In the state of Uttar Pradesh, the Government, citing concerns of maintaining public order and preventing potential unrest, issued a comprehensive executive order prohibiting all public gatherings of more than five perso

CS Executive · Jurisprudence, Interpretation and General Laws · PYQS · June 2026
In the state of Uttar Pradesh, the Government, citing concerns of maintaining public order and preventing potential unrest, issued a comprehensive executive order prohibiting all public gatherings of more than five persons in several districts for an indefinite period. The order further imposed restrictions on the use of social media platforms, requiring prior permission from the authorities for organizing or promoting any form of protest or public assembly online. It also empowered local police authorities to take preventive action, including detention of individuals suspected of violating the order. A group of university students in Lucknow, concerned about the steep rise in educational fees and reduction in scholarships, organized a peaceful protest within their campus premises. The protest was non-violent, orderly and did not disrupt traffic or public services. Despite this, the police entered the campus, dispersed the gathering using force, detained several students and later blocked the social media accounts and messaging groups through which the protest had been organized. One of the students, Riya, whose account was blocked and who was briefly detained, filed a writ petition before the High Court. She contended that the government order imposes a blanket ban on fundamental freedoms, which is excessive and arbitrary. Her rights under freedom of speech and expression and peaceful assembly have been violated. The blocking of her social media account amounts to unlawful censorship and restriction on digital expression. The detention of students without any immediate threat to public order is illegal and violative of personal liberty. The State defended its action by arguing that the restrictions were imposed in the interest of public order and security. The executive has the authority to impose such restrictions in extraordinary circumstances. Based on the above situation answer the following questions: Examine the validity of detention of students in light of liberties guaranteed under Article 21.

Answer & Explanation:

Article 21 of the Constitution of India confers on every person the fundamental right to life and personal liberty. It says that, "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." The expression 'procedure established by law' means procedure laid down by statute or procedure prescribed by the law of the State. Accordingly, first, there must be a law justifying interference with the person's life or personal liberty, and secondly, the law should be a valid law, and thirdly, the procedure laid down by the law should have been strictly followed. The procedure must be fair, just and reasonable. It must not be arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India , the Supreme Court held that the procedure under Article 21 must be fair, just and reasonable and not arbitrary. In the given situation, the students were peaceful and no unlawful activity was established. Hence, detention can be said to be arbitrary and without due process. Therefore, detention may be said to be illegal and violative of Article 21.

Topics: Constitutional Law

Open in Interactive Practice Hub · Full Practice Hub · Chapter Weightage · More in this subject

Related Questions in this Topic