Question

Directions: The following question consists of two statements, one labelled as Assertion (A) and the other labelled as Reason (R). You are to examine these two statements carefully and decide if the Assertion (A) and the Reason (R) are individually true and if so, whether the Reason (R) is a correct explanation of the Assertion (A).
Assertion (A): The right to privacy has been judicially recognised as an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Reason (R): Privacy is expressly enumerated as a separate Fundamental Right in Part III of the Constitution of India.

• A. (A) is true, but (R) is false.
• B. Both (A) and (R) are true, and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).
• C. (A) is false, but (R) is true.
• D. Both (A) and (R) are true, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A).

Hint:

Remember the Puttaswamy distinction: Privacy was "read into" Article 21 by judicial interpretation, not added as a new, explicit clause in the Constitution!

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) judgment famously declared the right to privacy as a Fundamental Right. It is important to distinguish between rights that are explicitly written in the Constitution and those judicially interpreted as part of existing rights.

Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
- Assertion (A) is true: The Supreme Court in the Puttaswamy case held that the right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
- Reason (R) is false: Privacy is not expressly enumerated as a separate, distinct fundamental right in the text of Part III of the Constitution. It was recognized via judicial interpretation of the existing constitutional framework.

Step 3: Final Answer:
Since (A) is true and (R) is false, the correct option is (A).

Answer 2

This is an assertion-reason question, so it must be resolved in two stages, first decide independently whether the Assertion and the Reason are each true, and only then check whether the Reason actually explains the Assertion. Understanding the constitutional position on privacy makes this straightforward.

1. Assertion (A): The Assertion states that the right to privacy has been judicially recognised as part of Article 21. This is true. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017), a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that privacy is intrinsic to the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21. The right exists because the courts read it into Article 21, not because it was separately written into the text.
2. Reason (R): The Reason claims privacy is expressly listed as its own separate Fundamental Right in Part III. This is false. Part III does not contain any standalone article titled "right to privacy." What exists is judicial recognition through interpretation of Article 21, not an express textual guarantee.
3. Option analysis, "(A) is true, but (R) is false": This matches the position exactly, the recognition is real (A true) but it did not come from an express Part III entry (R false).
4. Option analysis, the remaining three combinations: "Both true and R explains A," "A false but R true," and "Both true but R does not explain A" all require the Reason to be true. Since privacy is not an express, separately enumerated right, none of them can stand, and the middle option additionally gets the truth value of the Assertion wrong as well.

Since the Assertion correctly describes judicial recognition of privacy under Article 21, while the Reason wrongly claims an express separate Part III right, only the first combination fits.

Hence, the correct answer is (A) is true, but (R) is false.