1.

What are the freedom under Article 19

Article 19 of the Indian Constitution guarantees certain freedoms to its citizens. These freedoms
are fundamental rights and are essential for the functioning of a democratic society. Article 19
delineates six freedoms:
• Freedom of Speech and Expression: This freedom allows citizens to express their
opinions, ideas, and beliefs freely through speech, writing, printing, or any other form
of communication. However, this freedom is not absolute and can be subject to
reasonable restrictions in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of
the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, or morality, or in
relation to contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offense.
• Freedom to Assemble Peaceably and Without Arms: Citizens have the right to
assemble peacefully and without weapons. This includes the right to hold public
meetings, processions, and demonstrations. However, like freedom of speech, this
freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed in the interest of public order and
morality.
• Freedom to Form Associations or Unions: Citizens have the right to form
associations, unions, or societies for various purposes, including social, cultural,
political, or economic. However, this freedom can be restricted in the interest of public
order, morality, or sovereignty and integrity of India.
• Freedom to Move Freely Throughout the Territory of India: Citizens have the right
to move freely throughout the territory of India. However, reasonable restrictions can
be imposed on this freedom in the interest of the general public or for the protection of
the interests of any Scheduled Tribe.
• Freedom to Reside and Settle in Any Part of the Territory of India: Citizens have
the right to reside and settle in any part of India. However, reasonable restrictions can
be imposed in the interest of the general public or for the protection of the interests of
any Scheduled Tribe.
• Freedom to Practice Any Profession, or to Carry on Any Occupation, Trade or
Business: Citizens have the right to choose any profession, occupation, trade, or
business. However, this freedom can be subject to certain restrictions imposed by the
State in the interest of the general public, or for the protection of the interests of any
Scheduled Tribe.
 2. What is the restriction over it (Article 19)
While Article 19 of the Indian Constitution guarantees several freedoms to citizens, it also
allows for the imposition of reasonable restrictions on these freedoms under certain
circumstances. These restrictions are essential to maintain public order, protect the sovereignty
and integrity of India, ensure friendly relations with foreign states, uphold decency and
morality, and prevent activities that may incite violence or harm the interests of society. Here
are the main restrictions imposed under Article 19:
• Sovereignty and Integrity of India: The State can impose restrictions on freedom of
speech and expression, freedom to assemble peaceably and without arms, and freedom
to form associations or unions to safeguard the sovereignty and integrity of India. This
includes measures to prevent secessionist activities or threats to national security.
• Security of the State: Restrictions can be imposed on these freedoms to ensure the
security of the State, including measures to counter espionage, terrorism, or other
threats to national security.
• Friendly Relations with Foreign States: The State can impose restrictions to maintain
friendly relations with foreign states, which may include regulating activities that could
strain diplomatic relations or provoke international tensions.
• Public Order: Restrictions can be imposed to maintain public order and prevent
disturbances, riots, or violence. This includes measures to regulate public gatherings,
demonstrations, and protests that may threaten public peace and tranquillity.
• Decency and Morality: Restrictions can be imposed on freedom of speech and
expression to uphold decency and morality, preventing the dissemination of obscene or
offensive content that may offend public sensibilities.
• Contempt of Court: Freedom of speech and expression may be restricted to prevent
contempt of court, ensuring the authority and dignity of the judicial system are
maintained.
• Defamation: Restrictions can be imposed on freedom of speech and expression to
prevent defamation, protecting the reputation and honour of individuals from false and
malicious statements.
• Incitement to Offense: Restrictions can be imposed on these freedoms to prevent
incitement to an offense, such as hate speech or speech that promotes violence or
discrimination against certain groups based on religion, race, caste, or community.
It's important to note that while these restrictions are allowed, they must be reasonable and in
the interest of society as a whole. The Constitution also provides for judicial review of laws
and actions that impose restrictions on these freedoms to ensure that they comply with
constitutional principles and do not unduly infringe upon citizens' rights.
 3. Definition of State
In the Indian Constitution, the term "State" has a broader meaning than just the national
government. It encompasses various entities and authorities, both at the central and state levels,
as well as certain other bodies. The definition of "State" under the Indian Constitution can be
found primarily in Article 12 of the Constitution.
According to Article 12, the term "State" includes the following:
• Government of India: This refers to the central or federal government, which exercises
executive, legislative, and judicial powers at the national level.
• Government of States: This includes the governments of the various states within the
Indian Union, each of which has its own executive, legislative, and judicial organs.
• Local Authorities: This encompasses entities such as municipalities, panchayats (local
self-government bodies at the village, intermediate, and district levels), district boards,
and other local governing bodies established by law.
• Other Authorities: This category includes any other authority or body established by
the Indian Constitution or by law, which may be under the control of either the central
government or a state government. Examples of such authorities may include statutory
corporations, public sector undertakings, and regulatory bodies.
The inclusion of these entities within the definition of "State" is significant because it means
that fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution are enforceable not only against the
national and state governments but also against these other bodies and authorities. This ensures
that the protection of fundamental rights extends beyond just governmental entities to various
institutions and bodies that exercise governmental functions or derive their power from the
Constitution or legislation.
 4. Is Narula’s school is state or not
ANSWER IS WITH REFERNCE TO PRIVATE COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY
In the context of the Indian Constitution, a private college or institution is generally not
considered a "State" unless it is significantly funded or controlled by the government. The
determination of whether a private college qualifies as a "State" under Article 12 of the
Constitution depends on various factors such as the extent of government control, financial
assistance, and the nature of its functions.
There have been several cases where the question of whether a private institution falls within
the definition of "State" has been considered by the courts. One notable case in this regard is
the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002). In this
case, the Supreme Court of India held that an autonomous institute established by the Central
Government, even though funded by the government, did not fall within the definition of
"State" under Article 12. The court reasoned that mere funding or control by the government
does not automatically render an entity a "State" unless it is an instrumentality or agency of the
government, performing governmental functions.
Similarly, in the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981), the Supreme Court
laid down certain tests to determine whether an entity qualifies as a "State" under Article 12.
These tests include examining the financial assistance provided by the government, the degree
of control exercised by the government over the management and policies of the institution,
and the functional character of the institution.
Therefore, whether a private college is considered a "State" under the Indian Constitution
would depend on factors such as its relationship with the government, the extent of
government funding and control, and the nature of its functions. If a private college is found
to be significantly controlled or funded by the government and is performing governmental
functions, it may be considered a "State" for the purposes of Article 12. However, each case is
decided based on its specific facts and circumstances.
 5. Define Judicial Review. With Case Law
Article 13 of the Indian Constitution deals with the doctrine of judicial review. It states that any
law that is inconsistent with or in contravention of the fundamental rights guaranteed under
Part III of the Constitution shall be void to the extent of such inconsistency. This provision
establishes the supremacy of the Constitution and ensures that laws enacted by the legislature
are subject to judicial scrutiny to determine their conformity with the fundamental rights
enshrined in the Constitution.
The doctrine of judicial review is enshrined in Articles 13, 32 (SUPREME COURT), and 226
(HIGH COURT) of the Indian Constitution.
Judicial review, as enshrined in Article 13, empowers the judiciary, particularly the Supreme
Court and the High Courts, to examine the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislature
and actions taken by the executive. If a law is found to be inconsistent with the fundamental
rights or other provisions of the Constitution, the judiciary has the authority to declare such a
law null and void, rendering it unenforceable.
This power of judicial review serves as a check on the legislative and executive branches of
government, ensuring that they do not exceed their constitutional limits and that the rights of
citizens are protected. It allows the judiciary to safeguard the constitutional values and
principles enshrined in the Constitution, thereby upholding the rule of law and preserving the
democratic structure of the Indian polity.
One landmark case that solidified the doctrine of judicial review in India is Kesavananda
Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). In this case, the Supreme Court of India upheld the doctrine
of judicial review and established the principle of the "basic structure" of the Constitution. The
court held that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its
basic structure, which includes principles such as democracy, secularism, federalism, and the
rule of law. This decision laid the foundation for the judiciary to intervene and strike down
constitutional amendments that violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
Another significant case illustrating the doctrine of judicial review is Indira Nehru Gandhi v.
Raj Narain (1975). In this case, the Supreme Court declared the election of then-Prime
Minister Indira Gandhi to the Lok Sabha (lower house of Parliament) void on the grounds of
electoral malpractice. The court's decision demonstrated its role in ensuring the accountability
of elected representatives and upholding the principles of free and fair elections.
Furthermore, the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) expanded the scope of
judicial review by emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and natural justice. In
this case, the Supreme Court held that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of
the Constitution encompasses the right to procedural due process. The court ruled that any law
or procedure depriving a person of their life or personal liberty must be fair, just, and
reasonable.
Additionally, Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) is a significant case that illustrates judicial
activism in response to a social issue. In this case, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines to
prevent sexual harassment of women in the workplace, filling a legislative vacuum and
establishing the court's role in protecting fundamental rights, even in the absence of specific
legislation.
These cases demonstrate the crucial role of judicial review in upholding the supremacy of the
Constitution, ensuring the protection of fundamental rights, and maintaining the balance of
power among the three branches of government. They highlight the judiciary's authority to
review legislative and executive actions and strike down those that are unconstitutional or
violate fundamental rights.

6. Can Indian citizen hold foreign citizenship?

India does not recognize dual citizenship. According to the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955, a
person who is a citizen of India by birth, descent, registration, or naturalization, cannot
simultaneously hold citizenship of another country. If an Indian citizen acquires citizenship of
another country, they are required to renounce their Indian citizenship. Likewise, if a person of
Indian origin acquires citizenship of another country, they automatically lose their Indian
citizenship unless they renounce the citizenship of the other country within a specified period.
However, there are provisions in the law for Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) and Person
of Indian Origin (PIO) cards. These schemes allow foreign citizens of Indian origin or former
Indian citizens to have certain privileges in India, such as the right to travel to India without a
visa, the ability to own property, and the right to work in certain sectors. However, these do not
confer full Indian citizenship and do not allow for the holding of dual citizenship.
It's essential to consult legal experts or the relevant government authorities for the most current
information on citizenship laws and regulations in India, as laws and policies may change over
time.

7. What is reasonable nexus

the principle of "reasonable nexus" is often associated with Article 14, which guarantees the
right to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws to all persons. Article 14 states:
"The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of
the laws within the territory of India."
The concept of "reasonable nexus" comes into play when determining the constitutionality of
laws or government actions under Article 14. It requires that there be a reasonable connection
between the classification made by the law and the object sought to be achieved by the law. In
other words, the classification made by the law must have a rational basis and must be
reasonably related to the purpose of the law.
For example, if a law provides certain benefits or imposes certain restrictions based on a
particular classification (such as age, gender, or income), the classification must have a
reasonable nexus with the objective of the law. If there is no rational connection between the
classification and the objective of the law, the law may be struck down as violating the right to
equality under Article 14.
Courts in India have interpreted and applied the principle of "reasonable nexus" in various
cases to ensure that laws and government actions comply with the requirements of equality and
non-discrimination enshrined in Article 14. This principle serves as a safeguard against
arbitrary or discriminatory governmental actions and ensures that all persons are treated fairly
and equally before the law.
 8. Define dual citizenship
Dual citizenship, also known as dual nationality, refers to the status of an individual who is
recognized as a citizen of two or more countries simultaneously. This means that such
individuals enjoy the rights and privileges associated with citizenship in each of the countries
they are recognized as citizens of.
Typically, dual citizenship arises in situations where a person acquires citizenship of a country
by birth or descent while also obtaining citizenship through naturalization in another country,
or through the laws of countries that recognize citizenship based on ancestry or parentage.
The rights and obligations of dual citizens can vary depending on the laws of the countries
involved. Some countries may restrict certain rights for dual citizens, such as holding public
office or serving in the military, while others may allow full rights and privileges to dual
citizens.
India does not allow Dual Citizenship

9. Define prohibition of untouchability

The prohibition of untouchability is a fundamental principle enshrined in the Indian
Constitution aimed at eradicating the social evil of caste-based discrimination and ensuring
equality and dignity for all citizens. This principle is primarily reflected in Article 17 of the
Indian Constitution.
Article 17 of the Indian Constitution explicitly states:
"Untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of any
disability arising out of untouchability shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law."
This constitutional provision declares untouchability as illegal and prohibits its practice in any
form. It not only outlaws the act of untouchability but also mandates the eradication of its
associated social disabilities. Furthermore, it empowers the state to enact laws to punish
offenses related to untouchability and to enforce the abolition of untouchability effectively.
The abolition of untouchability is not only a legal mandate but also a social and moral
imperative in India. Despite the constitutional prohibition, however, the practice of
untouchability continues to persist in some parts of the country. Efforts to combat
untouchability include legal measures, such as the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which provides for stringent punishment for offenses
against members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, who are often the victims of
untouchability. Additionally, various social and educational initiatives aim to raise awareness
and promote social inclusion and equality.
Overall, the prohibition of untouchability is a fundamental aspect of India's commitment to
building a more just, equitable, and inclusive society, where every individual is treated with
dignity and respect, irrespective of caste, creed, or social status.
 10.Can any citizen hold any form of title in India? If not then why?
In India, citizens are generally free to hold titles, including academic titles, honorary titles, and
titles of nobility, provided they do not contravene the laws and regulations in force. However,
the Indian Constitution prohibits the granting of titles of nobility by the state.
Article 18 of the Indian Constitution states:
"Abolition of titles. - (1) No title, not being a military or academic distinction, shall be
conferred by the State."
This provision prohibits the Indian state from conferring titles of nobility, such as "Sir," "Lord,"
"Baron," "Duke," etc. The rationale behind this prohibition is to promote equality among
citizens and to prevent the creation of a hierarchical society based on hereditary titles.
While the state cannot confer titles of nobility, individuals are free to use academic titles earned
through legitimate means, such as academic degrees (e.g., Ph.D., M.D., LL.B.) or professional
titles (e.g., Advocate, Doctor, Professor). Similarly, individuals may receive honorary titles or
awards from non-governmental organizations, institutions, or communities for their
contributions to society or achievements in various fields.
It's important to note that while citizens are generally free to hold titles, certain titles or forms
of address may be regulated by law, particularly if they imply official recognition or authority.
Additionally, titles that are used fraudulently or for purposes of deception may be subject to
legal action.
Overall, while the Indian Constitution prohibits the state from conferring titles of nobility,
citizens are free to hold other forms of titles, provided they comply with applicable laws and
regulations.