CURRENT AFFAIRS | 8 APRIL 2026
CLAT GK + CONSTITUTIONAL LAW & FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
• Constitutional morality — Navtej Singh Johar v UoI (2018)
• Article 19(1)(a) free speech vs Article 19(2) reasonable restrictions
• Article 21 — Right to life and personal liberty
• UAPA and preventive detention (Article 22)
• Rule of law, state accountability, Ambedkar’s constitutional vision
The Argument: Don’t Be Selective in Constitutional Outrage
An opinion piece by Manoj Jha on the Ideas Page of The Indian Express raises a fundamental question: Can India’s constitutional democracy afford to be selective in its moral outrage about violence?
The article argues that while Left-Wing Extremism (LWE) was treated as a serious threat requiring urgent state response, the same urgency has not been shown for right-wing extremism. Jha traces how both state-sponsored violence and non-state violence threaten the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution.
The piece references multiple instances — Naxal violence, lynching incidents, and communal violence — arguing that all forms of extremism equally undermine the constitutional order. The central thesis draws on BR Ambedkar’s concept of constitutional morality: the Constitution requires equal treatment of all threats to democratic life, regardless of their ideological origin.
Constitutional Morality: From Ambedkar to Navtej Singh Johar
- Constitutional morality — A concept introduced by BR Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly debates. He emphasised that constitutional morality “is not a natural sentiment” and “must be cultivated.” It means adherence to constitutional values over popular morality or majoritarian sentiment.
- Navtej Singh Johar v UoI (2018) — The Supreme Court extensively discussed constitutional morality while striking down Section 377 IPC, holding that constitutional morality must prevail over social morality.
- KS Puttaswamy v UoI (2017) — Nine-judge bench unanimously declared right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.
- Shreya Singhal v UoI (2015) — SC struck down Section 66A of IT Act as unconstitutional for being vague and overbroad, violating Article 19(1)(a).
The concept of constitutional morality holds that the State claims a monopoly over the legitimate use of violence, but this monopoly is conditioned by legality and accountability. When non-state actors use violence, they undermine this monopoly. But equally, when state-authorised violence operates with impunity, it threatens the constitutional order.
As Jha writes: “India’s constitutional vision sought precisely to guard against such breakdowns” — referencing Ambedkar’s warnings about the fragility of democratic institutions.
Fundamental Rights at Stake: Articles 19, 21, and 22
The article touches on several fundamental rights that are affected by both state and non-state violence:
- Article 19(1)(a) — Freedom of speech and expression. This right is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) on eight grounds: sovereignty and integrity of India, security of State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, and incitement to an offence.
- Article 21 — Right to life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v UoI (1978) expanded this right to require procedure to be “fair, just, and reasonable.”
- Article 22 — Protection against arrest and detention, including safeguards for preventive detention.
• Constitutional morality is a frequently tested concept in CLAT legal reasoning passages
• The tension between free speech (Art 19) and reasonable restrictions (Art 19(2)) appears regularly in CLAT
• UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act) and preventive detention are important for legal awareness questions
• Understanding the rule of law — that state power is limited by law and accountability — is fundamental to constitutional law questions
• Landmark cases like Navtej Singh Johar, Puttaswamy, and Shreya Singhal are CLAT favourites
The UAPA and State Accountability
The article also raises questions about the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), India’s primary anti-terror legislation. The UAPA allows the designation of organisations and individuals as terrorists, with stringent bail conditions. Critics argue that the law has been used selectively — often against one type of extremism while being less vigorously applied against another.
The broader point connects to the rule of law as understood in the Indian constitutional framework. In Maneka Gandhi v UoI (1978), the Supreme Court established that the procedure depriving a person of life or liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable. This applies equally to how the State responds to all forms of extremism.
| Constitutional morality coined by | BR Ambedkar (Constituent Assembly debates) |
| Navtej Singh Johar (2018) | Struck down Section 377, discussed constitutional morality |
| Shreya Singhal (2015) | Struck down Section 66A IT Act (vague, violated Art 19(1)(a)) |
| KS Puttaswamy (2017) | Right to privacy as fundamental right under Art 21 |
| Maneka Gandhi (1978) | Expanded Art 21 — procedure must be fair, just, reasonable |
| Article 19(2) grounds | 8 grounds for reasonable restrictions on free speech |
M — Morality, constitutional (Ambedkar’s concept)
O — Outrage must not be selective (equal treatment)
R — Rule of law (Maneka Gandhi 1978)
A — Article 19, 21, 22 (fundamental rights at stake)
L — Landmark cases (Navtej, Puttaswamy, Shreya Singhal)
Source: The Indian Express (Delhi Edition), Ideas Page — 8 April 2026
Practice Quiz
Test your understanding with these 10 MCQs:
Practice Quiz — 10 CLAT-Style Questions
Click an option to reveal the answer and explanation.
