By- Ranjan Kumar and Arushi Bhagotra

---

Against the backdrop of positive and negative liberty, this paper analyses the evolution of the Indian legal system, focusing on the role of the Supreme Court of India. The courts in India have traditionally interpreted constitutional guarantees as forms of negative liberty, requiring the State to remove specific obstacles or hindrances. This approach, however, offers a limited view of liberty. When an individual approaches the Court, demonstrating that an act of the State or an administrative process hinders their liberty, the Court intervenes only if it is convinced of such an obstacle. In such cases, can we truly say the individual’s choice reflects genuine liberty? Or is it influenced by an overarching system that clouds independent thinking? True self-realization requires not only the removal of obstacles but also the capacity and conditions to explore new, unknown possibilities. Ignorance is often an invisible obstacle, as the lack of information or targeted knowledge creation restricts the individual’s ability to make fully informed choices. The most realistic way to understand the State’s role in enabling the unhindered exercise of liberty is by recognizing that it must go beyond removing barriers. The State should empower individuals to distinguish between free choices and those driven by external influences. The State’s role, therefore, should be both minimal and positive, aiming to capacitate individuals to genuinely realize their liberty by overcoming externally imposed, driven choices.

Keywords: Positive Liberty, Negative Liberty, Rights, Right to Life, No‑Right.