How Effective Are Constitutional Restrictions In Balancing Personal Liberty And Public Discipline In India
- IJLLR Journal
- Sep 2
- 1 min read
Ms. Taijosi Dey, LL.M., Lovely Professional University, Phagwara
ABSTRACT
The Indian Constitution embodies a deliberate tension between individual liberty and collective discipline, seeking to safeguard fundamental freedoms while ensuring the stability of democratic order. Rights under Part III, particularly Articles 19 and 21, guarantee a wide spectrum of liberties but subject them to “reasonable restrictions” aimed at protecting sovereignty, security, public order, morality, and related interests. This paper examines whether these constitutional restrictions, as interpreted and enforced, succeed in maintaining a functional balance between freedom and control. It traces the evolution of constitutional doctrine from early narrow interpretations to the adoption of proportionality and substantive due process in landmark judgments such as Maneka Gandhi and Puttaswamy. Through case studies on free speech, public health, protest rights, and digital regulation, the paper highlights both the judiciary’s role as guardian of liberty and the State’s reliance on restrictions to preserve order. While the constitutional framework provides strong safeguards against arbitrariness, gaps in implementation, vague legal standards, and politically motivated enforcement often tilt the balance towards state authority. The analysis argues that India’s constitutional democracy remains resilient but fragile, with the durability of liberty resting on transparent governance, consistent judicial oversight, and evolving interpretations that adapt to changing societal and technological realities.
Keywords: Liberty, Discipline, Fundamental Rights, Reasonable Restrictions, Proportionality, Judicial Review, Constitutional Governance, Public Order, Democracy, Rule of Law.
