LEGAL PASSAGE
The Constitution of India guarantees to all its citizens certain fundamental freedoms, which are recognized as their fundamental rights. However, these fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of India are not absolute as no right can be. Each of these fundamental rights is liable to be controlled, curtailed and regulated to some extent by laws made by the Parliament or the State Legislatures. Accordingly, the Constitution of India lays down the grounds and the purposes for which a legislature can impose ‘reasonable restrictions’ on the rights guaranteed to citizens. The State cannot travel beyond the contours of these reasonable restrictions in curbing the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens. While determining the constitutional validity of a restriction imposed on a fundamental right by a legislation, the Court is not concerned with the necessity of the restriction or the wisdom of the policy underlying it, but only whether the restriction is in excess of the requirement, and whether the legislature has overstepped the Constitutional limitations. Two of the fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen of India are- the right to move freely throughout the territory of India and the right to reside and settle in any part of India. However, the State may impose reasonable restrictions on these rights by law, in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribes.
Q1. A law was enacted by the Parliament of India which consisted of a provision making it mandatory for every person riding a two-wheeler in India, to wear a helmet, failing which such person was made liable to a fine. Mr. X, a citizen of India, was fined for violation of the said provision. Mr. X challenged the constitutional validity of the said provision. In the given situation, which of the following statements is correct?
A.The provision is violative of the Constitution of India because it is a restriction on the freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India.
B. The provision is not violative of the Constitution of India because it is a reasonable restriction on the freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India.
C. Mr. X’s fundamental right to move freely throughout the territory of India is violated.
D. Both A and C.
Q2. A group of Indian students of XYZ University located in New Delhi, India posted on social networking sites that they would hold a demonstration outside the university campus, protesting against a recently passed law which made it compulsory for university students to wear uniforms while attending classes. The students further threatened to “use whatever means necessary” to “stop the oppression of students”. Therefore, the State Authorities placed barricades around the university campus in order to restrict movement of the students carrying out the demonstration and ensuring that the demonstration does not turn violent. In the given situation, which of the following statements is correct regarding the act of placing of barricades by State Authorities?
A.The act is violative of the Constitution of India because it is a restriction on the freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India.
B. The act is not violative of the Constitution of India because it is a reasonable restriction in the interests of general public.
C. The act is violative of the Constitution of India because it is restriction in the interest of students.
D. The act is not violative of the Constitution of India because it is a reasonable restriction in the interest of morality.
Q3. The appropriate authority in a State passed an externment order against Mr. A, a citizen of India. The externment order prohibited Mr. A, from residing within the State, from the date specified in such order. The externment order was passed by virtue of powers conferred on the appropriate authority by law, and the constitutional validity of this law had been upheld by the Supreme Court of India. The externment order was passed on the ground that Mr. A was found to be frequently engaged in illegal business of narcotic drugs and was also involved in several cases of riot and criminal intimidation. In the given situation, which of the following statements is correct regarding the externment order?
A.It is a reasonable restriction on Mr. A’s fundamental right of free movement throughout the territory of India.
B. It is an unreasonable restriction on Mr. A’s fundamental right of residence and settlement in any part of India.
C. It is violative of Mr. A’s fundamental right of free movement throughout the territory of India.
D. It is an unreasonable restriction on Mr. A’s fundamental right of free movement throughout the territory of India.
Q4. Mr. Z, a citizen of India, was issued a passport on June 1,2020 by the Passport Office. Mr. Z was due to travel to Spain on July 15, 2021. On July 11, 2021, Mr. Z received a letter from the Regional Passport Officer intimating him that it was decided by the Government of India to seize his passport “in public interest”. Mr. Z was required to surrender his passport within seven days of the receipt of that letter. In the given situation, which of the following statements is correct?
A.Mr. Z can challenge the letter on the ground that it is violative of his fundamental right of free movement throughout the territory of India.
B. Mr. Z can challenge the letter on the ground that it is violative of his fundamental right to reside and settle in any part of India.
C. Mr. Z can challenge the letter on the ground that it is violative of the law relating to passports in India.
D. Mr. Z cannot challenge the letter on the ground that it is violative of his fundamental right(s) of free movement throughout the territory of India and/or to residence and settlement in any part of India.
Q5. Which of the following statements is incorrect?
A.Fundamental right to movement and residence in any part of India are sacrosanct and are guaranteed to all citizens.
B. Fundamental right to movement and residence in any part of India are sacrosanct, but are guaranteed subject to reasonable restrictions on such rights.
C. Reasonable restrictions may be imposed, on fundamental rights to movement and residence in any part of India, by law.
D. The constitutional validity of a law imposing reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights can be challenged by a citizen before the legislature.
Passage 2
Where a spouse contracts a second marriage while the first marriage is still subsisting, the spouse would be guilty of the offence of bigamy under the penal law in India, if it is proved that the first as well as the second marriages were legally valid, i.e., all the necessary ceremonies required by law or by custom have been performed at the time of contracting the marriages. According to the penal law in India, if a person, who has a living husband or wife, marries again, then such person is liable to be punished with imprisonment up to seven years along with a fine for committing the offence of bigamy. Although the penal law of India is applicable to all citizens irrespective of their religious affiliations, an exception to the offence of bigamy may be created by the law relating to marriage applicable to followers of a particular religion. Under the Hindu law relating to marriage, bigamy is not permitted. If a Hindu wife files a criminal complaint against her husband on the ground that during the subsistence of her marriage, her husband had married a second wife by converting into another religion which legally permits having more than one wife, then her husband is liable to be punished for the offence of bigamy. Further, the Hindu law relating to marriage also provides that the punishment for offence of bigamy as provided in the penal law of India would be applicable to marriage between two Hindus.
Q6. Mr. A, a Hindu male, has been married to Ms. B, a Hindu female. Their marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. After his marriage to Ms. B, Mr. A underwent religious conversion into a religion ‘X’ which legally permits males to have two wives. Thereafter, Mr. A got married to Ms. C, a female belonging to religion ‘X’, in compliance with all the legal requirements of contracting a valid marriage under religion ‘X’. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?
A.As Mr. A married Ms. C, the marriage of Mr. A and Ms. B has become invalid.
B. As Mr. A is not a Hindu, the marriage of Mr. A and Ms. B has become invalid.
C. Mr. A’s marriage with Ms. C has not affected the validity of his marriage with Ms. B.
D. Both A and B
Q7. Mr. A, a Hindu male, has been married to Ms. B, a Hindu female. Their marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. After his marriage to Ms. B, Mr. A underwent religious conversion into a religion ‘X’ which legally permits males to have two wives. Thereafter, Mr. A got married to Ms. C, a female belonging to religion ‘X’, in compliance with all the legal requirements of contracting a valid marriage under religion ‘X’. Ms. B filed a criminal complaint against Mr. A for committing the offence of bigamy. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?
A.Mr. A is liable to be punished according to the Hindu law relating to marriage.
B. Mr. A is liable to be punished according to the penal law of India.
C. Mr. A has not committed the offence of bigamy.
D. Both (A) and (B).
Q8. Mr. A, a Hindu male, has been married to Ms. B, a Hindu female. Their marriage was not solemnized as per Hindu rites and ceremonies or any other custom, but was performed by seeking blessings of their family members. After his marriage to Ms. B, Mr. A underwent religious conversion into a religion ‘X’ which legally permits males to have two wives. Thereafter, Mr. A got married to Ms. C, a female belonging to religion ‘X’, in compliance with all the legal requirements of contracting a valid marriage under religion ‘X’. Ms. B filed a criminal complaint against Mr. A for committing the offence of bigamy. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?
A.Mr. A has committed the offence of bigamy because he married again during the subsistence of the first marriage.
B. Mr. A has not committed the offence of bigamy because his first marriage is not valid.
C. Mr. A has committed the offence of bigamy because he underwent religious conversion in order to contract a bigamous marriage.
D. Mr. A has not committed the offence of bigamy because his second marriage is not valid.
Q9. Mr. A, a male belonging to religion ‘P’, has been married to Ms. B, a female belonging to religion ‘P’. Their marriage was solemnized in compliance with all the legal requirements of contracting a valid marriage under religion ‘P’. Monogamy is espoused as a cherished value by the followers of religion ‘P’ and provided as a pre-condition for a valid marriage for the followers of the religion. After his marriage to Ms. B, Mr. A underwent religious conversion into a religion ‘Q’ which legally permits males to have two wives. Thereafter, Mr. A got married to Ms. C, a female belonging to religion ‘Q’, in compliance with all the legal requirements of contracting a valid marriage under religion ‘Q’. Ms. B wife filed a criminal complaint against Mr. A for committing the offence of bigamy. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?
A.Mr. A has committed bigamy according to the Hindu law relating to marriage.
B. Mr. A has committed bigamy according to the penal law of India.
C. Mr. A has committed bigamy according to the law relating to marriage of religion ‘P’.
D. Both B and C.
Q10. Which of the following statements is incorrect?
A.Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife is a pre-condition for performing a valid Hindu marriage.
B. Religious conversion is not a defence for the offence of bigamy under the penal law of India.
C. Bigamy is an offence under the penal law of India.
D. Offence of bigamy can be committed according to the provisions of Hindu law relating to marriage
Passage 3
The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, defines theft as dishonestly taking someone else’s property with the intention of permanently depriving the owner of it. Theft is a crime under Section 378 of the IPC, and it carries a punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or a fine, or both. However, the IPC also provides for certain exceptions and defenses under Section 81, which states that if the act of theft is done in good faith and for the benefit of the owner, it does not constitute a crime. For example, if someone removes a property in order to protect it from immediate danger, such as removing a car from a flood zone, this action may not be considered theft. However, the intent of the person committing the act must always be considered while determining whether theft has occurred.
Q11. Mr. A, in a flood-prone area, takes Mr. B’s car, intending to move it to a safer location. He believes that doing so is in Mr. B’s best interest. In this scenario, which of the following is true?
A. Mr. A has committed theft because he took Mr. B’s car without permission.
B. Mr. A has not committed theft because the action was done in good faith.
C. Mr. A has committed theft, but the punishment will be less severe because it was for Mr. B’s benefit.
D. Mr. A is not liable for theft because the law permits taking others’ property in emergencies.
Q12. According to the Indian Penal Code, the offense of theft is primarily defined by the intent of the person taking someone else’s property. Which of the following statements is most accurate regarding the concept of ‘dishonestly taking’?
A. Dishonestly taking someone’s property is only applicable in cases where the property is not damaged.
B. Dishonestly taking property means the intention to permanently deprive the owner of the property.
C. Dishonestly taking property means any unauthorized taking, regardless of the intention behind it.
D. Dishonestly taking refers to stealing with the use of force or violence.
Q13. In a case where a person is accused of theft but claims they were trying to protect the property, which of the following legal defenses can be invoked based on Section 81 of the IPC?
A. The act of taking the property was committed in good faith for the owner’s benefit.
B. The person accused is a first-time offender and should not be punished severely.
C. The property was taken due to a misunderstanding and was not actually stolen.
D. The property was in immediate danger, so the action does not constitute theft.
Q14. If someone removes a car from a flood-prone area without the owner’s consent, with the belief that it is in the owner’s best interest, which of the following statements is true under Section 81 of the IPC?
A. The action is considered theft because consent was not obtained from the owner.
B. The action may not constitute theft as it was done to protect the car from potential harm.
C. The person will be punished for theft, but the fine will be reduced.
D. The action constitutes theft only if the person intended to sell the car.
Q15. Which of the following best explains the punishment for theft under Section 378 of the IPC?
A. The punishment for theft is always a fine, with no possibility of imprisonment.
B. The punishment may include imprisonment, which can extend to three years, a fine, or both.
C. Theft always results in imprisonment for a minimum of three years.
D. Theft is punishable by only a fine, with no imprisonment involved.
In Indian law, criminal defamation is governed by Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It refers to the act of making a false statement about someone with the intent of harming their reputation. The statement may be made either orally or in writing, and it can cause injury to the person’s reputation. Section 500 of the IPC prescribes the punishment for defamation, which may include imprisonment up to two years or a fine, or both. However, defamation laws in India allow certain exceptions. For instance, if the statement made is true and is made in the public interest, it does not constitute defamation. Similarly, fair comment on public figures or matters of public concern, based on facts, is also exempted.
Q16. A person makes a public statement claiming that a politician is corrupt, based on unverified rumors, which harms the politician’s reputation. In this case, which of the following statements is most likely true?
A. The politician can file a defamation case, as the statement is false and harmed their reputation.
B. The statement does not amount to defamation, as it was made in good faith.
C. The statement can be defended as a fair comment on a public figure.
D. The politician cannot file a defamation case because it was based on rumors.
Q17. Under Section 499 of the IPC, what is the central requirement for an act to be classified as criminal defamation?
A. The statement must be made with malicious intent and must be false.
B. The statement must be made with the intent to protect the person making the statement.
C. The statement must be in writing and made publicly.
D. The statement must result in physical harm to the person being defamed.
Q18. In cases of defamation, which of the following would be an exception to the punishment under Section 500 of the IPC?
A. If the statement is made with malice to harm the person’s reputation.
B. If the statement is true and made for the public benefit.
C. If the statement is made without any intent to harm.
D. If the statement is made with no intention of spreading it publicly.
Q19. A journalist publishes a story about a celebrity based on verified facts that criticize the celebrity’s actions. In this case, which of the following statements is true under the defamation laws of India?
A. The journalist can be punished for defamation if the celebrity sues for harm to their reputation.
B. The journalist is not liable for defamation if the facts are true and the comment is based on public interest.
C. The journalist can be punished for defamation because the comment was made publicly.
D. The journalist can avoid punishment only if the story was published without the celebrity’s knowledge.
Q20. According to Section 500 of the IPC, which of the following is an appropriate punishment for defamation?
A. Imprisonment for a minimum of two years.
B. A fine and a jail sentence of up to two years.
C. Only a fine, without imprisonment.
D. Life imprisonment for those found guilty of defamation.
The Contract Act of 1872 defines a contract as an agreement enforceable by law. For a contract to be valid, there must be an offer and an acceptance, a lawful object, and consideration. In addition, both parties must have the capacity to contract, meaning they must be of sound mind and not minors or persons of unsound mind. The Act also provides for specific performance of a contract, under which a court can compel a party to fulfill the contract as per its terms. However, the Contract Act also allows certain exceptions to the performance of contracts, such as in cases where performance is impossible due to unforeseen circumstances.
Q21. In a case where two parties agree to the sale of a piece of land, but due to unforeseen circumstances, one party is unable to transfer ownership of the land, which of the following is true under the Contract Act?
A. The party can be compelled to perform the contract under the principle of specific performance.
B. The contract is automatically null and void due to the unforeseen circumstances.
C. The court may excuse the party from performing the contract if it is proven to be impossible to perform.
D. The contract must be enforced, regardless of the unforeseen circumstances.
Q22. According to the Contract Act of 1872, what is required for a contract to be valid?
A. Only the agreement between the two parties.
B. Offer, acceptance, lawful object, and consideration.
C. Only the lawful object and consideration.
D. A written document signed by both parties.
Q23. Which of the following is a valid defense under the Contract Act for not performing a contract?
A. The party no longer wants to perform the contract due to personal reasons.
B. The performance of the contract became impossible due to unforeseen circumstances.
C. The contract was not formalized with a written agreement.
D. The parties no longer agree on the terms of the contract.
Q24. In a contract for the sale of goods, if the goods are destroyed due to an unexpected event, which of the following statements is true under the Contract Act?
A. The seller can be forced to deliver the goods, regardless of their destruction.
B. The contract can be voided if it becomes impossible to perform due to destruction of the goods.
C. The buyer must still pay for the goods if they were destroyed due to no fault of the seller.
D. The contract can be performed by substituting the destroyed goods with new ones.
Q25. Under the Contract Act of 1872, which of the following parties would be considered incapable of contracting?
A. A person who is a minor.
B. A person who has just turned 18.
C. A person who is of sound mind but temporarily drunk.
D. A person who is mentally stable and over the age of 21.
The Indian Constitution provides for the protection of fundamental rights under Part III, which includes rights such as the right to equality, freedom of speech, and the right to life and personal liberty. However, these rights are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions. Article 19 of the Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech and expression but allows the government to impose restrictions in certain cases, such as in the interests of national security, public order, or decency. Additionally, Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, but this right can be restricted under certain circumstances, such as during an emergency or when a person is convicted of a criminal offense.
Q26. Which of the following is true regarding the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution?
A. The right to freedom of speech is absolute and cannot be restricted.
B. The government can impose reasonable restrictions on the right to freedom of speech in certain cases, such as national security.
C. The right to freedom of speech is guaranteed only to citizens and not to foreigners.
D. The right to freedom of speech is not protected during a state of emergency.
Q27. Under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the right to life and personal liberty can be restricted in which of the following situations?
A. During an emergency or when a person is convicted of a criminal offense.
B. If a person is found guilty of defamation.
C. In cases where the person is involved in a civil dispute.
D. If the person is temporarily under the influence of alcohol.
Q28. According to the Indian Constitution, the fundamental rights are not absolute and can be restricted in certain situations. Which of the following is an example of a reasonable restriction?
A. Restricting freedom of speech to maintain public order and national security.
B. Prohibiting all citizens from engaging in any form of political activity.
C. Preventing citizens from exercising their right to move freely within the country.
D. Limiting access to health care for specific regions in the country.
Q29. Which of the following best describes the purpose of the reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights in the Indian Constitution?
A. To ensure that citizens can exercise their rights without any interference from the government.
B. To balance individual freedoms with the broader interests of society, such as security and public order.
C. To limit the number of rights that citizens can exercise in a democracy.
D. To grant absolute freedom to individuals without government intervention.
Q30. Which of the following statements is correct regarding the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution?
A. The right to life and personal liberty can never be restricted, even during a national emergency.
B. The right to life and personal liberty can only be restricted with the person’s consent.
C. The right to life and personal liberty can be restricted under certain circumstances, such as during an emergency or criminal conviction.
D. The right to life and personal liberty is limited to the protection of physical well-being only.
Answers and Explanations
Q1. B. The provision is not violative of the Constitution of India because it is a reasonable restriction on the freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India.
Explanation: The provision mandating helmet use is a reasonable restriction to ensure public safety and does not violate the fundamental right to move freely.
Q2. B. The act is not violative of the Constitution of India because it is a reasonable restriction in the interests of general public.
Explanation: The State authorities imposed the barricades to prevent violence, which is a reasonable restriction in the public interest.
Q3. A. It is a reasonable restriction on Mr. A’s fundamental right of free movement throughout the territory of India.
Explanation: The externment order is a legal and justified restriction on movement based on criminal activity, which is permissible under law.
Q4. D. Mr. Z cannot challenge the letter on the ground that it is violative of his fundamental right(s) of free movement throughout the territory of India and/or to residence and settlement in any part of India.
Explanation: The Government can restrict passport issuance or seizure under public interest without violating fundamental rights to free movement or residence.
Q5. D. The constitutional validity of a law imposing reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights can be challenged by a citizen before the legislature.
Explanation: A citizen can challenge the constitutional validity of a law before the judiciary, not the legislature. Hence, option D is incorrect.
Q6. C. Mr. A’s marriage with Ms. C has not affected the validity of his marriage with Ms. B.
Explanation: Mr. A’s conversion does not invalidate his marriage with Ms. B under Hindu law, as the marriage is still legally valid unless it is explicitly dissolved.
Q7. B. Mr. A is liable to be punished according to the penal law of India.
Explanation: Mr. A has committed bigamy under Indian Penal Code (IPC), as he married again during the subsistence of his first marriage.
Q8. B. Mr. A has not committed the offence of bigamy because his first marriage is not valid.
Explanation: Since Mr. A’s first marriage was not valid under Hindu law (lacking proper ceremonies), his second marriage does not constitute bigamy.
Q9. D. Both B and C.
Explanation: Mr. A has committed bigamy under the penal law of India (IPC) and also under the law of religion ‘P’, which espouses monogamy.
Q10. A. Marrying again during the lifetime of husband or wife is a pre-condition for performing a valid Hindu marriage.
Explanation: This is incorrect because a Hindu marriage requires specific rites and customs, and marrying again during the lifetime of the spouse is not a pre-condition for validity but may lead to an offence of bigamy.
Q11. Answer: B. Mr. A has not committed theft because the action was done in good faith.
Explanation: Under Section 81 of the IPC, if an act is done in good faith for the benefit of the owner, it does not constitute theft.
Q12. Answer: B. Dishonestly taking property means the intention to permanently deprive the owner of the property.
Explanation: The concept of ‘dishonestly taking’ refers to the intention to permanently deprive the owner of the property, which is the key element in defining theft.
Q13.
Answer: A. The act of taking the property was committed in good faith for the owner’s benefit.
Explanation: Section 81 provides an exception for actions done in good faith for the benefit of the owner, such as protecting property from imminent danger.
Q14. Answer: B. The action may not constitute theft as it was done to protect the car from potential harm.
Explanation: If the act was done in good faith for the protection of the car, as in this case, it might not be considered theft under Section 81 of the IPC.
Q15. Answer: B. The punishment may include imprisonment, which can extend to three years, a fine, or both.
Explanation: Section 378 of the IPC provides for punishment of theft which can include imprisonment for up to three years, a fine, or both.
Q16. Answer: A. The politician can file a defamation case, as the statement is false and harmed their reputation.
Explanation: Defamation involves making false statements that harm someone’s reputation. If the statement is unverified and false, it can lead to a defamation suit.
Q17. Answer: A. The statement must be made with malicious intent and must be false.
Explanation: For an act to be criminal defamation under Section 499 of the IPC, the statement must be made with malicious intent and it must be false.
Q18 Answer: B. If the statement is true and made for the public benefit.
Explanation: If the statement is true and made in the public interest, it is not considered defamation, as per exceptions under Section 499.
Q19. Answer: B. The journalist is not liable for defamation if the facts are true and the comment is based on public interest.
Explanation: If the statement made is true and in the public interest, it is exempt from defamation under Section 499 of the IPC.
Q20. Answer: B. A fine and a jail sentence of up to two years.
Explanation: Section 500 of the IPC prescribes a punishment of imprisonment up to two years or a fine, or both, for defamation.
Q21. Answer: C. The court may excuse the party from performing the contract if it is proven to be impossible to perform.
Explanation: Under the Contract Act, if performance becomes impossible due to unforeseen circumstances, the court may excuse the party from performance.
Q22. Answer: B. Offer, acceptance, lawful object, and consideration.
Explanation: For a contract to be valid under the Contract Act of 1872, there must be an offer, acceptance, a lawful object, and consideration.
Q23. Answer: B. The performance of the contract became impossible due to unforeseen circumstances.
Explanation: Under the Contract Act, an unforeseen circumstance that makes performance impossible is a valid defense for not performing the contract.
Q24. Answer: B. The contract can be voided if it becomes impossible to perform due to destruction of the goods.
Explanation: If the goods are destroyed and the performance of the contract becomes impossible, the contract can be voided.
Q25. Answer: A. A person who is a minor.
Explanation: A minor, under the Contract Act, is considered incapable of contracting.
Q26.Answer: B. The government can impose reasonable restrictions on the right to freedom of speech in certain cases, such as national security.
Explanation: Article 19 allows the government to impose reasonable restrictions on the right to freedom of speech in situations like national security, public order, etc.
Q27. Answer: A. During an emergency or when a person is convicted of a criminal offense.
Explanation: Under Article 21, the right to life and personal liberty can be restricted during an emergency or if a person is convicted of a criminal offense.
Q28.Answer: A. Restricting freedom of speech to maintain public order and national security.
Explanation: The Constitution allows reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights, such as restricting speech to maintain public order or national security.
Q29.Answer: B. To balance individual freedoms with the broader interests of society, such as security and public order.
Explanation: The purpose of reasonable restrictions is to balance individual freedoms with societal interests, including security and public order.
Q30.Answer: C. The right to life and personal liberty can be restricted under certain circumstances, such as during an emergency or criminal conviction.
Explanation: The right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 can be restricted in specific situations like an emergency or criminal conviction.