What is Freedom

This word has different interpretation by diffent people and cant be understood in a sentence.
According to  Nobel Memorial Prize Economist Friedrich Hayek, the "socialist argument" defined
"individual liberty" as " 'freedom from' obstacles", which only "confused" and obscured the aim of
"securing individual freedom." This obfuscation and conceptual scope of " 'freedom from' " in turn
permitted a possible "identification of freedom with power." The subsequent "collective power over
circumstances" misappropriated "the physical 'ability to do what I want', the power to satisfy our
wishes, or the extent of the choice of alternatives open to us." Hayek maintained that once any
possible "identification of freedom with power is admitted," a "totalitarian state" coalesced where
"liberty has been suppressed in the name of liberty." and some people like Social anarchists see
negative and positive liberty as complementary concepts of freedom. Such a view of rights may
require utilitarian trade-offs, such as sacrificing the right to the product of one's labor or freedom of
association for less racial discrimination or more subsidies for housing. Social anarchists describe
the negative liberty-centric view endorsed by capitalism as "selfish freedom"

Article 19
Article 19 guarantees six freedoms. They are:

 Freedom of speech and expression: The State guarantees freedom of speech and

expression to every person of India. However, the State can impose restrictions on the
freedom of speech and expression in the interests of the integrity, security and
sovereignty of the country, friendly relations with foreign nations, for public order, with
respect to defamation, incitement to offence or contempt of court.
 Freedom to assemble: The State guarantees every person the freedom to assemble
peacefully without arms. However, as above, reasonable restrictions can be imposed in
the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of the country and public order.
 Freedom to form associations/unions/cooperative societies: The State can impose
restrictions in the interests of the integrity, security and sovereignty of the country, friendly
relations with foreign nations, for public order, with respect to defamation, incitement to
offence or contempt of court. This freedom gives workers the right to form trade union,
which is thus a fundamental right. The Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966
prohibits police personnel from forming trade unions.The Constitution also allows the
Parliament to pass a law restricting the right to form political association to members of the
armed forces, intelligence bureaus, persons employed with telecommunication system.
 Freedom to move freely: A citizen of India can move freely throughout the territory of
India. But this right can also be restricted on the grounds of security, public order or for
protecting the interests of the Scheduled Tribes.
 Freedom of residence: Citizens of India have the right to reside in any part of the country.
Although restrictions can be imposed on the grounds of security, public order or for
protecting the interests of the Scheduled Tribes.
 Freedom of profession: All citizens have the right to carry on any trade or
profession/occupation, provided the trade or occupation is not illegal or immoral. Also, the
 law does not prevent the State from making laws related to technical or professional
qualifications required for practicing the occupation or trade.

CASE STUDY

In the landmark case of Romesh Thappar v. The State Of Madras(1950), the Supreme Court
observed that, “freedom of speech and of the press lay at the founda- tion of all democratic
organisations, for without free political discussion no public education, so essential for the proper
functioning of the processes of popular government, is possible”. The Court in this case held that
the freedom of circulation is as important as the freedom of publication.

Article 20 and its clauses

Article 20 of the Indian Constitution makes up of 3 clauses.
In a simpler sense, these three clauses deal with issue of unnecessary and rather undesirable
actions by Legislature, Executive & implementing authorities.
The basic crux of these provisions are:

 First, it establishes that no one should be convicted for any offence other than those
violating the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence and also, one
couldn’t be penalised with a greater punishment than what existed at the time of the
commission of the act.
 Second, no one could be convicted and punished more than once for the same offence
involving the same set of facts.
 Third, no one should be compelled to produce such evidence and information which could
be used against him during trial incompetent judicial tribunals.

Article 20 is among those Articles of the Indian Constitution, which can’t be put aside even during
an emergency. Thus, forms a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution.
Article 21
The article prohibits the deprivation of rights according to procedures established by law. Article 21
is the heart of the Indian Constitution. It is the most organic and progressive provision in our Indian
Constitution. Fundamental rights are protected under the charter of rights in the Constitution of
India. Article 21 talks about equality before the law, freedom of speech and expression, religious
and cultural freedom, etc. Article 21 is valid for every citizen of India. It is also valid for foreign
citizens.

CASE STUDY FOR ARTICLE 21

Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India
Facts of the case
In this case, Manenka Gandhi issued a passport for the foreign tour from the passport office. But
the Regional Passport officer Delhi has informed the petitioner about the passport that this decision
is taken by the Government of India for the acceptance of passport. Because of this reason the
petitioner had to surrender her passport within 7 days. After some time the Government rejected
the passport saying it is against the interest of the general public. Then the petitioner filed a writ
petition challenging the government for impounding the passport and declining from doing so.  
The Judgment of the case:
In the case of Maneka Gandhi the Supreme Court gave a new direction to Article 21 and said that
the right to live is not merely a physical right but includes the ambit of the right to live with human
dignity.

Article 21 A
The essence of every country lies in education, and without it, the country fails to survive. As a
result, the cornerstone of the country is education. It is crucial for the overall growth and effective
operation of a democracy. Education helps people become more skilled and more likeable, and as
they grow, so does the country.  Article 21A of the Indian Constitution, which was inserted into the
Constitution by means of the Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002, mandates every
state to provide free and compulsory education to all children in the age group of six to fourteen
years, thereby declaring education as a fundamental right guaranteed under Part III of the
Constitution. This amendment is a major milestone in the country’s aim to achieve ‘Education for
All’.

BUT
Does Article 21A guarantee the Right to Education in mother tongue?
The Rajasthan High Court in a landmark decision of School Development Management v. State of
Rajasthan (2022) while contemplating the Right to Free and Primary Education, observed that
Article 21A of the Constitution does not “ensure” the right to obtain education in one’s “mother
tongue or home language.” However, a single judge bench led by Justice Dinesh Mehta ruled that
the Rajasthan government’s decision to convert Shri Hari Singh Government Senior Secondary
School in Peelwa, Jodhpur district, to an English medium school in September 2021 is void because
it violates Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution which guarantees the Freedom of Speech and
Expression. The School Development Management Committee (SDMC) and the parents of the
school’s children had petitioned before the Rajasthan High Court, which rendered its decision
thereafter. 
Facts of the case

 It was argued before the Court that changing the educational medium in the middle of a
session violated students’ fundamental rights and was against the Constitution. The
parents insisted that they opposed “full conversion of the present institution,” which was
thinking of keeping only English as the language of instruction. They claimed that the
sudden change would force students to enrol in other schools during the academic
session, which would have an impact on their academic performance.
 The Rajasthan State Government insisted that pupils may simply enrol in the various
government institutions offering Hindi as a second language nearby. The administration
argued that such a decision was acceptable by citing the policy choice of one English-
medium school in a community with a population of more than 5,000 people. However,
 after reviewing the relevant constitutional provisions, the High Court dismissed the
argument.
 However, the petitioners’ argument that Article 21A protects the right to obtain an
education in Hindi was rejected by the Rajasthan High Court. The Court cited a 2014
Supreme Court decision (State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Associated Management of English
Medium Primary and Secondary Schools & Ors (2022)) that had taken a similar tack in
holding that the wording of the article is not absolute and permits the state to choose the
medium of instruction ‘by law’. According to what has been granted under Article 21A of
the Constitution, “no child or parent can claim it as a matter of right, that he/his ward
should be trained in a particular language or the mother tongue solely,” is what the Court
observed in the present case.

Decision and analysis

The Rajasthan High Court said that the Right to Education is a part and parcel of Article 19(1) (a),
which guarantees the Freedom of Speech and Expression, and the Court acknowledged that it could
not be said that it is not protected by any of the fundamental rights. Which said that the state
government’s decision could not whittle down a child’s right to receive an education in Hindi under
Article 19 (1)(a).The Court also stated that it was against the law to “scoop out 601 kids with one
stroke of the pen under the confidence that they would be accommodated at neighbouring
schools.” The state government’s decision would also be in violation of Article 14, which guarantees
the Right to Equality, as it was made without using any evidence or comprehensible standards. The
Court also pointed out that the Concurrent List of the Constitution, which contains subject matters
on which both the Centre and the state have the authority to legislate, encompassed
education.According to the Right to Education Act of 2009, “the medium of teaching shall, to the
extent practical, be in the mother tongue or the home language.” Justice Mehta stated that in light
of this, “English as a language of instruction cannot be imposed on a child by state"
Article 22
Article 22 constituted within the right to freedom is one of the parts of the fundamental rights
guaranteed under the constitution. This article is covered in two major parts, protection and rights
granted in case of arbitrary arrest also known as punitive detention, and safeguards against
preventive detention. The main difference is that whether a person is charged with a crime or not.
In case of detention, the person is not accused of any crime but is restricted on a reasonable
suspicion while in case of arrest the person is charged for a crime. This article has always been a
topic for debates as it is a contradiction to the freedom guaranteed by Article 21, dealing with the
right to life and liberty. The article was originally brought in to safeguard society against
undermining of sanctity of the constitution but it rather curtailed the freedom of the masses. 

at last what is freedom ?

Freedom is a life without restrictions is called freedom