Constitution of India Test-3

In which of the following ways can Indian citizenship be acquired?

Principle: Only Parliament or State Legislatures have the authority to enact laws on their own. No law made by the State can take away a person ’s fundamental right.

Facts: Parliament enacted a law, which according to a group of lawyers is violating the fundamental rights of traders. A group of lawyers files a writ petition challenging the Constitutional validity of the statute seeking relief to quash the statute and further direct Parliament to enact a new law.

On 26th January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions.
In politics, we will have equality, and in the social and economic structure, we will continue to deny the principle of one man, one value. How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life? If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril. We must remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment, else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of democracy, which this Constituent Assembly has so laboriously built up.

I feel that the Constitution is workable, flexible, and strong enough to hold the country together in both peacetime and wartime.
Indeed, if I may say so, if things go wrong under the new Constitution, the reason will not be that we had a bad Constitution. What we will have to say is that man was vile.

The third thing we must do is not be content with mere political democracy.
We must note that our political democracy cannot last unless it is based on social democracy. What does social democracy mean? It means a way of life that recognizes liberty, equality, and fraternity as the principles of life.

"... however, good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it, happen to be a bad lot. However, bad a Constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it, happen to be a good lot. The working of a Constitution does not depend wholly upon the nature of the Constitution."

[Excerpts from Dr. Ambedkar 's address to the Constituent Assembly, 25 November 1949]

What does the "life of contradiction "mentioned in the passage refer to?

How can the citizenship of India be terminated?

On 26th January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions.
In politics, we will have equality, and in the social and economic structure, we will continue to deny the principle of one man, one value. How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life? If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril. We must remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment, else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of democracy, which this Constituent Assembly has so laboriously built up.

I feel that the Constitution is workable, flexible, and strong enough to hold the country together in both peacetime and wartime.
Indeed, if I may say so, if things go wrong under the new Constitution, the reason will not be that we had a bad Constitution. What we will have to say is that man was vile.

The third thing we must do is not be content with mere political democracy.
We must note that our political democracy cannot last unless it is based on social democracy. What does social democracy mean? It means a way of life that recognizes liberty, equality, and fraternity as the principles of life.

"... however, good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it, happen to be a bad lot. However, bad a Constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it, happen to be a good lot. The working of a Constitution does not depend wholly upon the nature of the Constitution."

[Excerpts from Dr. Ambedkar 's address to the Constituent Assembly, 25 November 1949]

According to Dr. Ambedkar, what will happen if we continue to deny equality in our social and economic systems?

On 26th January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions.
In politics, we will have equality, and in the social and economic structure, we will continue to deny the principle of one man, one value. How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life? If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril. We must remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment, else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of democracy, which this Constituent Assembly has so laboriously built up.

I feel that the Constitution is workable, flexible, and strong enough to hold the country together in both peacetime and wartime.
Indeed, if I may say so, if things go wrong under the new Constitution, the reason will not be that we had a bad Constitution. What we will have to say is that man was vile.

The third thing we must do is not be content with mere political democracy.
We must note that our political democracy cannot last unless it is based on social democracy. What does social democracy mean? It means a way of life that recognizes liberty, equality, and fraternity as the principles of life.

"... however, good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it, happen to be a bad lot. However, bad a Constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it, happen to be a good lot. The working of a Constitution does not depend wholly upon the nature of the Constitution."

[Excerpts from Dr. Ambedkar 's address to the Constituent Assembly, 25 November 1949]

According to Dr. Ambedkar, what would be the reason if the new Constitution fails?

Can a person waive his fundamental right?

On 26th January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions.
In politics, we will have equality, and in the social and economic structure, we will continue to deny the principle of one man, one value. How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life? If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril. We must remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment, else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of democracy, which this Constituent Assembly has so laboriously built up.

I feel that the Constitution is workable, flexible, and strong enough to hold the country together in both peacetime and wartime.
Indeed, if I may say so, if things go wrong under the new Constitution, the reason will not be that we had a bad Constitution. What we will have to say is that man was vile.

The third thing we must do is not be content with mere political democracy.
We must note that our political democracy cannot last unless it is based on social democracy. What does social democracy mean? It means a way of life that recognizes liberty, equality, and fraternity as the principles of life.

"... however, good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it, happen to be a bad lot. However, bad a Constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it, happen to be a good lot. The working of a Constitution does not depend wholly upon the nature of the Constitution."

[Excerpts from Dr. Ambedkar 's address to the Constituent Assembly, 25 November 1949]

What is the meaning of social democracy?

Identify the correct statement:

The Indian Constitution provides immunity to an accused against self-incrimination under Article 20(3), which states, "No person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself."This provision is a cornerstone of individual rights, ensuring protection against forced confessions or statements that may be used to prosecute an individual. The Supreme Court of India has played a significant role in interpreting and expanding the scope of this immunity. It has clarified that the term "witness "in this context encompasses both oral and documentary evidence, ensuring that no individual is compelled to furnish any evidence that could support prosecution against themselves.

To avail the protection under Article 20(3), the Supreme Court has established a key prerequisite: a formal accusation must exist against the individual at the time of the interrogation. This ensures that the protection applies only to those who have already been charged or are formally accused of an offense. This position was emphasized in the Selvi v. State of Karnatakacase, where the court elaborated on the meaning of a "witness."It held that a witness is someone who provides information, either orally or in writing, to assist the court or an investigation.

The landmark case of State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghadfurther defined the scope of this immunity. An eleven-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled that while the investigative authorities are barred from compelling testimony that originates from the will of the accused, they are permitted to collect physical evidence. Physical evidence, which does not involve the volition of the accused, includes fingerprints, handwriting samples, voice samples, blood tests, and hair strands. Such evidence can be used solely for identification or corroboration of already existing evidence.

In Kathi Kalu Oghad, the court underscored the importance of distinguishing between testimonial compulsion and the collection of physical evidence. For a statement to qualify as self-incriminating, it must be shown that the accused was compelled to provide it and that it was likely to incriminate them. This judgment highlights the balance between individual rights and the needs of an investigation.

These rulings ensure that investigative processes respect constitutional safeguards while enabling authorities to collect objective evidence. By doing so, the judiciary has reinforced the sanctity of Article 20(3), maintaining a delicate equilibrium between the rights of the accused and the interests of justice. This principle safeguards personal liberty and prevents abuse of power, emphasizing the fundamental tenet that no person should be compelled to contribute to their own prosecution.

[Excerpts from Supreme Court judgment in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC 1808]

Sakshi, accused of murdering her husband, is the only person with access to their farmhouse apart from the victim. Authorities obtained a warrant to search Sakshi 's house, but she opposed it, claiming the search violated her right against self-incrimination as it might force her to produce evidence against herself.

Quorum means

The Indian Constitution provides immunity to an accused against self-incrimination under Article 20(3), which states, "No person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself."This provision is a cornerstone of individual rights, ensuring protection against forced confessions or statements that may be used to prosecute an individual. The Supreme Court of India has played a significant role in interpreting and expanding the scope of this immunity. It has clarified that the term "witness "in this context encompasses both oral and documentary evidence, ensuring that no individual is compelled to furnish any evidence that could support prosecution against themselves.

To avail the protection under Article 20(3), the Supreme Court has established a key prerequisite: a formal accusation must exist against the individual at the time of the interrogation. This ensures that the protection applies only to those who have already been charged or are formally accused of an offense. This position was emphasized in the Selvi v. State of Karnatakacase, where the court elaborated on the meaning of a "witness."It held that a witness is someone who provides information, either orally or in writing, to assist the court or an investigation.

The landmark case of State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghadfurther defined the scope of this immunity. An eleven-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled that while the investigative authorities are barred from compelling testimony that originates from the will of the accused, they are permitted to collect physical evidence. Physical evidence, which does not involve the volition of the accused, includes fingerprints, handwriting samples, voice samples, blood tests, and hair strands. Such evidence can be used solely for identification or corroboration of already existing evidence.

In Kathi Kalu Oghad, the court underscored the importance of distinguishing between testimonial compulsion and the collection of physical evidence. For a statement to qualify as self-incriminating, it must be shown that the accused was compelled to provide it and that it was likely to incriminate them. This judgment highlights the balance between individual rights and the needs of an investigation.

These rulings ensure that investigative processes respect constitutional safeguards while enabling authorities to collect objective evidence. By doing so, the judiciary has reinforced the sanctity of Article 20(3), maintaining a delicate equilibrium between the rights of the accused and the interests of justice. This principle safeguards personal liberty and prevents abuse of power, emphasizing the fundamental tenet that no person should be compelled to contribute to their own prosecution.

[Excerpts from Supreme Court judgment in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC 1808]

Selvi, charged under POCSO for sexual assault and grievous hurt, challenges a magistrate ’s approval for a narcotics test. In this test, the accused is sedated and interrogated in a hypnotic state, where answers might be involuntary. Selvi argues that such tests violate the right against self-incrimination.

Who is the final authority to interpret the constitution?

The Indian Constitution provides immunity to an accused against self-incrimination under Article 20(3), which states, "No person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself."This provision is a cornerstone of individual rights, ensuring protection against forced confessions or statements that may be used to prosecute an individual. The Supreme Court of India has played a significant role in interpreting and expanding the scope of this immunity. It has clarified that the term "witness "in this context encompasses both oral and documentary evidence, ensuring that no individual is compelled to furnish any evidence that could support prosecution against themselves.

To avail the protection under Article 20(3), the Supreme Court has established a key prerequisite: a formal accusation must exist against the individual at the time of the interrogation. This ensures that the protection applies only to those who have already been charged or are formally accused of an offense. This position was emphasized in the Selvi v. State of Karnatakacase, where the court elaborated on the meaning of a "witness."It held that a witness is someone who provides information, either orally or in writing, to assist the court or an investigation.

The landmark case of State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghadfurther defined the scope of this immunity. An eleven-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled that while the investigative authorities are barred from compelling testimony that originates from the will of the accused, they are permitted to collect physical evidence. Physical evidence, which does not involve the volition of the accused, includes fingerprints, handwriting samples, voice samples, blood tests, and hair strands. Such evidence can be used solely for identification or corroboration of already existing evidence.

In Kathi Kalu Oghad, the court underscored the importance of distinguishing between testimonial compulsion and the collection of physical evidence. For a statement to qualify as self-incriminating, it must be shown that the accused was compelled to provide it and that it was likely to incriminate them. This judgment highlights the balance between individual rights and the needs of an investigation.

These rulings ensure that investigative processes respect constitutional safeguards while enabling authorities to collect objective evidence. By doing so, the judiciary has reinforced the sanctity of Article 20(3), maintaining a delicate equilibrium between the rights of the accused and the interests of justice. This principle safeguards personal liberty and prevents abuse of power, emphasizing the fundamental tenet that no person should be compelled to contribute to their own prosecution.

[Excerpts from Supreme Court judgment in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC 1808]

Allowing Narcotics Analysis with Consent
In the same scenario, Selvi consents to the narcotics test, claiming it might prove innocence. However, the court hesitates, fearing that allowing such tests could set a dangerous precedent, promoting measures that undermine the accused ’s autonomy over disclosing information.

On 26th January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions.
In politics, we will have equality, and in the social and economic structure, we will continue to deny the principle of one man, one value. How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life? If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril. We must remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment, else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of democracy, which this Constituent Assembly has so laboriously built up.

I feel that the Constitution is workable, flexible, and strong enough to hold the country together in both peacetime and wartime.
Indeed, if I may say so, if things go wrong under the new Constitution, the reason will not be that we had a bad Constitution. What we will have to say is that man was vile.

The third thing we must do is not be content with mere political democracy.
We must note that our political democracy cannot last unless it is based on social democracy. What does social democracy mean? It means a way of life that recognizes liberty, equality, and fraternity as the principles of life.

"... however, good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it, happen to be a bad lot. However, bad a Constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it, happen to be a good lot. The working of a Constitution does not depend wholly upon the nature of the Constitution."

[Excerpts from Dr. Ambedkar 's address to the Constituent Assembly, 25 November 1949]

Under what circumstances can a bad Constitution function effectively?