According to Article 19 (1) (d) and (e) of the Indian Constitution, every citizen of India has the right to move freely throughout the territory of India and to reside and settle in any part of it. Article 19(5) of the Constitution of India allows the government to impose reasonable restrictions on the right to movement and residence for reasons such as public order, security, and morality.

They are subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the public interest or for the protection of any Scheduled Tribes’ interests3. For example, a person’s movement can be restricted by an externment order if he/she is found to be a threat to public order or security4. Similarly, a foreigner cannot claim these rights as they are only available to citizens of India.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court held that the right to travel abroad is a part of the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Similarly, in the case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the Supreme Court recognized the right to livelihood as a part of the right to life under Article 21, and held that the right of a person to reside in the city cannot be taken away merely because he or she is poor.

India: The President of India is elected by an Electoral College consisting of elected members of both Houses of Parliament, as well as members of Legislative Assemblies of all states and union territories. The President is elected by an indirect election, in which members of the Electoral College cast their votes. The candidate who secures more than 50% of the votes is declared the winner.

Criticism: The election of the President of India is criticized for being influenced by political considerations, and for not being entirely free from the influence of the ruling party.

France: The President of France is elected through a two-round direct election. All citizens over the age of 18 are eligible to vote. In the first round, all candidates are allowed to run. If no candidate secures an absolute majority of votes, the top two candidates compete in a second round of voting. The candidate who secures the highest number of votes in the second round is declared the winner.

Criticism: The French Presidential election has been criticized for leading to a two-party system, with small parties having little to no representation. The first-past-the-post system used in the second round has also been criticized for leading to tactical voting.

The USA derived this right from the Declaration of Rights and later added it to the Bill of Rights through the 14th Amendment in 1868. India incorporated this right in its Constitution from the beginning through Article 14 to 18.
The USA follows only the concept of ‘equal protection of law’, which means equal treatment under equal circumstances. India follows both ‘equality before law’ (British model) and ‘equal protection of law’ (American model), which means no one is above law and everyone is entitled to equal justice.

USA:

-   The right to equality is enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution.
-   It prohibits the state from denying any person equal protection of the laws.
-   The US Constitution emphasizes on equal treatment under the law and non-discrimination.
-   The concept of affirmative action, or policies that aim to address historical injustices, is not explicitly recognized in the US Constitution.

India:

-   The right to equality is enshrined in Articles 14-18 of the Indian Constitution.
-   The Indian Constitution emphasizes on equal treatment under the law, non-discrimination, and affirmative action.
-   The concept of affirmative action is explicitly recognized in the form of reservation policies that aim to address historical injustices and promote the interests of marginalized communities.
-   The Indian Constitution recognizes the principle of "equality before the law" and "equal protection of the laws", but also recognizes the concept of "reasonable classification" where the state can treat different classes of people differently.

1.  "Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi" (2009) Quote: "Constitutional morality would require tolerance of the diversity of views, values, beliefs and practices that characterize a plural society."
    
2.  "Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India" (2017) Quote: "Constitutional morality must not only be an animating force for the Constitution but also act as a check and balance on majoritarian impulses."
    
3.  "Shreya Singhal v. Union of India" (2015) Quote: "Constitutional morality would necessitate protection of the freedom of speech and expression as a cardinal value that is of paramount significance under our constitutional scheme."
    
4.  "Kashmir Times Publications and Others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir" (1988) Quote: "Constitutional morality demands that no restriction should be placed upon the freedom of the press save those that are reasonable and justified in the interests of the general public."
    
5.  "Chandrachud J, in Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms" (2002) Quote: "Constitutional morality must pervade the entire fabric of the Constitution and every act of the State and its instrumentalities must conform to the highest standards of constitutional morality."

The judicial systems in India and UK have some points of convergence and divergence123:

Convergence: Both countries have a common law system based on precedents and statutes. Both countries have a Supreme Court as the highest court of appeal. Both countries have adopted digitization to improve access to justice and reduce backlog of cases. Both countries respect human rights and follow international conventions.
Divergence: India has a written constitution that grants judicial review power to the courts, while UK has an unwritten constitution that relies on parliamentary sovereignty. India has a federal system with separate state laws, while UK has a unitary system with uniform laws. India has affirmative action policies for disadvantaged groups, while UK does not. India still retains death penalty for some crimes, while UK has abolished it.

The basic structure doctrine, first propounded by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), holds that certain features of the Constitution are so fundamental that they cannot be amended by Parliament, even under Article 368. The basic structure includes features such as the supremacy of the Constitution, the separation of powers, the rule of law, and the protection of fundamental rights.

1.  Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): This case is significant for two reasons. Firstly, it upheld the fundamental right to free and fair elections as a basic feature of the Constitution. Secondly, it held that the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is subject to judicial review.
    
2.  Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980): This case is significant because it reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine and held that Parliament cannot use its amending power to destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. It also held that the power to amend the Constitution is not an absolute power.
    
3.  Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981): This case is significant because it held that the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution includes the power to add or delete provisions, but not to abrogate the Constitution altogether.
    
4.  L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997): This case is significant because it held that the power of judicial review is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be taken away by Parliament through a constitutional amendment.

-   India’s secularism is based on equal respect and protection for all religions. The state does not interfere with religion, but also supports religious minorities and disadvantaged groups. The constitution grants judicial review power to the courts to uphold secular values.
-   France’s secularism is based on strict separation of religion and state. The state does not recognize or support any religion, but also forbids religious influence in public affairs. The constitution relies on parliamentary sovereignty to enforce secular laws.

France can learn from India’s secularism that:

-   Secularism does not mean hostility or indifference towards religion, but rather recognition and accommodation of religious diversity.
-   Secularism does not mean uniformity or assimilation of religious minorities, but rather respect and protection of their rights and identities.
-   Secularism does not mean suppression or exclusion of religious expression, but rather promotion and education of pluralistic values.

India:

1.  Sovereignty lies with the people and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
2.  India is a federal republic with a parliamentary system of government.
3.  The Constitution guarantees fundamental rights to all citizens.
4.  India is a secular country that recognizes and respects the diversity of religions and cultures.
5.  The Constitution provides for affirmative action to promote social and economic equality for disadvantaged sections of society.
6.  India has an independent judiciary that is responsible for upholding the Constitution and the rule of law.
7.  India's political system provides for free and fair elections, with universal adult suffrage.

USA:

1.  Sovereignty lies with the people and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
2.  The USA is a federal republic with a presidential system of government.
3.  The Constitution guarantees fundamental rights to all citizens, including the right to freedom of speech, religion, and the press.
4.  The USA is a secular country that recognizes and respects the diversity of religions and cultures.
5.  The USA promotes free-market capitalism and individualism.
6.  The USA has an independent judiciary that is responsible for upholding the Constitution and the rule of law.
7.  The USA's political system provides for free and fair elections, with a two-party system dominating the political landscape.

a Financial Emergency can be proclaimed by the President of India under Article 360 of the Constitution

State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977) that the power to proclaim a Financial Emergency is not absolute, and that the President must have objective material to form the satisfaction that a an Emergency including a Financial Emergency is necessary.

The KS Puttaswamy case was a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India that recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution of India123. The court held that privacy is an intrinsic part of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and also covers aspects of other fundamental rights such as Article 14 (right to equality), Article 19 (right to freedom) and Article 25 (right to freedom of religion).

The judgment on right to privacy has expanded the scope of fundamental rights in India by recognizing that privacy is not only a negative right against state interference but also a positive right that enables individuals to exercise their autonomy and dignity4. The court also laid down some principles for balancing privacy with other competing interests such as national security, public interest and social welfare4. The court also clarified that any law or policy that infringes on privacy must satisfy three tests: legality, necessity and proportionality

Mention about Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic and Republic. 

1.  Mohammad Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985): This case involved the issue of whether a divorced Muslim woman was entitled to maintenance from her former husband. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the woman and ordered her ex-husband to pay her maintenance. This case sparked a debate about the need for a Uniform Civil Code in India.
    
2.  Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995): In this case, the Supreme Court observed that the lack of a Uniform Civil Code goes against the fundamental principles of the Constitution and is a hindrance to national integration. The court also directed the government to take steps towards formulating a UCC.
    
3.  John Vallamattom v. Union of India (2003): This case involved the issue of whether a Christian husband could seek a divorce from his wife on the grounds of her adultery. The Supreme Court observed that the absence of a Uniform Civil Code is a serious issue and that the government should take steps to ensure that a UCC is put in place.
    
4.  Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017): This case involved the issue of the constitutionality of triple talaq, a practice under Muslim personal law that allows a husband to divorce his wife by pronouncing the word "talaq" thrice. The Supreme Court declared the practice of triple talaq to be unconstitutional and observed that a Uniform Civil Code is necessary to promote gender equality and justice.

Khap Panchayats are traditional village councils in some parts of India that exercise considerable influence over social and cultural matters, including marriage and family relationships.

Legislative Actions:

1.  The Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 2016: This act lays down various qualifications and disqualifications for candidates contesting panchayat elections. It includes provisions disqualifying individuals who have been convicted of certain crimes, including offenses against women, from contesting elections.
    
2.  The Prohibition of Unlawful Assembly (Interference with the Freedom of Matrimonial Alliances) Bill, 2011: This bill aimed to curb the activities of Khap Panchayats and prohibit unlawful interference with the freedom of matrimonial alliances. However, the bill did not get passed into law.
    

Executive Actions:

1.  Guidelines by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs: The Ministry of Home Affairs issued guidelines in 2010 to the states to prevent and control the activities of Khap Panchayats that violate the law. The guidelines call for strict enforcement of the law and the registration of cases against those who perpetrate such acts.
    
2.  National Commission for Women (NCW): The NCW has played an active role in addressing the issue of Khap Panchayats and has recommended the formation of special cells to deal with such cases at the district and state levels.
    

Judicial Actions:

1.  Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018): In this case, the Supreme Court issued a series of directions to the central and state governments to prevent and control the activities of Khap Panchayats that violate the law. The court observed that the state has a duty to protect citizens from the illegal and arbitrary actions of these extra-constitutional authorities.
    
2.  Satya Pal Singh v. State of Haryana (2010): In this case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that Khap Panchayats have no authority to interfere with the choice of marriage partners of consenting adults. The court also directed the state government to take steps to prevent such interference.

    
2.  Arjun Gopal v. Union of India (2018): In this case, a group of children moved the Supreme Court seeking a ban on the use of firecrackers during Diwali to reduce air pollution. The court, while not imposing a complete ban, imposed certain restrictions, including limiting the use of firecrackers to a two-hour window and banning the use of firecrackers with a decibel level exceeding 125 dB(AI).
    
3.  Noise Pollution (V) In Re (2005): In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized the need to balance the right to celebrate festivals with the right to a clean environment. The court observed that the bursting of firecrackers was not an essential part of any religion or culture and that it was possible to celebrate festivals without causing harm to the environment.

-   Freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Indian Constitution under Article 19(1)(a).
-   It includes the right to express one's opinions, ideas, and beliefs through any medium, including words, writing, print, art, and film.
-   However, this right is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), such as in the interest of public order, decency, morality, security, or defamation.
-   Hate speech, which involves spreading messages that promote hatred or violence against individuals or groups based on their identity, is not protected under freedom of speech and expression.
-   The Supreme Court has held that hate speech can be restricted under the reasonable restrictions clause of Article 19(2), as it can lead to public disorder and threaten the rights and dignity of individuals and groups.
-   Films in India stand on a slightly different plane from other forms of expression because they are a combination of various art forms, including visual, auditory, and linguistic elements, and have a wider impact on society.
-   The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) regulates films in India and has the power to order cuts, modifications, or even ban a film if it violates the guidelines or laws in force, such as the Cinematograph Act or the Indian Penal Code.
-   However, the Supreme Court has held that the CBFC cannot act as a moral police or curtail the creative freedom of filmmakers, and its decisions must be guided by the principles of constitutional morality and the right to freedom of speech and expression.

1.  Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950): In this case, the Supreme Court held that freedom of speech and expression includes the right to criticize and dissent, and that any attempt to stifle this right would be unconstitutional.
    
2.  K.A. Abbas v. Union of India (1971): The Court held that pre-censorship of films is unconstitutional as it is a restriction on the right to freedom of speech and expression.
    
3.  S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989): The Court held that freedom of speech and expression cannot be curtailed unless it poses a clear and present danger to public order, and that a healthy democracy depends on the free flow of diverse views, opinions, and ideas.
    
4.  Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002): The Court held that the right to freedom of speech and expression includes the right to receive and impart information and that the public has a right to know the criminal antecedents of candidates contesting elections.
    
5.  Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): The Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which criminalized the sending of offensive messages through communication devices, on the grounds that it violated the right to freedom of speech and expression and was vague and overbroad.

-   Section 66A of IT Act, 2000 criminalized sending "offensive" or "menacing" messages.
-   It was challenged in courts for violating the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
-   In 2015, Supreme Court of India struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional in the landmark case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.
-   The court held that the provision was a disproportionate restriction on the right to free speech and expression, as it criminalized a wide range of speech, including political speech, satire, and artistic expression.
-   The court also noted that the provision did not contain any safeguards against abuse, such as a requirement for prior judicial authorization or a clear definition of what constitutes an offense.