Identify the incorrect statement regarding Judicial Interpretation of Article 21 after Supreme Court's verdict in Maneka Gandhi Case, 1978.

Correct Answer: A. The burden lies on the petitioner to prove that the procedure established by law which deprives him of his life or personal liberty is arbitrary.

Explanation: Some Supreme Court cases and their decisions Case (with Key Decision / Points Year) S.R. Bommai ● Related Article: 356 (President's Case, 1994 Rule) ● President's Rule subject to judicial review; ● cannot be imposed arbitrarily; ● protects federal structure. Indira ● Subject : Reservation Policy Sawhney ● 27% reservation for OBC upheld; (Mandal) ● total reservation ≤50%; Case, 1992 ● creamy layer principle applies. Nagrajan ● Subject : Reservation & Case, 2017 Promotion ● Reservation in promotion allowed only if SC/ST certified as backward; ● efficiency should not be affected. Balaji ● National awards like Bharat Raghavan Ratna, Padma Vibhushan are not Controversy, titles; 1994 ● Constitutionally valid. P.U. CL Case, ● Election candidates must 2003 disclose educational, criminal & property info; ● RTI part of Article 19(1)(a). Romesh ● Press freedom protected under Thapar & Article 19(1)(a); PYQ’s Solution English 1 Brijbhushan ● Arbitrary censorship Case, — unconstitutional. Communist ● Right to strike is statutory, Party of India ● Not a fundamental right. Case, — Andhra ● Fingerprints & handwriting Pradesh vs. admissible as evidence. Krishna Menon Case, — Dastagir ● No self-incrimination; Case, — ● Protection under Article 20(3). Menaka ● Expanded Article 21; fair Gandhi Case, procedure required along with 1978 legal procedure. R.C. Kapoor ● Nationalization of banks upheld; Case, — ● Validates state socialist policies. S.C. Gupta ● Public Interest Litigation (PIL) vs. Union of concept validated; India, 1982 ● Any person/organization can approach court for social justice. Kihoto ● "Free and fair elections" added Hollohan vs. to basic features of Constitution. Zachillhu, 1992 Vishaka & ● Guidelines for prevention of Others vs. sexual harassment at workplace. State of Rajasthan, — Roheppa ● Dynamic interpretation of right Case, — to equality.