State of Madras vs V.G. Row Case

State of Madras vs V.G. Row Case

For Prelims: Supreme Court, Fundamental Rights, Restrictions on Fundamental Rights
For Mains: Restrictions on Fundamental Rights, Test of Reasonableness in Restricting Rights

Why in News?

The Supreme Court's verdict in the State of Madras vs V.G. Row case, 1952, established the principle of reasonableness for laws that impose restrictions on fundamental rights. It set a significant precedent for judicial review, ensuring that such restrictions are fair, just, and not excessive.

What is the State of Madras vs V.G. Row Case?

• Background: The case was a challenge to the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1950, which allowed the government to ban associations considered detrimental to public order. The Madras government used this law to ban the People’s Education Society in 1950. V.G. Row, a member of the banned society, argued that the law violated his right under Article 19(1)(c) (Right to Form Associations) and imposed an unreasonable restriction under Article 19(4).
• Supreme Court (SC) Ruling: In 1952, the SC struck down the law as unconstitutional, ruling that excessive executive discretion in banning associations was arbitrary and violated Article 19(1)(c). The court emphasized that restrictions must be just, fair, and proportionate to the objective pursued. The SC developed a framework to assess the reasonableness of restrictions based on factors such as the nature of the right affected, the purpose of the restriction, its proportionality to the issue, and the prevailing socio-political conditions.

Significance:

• Evolution of Constitutional Jurisprudence: This case established the reasonableness test, which later evolved into the proportionality test used in modern jurisprudence to assess state actions that limit fundamental rights.
• Impact on Modern Legal Frameworks: Laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), and the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) have been scrutinized under this framework to ensure they do not unduly infringe on civil liberties.
• Note: In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), the SC reiterated that restrictions on movement and communication must meet the proportionality test, ruling that indefinite internet shutdowns violate Articles 19(1)(a) & 19(1)(g), unless justified under Article 19(2). The restrictions must be necessary, proportionate, and subject to judicial review.

Article 19 of the Indian Constitution guarantees fundamental rights, including freedom of speech, assembly, and movement, while Article 19(2) allows reasonable restrictions on these rights for specific purposes, such as protecting national security, public order, and morality.

Landmark Cases on Balancing Rights and Restrictions

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Established the basic structure doctrine.
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Expanded the scope of Article 21, requiring any restrictions to be fair, just, and reasonable.
• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): Struck down Section 66A of the IT Act for being vague and overbroad.
• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): Reinforced the right to privacy as part of the right to life and personal liberty.

Drishti Mains Question:
Q. How does the principle of 'reasonable restrictions' protect national interest while upholding democratic freedoms?

UPSC Civil Services Examination, Previous Year Questions (PYQs)

Prelims
Q1. ‘Right to Privacy’ is protected under which Article of the Constitution of India? (2021)
(a) Article 15
(b) Article 19
(c) Article 21
(d) Article 29
Ans: (c)

Q2. The right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty. Which of the following in the Constitution of India correctly and appropriately implies the above statement? (2018)
(a) Article 14 and the provisions under the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution.
(b) Article 17 and the Directive Principles of State Policy in Part IV.
(c) Article 21 and the freedoms guaranteed in Part III.
(d) Article 24 and the provisions under the 44th Amendment to the Constitution.
Ans: (c)

Mains
Q. Examine the scope of Fundamental Rights in light of the latest Supreme Court judgment on the Right to Privacy. (2017)

Tags : UPSC 2025 current affairs preparation, UPSC current affairs January 2025, UPSC 2025 daily current affairs, Best sources for UPSC current affairs 2025, UPSC 2025 current affairs for prelims, UPSC 2025 current affairs for mains, Important current affairs for UPSC 2025, UPSC current affairs strategy 2025, UPSC 2025 current affairs notes, UPSC current affairs PDF 2025, Current affairs for UPSC 2025 preparation, UPSC 2025 current affairs online classes, UPSC current affairs quiz 2025, How to study current affairs for UPSC 2025, UPSC 2025 current affairs magazines, Current affairs for UPSC 2025 prelims and mains, Current affairs updates for UPSC 2025, UPSC 2025 current affairs analysis, Current affairs for UPSC 2025 PDF download, UPSC 2025 current affairs important topics, UPSC reading comprehension tips, UPSC reading comprehension practice papers,  UPSC reading comprehension strategy, UPSC reading comprehension questions,  UPSC reading comprehension exercises,  How to improve reading comprehension for UPSC, UPSC reading comprehension question papers PDF,  Important reading comprehension topics for UPSC, UPSC reading comprehension passage solutions, UPSC reading comprehension best books, UPSC GS reading comprehension examples, UPSC Prelims reading comprehension preparation,