Examine the scope of Fundamental Rights in the light of the latest judgement of the Supreme Court on Right to Privacy.
Question source: insightsonindia.com
Write a timed answer in the appCurrent affairs to use in your answer
Supreme Court strikes down Maharashtra's methanol rules, calls prohibition no solution · 20 September 2026 · Covers one part · use it in the example
Use as a recent example of the Supreme Court applying the proportionality test to define the scope of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).
- In September 2026 a Bench headed by Justice J.B. Pardiwala struck down Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972 for violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).
- Applying proportionality, the Court accepted preventing hooch deaths as a legitimate aim but found dyeing methanol neither suitable nor necessary, since the real causes are pilferage and corruption.
- The rules burdened lawful users such as paint makers; note that curbs on lawful trade must pass the proportionality test under Article 19(1)(g) and cannot be arbitrary.
Also related
- K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India
This question was set on the Puttaswamy verdict itself, asking how privacy reshapes the scope of Part III.
- Does a valid visa guarantee entry into India? The Delhi High Court says no
The case shows the scope of Article 21 for non-citizens, a theme in any answer on the reach of Part III, though the question centres on privacy.