Between 2023 and 2026 the Supreme Court struck down a political funding scheme, made Fundamental Rights enforceable against private parties, extended passive euthanasia and allowed a constitutional right to override a statutory time limit. Reading the Fundamental Rights recent judgments together shows an unusually active period for Articles 19 and 21, and an unusually wide gap between doctrine and executive practice.
Article 19: Speech, Press and the Internet
Electoral bonds struck down. In Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (February 2024), a five-judge bench unanimously struck down the Electoral Bonds Scheme 2018. Anonymous political donations violated the voter’s right to information under Article 19(1)(a), and the State Bank of India was ordered to disclose all bond data to the Election Commission. The reasoning linked political funding transparency to informed democratic participation, which extends Article 19 into the design of the electoral system itself.
Horizontal application. Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh (January 2023) held by 4 to 1 that Articles 19 and 21 are enforceable against private parties, not only the State. It also held Article 19(2) restrictions to be exhaustive, so no new grounds may be added judicially, and that ministers’ hate speech is attributable to the government under collective responsibility. Justice Nagarathna dissented, holding rights remain vertical and enforceable against private actors only through common law.
Sedition, replaced rather than removed. Section 124A of the IPC was omitted in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023. BNS Section 152 now criminalises acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity, and critics argue the scope is wider than what it replaced. The Supreme Court is examining its validity, and the UAPA continues to fill the enforcement space against journalists, activists and students.
Internet shutdowns. Anuradha Bhasin (2020) held internet access protected under Article 19 and required proportionality. Practice has not followed: 84 shutdowns in 2024 and more than 40 in 2025, during the Manipur violence, Haryana clashes and protest events. Human Rights Watch has characterised them as collective punishment disproportionately affecting marginalised communities. RTI data records more than 300 content removal requests by government agencies between October 2024 and September 2025.
Press freedom. The South Asia Press Freedom Report 2024-25 recorded over 250 violations and 69 journalists jailed. BBC offices were searched by the Income Tax department in February 2023, a month after a documentary was blocked. Kashmiri journalist Aasif Sultan was rearrested under the UAPA in 2024 after five years in custody. The Broadcasting Regulation Bill 2024 was withdrawn after press-freedom objections.
Article 21: The Expanding Right to Life
Passive euthanasia extended. Harish Rana v. Union of India (March 2026) permitted withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration for a man in a permanent vegetative state for 13 years. The Court held that CANH delivered through PEG or nasogastric tubes is medical treatment rather than basic nursing care, so it falls within the Common Cause (2018) passive euthanasia framework, and withdrawal is lawful where treatment no longer serves a therapeutic purpose and merely prolongs biological existence.
Reproductive autonomy over statute. S v. Union of India (April 2026) permitted termination of a 30-week pregnancy, past the 24-week limit in the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, for a person who was a minor at conception. The Court held that the constitutional right to reproductive autonomy under Article 21 takes precedence over statutory restriction in such cases, building on Suchita Srivastava and the privacy lineage from Puttaswamy (2017).
Dignity in public space. In May 2026 the Court observed that Article 21’s dignity guarantee includes the right to access public spaces without apprehension of dog attacks, directing municipalities to treat the stray dog problem as a constitutional obligation.
What the Pattern Shows
Three developments here are structurally significant, beyond their individual outcomes.
Rights are moving horizontally. Kaushal Kishor takes Part III into private relationships. That is a large doctrinal shift, and Justice Nagarathna’s dissent identifies the reason for caution: constitutional remedies were designed against a State with defined obligations, and extending them to private conduct without a corresponding framework risks confusion about who owes what to whom.
Constitutional rights are overriding statutes. S v. Union of India sets a constitutional right against an explicit legislative limit and prefers the right. That is a strong assertion of judicial primacy over legislative line-drawing, defensible in a hard case and consequential as a precedent.
Doctrine and practice have separated. The internet shutdown record is the clearest case. A binding judgment established a proportionality standard in 2020 and the number of shutdowns has not meaningfully fallen. A right that is declared but not enforced becomes a description rather than a protection, and that gap is where most Article 19 litigation now sits.
The Way Forward
- Legislate a statutory framework for internet shutdowns with published reasons, defined duration and mandatory review, since Anuradha Bhasin alone has not changed behaviour.
- Resolve the BNS Section 152 challenge quickly, because uncertainty about the scope of a speech offence is itself a chilling effect.
- Clarify the remedial route for horizontally applied rights, so that Kaushal Kishor produces enforceable claims rather than doctrinal ambiguity.
- Bring the MTP Act into line with the reproductive autonomy holdings, so that constitutional and statutory positions do not require litigation to reconcile.
- Strengthen protections against UAPA misuse in speech cases, which is where the practical restriction on expression now operates.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Supreme Court hold on electoral bonds?
In Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (February 2024) a five-judge bench unanimously struck down the Electoral Bonds Scheme 2018. Anonymous political donations were held to violate the voter’s right to information under Article 19(1)(a), and the State Bank of India was ordered to disclose all bond data to the Election Commission. Political funding transparency was held to be a precondition for free and informed democratic participation.
What was decided in Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh?
In January 2023 a Constitution bench held by 4 to 1 that Articles 19 and 21 are enforceable against private parties and not only against the State, which is the horizontal application of Fundamental Rights. It also held that the restrictions in Article 19(2) are exhaustive, so courts cannot add new grounds. Justice Nagarathna dissented, holding that rights remain vertical and enforceable against private parties only through common law.
What replaced the sedition law?
Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code was omitted in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, and Section 152 of the BNS now criminalises acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. Critics argue this is sedition with wider scope. The Supreme Court is examining its validity under Article 19(1)(a), and the UAPA continues to be used against journalists, activists and students.
What is the position on internet shutdowns?
Anuradha Bhasin (2020) held that internet access is protected under Article 19, yet shutdowns have continued: 84 in 2024 and more than 40 in 2025, during the Manipur violence, Haryana clashes and protest events. Human Rights Watch has described them as collective punishment disproportionately affecting marginalised communities.
What did Harish Rana v. Union of India decide?
In March 2026 the Supreme Court permitted withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration for a man in a permanent vegetative state for 13 years. It held that CANH delivered through PEG or nasogastric tubes is medical treatment rather than basic nursing care, so it falls within the passive euthanasia framework of Common Cause (2018), and withdrawal is lawful where treatment no longer serves a therapeutic purpose.
What did S v. Union of India hold on reproductive autonomy?
In April 2026 the Supreme Court permitted termination of a 30-week pregnancy, beyond the 24-week limit in the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, for a person who was a minor at the time of conception. It held that the constitutional right to reproductive autonomy under Article 21 takes precedence over statutory restrictions in such cases, building on Suchita Srivastava and the privacy lineage from Puttaswamy.
What is horizontal application of Fundamental Rights?
The principle that Fundamental Rights may be enforced against private individuals and entities, not only against the State. Traditionally Part III operated vertically, binding the State alone. Kaushal Kishor extended Articles 19 and 21 horizontally, which significantly widens the reach of constitutional rights into private relationships.
What is the state of press freedom in India?
The South Asia Press Freedom Report 2024-25 recorded over 250 violations and 69 journalists jailed. BBC offices were searched by the Income Tax department in February 2023, a month after the government blocked a documentary. Kashmiri journalist Aasif Sultan was rearrested under the UAPA in 2024 after five years in prison. The Broadcasting Regulation Bill 2024 was withdrawn after press-freedom objections.
Practice Questions
Prelims MCQs
- The Electoral Bonds Scheme was struck down primarily as a violation of
(a) Article 14
(b) Article 19(1)(a)
(c) Article 21
(d) Article 32
Answer: (b) The Court held anonymous donations violated the voter's right to information under Article 19(1)(a). - Kaushal Kishor v. State of UP is significant for establishing
(a) The basic structure doctrine
(b) Horizontal application of Articles 19 and 21
(c) Absolute press freedom
(d) The right to privacy
Answer: (b) The Constitution bench held Articles 19 and 21 enforceable against private parties, with Justice Nagarathna dissenting. - Section 124A IPC was replaced in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita by
(a) Section 111
(b) Section 152
(c) Section 197
(d) Section 224
Answer: (b) BNS Section 152 criminalises acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity, and its validity is under examination. - Anuradha Bhasin (2020) held that
(a) Internet shutdowns are always unconstitutional
(b) Internet access is protected under Article 19
(c) Only Parliament can order shutdowns
(d) Shutdowns require judicial approval
Answer: (b) The judgment brought internet access within Article 19 protection and required proportionality, though compliance has been weak. - Harish Rana v. Union of India (2026) concerned
(a) Reproductive autonomy
(b) Withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration
(c) Internet shutdowns
(d) Electoral funding
Answer: (b) It held CANH to be medical treatment rather than basic nursing care, bringing its withdrawal within the passive euthanasia framework.
Mains Questions
- Article 21 has expanded further between 2023 and 2026 than in the preceding decade. Examine with recent judgments. (250 words)
- Horizontal application of Fundamental Rights alters the relationship between constitutional law and private conduct. Critically evaluate. (250 words)
- The replacement of sedition by BNS Section 152 has not resolved the free-speech concern. Discuss. (250 words)
- Internet shutdowns continue despite Anuradha Bhasin. Examine the gap between judicial doctrine and executive practice. (150 words)
- Constitutional rights are increasingly held to override statutory limits. Discuss with reference to reproductive autonomy. (150 words)
Tell Google you want more of this.
Add Anantam IAS as a preferred sourceOne tap, and this site shows up more often in your own Top Stories, AI Overviews and AI Mode. Remove it any time.
