Class 11 Political Science Chapter 2 Rights in the Indian Constitution NCERT Solutions in English

Q. Write true or false against each of these statements:
(a) A Bill of Rights lays down the rights enjoyed by the people of a country.
(b) A Bill of Rights protects the liberties of an individual.
(c) Every country of the world has a Bill of Rights.
(d) The Constitution guarantees remedy against violation of Rights.

Answer:
(a) True. A Bill of Rights is exactly this: the list of rights a constitution mentions and protects for the people of that country.
(b) True. Protecting individual liberty, along with equality, is the whole point of having a Bill of Rights.
(c) False. Not every country has a written Bill of Rights; some democracies protect rights through convention and ordinary law instead.
(d) True. The Right to Constitutional Remedies lets a citizen approach a High Court or the Supreme Court to have any violated Fundamental Right restored.

Q. Which of the following is the best description of Fundamental Rights?
(a) All the rights an individual should have.
(b) All the rights given to citizens by law.
(c) The rights given and protected by the Constitution.
(d) The rights given by the Constitution that cannot ever be restricted.

Answer: (c). Fundamental Rights are specifically the rights the Constitution itself lists and protects. Option (a) is too broad, since not every right a person “should” have is a Fundamental Right. Option (b) describes ordinary legal rights, which can be changed by ordinary law, not Fundamental Rights, which can only be changed by amending the Constitution. Option (d) is wrong because Fundamental Rights are not absolute: the government can place reasonable restrictions on them.

Q. Read the following situations. Which Fundamental Right is being used or violated in each case and how?
(a) Overweight male cabin crew are allowed to get promotion in the national airlines but their women colleagues who gain weight are penalised.
(b) A director makes a documentary film that criticises the policies of the government.
(c) People displaced by a big dam take out a rally demanding rehabilitation.
(d) Andhra society runs Telugu medium schools outside Andhra Pradesh.

Answer:
(a) This violates the Right to Equality, specifically prohibition of discrimination on the ground of sex. Penalising only women employees for a rule applied leniently to men is exactly the kind of unequal treatment this right exists to stop.
(b) This is a legitimate use of the Right to Freedom, specifically freedom of speech and expression. Criticising government policy through a documentary is a form of expression the Constitution protects, subject only to reasonable restrictions like public order.
(c) This is a legitimate use of the Right to Freedom, specifically the freedom to assemble peacefully. A rally demanding rehabilitation is a peaceful protest, which the Constitution protects as long as it stays peaceful and unarmed.
(d) This is a legitimate use of the Cultural and Educational Rights. A linguistic community (Telugu speakers, a minority outside Andhra Pradesh) has the right to conserve its language and set up its own educational institutions to teach it.

Q. Which of the following is a correct interpretation of the Cultural and Educational Rights?
(a) Only children belonging to the minority group that has opened educational institution can study there.
(b) Government schools must ensure that children of the minority group will be introduced to their belief and culture.
(c) Linguistic and religious minorities can open schools for their children and keep it reserved for them.
(d) Linguistic and religious minorities can demand that their children must not study in any educational institution except those managed by their own community.

Answer: (c). Cultural and Educational Rights allow linguistic and religious minorities to set up their own educational institutions to preserve their language and culture. Option (a) is wrong because a minority-run institution is not restricted only to its own community’s children. Option (b) is wrong because the Constitution requires state institutions to stay neutral on religion, not actively teach a minority’s beliefs. Option (d) is wrong because minorities have the right to open their own schools, not the right to force their children out of every other kind of institution.

Q. Which of the following is a violation of Fundamental Rights and why?
(a) Not paying minimum wages
(b) Banning of a book
(c) Banning of loudspeakers after 9 pm.
(d) Making a speech

Answer:
(a) Violation. Paying below the minimum wage amounts to begar or forced labour, which violates the Right against Exploitation, exactly as in the Asian Games construction-workers case in this chapter.
(b) Depends on the reason. Banning a book is a violation of the Right to Freedom (freedom of speech and expression) unless it is done under a reasonable restriction, such as protecting public order or morality; an unreasonable, arbitrary ban would be a violation.
(c) Not a violation. This is a reasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression, imposed in the interest of public order and the peace of other residents at night, which the Constitution explicitly allows.
(d) Not a violation. Making a speech is itself the exercise of the Right to Freedom (freedom of speech and expression), not a violation of anyone’s right, unless its actual content breaks a reasonable restriction like inciting violence.

Q. An activist working among the poor says that the poor don’t need Fundamental Rights. What they need are Directive Principles to be made legally binding. Do you agree with this? Give your reasons.

Answer: Not entirely. It is true that a Directive Principle like the right to work, if made legally binding, would change a poor person’s life more directly and immediately than an abstract legal guarantee. But Fundamental Rights are not useless to the poor either: the Asian Games workers’ case in this very chapter shows that once their Right against Exploitation was challenged in court, they actually got the wages owed to them. Many Directive Principles, such as the right to education, panchayati raj and the mid-day meal scheme, have already been implemented through ordinary law and political pressure, without needing to be made justiciable. A balanced view is that the poor need both: Fundamental Rights that stop them from being directly exploited, and Directive Principles that push governments toward welfare measures over time.

Q. Several reports show that caste groups previously associated with scavenging are forced to continue in this job. Those in positions of authority refuse to give them any other job. Their children are discouraged from pursuing education. Which of their Fundamental Rights are being violated in this instance?

Answer: This involves violations of more than one Fundamental Right. First, the Right to Equality is violated: refusing people any other job purely because of their caste is exactly the kind of caste-based discrimination this right bans, and it is closely tied to the abolition of untouchability. Second, the Right against Exploitation is violated if they are compelled into this work against their will, since forced or degrading labour tied to caste is a form of exploitation the Constitution prohibits. Third, discouraging their children from education violates the Right to Education, and also undermines the Right to Equality of opportunity, since it keeps the next generation trapped in the same position.

Q. A petition by a human rights group drew attention of the court to the condition of starvation and hunger in the country. Over five crore tonnes of food grains was stored in the godowns of the Food Corporation of India. Research shows that a large number of ration cardholders do not know about the quantity of food grains they can purchase from fair price shops. It requested the court to order the government to improve its public distribution system.
a. Which different rights does this case involve? How are these rights interlinked?
b. Should these rights form part of the right to life?

Answer:
a. This case involves the Right to Constitutional Remedies (the group petitioning the court), the right to information (ration cardholders not knowing their entitlements), and, implicitly, a right to food. These are interlinked because the right to information is what makes the other rights usable in practice: a ration cardholder who does not know their entitlement cannot claim it, so their right to adequate food is denied not by lack of grain (there is plenty stored), but by lack of access to information and a functioning distribution system, and the court’s power to order a remedy is what can connect all three.
b. Yes. The Supreme Court has already expanded the right to life under Article 21 to include the right to shelter and livelihood, on the reasoning that no person can truly live without the means of living. Access to adequate food follows the same logic exactly: a person cannot live with dignity, or at all, without enough food, so a right against starvation is a natural extension of the right to life the courts have already recognised.

Q. Read the statement by Somnath Lahiri in the Constituent Assembly quoted in this chapter. Do you agree with him? If yes, give instances to prove it. If not, give arguments against his position.

Answer: A balanced answer neither fully agrees nor fully disagrees. Lahiri argued that Fundamental Rights were framed from a police constable’s point of view, with very minimum rights conceded and almost every article followed by a proviso that took the right away. There is real evidence for this: the right to freedom of speech is restricted by public order and morality, the right to assemble can be denied by declaring a gathering of five or more unlawful, and preventive detention lets the government hold a person without trial for up to three months, a power the chapter itself notes has often been misused by the government. But the opposite argument also has force: an unrestricted right would let one person’s freedom threaten everyone else’s, which is exactly why the chapter defines freedom as something that must be exercised without endangering others’ freedom or the law and order situation. So the fairer conclusion is that Lahiri was right that the restrictions were extensive and open to misuse, but not right that they made the rights meaningless: the Right to Constitutional Remedies and decades of judicial interpretation since 1950 have repeatedly widened rights rather than let restrictions swallow them.

Q. Which of the Fundamental Rights is in your opinion the most important right? Summarise its provisions and give arguments to show why it is most important.

Answer: The Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32) has the strongest claim, and Dr. Ambedkar himself called it the “heart and soul of the Constitution”. It lets a citizen approach the High Court or the Supreme Court directly whenever any Fundamental Right is violated, and the court can issue any of five writs, Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo Warranto and Certiorari, to enforce it. It matters most because every other Fundamental Right depends on it for its actual force: Machal Lalung’s 54 years in custody show exactly what happens to a right that exists on paper but cannot be enforced, while the Asian Games workers’ case shows what happens when a right can be enforced. Every other Fundamental Right protects against one particular kind of harm; this one protects the ability to make all the others real, which is why losing it would matter more than losing any single right on the list.

Q. What if Machal was a rich and powerful man? What if those working with the construction contractor were engineers? Would their rights have been violated?

Answer. Most probably not. A rich and powerful person would have had lawyers and influence; his case would have been pressed in court and he would not have been forgotten in custody for 54 years. Engineers are educated, organised and better paid, so a contractor could not easily have paid them less than the minimum wage. The two examples show that rights are most often violated in the case of the poor, the illiterate and the powerless, who do not know their rights or cannot go to court. That is why the chapter stresses the actual implementation of rights, and not only listing them.

Q. I get it! The bill of rights is like a warrantee card that we get when we purchase a TV or a fan. Isn’t it?

Answer. Yes, in a way. A warrantee card lists what the buyer is entitled to and lets the buyer claim a remedy if the promise is broken. A bill of rights similarly lists the rights the constitution guarantees, prohibits the government from acting against them, and ensures a remedy in case they are violated. The difference is that a bill of rights is not a private promise by a seller: it is the supreme law, it binds every organ of government, and it is enforced by the courts.

Q. Compare the Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution with the Bill of Rights in the South African Constitution. Make a list of rights that are: (i) common to both the constitutions; (ii) available in South Africa but not in India; (iii) clearly granted in South Africa but implicit in the Indian Constitution.

Answer.
(i) Common to both: equality and protection against discrimination; freedom of religion, belief and conscience; the rights of cultural, religious and linguistic communities; children’s rights (in India, the bar on child labour in hazardous work and the right to education); the right to basic education; and a court that enforces the rights.
(ii) In South Africa but not as Fundamental Rights in India: right to adequate housing; right to health care, food, water and social security; right to fair labour practices; right to a healthy environment and its protection; right to higher education. (Some of these appear in India only as Directive Principles.)
(iii) Clearly granted in South Africa but implicit in India: right to dignity and right to privacy, which Indian courts have read into the right to life and personal liberty, and the right to information, which follows from freedom of speech and expression.

Q. Consider the following two situations (Swadesh Kumar’s dalit friend served tea in an earthen cup; four women newsreaders above forty-five barred from reading the news while two men of the same age are not). Do you think they involve violation of fundamental rights? Do you think that such discrimination is justified?

Answer. Yes, both involve violation of the Right to Equality, and neither is justified. The first is discrimination on the ground of caste in access to a hotel, a public place; the Constitution prohibits such discrimination and has abolished untouchability. The second is discrimination on the ground of sex in employment: the same age rule is applied to the women and not to the men, which denies them equal treatment. Such discrimination denies equal dignity and status, which the Right to Equality exists to ensure.

Q. Do such things really happen in our country? Or are these purely imaginary?

Answer. They really happen. The book itself says the situations are imaginary but “similar things do happen and can happen”. Caste discrimination in serving food or water, separate utensils, or denial of entry to temples and wells is still reported in parts of the country, and women still face unequal treatment at work. This is exactly why the Right to Equality prohibits discrimination and abolishes untouchability, and why its implementation matters.

Q. Have you read the Preamble to our Constitution? How does it describe equality?

Answer. Yes. The Preamble mentions two things about equality: equality of status and equality of opportunity. Equality of opportunity means that all sections of society enjoy equal opportunities; and because Indian society has many social inequalities, the Constitution also allows the government to implement special schemes and measures for children, women, and the socially and educationally backward classes. Article 16(4) makes clear that a policy like reservation is not a violation of the right to equality, since it is required to fulfil equality of opportunity.

Q. You have received a postcard from Hadibandhu, a member of the dalit community in Puri district in Odisha. Men from this community refused to wash the feet of the groom and guests of the upper caste during marriage ceremonies; in revenge four women were beaten up and another was paraded naked. Assuming the facts are correct: Does this case involve violation of Fundamental Rights? What would you order the government to do in this case?

Answer. Yes. Forcing dalits to perform degrading customary services is a practice of untouchability, which the Right to Equality abolishes, and it is discrimination on the ground of caste. The violent punishment violates the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to live with human dignity, and compelling people to do such work against their will is also a form of exploitation. As the judge, I would order the government to register cases and punish those who attacked the women, to give the victims protection, medical help and compensation, to make sure no one in the area is forced to perform such customary work, and to report back to the court on the action taken.

Q. Does it mean that in some cases someone’s life can be taken away by law? That sounds strange. Can you think of an example?

Answer. Yes. Article 21 says no person can be deprived of life or personal liberty “except according to procedure established by law”. So the law itself can provide a procedure under which life may be taken. The clearest example is the death sentence: a court may sentence a person convicted of a very serious crime, such as murder, to death, after a full and fair trial and after all appeals are over. What the Constitution forbids is taking life arbitrarily, without such a procedure.

Q. Do you think that the following situations demand restrictions on right to freedom? Give reasons to support your answer.
a. People have assembled for a peace march after communal riots in the city.
b. Dalits are denied entry in a temple. A march is being organised to forcibly enter the temple.
c. Hundreds of Adivasis blocked the road demanding that the land taken away from them for an industry be returned.
d. A caste panchayat is meeting to decide the punishment to a young couple for marrying outside their caste.

Answer.
a. No. A peace march is a peaceful assembly without arms, protected by the right to freedom. It helps restore harmony, so it should be allowed, though the police may regulate its route and timing for public order.
b. The demand of the dalits is just, because denying them entry to a temple is untouchability, which is abolished. But a march to enter “forcibly” may lead to violence, so reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order can be placed on the manner of the march, while the government must itself ensure that dalits get entry.
c. Partly. The Adivasis have the right to assemble and protest about their land. But blocking a road for a long time affects the freedom of movement of others, so reasonable restrictions on the blockade can be placed, and the government should hear their demand.
d. Yes, this demands restriction. A caste panchayat has no legal authority to punish anyone, and punishing a couple for marrying outside their caste violates their right to life and personal liberty. The meeting should be stopped and the couple protected.

Q. Name the fundamental rights whose violation is depicted in this photograph.

Answer. The photograph shows a small child at work instead of in school. It depicts the violation of the Right against Exploitation, which prohibits the employment of children below 14 years in hazardous jobs and prohibits forced labour, and of the right to education, which is a Fundamental Right for children. It also denies the child’s right to life with dignity.

Q. Make a list of public religious activities that take place in your village or city. Which of these involve an exercise of right to religious freedom? Discuss what could have happened if this right was not available to people in your locality.

Answer. Your list will depend on your locality. A typical list: festival processions, prayers at temples, mosques, churches and gurudwaras, religious fairs, community feasts, discourses and kirtans, and religious schools. All of these are exercises of the right to freedom of religion: the freedom to profess, practise and propagate one’s religion and to manage religious affairs, subject to public order, morality and health. If this right were not available, the government or a dominant group could ban the worship or festivals of some communities, force people to follow one official religion or persecute those who follow another, as rulers did in the past. Minorities would feel insecure, and the peace and secular character of the locality would suffer.

Q. I am in minority in my locality but majority in the town, minority if you look at my language but majority if you go by my religion… Aren’t we all minorities?

Answer. In a sense, yes. Minority status is not fixed: it depends on the area being considered (a locality, a state or the whole country) and on the basis being used (religion or language). The chapter defines minorities as groups with a common language or religion that are outnumbered by some other section in a particular part of the country or in the country as a whole. Since almost everyone is outnumbered somewhere on some basis, the protection of minorities’ rights to conserve their language, culture and script, and to run their own educational institutions, ends up protecting almost everyone. This is part of why diversity is treated as our strength.

Q. It is estimated that there are about three million urban homeless in India, and night shelters are not available for more than five per cent of them. Many die in cold waves; without “proof of residence” they cannot get ration and voting cards or government help as needy patients; many are low-paid casual workers who come to the city in search of work. Use these facts to write a petition to the Supreme Court under the Right to Constitutional Remedies, mentioning: a. What Fundamental Rights are being denied to the homeless in their everyday life? b. What kind of order would you request the Supreme Court to issue?

Answer.
a. The right to life and personal liberty, which the Supreme Court has held includes the right to live with human dignity and the right to shelter and livelihood; people dying of cold for lack of shelter are denied this right. The Right to Equality is also denied, because without a “proof of residence” they are treated unequally in getting ration cards, voter cards and medical help, and they are cut off from the vote itself. As poorly paid casual workers they are also open to exploitation.
b. The petition would request the Supreme Court to direct the government to: build enough night shelters with basic facilities in every city, especially for winter; issue ration cards and voter identity cards to the homeless without insisting on a fixed address; provide free medical treatment to homeless patients; ensure that they are paid at least the minimum wage; and report regularly to the Court on the steps taken.

Q. Tell me what is the point of saying nice things in the Constitution if these cannot be implemented by any court?

Answer. The Directive Principles are not legally enforceable, but they are not pointless. The framers believed that their moral force would make governments take them seriously, and that the people would hold governments responsible for implementing them. That is what has happened: governments passed zamindari abolition laws, nationalised banks, fixed minimum wages and made laws for the right to education, panchayati raj, the employment guarantee programme and the mid-day meal scheme to give effect to them. They also set goals against which every government can be judged.

Q. What difference, do you think, this change of status makes to the right to property?

Answer. As a Fundamental Right, the right to property was protected by the Constitution itself: it could be changed only by a constitutional amendment, and a person could go directly to the High Court or the Supreme Court under the Right to Constitutional Remedies if it was violated. As a legal right under Article 300A, it is protected only by ordinary law: no one can be deprived of property except by the authority of law, but Parliament or a state legislature can regulate or limit it by ordinary law, and its violation can no longer be taken straight to the Supreme Court under the Right to Constitutional Remedies; the remedy now lies through the ordinary legal process, such as a suit or a petition in the High Court. The change made it easier for the government to acquire land and carry out reforms such as land redistribution for the welfare of society.

Q. Read the main points of the Bill of Rights in the South African Constitution and the Directive Principles in India. Which are the common points in the two lists? Why did the South African Constitution put these in the Bill of Rights? If you were writing the constitution for a new country, what would you suggest?

Answer. Common points: the right to adequate livelihood and social security, fair labour practices (in India, equal pay for equal work and the right against economic exploitation), the right to work, early childhood care and education, health, and the protection of the environment. South Africa put these in its Bill of Rights because its new constitution was made after apartheid, when the black majority had long been denied housing, food, health care and education; to remove these deep inequalities its makers wanted such rights to be enforceable by a special constitutional court, not left as goals. For a new country, I would suggest including in the enforceable list of rights the most basic needs, such as food, basic education, primary health care and shelter, and keeping the other welfare goals as directive principles, so that people get a minimum guarantee and the government still has the flexibility to plan.