (15), equal opportunity in jobs (16) and abolition of titles (18). The Right against Exploitation (a) covers trafficking, forced labour and child labour (Articles 23–24). The Right to Freedom (b) covers Articles 19–22. Constitutional Remedies (c) is Article 32.

Article 17 is one of the few rights enforceable even against private persons. Notice the laws under it: the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.

Open this question's page →

Statements I and III are correct (c). An Ordinance under Article 123 has the same force as an Act of Parliament. Statement I is right: so it can amend any Central Act. Statement III is right: like an Act, it can be made retrospective, taking effect from a back date. Statement II is wrong: Article 13 counts an Ordinance as "law", and no law can take away or abridge Fundamental Rights. So options (a), (b) and (d) fail.

Notice the limits: an Ordinance can be issued only when Parliament is not in session, and it lapses six weeks after Parliament reassembles unless approved. In Krishna Kumar Singh (2017), the Supreme Court held that re-promulgating Ordinances again and again is a fraud on the Constitution. Governors have the same power under Article 213.

Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.

Open this question's page →

All three pairs are correctly matched (c). Pair I is right: separation of the judiciary from the executive is Article 50, a Directive Principle. Pair II is right: valuing and preserving our composite culture is Article 51A(f), a Fundamental Duty. Pair III is right: no child below 14 may work in factories, mines or hazardous work under Article 24, a Fundamental Right. So options (a), (b) and (d) fail.

Notice related provisions: Article 21A gives free education for ages 6–14 (86th Amendment, 2002), and Article 51A(k) asks parents to educate their children. The Child Labour Amendment Act, 2016 banned all child labour below 14. Article 39(e) and (f) protect children too.

Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.

Open this question's page →

UPSC dropped this question, so no answer was counted. The ideas are still worth knowing. The 1st Amendment (1951) answered court rulings on land reform and free speech: it added the Ninth Schedule to shield land laws and new limits to Article 19(2). The 42nd Amendment (1976) also tried to put laws based on the Directive Principles beyond Fundamental Rights challenges. The 44th (1978) undid many Emergency changes, and the 86th (2002) made education a Fundamental Right. More than one option fits "widely believed", which is likely why it was dropped.

Notice the long tussle: courts struck down laws, Parliament amended, and Kesavananda Bharati (1973) finally set the basic structure limit on amendments.

UPSC dropped this question from evaluation; there is no official answer.

Open this question's page →

An independent judiciary is the essential federal feature (a). A federation divides power between the Union and the States. That division needs an independent umpire to settle disputes between them and to interpret the Constitution, so the independence of the judiciary is an essential federal feature. In India, the Supreme Court settles Centre–State disputes under Article 131. Option (b) can exist in a unitary state with regional seats. Option (c) is a matter of politics, not structure. Option (d) concerns rights, which unitary states also protect.

Notice the other federal features: a written Constitution, division of powers (Seventh Schedule), bicameralism and a rigid amendment process. India is often called "quasi-federal", after K.C. Wheare.

Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.

Open this question's page →

Property is a legal right available to any person (b). The 44th Amendment (1978) removed the right to property from Part III, the Fundamental Rights. It is now a constitutional (legal) right under Article 300A: "No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law." The word "person" covers non-citizens and companies too, not just citizens. So option (a) is wrong for limiting it to citizens. Options (c) and (d) are wrong: it is no longer a Fundamental Right, but it is still a legal right.

Notice that the right was once in Articles 19(1)(f) and 31. Because it is not a Fundamental Right, a person must go to a High Court under Article 226, not straight to the Supreme Court under Article 32.

Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.

Open this question's page →