The Aspirant’s Path · P02 Feed
Fundamental Rights
GS-II Polity · 7-day sequence · 28 cards
Day 4
P02 thin prototype. This is a static HTML preview of the feed data (fr-feed-cards.json). Production P02 would: persist spaced-repetition state, pace card delivery, adapt difficulty, and run on mobile. The card data + structure are real; the SRS engine is stubbed.
Day 4 of 7
Art 21 — The Keystone Article
4 cards · ~8 min · PYQ avg ★★★★☆
Hook fr-d4-c1 · Art 21 PYQ ★★★★★
For 28 years after the Constitution, any law Parliament passed that deprived a person of liberty was automatically constitutional — no matter how harsh. One passport case in 1978 ended that. How?
Think before flipping
Maneka Gandhi v Union (1978). The Court overruled A.K. Gopalan (1950) and held that "procedure established by law" does NOT mean any procedure Parliament enacts. The procedure must be just, fair, and reasonable. This imported substantive due process into Art 21 by interpretation — not constitutional amendment.
Idea fr-d4-c2 · Olga Tellis PYQ ★★☆☆☆
How did Art 21 come to protect pavement dwellers in Mumbai?
Think before flipping
Olga Tellis v BMC (1985). The Court held that the right to livelihood is part of the right to life — because if you lose your livelihood, you lose your life. Forcibly evicting pavement dwellers without process violated Art 21.

Doctrine edge: Olga Tellis [expands]→ Art 21: the right to life is not merely biological existence but includes livelihood.
Idea fr-d4-c3 · Puttaswamy PYQ ★★★★☆
K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) was a nine-judge bench ruling. What did it decide, and which older judgments did it overrule?
Think before flipping
Right to privacy is a fundamental right intrinsic to life and liberty under Art 21. Overruled: (1) M.P. Sharma (1954) — privacy not a FR. (2) Kharak Singh (1963) — same. The nine-judge bench was needed because those earlier benches were also large benches.

Doctrine edge: Puttaswamy [expands]→ Art 21 · [overrules]→ M.P. Sharma + Kharak Singh.
Check fr-d4-c4 · Procedure vs Due Process PYQ ★★★☆☆
The Constituent Assembly chose "procedure established by law" over "due process of law." What was Dr Ambedkar's stated reason, and how did Maneka Gandhi (1978) effectively override it?
Think before flipping
Ambedkar's reason: "due process" would empower judges to strike down socio-economic legislation. He preferred the Parliament-respecting Japanese model.

Maneka Gandhi's override: By reading "procedure" to mean "just, fair and reasonable procedure," the Court imported substantive review of procedure — effectively reading in due process by interpretation, not constitutional amendment. Text unchanged; meaning reversed.
4 / 4 cards shown — Day 4 complete  · 
What production P02 would add:
• Spaced repetition scheduling — cards rated "Again" shown again tomorrow; "Good" in 3–4 days.
• Streak + daily card cap (UPSC discipline: 20 cards/day max, finishing the corpus in finite time).
• Cross-card links: tap a doctrine edge in a card to jump to the target node's card.
• Hindi/English toggle per card (card data supports bilingual).
• Progress across the CKG graph — you can see which nodes are learned vs pending.