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

Fundamental Rights in India come in two forms, those written out expressly in Part III, and those the courts have read into an existing provision through interpretation. Privacy belongs to the second category, and keeping that distinction in mind resolves this question quickly.

1. Checking the Reason first: The Reason claims privacy is a separate, expressly named Fundamental Right in Part III. No such clause exists in the constitutional text. Privacy became a recognised right only because the Supreme Court, in the Puttaswamy judgment of 2017, interpreted Article 21's guarantee of life and personal liberty to include it. So the Reason is false.
2. Checking the Assertion: The Assertion simply says courts have recognised privacy as part of Article 21, which is exactly what happened in Puttaswamy. So the Assertion is true.
3. "Both true, R explains A": This cannot work since R is false to begin with.
4. "A false, R true": This gets both truth values backwards, A is actually true and R is actually false.
5. "Both true, R does not explain A": This also fails because it wrongly treats R as true.
6. "A true, R false": This is the only combination consistent with the facts.

So the correct combination is that the Assertion is true while the Reason is false.

Answer 2

Before matching an option, it is worth pinning down two independent facts, whether the right to privacy actually flows from Article 21 through judicial interpretation, and whether the Constitution's text itself lists privacy as a distinct Fundamental Right. Once both facts are clear, only one option can be correct.

1. Both (A) and (R) true, (R) explaining (A): This would require privacy to be an express, named right in Part III that the courts merely applied to Article 21 cases. That is not what happened, the text of Part III contains no such express clause, so this option fails on the Reason alone.
2. (A) false, (R) true: This would mean the courts never recognised privacy under Article 21, which contradicts the well-known 2017 Puttaswamy ruling of a nine-judge bench that squarely held privacy to be part of the right to life and personal liberty. This option is wrong on both counts.
3. Both (A) and (R) true, but (R) not explaining (A): This still wrongly assumes the Reason is true, which fails for the same reason as above, there is no express Part III privacy clause.
4. (A) true, (R) false: The Assertion correctly captures the outcome of Puttaswamy, judicial recognition of privacy within Article 21. The Reason incorrectly claims an express separate right exists in the constitutional text, when in fact none does. This combination matches the actual constitutional position perfectly.

The Assertion is factually accurate about how privacy was recognised, while the Reason misdescribes it as an express textual right, so they cannot be paired as explanation and explained.

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