Introduction:
The concepts of negative and positive liberty represent two distinct philosophical approaches to understanding the nature of freedom and liberty within a society. Negative liberty emphasizes the absence of external interference, while positive liberty emphasizes the individual’s capacity to pursue their own goals and well-being.
Body:
The difference between the negative and positive conceptions of liberty:
| Aspect of Liberty | Negative Conception | Positive Conception |
| Emphasis | Absence of external interference or constraints | Capacity to pursue individual goals and well-being |
| Freedom | Freedom from external coercion and interference | Freedom to achieve one’s potential and self-realization |
| Government Role | Limits government intervention to protect individual rights | May justify government intervention to provide resources and opportunities |
| Concerns | Focuses on preventing government overreach and preserving individual autonomy | Concerned with enabling conditions for self-fulfilment and development |
| Philosophical Thinkers | Isaiah Berlin is a notable proponent | John Stuart Mill is a prominent advocate |
| Key Idea | Freedom is the absence of external obstacles and coercion | Freedom is the capacity to lead a meaningful and self-determined life |
Negative Conception Case: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
- In the Maneka Gandhi case, the central concern revolved around the government’s arbitrary impounding of her passport without providing any justification.
- The Supreme Court of India asserted that the right to travel abroad constitutes a fundamental right, emphasizing that any government action curtailing this right must be reasonable and justifiable.
- This case exemplifies the negative conception of liberty, underscoring the crucial principle that government actions should be justifiable rather than arbitrary.
- It serves as a safeguard against unwarranted state interference, preserving an individual’s freedom from unjust restrictions.
Positive Conception Case: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
- The Kesavananda Bharati case tackled the extent of Parliament’s authority to amend the Constitution.
- The ruling implied the existence of a “basic structure” doctrine, asserting that certain foundational aspects of the Constitution are immutable through amendments.
- This case embodies the positive conception of liberty by stressing the imperative to preserve the Constitution’s core principles, enabling individuals to pursue their goals and well-being.
- It underscores that even the government’s power to amend the Constitution should not compromise these fundamental principles.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the concepts of negative and positive liberty offer insightful perspectives for analyzing the nature of freedom and the state’s role in protecting and fostering it. Within the Indian legal and constitutional context, these conceptions have significantly influenced discourse, reflecting the intricate balance between individual liberty and the democratic state’s responsibilities.
In case you still have your doubts, contact us on 9811333901.
For UPSC Prelims Resources, Click here
For Daily Updates and Study Material:
Join our Telegram Channel – Edukemy for IAS
- 1. Learn through Videos – here
- 2. Be Exam Ready by Practicing Daily MCQs – here
- 3. Daily Newsletter – Get all your Current Affairs Covered – here
- 4. Mains Answer Writing Practice – here
