Introduction

Articles 19 to 22 shape India’s freedom architecture. These provisions secure expressive, associational, and movement freedoms; protect individuals in the criminal process; preserve life and personal liberty through fair procedure; and safeguard arrestees and detainees. In practice, each freedom is exercised in balance with public interests defined by law.

Article 19 — Six Freedoms & Their Limits

Article 19(1) confers six freedoms on citizens. These freedoms are exercised so that individuals speak, assemble, associate, move, reside, and carry on occupations with dignity. Clauses 19(2)–(6) then specify when and how the State may impose reasonable restrictions by law.

• Speech & expression (19(1)(a)) is exercised freely; however, laws may restrict it for India’s sovereignty & integrity, State security, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence.
• Peaceful assembly without arms (19(1)(b)) is used for protest and civic engagement; reasonable time–place–manner limits may be imposed for public order.
• Association / union / co-operative societies (19(1)(c)) is exercised to form groups; unlawful or violent associations may be restricted.
• Movement throughout India (19(1)(d)) is exercised broadly; restrictions may protect public interest or Scheduled Tribes’ distinct ecology and culture (19(5)).
• Residence anywhere in India (19(1)(e)) is exercised subject to similar protective limits as movement (19(5)).
• Profession / occupation / trade / business (19(1)(g)) is pursued freely; licensing, reasonable regulation, professional/technical qualifications, and even State monopolies may be created by law (19(6)).

In sum, the doctrine of reasonable restrictions ensures that liberty and legitimate public interests are kept in balance.

Article 20 — Protections in Respect of Conviction for Offences

Article 20 protects accused persons against ex post facto criminal laws, double jeopardy, and compelled self-incrimination. The criminal process is kept fair by ensuring that punishment follows pre-existing law, that a person is not tried or punished twice for the same offence, and that testimonial compulsion is not used against them.

• No ex post facto punishment: a later law is not used to punish a past act that was not an offence then, nor to impose a heavier penalty retrospectively.
• No double jeopardy: a person is not prosecuted and punished twice for the same offence; parallel civil/disciplinary action is distinct.
• No compelled self-incrimination: an accused is not forced to provide testimonial evidence against oneself; identification like fingerprints/DNA is generally treated as physical evidence, not testimony.

Article 21 — Protection of Life and Personal Liberty

No person is deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. After judicial development, that procedure must be just, fair, and reasonable—not arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive. Under Article 21, a rich constellation of derivative rights has been recognised to preserve human dignity.

• Fair, just, and reasonable procedure is followed before curtailing liberty; arbitrary detention is impermissible.
• Dignified life includes rights such as privacy, legal aid, speedy trial, livelihood, shelter, and a clean environment.
• Travel and mobility interests (e.g., to go abroad) are protected subject to fair procedure and law.

Article 22 — Safeguards Against Arrest and Detention

Article 22 requires that a person who is arrested is informed of the grounds of arrest, is allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice, and is produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours (excluding travel). Detention beyond 24 hours needs judicial authorisation. Special rules apply to preventive detention, which is permitted only under law with structured safeguards.

• Grounds of arrest are communicated and reasonable opportunity to prepare a defence is given.
• Production before a magistrate within 24 hours is mandatory; continued custody requires judicial order.
• In preventive detention, grounds are communicated as soon as possible and representation is enabled; an Advisory Board reviews continued detention, usually within a prescribed period.
• Certain exceptions apply (e.g., enemy aliens; specific emergency contexts as defined by law).

Landmark Cases (for reference)

• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) — links Arts. 14, 19, 21; procedure must be fair, just, reasonable.
• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) — speech protection; vague/overbroad restrictions struck down.
• Kharak Singh v. State of UP (1963) & K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) — privacy recognised and affirmed as a fundamental right.
• D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) — arrest/detention guidelines to curb custodial violence.
• Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) — narrow reading of sedition to protect legitimate speech.

Quick Points

• ✅ Article 19 gives six citizen freedoms; limits must be law-made and reasonable.
• ✅ Article 20 prevents retroactive punishment, double jeopardy, and coerced testimony.
• ✅ Article 21 requires fair law and fair process; dignity anchors derived rights.
• ✅ Article 22 mandates grounds, counsel, 24-hour production, and review; preventive detention is tightly regulated by law.