Polity and Governance › Constitution and rights
हिन्दी — Read in HindiFreedoms, privacy and personal liberty (Articles 19 to 22)
Articles 19 to 22: the freedoms of the citizen, the right to life and personal liberty that protects every person, the rights the courts have read into it, and the safeguards on arrest and detention.
Foundation note: The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023
The right to walk on safe footpaths
Copy link to The right to walk on safe footpathsPrelims and Mains
LeadThe right to walk on safe footpathsJune 2026
Why in news
On 19 June 2026 the Supreme Court held that walking on safe, demarcated footpaths is a fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21, and directed local bodies to build and protect them.
Background
- Article 21 protects life and personal liberty. Since 1978 the Court has read it to include what makes life worth living, and not mere survival.
- Article 19(1)(d) gives citizens the freedom to move freely throughout India.
- The case began as a claim for compensation after a road accident, and the Court used it to ask what the State owes pedestrians.
- Roads are a municipal function in the Twelfth Schedule and a panchayat function in the Eleventh Schedule.
What the Court held
- The freedom to move means little if a person cannot walk safely, so the right flows from both Articles together.
- Pedestrians have priority over motor vehicles on public roads.
- Development authorities, municipalities and panchayats must demarcate, build, maintain and protect footpaths.
- A citizen may claim compensation from the authority responsible, apart from any claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and may approach the Court under Article 32.
- The judgment was sent to the Law Commission and three ministries, so that a law can be considered.
The growth of Article 21
- The Court has read into Article 21 the rights to livelihood, health, shelter, a clean environment, privacy and more.
- Each new right turns a matter of policy into an entitlement that a court will enforce.
The difficulty
- Money: the duty falls on local bodies, which are the weakest tier in finances.
- Separation of powers: designing road space and a regulator for it is the work of the executive and the legislature.
- Enforcement: a right declared without a budget or a law may stay on paper.
Cases to cite
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): the procedure that takes away liberty must be just, fair and reasonable.
- Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): the right to life includes the right to livelihood.
- Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993): the State must pay compensation for violating a fundamental right.
- Maniyar Iliyaz v. P. Ayyappan (2026): the right to walk on safe footpaths.
The way forward
- Write footpaths into municipal budgets and master plans, with minimum standards.
- Give local bodies the funds and powers the 74th Amendment promised.
- Remove encroachments with rehabilitation of vendors under the street vendors law.
- Legislate, so that the right rests on a statute and not on litigation alone.
Prelims facts
- The right rests on Articles 19(1)(d) and 21.
- The duty falls on development authorities, municipalities and panchayats.
- The Twelfth Schedule was added by the 74th Amendment; the Eleventh by the 73rd.
- Article 19 rights belong to citizens; Article 21 protects every person.
Article 21 protects life and personal liberty. Since 1978 the Court has read it to include what makes life worth living, and not mere survival.
What changed
19 Jun 2026LeadThe right to walk on safe footpaths
Vande Mataram and the national honour law
Copy link to Vande Mataram and the national honour lawPrelims and Mains
LeadVande Mataram and the national honour lawJuly 2026
Why in news
Parliament passed the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026, which extends to the national song, Vande Mataram, the protection that the 1971 Act gives the National Anthem. The Rajya Sabha passed it on 29 July and the Lok Sabha on 30 July 2026.
Background
- The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 punishes insult to the National Flag and the Constitution, and the intentional prevention of the singing of the National Anthem.
- Vande Mataram was written by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay and appears in his novel Anandamath.
- On 24 January 1950 the Constituent Assembly recorded that the song would be honoured equally with Jana Gana Mana.
- Until 2026 the song had no protection in criminal law.
What the amendment does
- It becomes an offence to intentionally prevent the singing of Vande Mataram, or to disturb an assembly engaged in singing it.
- The punishment is imprisonment of up to three years, or a fine, or both.
- The song now stands on the same footing in criminal law as the anthem.
The constitutional questions
- Is silence an offence? The text punishes prevention and disturbance. It does not say that a person who declines to sing commits an offence.
- Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to speak, and Article 25 protects conscience.
- Fundamental duty: Article 51A(a) asks citizens to respect the Constitution, the National Flag and the National Anthem. It does not name the national song.
- Vagueness: the Act does not define the national song, and a penal law in vague words can chill lawful conduct.
- The government's case: equal honour, recorded in 1950, should carry equal protection in law.
Cases to cite
- Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986): students who stood respectfully but did not sing the anthem, for reasons of faith, were protected by Articles 19(1)(a) and 25.
- Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): a penal provision in vague terms is unconstitutional because it chills free speech.
- Shyam Narayan Chouksey v. Union of India (2018): playing the anthem in cinema halls was made optional.
The way forward
- Read the offence narrowly: obstruction and disturbance, never abstention.
- Issue clear guidance to the police, so that the law is not used against those who stay silent.
- Promote respect for national symbols through education, which serves the purpose better than prosecution.
Prelims facts
- The Act is of 1971; it covers the flag, the Constitution, the anthem and now the national song.
- Article 51A(a) names the Constitution, the flag and the anthem, not the song.
- Vande Mataram is from *Anandamath, by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay
- Maximum punishment: three years, or fine, or both.
The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 punishes insult to the National Flag and the Constitution, and the intentional prevention of the singing of the National Anthem.
What changed
22 Sep 2026newly added
- On 22 September the Supreme Court told the Union it expected no criminal consequences for a person who does not sing Vande Mataram, in whole or in part, for reasons of religion or conscience.
- It will examine the amended Section 3 against the fundamental rights, on a petition that also notes that the Act does not define the national song.
The Hindu, 22 Sep 2026: Supreme Court says state can set National Song, but cannot impose conscientious objectors to penal action (opens in a new tab) · LiveLaw, 22 Sep 2026: We expect no criminal consequences on person not singing Vande Mataram for religious reasons: Supreme Court to Centre (opens in a new tab)
6 Aug 2026Briefnewly addedThe Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2026 was published in the Gazette on 6 August as Act No. 11 of 2026, after the President's assent. Gazette of India, 6 Aug 2026: The Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2026 (Act No. 11 of 2026), text via LiveLaw (opens in a new tab) · The Hindu, 11 Aug 2026: President Murmu gives assent to Bill criminalising insult to Vande Mataram (opens in a new tab)
30 Jul 2026LeadVande Mataram and the national honour law
Also filed elsewhere
- Protest cases quashed under Article 142 · on Judicial review and the reach of the courts
Article 142 lets the Supreme Court pass any order needed to do complete justice in a case before it.