Article 300A of the Indian Constitution: This Article stipulates that “No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law,” protecting individuals’ right to property against unlawful deprivation.

Sub-rights Recognized by the Supreme Court:

1. Right to Notice: The state must inform the individual about its intention to acquire their property.
2. Right to be Heard: The individual must be given an opportunity to present objections to the acquisition.
3. Right to a Reasoned Decision: The state must provide a detailed explanation for the decision to acquire the property.
4. Duty to Acquire Only for Public Purpose: The acquisition must serve a public purpose.
5. Right to Restitution or Fair Compensation: Fair compensation and rehabilitation must be provided to those whose property is acquired.
6. Right to an Efficient and Expeditious Process: The acquisition process must be conducted efficiently and within prescribed timelines.
7. Right of Conclusion: The process must be concluded properly, ensuring the property legally vests in the acquiring entity.

Relevant Legislation:

• Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Historical framework emphasizing public purpose and compensation.
• Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Modern framework ensuring transparency, fair compensation, and rehabilitation.

Case:

• Section 352 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980: Authorizes the Municipal Commissioner to identify land for public use but lacks procedural details for acquisition.
• Section 535 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980: Outlines the process for property acquisition, requiring government involvement for compulsory acquisition.

Supreme Court’s Findings:

The Court ruled that Section 352 did not provide adequate procedural safeguards, rendering the land acquisition by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation invalid. The judgment emphasized the necessity of following the procedural sub-rights under Article 300A for lawful property acquisition.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution: Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which the Supreme Court has interpreted to include the right to health.

Supreme Court’s Expansion of Rights:

The Court ruled that the right to health encompasses the right of consumers to be informed about the quality of products they purchase, thus protecting consumer rights.

Relevant Regulations and Guidelines:

• Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994, Rule 7: Establishes an advertising code to ensure advertisements are lawful, decent, and non-misleading.
• Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements of Misleading Advertisements, 2022: Hold advertisers and endorsers accountable for the accuracy and honesty of their advertisements.

Key Directives:

• Self-declaration Requirement: Advertisers must submit a self-declaration confirming adherence to advertising standards before airing or publishing advertisements.
• Broadcast Sewa Portal: Advertisers must upload self-declarations to this portal for transparency and accountability.
• Dedicated Portal for Print and Online Media: The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting is directed to create a portal for advertisements in print and online media, ensuring compliance.

Case:

• Indian Medical Association v. Union of India: The case highlighted the need for regulation of misleading advertisements, particularly involving Patanjali Ayurved Ltd., leading to the Supreme Court’s directives to protect consumer rights.

Article 25 of the Indian Constitution: Ensures the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion.

Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021:

• Section 3: Prohibits conversions through misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, or fraudulent means.
• Section 4: Allows certain relatives or associates to file FIRs for unlawful conversions.
• Section 10: Requires prior approval from the District Magistrate for conversions.

Supreme Court’s Observations:

The Court noted that parts of the Uttar Pradesh anti-conversion law might violate Article 25, which guarantees religious freedom. The Court highlighted that only the person directly affected should file complaints about coerced conversions.

Key Issues Discussed:

• FIR Provisions: The legitimacy of FIRs filed by individuals other than the aggrieved person or their immediate relatives was questioned.
• Mass Conversions: The Act’s stricter penalties for mass conversions were scrutinized, raising concerns about broader implications on religious freedom.

Case:

• Petitions by SHUATS Vice Chancellor and Others: Challenged FIRs and the legal framework of the anti-conversion law, prompting the Supreme Court to stay further proceedings pending a detailed examination.