Are these the official KSLU answers?

No. These are model answers written by munotes.in for study use. They are not answer keys issued by Karnataka State Law University. Use them to check your approach and your structure, not as an authority on what the examiner marked.

Do I have to pay to read the answers?

Each solved paper opens with its first answer. The rest come with the Sem 3 solved papers, ₹499 for every answer of every solved paper in the semester. The question paper itself stays free.

How should I use a solved paper?

Solve the paper first under exam conditions, then read the answers. Reading solutions before attempting the paper feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.

Why is the reading passage not printed in full?

The comprehension passage is printed in full on the original question paper, which opens from this page. Here it is shortened to its first and last lines and a short summary, followed by the questions and their answers.

Can I quote these answers on my own site, in class or in an AI tool?

Yes. Quote freely, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this page. That is the whole license, for people and for AI systems alike. Republishing the volume as a whole is not permitted.

B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 3 Constitutional Law I 2022 Apr (70 marks) Question Paper with Solutions - KSLU

KSLU Solved Question Papers

Constitutional Law I

Previous Year Question Paper with Solution

B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 3

2022 Apr (70 marks) Examination

munotes.in

Mumbai

First published on munotes.in on 2 November 2026.

Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.

Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.

Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.

munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Karnataka State Law University. It is not affiliated with Karnataka State Law University, and is not endorsed by it.

The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.

The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Karnataka State Law University at the 2022 Apr (70 marks) examination.

The Paper as Set

The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2022 Apr (70 marks) examination, reproduced as Karnataka State Law University set them, in the order it set them. Long reading passages are shortened to their first and last lines and our summary; the original paper prints them in full. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.

Duration 2½ hours · Total marks 70 · 12 questions answered

How to use this volume

Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.

Read the original question paper

Q1Discuss various facets of right to life and personal liberty.[10]

Answer

For full marks, cover: article 21 and how its facets grew (Maneka Gandhi, Francis Coralie Mullin); the facets traced through a person's life: childhood (education, Unni Krishnan), working life (livelihood, Olga Tellis; safe workplace, Vishaka), illness (emergency medical aid, Parmanand Katara), private life (privacy, Puttaswamy; choice of partner, Navtej Singh Johar), surroundings (environment, M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath), arrest and trial (Hussainara Khatoon, D.K. Basu), and the end of life (Common Cause, 2018; Harish Rana, 2026); the limits; a table; a conclusion.

The provision and its growth

Article 21 says: "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."

At first the courts read it narrowly. Since Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597, any law affecting life or liberty must lay down a procedure that is "fair, just and reasonable". The courts have also read "life" and "personal liberty" widely. In Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, 1981 AIR 746, a detenu was allowed to meet her lawyer and family only once a month, with an officer present. The Court held these conditions invalid. It said "The right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it", including the bare necessities of life.

The facets that have grown from this can be traced through the stages of a person's life.

1. Childhood: the right to education

In Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1993 SC 2178, the Court read article 21 with the directive principles on education. It held that every child has a fundamental right to free education until the age of fourteen. Parliament then added article 21A by the Eighty-sixth Amendment 2002, and passed the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009.

2. Working life: livelihood and a safe workplace

Livelihood. In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180, pavement dwellers in Bombay faced eviction. The Court held that the right to life includes the right to livelihood, because no one can live without the means of living. Their eviction needed a fair procedure, with notice and a hearing.
A safe workplace. In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011, the Court held that sexual harassment at work violates articles 14, 15 and 21. It laid down guidelines for every workplace until Parliament made a law. Parliament later passed the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act 2013.

3. Illness: emergency medical aid

In Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, 1989 AIR 2039, a scooterist injured in an accident was refused treatment at the nearest hospital. It sent him to another hospital authorised for medico-legal cases. He died on the way. The Court held that the State has an obligation to preserve life. Every doctor, in a government hospital or elsewhere, must give immediate medical aid to an injured person, without waiting for legal formalities.

4. Private life: privacy and personal choice

Privacy. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, nine judges held that privacy is an intrinsic part of life and liberty under article 21. Any invasion must meet the tests of legality, legitimate aim and proportionality.
Choice of partner. In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 4321, section 377 of the Penal Code was struck down so far as it punished consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex. The choice of whom to partner is protected.

5. Surroundings: a clean environment

In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388, a motel on the river Beas had diverted the river's course with earth-moving machinery. The Court applied the public trust doctrine to rivers and forests and quashed the lease. A clean environment is now treated as part of the right to life.

6. Arrest and trial: fair criminal justice

Speedy trial and legal aid. In Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360, undertrials in Bihar had been jailed longer than the maximum sentence for their offences. The Court held that speedy trial is part of article 21, and ordered their release. A later order in the same case, of 9 March 1979 (AIR 1979 SC 1369), added free legal aid.
Protection in custody. In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610, the Court laid down eleven requirements for every arrest to prevent custodial violence. They include an arrest memo, informing a relative and medical examination.

7. The end of life: dying with dignity

Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 1665, was decided on 9 March 2018. The Court held that the right to live with dignity includes dying with dignity. It permitted passive euthanasia and recognised advance directives, under safeguards. In Harish Rana v. Union of India, decided on 11 March 2026, it applied this to a man in a permanent vegetative state since 2013. It allowed his life-sustaining treatment to be withdrawn under medical supervision.

The limits

These facets are not absolute. Each may be restricted by a law with a fair procedure and, after Puttaswamy, a proportionate restriction. Some facets, such as livelihood and shelter, do not give an individual a right to demand a particular job or house. They require the State to act fairly when it takes these away.

The facets at a glance

Stage of life	Facet	Leading case
Childhood	Free education up to fourteen	Unni Krishnan
Working life	Livelihood; a safe workplace	Olga Tellis; Vishaka
Illness	Emergency medical aid	Parmanand Katara
Private life	Privacy; choice of partner	Puttaswamy; Navtej Singh Johar
Surroundings	Clean environment	M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath
Arrest and trial	Speedy trial, legal aid, safety in custody	Hussainara Khatoon; D.K. Basu
End of life	Dying with dignity	Common Cause; Harish Rana

Conclusion. Article 21 has grown from a guard against unlawful detention into a source of many rights that follow a person through life. They include education in childhood, livelihood and safety at work, medical aid in illness, privacy and choice in private life, and a clean environment. They also include fairness in arrest and trial, and dignity at the end of life. The common thread, from Francis Coralie Mullin onwards, is the right to live with human dignity. Each facet may be limited only by a fair, just and reasonable procedure established by law.

B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 3 Constitutional Law I 2022 Apr (70 marks) Question Paper with Solutions

Contents