Article 21 Practice Questions
18 free Article 21 practice questions for the Indian Polity. Tap an option to answer — you get instant feedback, the correct answer, and a detailed explanation for every question.
What is the primary subject matter of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution?
- A Protection against arrest and detention
- B Protection of life and personal liberty
- C Right to equality before law
- D Freedom of speech and expression
Correct answer: Protection of life and personal liberty
Article 21 declares that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. It is considered the 'heart' of the Fundamental Rights.
In which landmark case did the Supreme Court rule that Article 21 is available only against arbitrary executive action and not against arbitrary legislative action?
- A Maneka Gandhi case (1978)
- B K.S. Puttaswamy case (2017)
- C M.C. Mehta case (1986)
- D A.K. Gopalan case (1950)
Correct answer: A.K. Gopalan case (1950)
In the A.K. Gopalan case, the court took a narrow view of Article 21, stating that the 'procedure established by law' simply meant any law enacted by the Parliament, regardless of its fairness. This view was later overruled in the Maneka Gandhi case.
The 'Procedure Established by Law' in Article 21 was interpreted to include 'Due Process of Law' in which case?
- A Golaknath case
- B Kesavananda Bharati case
- C Minerva Mills case
- D Maneka Gandhi case
Correct answer: Maneka Gandhi case
In the Maneka Gandhi case (1978), the Supreme Court ruled that the procedure must be 'just, fair, and reasonable'. This effectively introduced the American concept of substantive due process into Indian jurisprudence.
The Right to Privacy was declared a fundamental right under Article 21 in which unanimous judgment?
- A Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan
- B Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
- C Shayara Bano v. Union of India
- D K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India
Correct answer: K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India
In 2017, a nine-judge bench ruled that the Right to Privacy is an intrinsic part of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty. This case overruled previous judgments in MP Sharma and Kharak Singh.
Which article of the Constitution ensures that the rights under Article 21 cannot be suspended even during a National Emergency?
- A Article 352
- B Article 358
- C Article 359
- D Article 360
Correct answer: Article 359
Following the 44th Amendment Act (1978), Article 359 was amended to ensure that the enforcement of Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended by a Presidential order during an emergency. This prevents state overreach regarding personal liberty.
The right to 'clean environment' and 'pollution-free air' has been included under Article 21 through the judicial activism of which case?
- A Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation
- B Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary
- C Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration
- D M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987)
Correct answer: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987)
Through various M.C. Mehta cases, the judiciary expanded Article 21 to include environmental rights. The court held that the right to life includes the right to enjoy a wholesome environment.
The right of a prisoner to 'speedy trial' was first recognized as a part of Article 21 in which case?
- A Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration
- B Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary
- C Charles Sobhraj v. Superintendent, Central Jail
- D D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal
Correct answer: Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary
In Hussainara Khatoon (1979), the court addressed the plight of undertrial prisoners languishing in jails. It ruled that a speedy trial is a fundamental right implicit in the broad sweep of Article 21.
The 'Right to Die' or 'Right to Commit Suicide' was held NOT to be a part of Article 21 in which case?
- A P. Rathinam v. Union of India
- B Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab
- C Common Cause v. Union of India
- D Aruna Shanbaug case
Correct answer: Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab
In Gian Kaur (1996), a five-judge bench overruled P. Rathinam and held that the 'Right to Life' is a natural right, whereas suicide is an unnatural termination of life. Thus, Article 21 does not include the right to die.
The Supreme Court recognized 'Passive Euthanasia' and the validity of 'Living Wills' under Article 21 in which case?
- A Common Cause v. Union of India
- B Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab
- C K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India
- D Selvi v. State of Karnataka
Correct answer: Common Cause v. Union of India
In the Common Cause case, the court ruled that the right to die with dignity is a fundamental right. It allowed passive euthanasia (withdrawing medical support) under strict guidelines.
Which of the following rights has NOT been read into Article 21 by the Supreme Court, being expressly guaranteed by another Article?
- A Right to travel abroad
- B Right to shelter and housing
- C Right to form associations
- D Right to legal aid
Correct answer: Right to form associations
The right to form associations or unions is expressly guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c), so the Court never had to read it into Article 21. The other three are judicial expansions of Article 21 — the right to travel abroad (Maneka Gandhi, 1978), the right to shelter (Olga Tellis, 1985) and the right to free legal aid (M. H. Hoskot, 1978).
The use of Narco-analysis, Polygraph tests, and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) without consent was held to violate Article 21 in:
- A D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal
- B Selvi v. State of Karnataka
- C Lily Thomas v. Union of India
- D Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
Correct answer: Selvi v. State of Karnataka
In Selvi (2010), the court ruled that involuntary administration of these tests violates the 'Right against Self-Incrimination' (Article 20(3)) and the 'Right to Personal Liberty' (Article 21).
The 'Right to Livelihood' was recognized as a part of the 'Right to Life' in which case involving pavement dwellers?
- A Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation
- B Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)
- C Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983)
- D Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Correct answer: Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation
In Olga Tellis (1985), the court held that no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the right to life, the easiest way to deprive a person of his life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood.
Which case established the 'Rarest of Rare' doctrine for awarding the death penalty, ensuring it doesn't arbitrarily violate Article 21?
- A Mithu v. State of Punjab
- B Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
- C Sher Singh v. State of Punjab
- D Jagmohan Singh v. State of UP
Correct answer: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
In Bachan Singh (1980), the court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty but limited its application to 'rarest of rare' cases to balance the state's power with the individual's right to life.
In Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983), the Supreme Court struck down Section 303 of the IPC because it violated Article 21. What did Section 303 prescribe?
- A Punishment for the attempt to commit suicide
- B Mandatory death sentence for life convicts who commit murder
- C Mandatory death penalty for the rape of a child
- D Mandatory life imprisonment for large-scale drug trafficking
Correct answer: Mandatory death sentence for life convicts who commit murder
The court held that a mandatory death sentence is unconstitutional as it deprives the judiciary of its discretion and prevents the accused from being heard on the question of sentence, thus violating Article 21.
The right to 'free legal aid' for an indigent accused was first identified as part of Article 21 in which case?
- A M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra
- B Khatri v. State of Bihar
- C Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh
- D Nandini Satpathy v. State of Orissa
Correct answer: M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra
In M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra (1978), the Supreme Court first held that free legal aid for an indigent accused is part of the fair, just and reasonable procedure required under Article 21. This principle was later reinforced in Khatri v. State of Bihar (1981) and Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh (1986).
The protection of Article 21 is available to:
- A Citizens only
- B Both citizens and non-citizens
- C Natural persons only, excluding legal corporations
- D Both citizens and non-citizens, but not corporations
Correct answer: Both citizens and non-citizens, but not corporations
Article 21 is a universal right available to every 'person', including foreigners. However, since it concerns 'life and personal liberty', it applies only to natural persons and not to artificial legal entities like corporations.
The right to 'Safe Working Conditions' for women, leading to the Vishaka Guidelines, was derived from which Articles?
- A Articles 14 and 15 only
- B Articles 14, 19, and 21
- C Articles 25 and 26
- D Articles 32 and 226
Correct answer: Articles 14, 19, and 21
In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the court ruled that sexual harassment at the workplace violates the fundamental rights of gender equality (Art 14/15) and the right to life and liberty (Art 21).
Which of the following is considered a 'Golden Triangle' of the Indian Constitution by the Supreme Court?
- A Articles 14, 15, and 16
- B Articles 19, 20, and 21
- C Articles 14, 19, and 21
- D Articles 32, 226, and 136
Correct answer: Articles 14, 19, and 21
The Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case described Articles 14 (Equality), 19 (Freedom), and 21 (Life/Liberty) as the Golden Triangle, representing the core values of individual character and liberty.