FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

UGI USER
May 29, 2024
1 Likes
2 Comments

Introduction

The fundamental rights in the Indian Constitution are a set of essential rights and freedoms guaranteed to every citizen of India. These rights are enshrined in Part III of the Constitution and are considered the cornerstone of Indian democracy. They include the right to equality, right to freedom, right against exploitation, right to freedom of religion, cultural and educational rights, and the right to constitutional remedies.
These fundamental rights ensure that every Indian citizen has the freedom to express themselves, practice their religion, be treated equally before the law, and enjoy various other protections. They serve as a safeguard against any potential abuse of power by the government and are crucial in upholding the principles of justice, liberty, and equality in India.

Classification of Fundamental Rights

The Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution can be classified into six categories:
Right to Equality: This right guarantees equality before the law and prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
Right to Freedom: This right guarantees a number of freedoms, including freedom of speech and expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of movement, and the right to practice any profession or occupation.
Right against Exploitation: This right prohibits trafficking in human beings, forced labor, and employment of children below the age of 14.
Right to Freedom of Religion: This right guarantees the freedom of conscience and the right to practice, profess, and propagate religion.
Cultural and Educational Rights: This right guarantees the right of minorities to conserve their languages, scripts, and cultures, and the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
Right to Constitutional Remedies: This right guarantees the right to enforce the Fundamental Rights through the courts.
In addition to these six categories, the Fundamental Rights can also be classified into two broad groups:
Civil and political rights: These rights are essential for the protection of individual liberty and freedom. They include the right to equality, the right to freedom, and the right to freedom of religion.
Social and economic rights: These rights are essential for the promotion of human welfare and dignity. They include the right against exploitation and the cultural and educational rights.
The classification of Fundamental Rights is useful for understanding their scope and ambit. It also helps to identify the different types of rights that are protected by the Constitution.

Salient Features of Fundamental Rights

The Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution are characterized by several important features:
Applicability to All: Some Fundamental Rights are available only to Indian citizens, while others are available to all persons, including foreigners and legal entities like corporations.
Qualified Rights: Fundamental Rights are not absolute; they can have reasonable restrictions imposed on them by the state. Courts decide whether such restrictions are reasonable, striking a balance between individual rights and the welfare of society.
Protection Against the State and Private Individuals: These rights protect individuals from arbitrary state actions. Some also provide protection against actions by private individuals.
Negative and Positive Rights: Some Fundamental Rights limit the authority of the state (negative rights), while others grant specific privileges to individuals (positive rights).
Justiciability: Fundamental Rights can be enforced through the courts. Individuals can approach the judiciary if their rights are violated.
Supreme Court Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court directly defends and guarantees Fundamental Rights. Aggrieved individuals can approach the Supreme Court without necessarily going through lower courts.
Amendability: While not permanent or sacrosanct, Fundamental Rights can only be curtailed or repealed by a constitutional amendment, and this cannot affect the basic structure of the Constitution.
Suspension during Emergencies: During a National Emergency, most Fundamental Rights can be suspended, except for those guaranteed by Articles 20 and 21. Article 19 rights can be suspended only during an external emergency, not an internal emergency.
Limitations by Specific Articles: The scope of Fundamental Rights can be limited by Article 31A (relating to property rights), Article 31B (validating certain laws included in the 9th Schedule), and Article 31C (related to directive principles).
Restrictions for Certain Groups: The Parliament can restrict or abrogate the application of Fundamental Rights to members of armed forces, paramilitary forces, police, intelligence agencies, and similar services (Article 33).
Martial Law: Fundamental Rights can be restricted in areas under martial law, which is different from a national emergency and is imposed to restore order (Article 34).
Enforceability: Most Fundamental Rights are directly enforceable (self-executory), while some can be enforced through laws enacted by the Parliament to give effect to them. State legislatures cannot make these laws to ensure uniformity across the country (Article 35).

ARTICLE 12

Article 12 of the Indian Constitution defines the term “State” to include the following:
The Government and Parliament of India
The Government and Legislature of each of the States
All local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India
This definition is very broad, and it encompasses all government entities at all levels, from the central government down to the village panchayat.
The importance of Article 12 is that it determines which entities are subject to the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. The Fundamental Rights are enforceable against the State, but not against private individuals or organizations.
Therefore, if a government entity violates a Fundamental Right, the aggrieved person can file a petition in the Supreme Court or a High Court for the enforcement of that right.
Here are some examples of entities that are covered by Article 12:
The central government, including all ministries and departments
State governments, including all ministries and departments
Local governments, such as municipal corporations and district councils
Public sector undertakings
Autonomous government bodies, such as the University Grants Commission and the Reserve Bank of India
Armed forces

ARTICLE 13

Article 13 of the Indian Constitution is a crucial provision that establishes the doctrine of judicial review and plays a significant role in safeguarding Fundamental Rights. Here are the key points about Article 13:
Doctrine of Judicial Review: Article 13 explicitly states that any law that contradicts or infringes upon any of the Fundamental Rights will be considered void. This provision establishes the doctrine of judicial review, empowering the judiciary to review and potentially invalidate laws that violate these rights.
Applicability to Various Types of Laws: Article 13’s scope is broad and covers various types of laws, including permanent laws passed by the Parliament or state legislatures, temporary laws like ordinances issued by the President or state governors, statutory instruments like orders, bye-laws, rules, regulations, or notifications, and even non-legislative sources of law such as customs or usages with the force of law. In essence, any rule or regulation that infringes upon Fundamental Rights can be challenged in court.
Exclusion of Constitutional Amendments: Article 13 explicitly excludes constitutional amendments from its purview, considering them not as “laws” for the purpose of this article. However, a significant legal development occurred through the Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973. The Supreme Court ruled that a constitutional amendment could be challenged if it violated a Fundamental Right that formed an integral part of the “basic structure” of the Constitution. This landmark judgment granted the judiciary the power to review even constitutional amendments under certain circumstances.

Doctrine of Severability

The doctrine of severability, also known as the “Doctrine of Separability,” is a legal principle enshrined in Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution. This doctrine is designed to protect fundamental rights by addressing conflicts between existing laws and these rights. It ensures that not the entire law, but only the specific part of a law that is inconsistent with fundamental rights, is declared void or invalid.

Here’s a breakdown of how the doctrine of severability works:

Continuity of Pre-Constitution Laws: Article 13(1) states that all laws in force in India before the commencement of the Constitution shall continue to be in force. This includes laws that were enacted before the Constitution came into effect.
Conflict with Fundamental Rights: If any provision of these pre-constitution laws is found to be in conflict with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, only that specific provision will be considered void or invalid to the extent of such inconsistency.
Partial Invalidation: Instead of striking down the entire law, the court will carefully examine the provisions of the law in question and identify those that violate fundamental rights. Those specific provisions will be declared void.
Preservation of the Rest of the Law: The remainder of the law, which is consistent with the Constitution and fundamental rights, continues to be in force and remains valid.
Objective of Protecting Fundamental Rights: The doctrine of severability serves the important purpose of upholding and protecting fundamental rights while still allowing for the continuity of pre-existing laws, to the extent that they do not infringe upon these rights.

Doctrine of Eclipse

Here’s a breakdown of how the doctrine of eclipse works:

Inconsistency with Fundamental Rights: When a provision of a law or an act is found to be inconsistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, it is said to be eclipsed by those fundamental rights.
Unenforceable, but not Void: The doctrine does not render the entire law or act void from its inception. Instead, it temporarily renders the inconsistent provision unenforceable as long as it conflicts with fundamental rights.
Conditions for Enforcement: The law or act can become enforceable again if the limitations set by fundamental rights are addressed and eliminated. This usually requires amending or modifying the inconsistent provision to bring it in line with the Constitution.
Preservation of Fundamental Rights: The doctrine of eclipse helps protect fundamental rights by ensuring that any provision of law or an act that violates these rights cannot be enforced until it complies with constitutional standards

Right to Equality

The Right to Equality is one of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution under Articles 14 to 18. It is a crucial component of India’s democratic and egalitarian framework. Here’s an overview of the Right to Equality:

Article 14 – Equality Before the Law:

This article ensures that all individuals are equal before the law. It prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. It emphasizes that the state shall not deny any person equality before the law or equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
Equality Before the Law
This concept, often associated with British legal tradition, signifies that every individual is equal in the eyes of the law. It emphasizes the absence of special privileges or exemptions for any person, ensuring that all individuals, regardless of their status, are subject to the same laws and have equal access to the legal system. No one is considered above the law, whether they are rich or poor, high-ranking officials, or ordinary citizens. This principle ensures that justice is impartial and that the law applies equally to everyone.
Equal Protection of Laws
Equality It emphasizes that all individuals within a country’s jurisdiction are entitled to the same legal protections and guarantees. It ensures that the government cannot discriminate against any person or group, and it mandates that the law must be applied equally and fairly to protect the rights of all citizens

Exceptions to Equality

Indeed, while the principles of equality before the law and equal protection of the laws are fundamental, there are exceptions and immunities recognized by the Indian Constitution and international law. These exceptions and immunities are designed to serve specific purposes and maintain diplomatic relations, sovereignty, and the effective functioning of government institutions. Here’s an overview of the exceptions you mentioned:

Immunity of President and Governor: Article 361 provides immunity to the President of India and Governors of States during their terms in office. They are not answerable to any court for the exercise of their powers and duties, and no criminal or civil proceedings can be initiated against them during this period for actions taken in their personal capacity.
Immunity for Reporting Parliamentary Proceedings: Article 361-A ensures that individuals or entities publishing substantially true reports of parliamentary proceedings in newspapers, radio, or television cannot be subjected to civil or criminal proceedings.
Parliamentary Immunity: Article 105 grants immunity to members of Parliament for anything said or any vote cast by them in Parliament or its committees. A similar provision exists for members of state legislatures under Article 194.
Article 31-C Exception: Article 31-C provides an exception to the principle of equality before the law (Article 14) for laws enacted by the state to implement certain Directive Principles of State Policy. These laws cannot be challenged on the grounds of violating Article 14.
Immunity for Foreign Sovereigns, Ambassadors, and Diplomats: International law provides immunity to foreign sovereigns (rulers), ambassadors, and diplomats from both criminal and civil proceedings while they are in another country. This immunity is crucial for maintaining diplomatic relations and respecting the sovereignty of foreign nations.
UNO and Diplomatic Immunity: The United Nations (UN) and its agencies, as well as their employees, often enjoy diplomatic immunity. This immunity is essential to ensure the effective functioning of international organizations and to facilitate diplomatic relations between member states.

These exceptions and immunities are established to strike a balance between individual rights, government functions, and international relations. They help prevent undue interference in the functioning of key institutions and maintain peace and cooperation among nations. However, they are subject to the specific conditions and principles outlined in the relevant constitutional provisions and international agreements.

Article 15 – Prohibition of Discrimination:

Article 15 further elaborates on the prohibition of discrimination. It prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth in access to public places, use of public resources, and in educational institutions. However, it allows for special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes.

Special Provision for the Advancement of socially and educationally backward classes

Reservation Provision for OBCs

The 93rd Amendment Act of 2005 added an exception for candidates belonging to the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in central higher educational institutions, including the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and the Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs). The Supreme Court upheld the validity of both the Amendment Act and the OBC Quota Act, but directed the central government to exclude the “creamy layer” (advanced sections) among the OBCs.
The “creamy layer” ceiling was introduced in 1993 and has been revised to various amounts, including ₹1 lakh in 1993, ₹2.5 lakh in 2004, ₹4.5 lakh in 2008, ₹6 lakh in 2013, and ₹8 lakh in 2017. The children of these categories will not receive the quota benefit.

Reservation for EWSs in Educational Institutions

The above exception (d) was added by the 103rd Amendment Act of 2019. In order to give effect to this provision, the central government issued an order (in 2019) providing 10% reservation to the Economically Weaker Sections (EWSs) in admission to educational institutions.
The benefit of this reservation can be availed by the persons belonging to EWSs who are not covered under any of the existing schemes of reservations for SCs, STs and OBCs.

Concept of Rule of LAW

The rule of law is a legal principle that no one is above the law, and that everyone is subject to the same laws. It is a fundamental principle of democracy and a key element of good governance.

The rule of law has a number of important implications.

First, it means that everyone is equal before the law, regardless of their social status, wealth, or power. Second, it means that the government is subject to the law and cannot act arbitrarily or capriciously. Third, it means that the law is applied fairly and impartially to everyone.

The rule of law is important for a number of reasons.

First, it protects the rights and freedoms of individuals.
Second, it promotes stability and predictability in society.
Third, it encourages economic growth and development.
There are a number of key elements of the rule of law. These include:
Supremacy of the law: The law is the supreme authority in society and everyone is subject to it.
Equality before the law: Everyone is treated equally before the law, regardless of their social status, wealth, or power.
Fairness and impartiality: The law is applied fairly and impartially to everyone.
Accountability: The government and other institutions are accountable to the law.Transparency: The law and its application are transparent and accessible to everyone.

The rule of law is an essential element of a democratic and just society. It protects the rights and freedoms of individuals, promotes stability and predictability, and encourages economic growth and development.

Here are some examples of the rule of law in action:

A police officer cannot arrest someone without a warrant.
A judge cannot sentence someone to prison without a fair trial.
The government cannot seize someone’s property without due process of law.
A company cannot pollute the environment without facing legal consequences.

Some of the important judgments related to Article 15 of the Indian Constitution

Champakam Dorairajan v. State of Madras (1951): The Supreme Court held that Article 15(1) prohibits all discrimination by the State, including indirect discrimination.
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002): The Supreme Court held that private educational institutions are not bound by Article 15(1), but they cannot discriminate against students or teachers on the grounds mentioned therein.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992): The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Article 15(4) and held that reservations could be provided only for those classes of citizens who were socially and educationally backward and not for any particular caste or community. The Court also held that the total quantum of reservation under Article 15(4) should not exceed 50%.
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006): The Supreme Court held that creamy layer exclusion should be applied to reservations under Article 15(4) to ensure that the benefits of reservation reach the truly needy.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): The Supreme Court decriminalized homosexuality by striking down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that Section 377 violated the right to equality and the right to privacy guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution.

Article 16 – Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment:

This article guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. It prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, and residence. It also allows the state to make special provisions for the reservation of jobs for certain backward classes.

Four exceptions to equality of opportunity in public employment include Parliament prescribing residence conditions, allowing reservation of appointments for backward classes, requiring religious affiliation for office incumbents, and allowing up to 10% reservation for economically weaker sections.

The Mandal Commission Case

In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, the Supreme Court examined the scope and extent of Article 16(4) of the Indian Constitution. The case involved the appointment of the second backward classes commission under Article 340, chaired by Sri B.P. Mandal, to investigate socially and educationally backward classes within Indian territory. The commission’s report identified 3743 castes as socially and educationally backward classes and recommended a 27 percent reservation for them. The government issued an Office Memorandum in 1990, reserving 27% of seats for backward classes in State/Government services. The Supreme Court’s 6:3 majority held that the Union Government’s decision to reserve 27% government jobs for backward classes was constitutionally valid provided socially advanced persons were eliminated. The Court also clarified that reservations of seats should be limited to initial appointments rather than promotions, and the total reservation should not exceed 50%. The court also clarified that objections to the Mandal Commission Report would be preferred before the Supreme Court only.

Some of the important judgments related to Article 16 of the Indian Constitution

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992): The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Article 16(4) and held that reservations could be provided only for those classes of citizens who were socially and educationally backward and not for any particular caste or community. The Court also held that the total quantum of reservation under Article 16(4) should not exceed 50%.

M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006): The Supreme Court held that creamy layer exclusion should be applied to reservations under Article 16(4) to ensure that the benefits of reservation reach the truly needy.

Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab (1996): The Supreme Court held that reservation in promotion is permissible under Article 16(4A), but only if the State can establish that there is inadequate representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the concerned department or service.

State of Uttarakhand v. Mohan Singh (2017): The Supreme Court held that the carry forward rule, which allowed unfilled reserved vacancies to be carried forward to the next year, is unconstitutional.

Vikas Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand (2021): The Supreme Court held that the State cannot reserve seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the open category in public employment.

The relationship between Article 15(4) and Article 16(4)

The relationship between Article 15(4) and Article 16(4) of the Indian Constitution is important to understand, as these provisions deal with the concept of reservation and affirmative action to address historical social and educational disadvantages faced by certain groups. Here’s an explanation of their relationship:
Article 15(4): This clause of Article 15 empowers the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes (including Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) and for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes themselves. It allows the State to provide reservation in educational institutions and in matters of public employment.
Article 16(4): This clause of Article 16 allows the State to make special provisions for reservation in appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizens who, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State.

Relationship:

While Article 15(4) and Article 16(4) may appear to be addressing different aspects of affirmative action, they are closely related and work together to achieve the goal of social justice and equality of opportunity.
Article 15(4) primarily deals with providing special provisions for educational opportunities to historically disadvantaged groups. It allows for reservations in educational institutions to ensure that these groups have access to quality education.
Article 16(4), on the other hand, focuses on reservations in public employment to address the underrepresentation of certain backward classes in government services.
Both provisions are rooted in the broader principle of achieving social justice and equality as enshrined in the Constitution. They aim to uplift marginalized and disadvantaged communities and provide them with opportunities for advancement.
Article 16(4) is not an exception to the rest of Article 16 but rather an integral part of it. It does not contradict the provisions of Article 16(1) and (2), which guarantee equality of opportunity in public employment. Instead, it complements these provisions by allowing the State to take affirmative action to ensure representation of backward classes.
In essence, Article 15(4) and Article 16(4) work together to address discrimination and historical disadvantages faced by specific groups. Article 15(4) enables access to education, while Article 16(4) ensures representation in public employment, both contributing to the broader goal of social and economic equality.
Overall, these provisions are vital tools for the government to promote social justice and uplift marginalized communities, and they are integral to India’s commitment to achieving equality and inclusion.

Article 17 – Abolition of Untouchability

Article 17 explicitly abolishes the practice of untouchability. It declares that untouchability, in any form, is forbidden and unconstitutional.
Enforcement and Offense: The article also mandates that the enforcement of any disability arising from untouchability shall be an offense punishable by law. This means that any discrimination or practice that enforces untouchability can be prosecuted under the law.
Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955: In 1976, the Untouchability (Offences) Act of 1955 was extensively amended and renamed the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. This amendment expanded the scope of the law and strengthened its penal provisions. The Act defines civil rights as those rights accruing to a person due to the abolition of untouchability by Article 17 of the Constitution.
Definition of Untouchability: The Constitution itself and the Protection of Civil Rights Act do not provide a specific definition of untouchability. However, legal interpretations and court decisions have clarified that Article 17 addresses not just literal untouchability but the broader historical practice of social disabilities imposed on certain caste groups by virtue of their birth.
Scope of Article 17: Article 17 is not limited to literal physical contact but encompasses all forms of discrimination, social disabilities, and exclusion based on caste. It addresses the historical injustices associated with the caste system in India.
Applicability to Private Individuals: The Supreme Court has held that the protection provided by Article 17 is applicable not only against the State but also against private individuals and entities. It is considered a constitutional obligation to ensure that untouchability is eradicated from all aspects of society.

Article 18 – Abolition of Titles

Article 18 abolishes the granting of titles and recognition of titles by the state. It ensures that no Indian citizen can be conferred or compelled to accept any title from a foreign state.

State Cannot Confer Titles: Article 18 prohibits the State from conferring any titles upon individuals. It declares that the Indian State shall not grant or confer any titles, except for titles that are academic, military, or positions of honor.
Exception for Academic and Military Titles: The article allows for certain exceptions, stating that titles that are academic or military in nature can still be conferred. Academic titles would include academic degrees such as Doctorates (Ph.D.), and military titles refer to ranks and honors within the armed forces.
Prohibition on Accepting Foreign Titles: Article 18 also prohibits citizens of India from accepting titles from foreign countries. This is to prevent Indian citizens from receiving titles and honors from foreign governments that could potentially create distinctions or allegiances contrary to national interests.
Abolition of British-Era Titles: This provision also leads to the abolition of titles that were awarded by the British government during the colonial period, such as “Rai Bahadur” and “Khan Bahadur.” These titles, associated with the British colonial system, were abolished to eliminate vestiges of colonialism.
Exclusion of National Awards and Military Honors: Notably, Article 18 does not apply to awards and honors like the Padma Shri, Padma Bhushan, Padma Vibhushan, Bharat Ratna, as well as military honors like the Ashok Chakra and Param Vir Chakra. These awards and honors are considered distinct from the titles and positions of honor that Article 18 seeks to abolish. They are conferred based on exceptional contributions and achievements, and they carry prestige and recognition without the formality of titles.

Right to Freedom
ARTICLE 19

Article 19 of the Indian Constitution guarantees six fundamental rights to Indian citizens, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the state in the interest of various factors. Here is a detailed explanation of these six rights:
Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19(1)(a)): This right allows every citizen the freedom to express their thoughts, opinions, beliefs, and convictions freely through speech, writing, printing, or any other medium. However, the state can impose reasonable restrictions on this right in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offense.
Freedom to Assemble Peaceably (Article 19(1)(b)): Citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. They can hold public meetings, demonstrations, and processions. However, this right is not absolute, and the state can impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order and the sovereignty and integrity of India.
Freedom to Form Associations or Unions (Article 19(1)(c)): Citizens have the right to form associations, unions, or cooperative societies. They can create political parties, organizations, trade unions, and other groups. While this right is extensive, the state can impose reasonable restrictions on the grounds of sovereignty and integrity of India, public order, and morality.
Freedom to Move Freely (Article 19(1)(d)): Every citizen has the right to move freely throughout the territory of India. This includes the freedom to move between states or within a state. The state can impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public and the protection of the interests of scheduled tribes.
Freedom to Reside and Settle (Article 19(1)(e)): Citizens have the right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India. This means they can live and establish a permanent home anywhere in the country. Reasonable restrictions can be imposed by the state in the interests of the general public and the protection of scheduled tribes.
Freedom to Practice Any Profession or Occupation (Article 19(1)(g)): All citizens have the right to practice any profession, carry on any occupation, trade, or business. However, the state can impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of this right in the interests of the general public. The state can also prescribe professional or technical qualifications necessary for practicing certain professions or occupations.

Some of the important judgments related to Article 19 of the Indian Constitution

Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950): The Supreme Court held that freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right that is essential for a democratic society. The Court also held that this right cannot be restricted unless it is necessary to do so in the interests of public order, national security, or other grounds specified in Article 19(2).
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962): The Supreme Court held that the right to freedom of speech and expression includes the right to criticize the government. The Court also held that this right cannot be restricted unless it is necessary to do so in the interests of national security or the prevention of public disorder.
Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. v. Union of India (1985): The Supreme Court held that the right to freedom of speech and expression includes the right to circulate newspapers and other publications. The Court also held that this right cannot be restricted unless it is necessary to do so in the interests of national security or the prevention of public disorder.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): The Supreme Court held that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to privacy. The Court also held that this right cannot be restricted unless it is necessary to do so in the interests of public order, national security, or other grounds specified in Article 19(2).
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which made it an offence to send “offensive” messages through communication services. The Court held that Section 66A was violative of the right to freedom of speech and expression.

ARTICLE 20

Article 20 of the Indian Constitution provides protection to individuals, whether citizens or foreigners, against arbitrary and excessive punishment. It consists of three main provisions:
Protection against Ex-Post-Facto Laws: This provision ensures that no person can be convicted of an offense except under a law that was in force at the time the offense was committed. Additionally, no person can be subjected to a penalty greater than what was prescribed by the law at the time the offense occurred. In simple terms, individuals cannot be punished for actions that were legal when they were committed, even if a new law makes those actions illegal later.
Protection against Double Jeopardy: This provision ensures that no person can be prosecuted and punished for the same offense more than once. Once a person has been acquitted or convicted of a particular offense, they cannot be tried again for the same offense. This protection applies in proceedings before a court of law or a judicial tribunal.
Protection against Self-Incrimination: This provision prevents individuals accused of any offense from being compelled to be witnesses against themselves. In other words, individuals cannot be forced to provide evidence that may incriminate them. This protection extends to both oral and documentary evidence in criminal proceedings but does not apply to material objects, thumb impressions, specimen signatures, blood specimens, or the exhibition of the body. It also applies only to criminal proceedings and not to civil or non-criminal cases.

Protection of Life and Personal Liberty
ARTICLE 21

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is a fundamental right that guarantees the protection of an individual’s right to life and personal liberty. This article is one of the most vital provisions in the Constitution, ensuring that citizens and non-citizens alike have certain fundamental protections. Here’s a detailed explanation of Article 21:
Article 21: Protection of Life and Personal Liberty

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

Key points regarding Article 21:
Protection of Life: Article 21 ensures that no person can be arbitrarily deprived of their life. It implies that the state cannot take someone’s life without following a legally established procedure, such as through a lawful trial and execution.
Protection of Personal Liberty: Personal liberty includes the freedom to move freely, freedom from unlawful detention, and other aspects of an individual’s personal freedom. Article 21 protects individuals from arbitrary or unlawful arrests or detentions.
Procedure Established by Law: This phrase emphasizes that any deprivation of life or personal liberty must follow a lawful procedure. It means that a person’s life or personal liberty can be curtailed if there is a law that allows for it. However, the procedure itself must be reasonable, fair, and just.
Applicability to Citizens and Non-Citizens: Article 21 extends its protection to both citizens and non-citizens within Indian territory. It ensures that everyone within the country’s jurisdiction is entitled to these fundamental rights.
Evolution of Interpretation: As mentioned earlier, the interpretation of Article 21 has evolved over time, expanding its scope to cover various aspects of an individual’s well-being, dignity, and quality of life. The Supreme Court of India has played a significant role in broadening the interpretation of this article.

The interpretation of Article 21 via landmark court cases

Initial Narrow Interpretation (Gopalan Case, 1950): The Supreme Court initially interpreted Article 21 narrowly, stating that it protected individuals only from arbitrary executive actions and not from arbitrary legislative actions. It held that as long as there was a procedure established by law, the validity of the law could not be questioned based on its reasonableness or fairness.
Wider Interpretation (Menaka Case, 1978): In the Menaka case, the Supreme Court adopted a broader interpretation of Article 21. It ruled that the right to life and personal liberty could be deprived by a law, but the procedure prescribed by that law must be reasonable, fair, and just. This decision introduced the concept of “due process of law” similar to the American Constitution. The court also emphasized that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all aspects that make life meaningful.
Subsequent Expansions: The Supreme Court has since reaffirmed its judgment in the Menaka case and declared various rights as part of Article 21, including the right to a decent environment, livelihood, privacy, shelter, health, free education up to 14 years of age, free legal aid, speedy trial, protection against inhuman treatment, and many others.

In summary, this article has been instrumental in safeguarding the fundamental rights of individuals in India. Article 21 not only protects the right to life and personal liberty but also encompasses a wide range of rights that contribute to a person’s well-being which are as follows:

1. Right to live with human dignity.

2. Right to decent environment including pollution free water and air and protection against hazardous industries.

3. Right to livelihood.

4. Right to privacy.

5. Right to shelter.

6. Right to health.

7. Right to free education up to 14 years of age.

8. Right to free legal aid.

9. Right against solitary confinement.

10. Right to speedy trial.

11. Right against handcuffing.

12. Right against inhuman treatment.

13. Right against delayed execution.

14. Right to travel abroad.

15. Right against bonded labour.

16. Right against custodial harassment.

17. Right to emergency medical aid.

18. Right to timely medical treatment in government hospital.

19. Right not to be driven out of a state.

20. Right to fair trial.

21. Right of prisoner to have necessities of life.

22. Right of women to be treated with decency and dignity.

23. Right against public hanging.

24. Right to road in hilly areas.

25. Right to information.

26. Right to reputation.

27. Right of appeal from a judgement of conviction

28. Right to family pension

29. Right to social and economic justice and empowerment

30. Right against bar fetters

31. Right to appropriate life insurance policy

32. Right to sleep

33. Right to freedom from noise pollution

34. Right to sustainable development

35. Right to opportunity.

The inter-relation between Articles 14, 19 and 21

Article 14 – Equality before the Law: Article 14 ensures equality before the law and equal protection of the laws to all persons in India. It prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. This article sets the foundation for ensuring equal treatment and protection under the law for all individuals.
Article 19 – Right to Freedom: Article 19 grants various fundamental rights to citizens, including freedom of speech and expression, the right to assemble peaceably, the right to form associations, the right to move freely, the right to reside anywhere in India, and the right to practice any profession, occupation, or trade. However, these rights are subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, morality, and other considerations.
Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty: Article 21 protects the right to life and personal liberty. Initially, these rights were considered separate from those in Article 19. However, the landmark Maneka Gandhi case established that Articles 19 and 21 are not mutually exclusive. The Right to Life and Personal Liberty includes a wide range of rights, some of which receive additional protection under Article 19(1).
Interconnected Rights: Articles 19, 21, and 14 are interconnected and provide safeguards against arbitrary government actions. They must be interpreted together and subjected to scrutiny under each other’s provisions. This approach ensures that laws encroaching upon personal liberty not only comply with Article 21 but also meet the standards of Article 14 and Article 19.
Golden Triangle: The combination of Articles 14, 19, and 21 has been referred to as the “Golden Triangle” in jurisprudence. These articles collectively grant essential human rights and freedoms to citizens, serving as a critical framework for safeguarding individual liberties.
In essence, these constitutional provisions work together to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals in India, ensuring that government actions are fair, just, and in line with the principles of equality and liberty.

ARTICLE 21A

Article 21A of the Indian Constitution establishes the Right to Education as a fundamental right for children between the ages of six to fourteen years. Here’s a summary of the key points related to this provision:
Free and Compulsory Education: Article 21A mandates that the State must provide free and compulsory education to all children in the specified age group. This education should be provided in a manner determined by the State.
Constitutional Amendment: The provision for the Right to Education was added to the Constitution through the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2002. This amendment made elementary education a fundamental right, and it marked a significant step towards achieving the goal of “Education for All.”
Directive Principle Amendment: Prior to this amendment, the Constitution contained a directive principle (Article 45) that called for the state to provide free and compulsory education for children. However, it was not enforceable by the courts. The 86th Amendment modified Article 45 to focus on early childhood care and education.
Fundamental Duty: Alongside the amendment, a new fundamental duty was introduced under Article 51A, making it the duty of every citizen to provide opportunities for education to their child or ward between the ages of six and fourteen years.
Supreme Court Recognition: Even before the 86th Amendment, the Supreme Court had recognized a fundamental right to primary education as part of the right to life under Article 21. The court held that every child or citizen has a right to free education until the age of 14, with further education subject to economic capacity and state development.
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009: In accordance with Article 21A, the Indian Parliament enacted the RTE Act in 2009. This legislation aims to ensure that every child has access to full-time elementary education of satisfactory quality in a formal school that meets essential norms and standards. The Act promotes inclusive elementary education for all.

Protection Against Arbitrary Arrest and Detention

Protection against arbitrary arrest and detention is an important aspect of safeguarding individual liberty and human rights. In India, these protections are primarily enshrined in Articles 20 and 22 of the Indian Constitution. Here’s a summary of the key provisions related to this protection:

Article 22: Protection Against Arrest and Detention

Article 22 of the Indian Constitution provides protection to individuals who are arrested or detained. It distinguishes between two types of detention: punitive detention and preventive detention. Here’s an explanation of the key provisions of Article 22:

Punitive Detention (First Part of Article 22):

Punitive detention is the detention of a person after a trial and conviction in a court. Article 22’s first part grants certain rights to individuals arrested or detained under ordinary laws (criminal laws) as follows:
Right to be Informed of Grounds: Anyone arrested or detained has the right to be informed of the grounds for their arrest.
Right to Legal Counsel: Individuals have the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner (an advocate).
Right to Speedy Judicial Review: Those arrested or detained must be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours (including journey time from the place of arrest). The magistrate can order further detention if necessary.
Right to Release: If a person is not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, they must be released unless the magistrate authorizes further detention.
These rights are applicable to individuals arrested or detained under ordinary criminal laws but are not available to enemy aliens or persons detained under preventive detention laws. It’s important to note that these provisions apply to acts of a criminal or quasi-criminal nature or activities prejudicial to public interest.

Preventive Detention (Second Part of Article 22):

Preventive detention involves detaining a person without trial and conviction to prevent them from committing an offense in the future. Article 22’s second part provides safeguards for individuals arrested or detained under preventive detention laws. These safeguards apply to both citizens and aliens and include:
Maximum Detention Period: The detention of a person under preventive detention cannot exceed three months unless an advisory board, consisting of high court judges, reports sufficient cause for extended detention.
Communication of Grounds: The grounds of detention must be communicated to the detainee, although facts considered against the public interest need not be disclosed.
Right to Representation: The detainee has the right to make a representation against the detention order.
Additionally, Article 22 empowers the Parliament to prescribe the circumstances and classes of cases in which a person can be detained for more than three months under preventive detention without obtaining the opinion of an advisory board. It also allows the Parliament to specify the maximum period of detention in certain cases and establish procedures for advisory board inquiries.

The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 made significant changes to Article 22 of the Indian Constitution regarding preventive detention. It reduced the maximum period of detention without obtaining the opinion of an advisory board from three months to two months. However, it’s important to note that this provision of the 44th Amendment Act has not been brought into force, and as a result, the original period of three months for detention without an advisory board’s opinion still continues to be in effect.
Regarding the legislative authority for preventive detention, the Constitution divides this power between the Parliament and the state legislatures as follows:
Exclusive Authority of Parliament: The Parliament has exclusive authority to enact preventive detention laws for reasons connected with defense, foreign affairs, and the security of India. This means that only the Parliament can make laws related to preventive detention for these specific purposes.
Concurrent Authority: Both the Parliament and the state legislatures can concurrently make laws on preventive detention for reasons connected with the security of a state, the maintenance of public order, and the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. In cases related to these matters, both the central government (Parliament) and state governments (state legislatures) have the power to legislate on preventive detention.
This division of legislative authority ensures that there is a balance between central and state governments when it comes to enacting preventive detention laws, depending on the specific reasons and circumstances for detention.

Right Against Exploitation
Article 23 – Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour

Article 23 of the Indian Constitution is a crucial provision that prohibits various forms of exploitation, including human trafficking, forced labor, and other similar practices. Here are the key points regarding Article 23:
Prohibition of Traffic in Human Beings and Forced Labor: Article 23 explicitly forbids several forms of exploitation:
Human Trafficking: This includes the sale and purchase of individuals, including men, women, and children, as if they were commodities.
Forced Labor (Begar): Begar refers to compulsory work or labor without remuneration. It often involved landlords or authorities coercing individuals to work without fair compensation.
Other Forms of Forced Labor: The article also prohibits other similar forms of forced labor, such as bonded labor.
Punishment for Violation: The article stipulates that any contravention of these prohibitions is considered an offense and is punishable by law. This legal framework ensures that those involved in human trafficking, forced labor, or similar practices can be prosecuted and penalized.
Applicability to All: Article 23 applies to both Indian citizens and non-citizens, ensuring that all individuals within Indian territory are protected from such forms of exploitation.
Protection Against State and Private Actors: This constitutional provision not only safeguards individuals from actions taken by the State but also protects them from exploitation by private individuals or entities. It ensures that citizens’ fundamental rights are not violated by either state or non-state actors.
Exceptions for Compulsory Service: Article 23(2) allows the State to impose compulsory service for public purposes, such as military or social service. However, it specifies that such service must not discriminate on grounds of religion, race, caste, or class. In such cases, individuals may be required to provide their services without being entitled to payment.
Related Legislation: To further enforce and regulate the provisions of Article 23, various laws have been enacted, including the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act of 1956, the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act of 1976, the Minimum Wages Act of 1948, the Contract Labour Act of 1970, and the Equal Remuneration Act of 1976.
Article 23 reflects India’s commitment to eradicating exploitative practices and upholding the dignity and rights of its citizens and residents, regardless of their social or economic status. It provides a legal basis for combating human trafficking, forced labor, and bonded labor, and it establishes a framework for prosecuting those responsible for such offenses.

Article 24 – Prohibition of Employment of Children in Factories, etc.

Article 24 of the Indian Constitution addresses the issue of child labor and aims to protect children from exploitation in hazardous occupations. Here are the key points related to Article 24:
Prohibition of Child Labor in Hazardous Occupations: Article 24 prohibits the employment of children below the age of 14 years in any factory, mine, or other hazardous activities. It recognizes the vulnerability of children and seeks to ensure their well-being by keeping them away from dangerous and harmful work environments.
Exemptions for Harmless or Innocent Work: While Article 24 prohibits child labor in hazardous activities, it does not prohibit the employment of children in harmless or innocent work. This provision allows children to engage in activities that do not pose a threat to their health, safety, or overall development.
Related Legislation: To complement the provisions of Article 24, various laws have been enacted to regulate and prohibit child labor in India. The most significant among them is the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act of 1986. Additionally, other laws, such as the Employment of Children Act of 1938, the Factories Act of 1948, the Mines Act of 1952, and others, also address child labor in specific sectors.
Child Labour Rehabilitation Welfare Fund: In 1996, the Supreme Court of India directed the establishment of the Child Labour Rehabilitation Welfare Fund. Employers who employ children in violation of the law are required to deposit a fine into this fund. The funds collected are used for the rehabilitation and welfare of affected children.
Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005: This act was enacted to establish the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and State Commissions for Protection of Child Rights. It aims to ensure the protection and promotion of child rights and provides for the speedy trial of offenses against children or violations of child rights.
Expansion of Prohibitions: Over the years, the Indian government has taken steps to expand the scope of prohibited child labor. In 2006, the government banned the employment of children as domestic servants or workers in various business establishments, including hotels, restaurants, and factories. Stringent penalties are imposed on those found employing children below the age of 14.
Amendment Act of 2016: The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Amendment Act of 2016 amended the 1986 Act and renamed it as the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. The amendment aimed to strengthen the legal framework for the protection of children from labor exploitation.
Article 24 reflects India’s commitment to safeguarding the rights and well-being of its children by prohibiting their engagement in hazardous occupations and ensuring their access to education and a safe environment for growth and development.

Right to Freedom of Religion
Article 25- Freedom of Conscience and Free Profession, Practice and Propagation of Religion

Article 25 of the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of religion to all individuals. Here are the key aspects and implications of Article 25:
Freedom of Conscience: Article 25 recognizes the inner freedom of individuals to have their own beliefs and thoughts about religion. It ensures that no one can be compelled to adopt or follow a particular religion against their will. This aspect protects an individual’s right to maintain their own religious beliefs or to have no religious beliefs at all.
Right to Profess: This part of Article 25 allows individuals to openly declare their religious beliefs and faith. It means that people have the right to express their religion publicly and to identify themselves as followers of a particular faith.
Right to Practice: Article 25 also protects the right to practice one’s religion. It encompasses the freedom to perform religious rituals, ceremonies, and customs, as well as engage in religious worship and observance. It ensures that individuals can practice their religion in both private and public spaces.
Right to Propagate: This aspect of Article 25 grants individuals the right to propagate their religion. It involves sharing one’s religious beliefs and teachings with others. However, it’s important to note that this right does not include the right to forcibly convert or compel others to adopt one’s own religion. Forcible conversions are considered a violation of the freedom of conscience.
Applicability to All Persons: Article 25 is not limited to Indian citizens; it extends its protections to all persons, regardless of their citizenship status. This inclusion is in line with the principles of religious tolerance and freedom.
Subject to Certain Restrictions: While Article 25 guarantees freedom of religion, it is not absolute. It is subject to certain limitations, including considerations of public order, morality, health, and other fundamental rights. The State can impose reasonable restrictions on religious practices or activities if they are deemed necessary to maintain public order or protect other fundamental rights.
Regulation of Secular Activities: The State is permitted to regulate or restrict secular activities associated with religious practices. This means that economic, financial, political, or other non-religious activities that may be linked to religious practices can be regulated by the government.
Social Welfare and Reform: Article 25 empowers the State to undertake social welfare and reform measures related to religious practices. For example, it can take steps to promote social equality by opening religious institutions to all sections of society, as has been done in the case of Hindu religious institutions.
Inclusion of Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists: Article 25 includes Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists as part of the Hindu religious community for the purpose of constitutional provisions. This recognition ensures that these religious groups are entitled to certain legal protections and rights within the Indian context.

Article 26 Freedom from Taxation for Promotion of a Religion

Article 26 of the Indian Constitution grants certain rights to religious denominations or their sections. These rights are designed to protect the religious autonomy and practices of such denominations. Here are the key rights provided by Article 26:
Right to Establish and Maintain Institutions: Religious denominations or their sections have the right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes. This includes the ability to create and manage places of worship, educational institutions, hospitals, and other charitable organizations that serve the religious community and society at large.
Right to Manage Own Affairs: Religious denominations have the right to manage their own internal affairs related to religious matters. This autonomy allows them to make decisions concerning religious rituals, customs, and practices without external interference.
Right to Own and Acquire Property: Article 26 grants the right to own and acquire both movable and immovable property. This ensures that religious denominations can acquire assets necessary for the functioning of their institutions, including land, buildings, and other resources.
Right to Administer Property: In addition to ownership and acquisition, religious denominations have the right to administer their property in accordance with the law. This means they can make decisions about the use, maintenance, and disposal of their assets while adhering to legal requirements.
It’s important to note that the rights under Article 26 are collective rights meant to protect the religious autonomy and practices of religious denominations or their sections. These rights are subject to certain limitations, such as public order, morality, and health, but are not subject to other provisions relating to fundamental rights.
Additionally, the Supreme Court has laid down criteria to determine whether an entity qualifies as a religious denomination for the purposes of Article 26. These criteria include having a system of beliefs, a common organization, and a distinctive name. Entities that meet these criteria can be considered religious denominations and are entitled to the protections and rights provided by Article 26.

Article 27 Freedom from Taxation for Promotion of a Religion

Article 27 of the Indian Constitution is designed to ensure the principle of secularism and prevent the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination through the use of public funds collected as taxes. Here’s a breakdown of the key aspects of Article 27:
Prohibition of Taxation for Religious Promotion: Article 27 explicitly states that no person shall be compelled to pay any taxes for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination. This means that the government cannot use public funds obtained through taxation to support, patronize, or favor any specific religion or religious group.
Ensuring Secularism: The provision reflects the secular nature of the Indian state, emphasizing the separation of religion from the affairs of the government. It reinforces the idea that the government should remain neutral in matters of religion and not use taxpayer money to advance or sustain any particular religious’ belief or practice.
Promoting Equality Among Religions: Article 27 is aimed at promoting equality among all religions by preventing any discrimination in the allocation of public resources. It ensures that funds collected from individuals, regardless of their religious beliefs, are not used to benefit one religion at the expense of others.
Distinction Between Tax and Fee: Article 27 specifically pertains to taxes and does not apply to fees. While taxes cannot be used for religious promotion, fees may be levied for purposes related to the secular administration or regulation of religious institutions, pilgrimage sites, or safety measures. Fees are expected to serve a specific secular purpose rather than promote or maintain a religion.

Article 28 Freedom from Attending Religious Instruction

Article 28 of the Indian Constitution addresses the issue of religious instruction in educational institutions. It establishes the following principles:
Prohibition in State-Maintained Institutions: Article 28(1) states that in educational institutions that are wholly maintained out of State funds, no religious instruction shall be provided. This means that government-funded schools or colleges cannot offer religious education as part of their curriculum.
Exception for Institutions Administered by the State but Established by Endowments or Trusts: Article 28(1) includes an exception. It allows religious instruction in educational institutions administered by the State but established under any endowment or trust if the trust’s terms require the imparting of religious instruction. In such cases, religious education may be provided.
No Compulsory Religious Instruction in Recognized or Aided Institutions: Article 28(3) prohibits any person, whether attending an educational institution recognized by the State or one receiving aid out of State funds, from being required to attend religious instruction or worship in that institution without their consent. For minors, the consent of their guardian is necessary.
Voluntary Religious Instruction: In educational institutions recognized by the State or those receiving State aid, religious instruction is allowed, but only on a voluntary basis. This means that students or their guardians have the freedom to decide whether or not to participate in religious instruction or worship activities.

Cultural and Educational Rights
Article 29 Protection of Interests of Minorities

Article 29 of the Indian Constitution provides certain rights and protections to citizens in relation to their language, culture, and admission to educational institutions. Here are the key provisions and implications of Article 29:
Protection of Distinct Language, Script, or Culture: Article 29 grants the right to citizens belonging to any section of the population with a distinct language, script, or culture to conserve and protect their unique identity. This protection is extended to both religious and linguistic minorities as well as the majority population.
Right to Admission: Article 29 also ensures that no citizen shall be denied admission to any educational institution that is maintained by the State or receives government funding solely on the grounds of religion, race, caste, or language. This provision promotes equal access to educational opportunities for all citizens, regardless of their background.
Scope Beyond Minorities: While Article 29 is often associated with the protection of minority rights, the Supreme Court has clarified that it is not limited to minorities alone. The use of the term “section of citizens” implies that it applies to all citizens, including those belonging to the majority community.
Right to Advocate for Language Conservation: The right to conserve language, as mentioned in Article 29, also includes the right to advocate for the protection and promotion of that language. This means that citizens can engage in political activism and make promises aimed at preserving their language without being considered as engaging in corrupt practices under election laws.

Article 30 Right of Minorities to Establish and Administer Educational Institutions

Article 30 of the Indian Constitution provides significant rights and protections to religious and linguistic minorities in India in the context of education. Here are the key provisions and implications of Article 30:
Right to Establish and Administer Educational Institutions: Article 30(1) grants religious and linguistic minorities the fundamental right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. This right is not limited to any specific religion or language; it applies to all such minorities in India.
Non-Discrimination in Granting Aid: Article 30(2) ensures that when the state provides financial aid or support to educational institutions, it cannot discriminate against any institution solely on the grounds that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language. This provision promotes equal treatment and financial assistance for minority-run institutions.
Protection from Compulsory Acquisition: Article 30 also safeguards the interests of minority educational institutions by stipulating that if the government compulsorily acquires the land on which such an institution is established, the amount of compensation must be determined in a manner that does not adversely affect the institution’s educational rights and functioning.
Preservation of Language and Culture: Minority educational institutions have the right to impart education in their own language, preserving and promoting their linguistic and cultural heritage.
Variety of Minority Educational Institutions: Minority educational institutions in India can take various forms, including those seeking recognition, aid, or both from the state government, as well as those that operate independently without seeking recognition or aid. Each category has its own level of autonomy and regulatory requirements.
General Laws and Regulations: While enjoying certain degrees of autonomy, all minority educational institutions are still subject to the general laws and regulations of the state and nation, including those related to contract law, labor law, taxation, and other legal aspects.
In essence, Article 30 ensures that religious and linguistic minorities in India have the freedom to establish and manage their educational institutions without discrimination and with the right to preserve their culture and language through education. It plays a crucial role in promoting diversity and inclusivity in India’s education system.

Minorities Status in India

According to the 2011 Census of India, the following are the major religious minorities in India:

Muslims: 14.2%
Christians: 2.3%
Sikhs: 1.7%
Buddhists: 0.7%
Jains: 0.4%
Parsis: 0.006%

The Constitution of India does not define the term “minority”. However, the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992, which was enacted to protect the rights of minorities, has identified six religious communities as minorities: Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, and Parsis.

Minorities in India are geographically dispersed, with some states having a higher concentration of minorities than others. For example, the states of Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, and Meghalaya have a majority of minority communities.

Minorities in India face a number of challenges, including discrimination, poverty, and lack of access to education and employment opportunities. Despite these challenges, minorities have made significant contributions to India’s development in all fields.

Here is some data on the socioeconomic status of minorities in India:

Education: The literacy rate among minorities is lower than the national average. For example, the literacy rate among Muslims is 68.5%, compared to the national average of 74.0%.
Employment: Minorities are underrepresented in government jobs and in the private sector. For example, Muslims account for only 14.2% of the Indian population, but they account for only 7.5% of government employees.
Income: The average income of minorities is lower than the national average. For example, the average income of Muslims is ₹10,337 per month, compared to the national average of ₹12,039 per month.

Right to Constitutional Remedies

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is a fundamental right that provides individuals with the right to constitutional remedies in case their fundamental rights are violated. This article is often considered the “heart and soul” of the Constitution, as it empowers individuals to seek protection and enforcement of their fundamental rights through the judiciary. Here are the key components of Article 32 and the types of writs it enables:
Right to Constitutional Remedies: Article 32 explicitly states that individuals have the right to move the Supreme Court of India for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. This means that if a person believes their fundamental rights have been violated by the State or any other authority, they can directly approach the Supreme Court to seek redress.
Writ Jurisdiction: Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to issue five types of writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights. These writs are powerful legal instruments that enable the court to ensure justice and protect the rights of citizens. The five types of writs are:
Habeas Corpus: This writ is used to secure the release of a person who has been unlawfully detained or imprisoned. It requires the detaining authority to produce the detained person before the court and justify their detention.

Meaning and Purpose:

The term “Habeas Corpus” is Latin for “You have the body.” It reflects the essence of the writ, which is to secure an individual’s release from unlawful or unjust detention.
The primary purpose of the Habeas Corpus writ is to safeguard an individual’s freedom against unlawful detention by government authorities or private individuals. It serves as a check on arbitrary state action, ensuring that no one is held in custody without lawful authority.
When Issued:
The Habeas Corpus writ is issued when an individual believes they are held in jail, custody, or under private care without proper legal authority. It is typically filed by a person who claims to be wrongfully imprisoned.
In cases where an individual believes they have been unlawfully detained, conditions in custody are below minimum legal standards for human treatment, or their arrest is in violation of their fundamental rights under Articles 19, 21, and 22 of the Indian Constitution, the Habeas Corpus writ provides immediate relief.

Important Judgments:

Notable cases related to the Habeas Corpus writ include the Kerala case involving P. Rajan, a college student who died in police custody. His father filed a Habeas Corpus writ, leading to the revelation of his unlawful detention and subsequent death.
In the famous ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla case, also known as the Habeas Corpus case, the court controversially held that the writ of Habeas Corpus could be suspended during a state of emergency under Article 359 of the Indian Constitution.
Courts have considered whether Habeas Corpus writs are civil or criminal in nature, depending on the specific circumstances and legal procedures involved.

Circumstances when the writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be issued:

The writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be issued if the detention is lawful, authorized by a competent court, or in compliance with a legislative or judicial mandate.
However, if the detention is found to be unlawful, arbitrary, or in violation of an individual’s fundamental rights, the court can issue the writ to secure the person’s release from custody.

Certiorari: This writ is issued to quash or annul the decisions of lower courts, tribunals, or authorities if they have acted beyond their jurisdiction or in violation of the law. It is a form of judicial review.

Meaning and Purpose:

Certiorari is issued to review and potentially annul the decisions of inferior or quasi-judicial bodies.
The writ ensures that the decisions being challenged are within the authority and jurisdiction of the body that made them.
Certiorari is not issued against purely administrative or ministerial decisions; it applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial orders.

Grounds for Issuing Certiorari:

Certiorari is typically issued under several grounds, including when a decision was made:
Without jurisdiction or in excess of it.
In violation of the principles of natural justice.
In contravention of established legal procedures.
If there is a manifest error in the judgment itself.

Important Judgments:

In Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & Ors., the Supreme Court clarified the scope of Certiorari and emphasized that it is generally available against inferior courts but not against equal or higher courts.
In T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa & Anr., the Constitution Bench held that Certiorari may be granted when a court acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it.
In Hari Bishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, the Supreme Court highlighted that the role of Certiorari is primarily destructive, aimed at wiping out orders passed without jurisdiction.
In Naresh S. Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, it was noted that Certiorari is available to correct judicial orders issued by a High Court, but the writ is not applicable against the High Court itself.

Circumstances When Certiorari Cannot Be Issued:

Certiorari cannot be issued against individuals, companies, private authorities, or associations.
It cannot be used to amend or challenge an Act or Ordinance.
An aggrieved party with an alternative remedy cannot typically seek Certiorari.

Prohibition: The writ of prohibition is used to prevent lower courts, tribunals, or quasi-judicial bodies from exceeding their jurisdiction or acting in an unlawful manner. It stops proceedings in a lower court.

Meaning and Purpose:

Prohibition is a preventive writ that stops a lower court or tribunal from taking actions that are beyond its authority or that violate established legal principles.
It is issued by superior courts to restrain inferior courts or tribunals from proceeding with a case or taking certain actions.

When is the Writ of Prohibition Issued?

Prohibition is typically issued when a lower court or tribunal:
Acts in excess of its jurisdiction, meaning it takes actions beyond what the law allows it to do.
Acts outside its jurisdiction, meaning it takes actions in cases where it does not have legal authority.
Is about to pass an order or take an action that is unlawful or contrary to the law.
Prohibition is a preventive measure aimed at stopping unlawful actions before they occur.

Important Case Laws:

In the case of East India Commercial Co. Ltd v. Collector of Customs, a Writ of Prohibition was issued to prevent an inferior tribunal from continuing with proceedings that were outside its jurisdiction or in contradiction with the laws.
In the case of Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd, the Supreme Court emphasized that if an inferior tribunal has clearly assumed jurisdiction that does not belong to it, then the issuance of a Writ of Prohibition is warranted.

Circumstances When the Writ of Prohibition Cannot Be Issued:

A Writ of Prohibition cannot be issued when a lower court or tribunal is acting within the scope of its jurisdiction.
It cannot be used to rectify mistakes of fact or law made by lower courts.
Prohibition is not applicable to administrative authorities when they are discharging administrative, executive, or ministerial functions, as it primarily addresses judicial or quasi-judicial actions

Mandamus: Mandamus means “we command.” This writ is used to compel a public official, authority, or government body to perform their legal duties or functions, especially when they have refused to do so.

Meaning and Purpose:

“Mandamus” signifies a command or an order issued by a court. This writ is used to command a public official, government officer, or lower court to perform their legal duty correctly when there is a clear legal right to such performance.
Its main objective is to prevent misuse of authority and to ensure that powers and duties are carried out lawfully.

Conditions for Issuing Mandamus:

The applicant must have a legal right to compel the recipient to perform a specific legal duty.
The nature of the duty in question must be a public one.
The right sought to be enforced through Mandamus must be subsisting at the time of the petition.
Mandamus is not issued for anticipatory injury or potential future violations.

Limitations:

Mandamus cannot be issued against high dignitaries like the President and the Governors. However, there are exceptions in specific cases, depending on the nature of the issue.
The courts are generally reluctant to issue Mandamus against the President or Governor, as it is believed that they represent the state or the Union, and Mandamus should not apply in such cases.

Important Judgments:

In Rashid Ahmad v. Municipal Board, it was established that the availability of an alternative remedy does not necessarily bar the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, especially when it pertains to Fundamental Rights.
The case of Manjula Manjori v. Director of Public Instruction clarified that Mandamus cannot be used to compel authorities to make decisions that fall entirely within their discretion.
In Binny Ltd. & Anr v. V. Sadasivan & Ors (2005), the Supreme Court emphasized that Mandamus is not applicable to private wrongs and can only be issued when a public authority acts unlawfully or refuses to perform its duties within the bounds of the law.
In Ramakrishna Mission v. Kago Kunya (2019), the Supreme Court highlighted that the Mandamus writ does not apply to contracts of private nature or those unrelated to any public authority.
In Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State Of Maharashtra (2020), the Supreme Court affirmed that High Courts are obligated to issue Writs of Mandamus to enforce public duties.

Quo Warranto: This writ is used to question the authority or legality of a person holding a public office. It ensures that individuals holding public offices meet the legal qualifications and requirements for those positions.

Meaning and Purpose:

“Quo Warranto” is a Latin term that translates to “By what means” or “By what authority.”
This writ is employed in cases involving public offices, and its purpose is to question or restrain individuals from holding public offices to which they are not entitled.

Scope of Quo Warranto:

The Quo Warranto writ can be used to challenge the occupancy of public offices, such as the post of Chief Minister, that are created by the State or the Constitution.
It is essential that the office in question is of a substantive nature and that the claim is asserted by a public servant (the respondent) holding that office.
The writ of Quo Warranto cannot be filed against a private corporation or individuals who do not hold public office. It is specifically designed to address issues related to public offices.

Important Case Laws:

In the case of Ashok Pandey v. Mayawati, the writ of Quo Warranto was refused against Ms. Mayawati (Chief Minister) and other ministers of her cabinet, despite their status as Rajya Sabha members.
The High Court of Nagpur, in the case of G.D. Karkare v. T.L. Shevde, emphasized that Quo Warranto proceedings do not seek to enforce the applicant’s rights but rather question the right of the non-applicant to hold a particular office.
The writ of Quo Warranto was denied by the court in the case of Jamalpur Arya Samaj v. Dr. D. Ram on the grounds that it cannot be used against private organizations or offices of a private nature. Additionally, the office in question must be of a substantive character.
In R.V. Speyer, the term “substantive” was interpreted to mean an office independent of the title. In H.S. Verma v. T.N. Singh, the writ was refused as the appointment of a non-member of the state legislature as Chief Minister was found valid under Article 164(4) for a limited period.

Circumstances when the writ of Quo Warranto cannot be issued:

The Quo Warranto writ cannot be issued against private organizations or individuals.
It cannot be used against entities that do not fall under the definition of “State” as defined under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution.
The absence of an alternative remedy cannot be the sole ground for issuing a writ of Quo Warranto.

Article 32, along with the writ jurisdiction, serves as a powerful mechanism for protecting and enforcing fundamental rights in India. It allows individuals to seek swift and effective remedies when their rights are violated, making it a cornerstone of the Indian judicial system.

Armed Forces and Fundamental Rights

Article 33 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Parliament to restrict or abrogate the fundamental rights of members of certain armed forces, paramilitary forces, police forces, intelligence agencies, and analogous forces in order to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline among them. Here are key points regarding Article 33 and its implications:
Scope of Article 33: Article 33 is a provision that allows for exceptions to the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens by the Constitution. It applies specifically to members of the armed forces, paramilitary forces, police forces, intelligence agencies, and similar forces.
Parliament’s Authority: The power to enact laws under Article 33 is vested exclusively in the Parliament of India. State legislatures do not have the authority to make such laws. This means that only the central government has the power to pass legislation that restricts or abrogates fundamental rights in the context of these forces.
Immunity from Judicial Review: Laws enacted by Parliament under Article 33 are immune from being challenged in any court on the grounds of violating fundamental rights. This means that individuals subject to these laws cannot go to court to claim that their fundamental rights have been violated by the restrictions imposed by such laws.
Examples of Legislation: In exercise of the authority granted by Article 33, Parliament has enacted various laws that impose restrictions on the fundamental rights of personnel in these forces. Examples of such legislation include the Army Act (1950), the Navy Act (1950), the Air Force Act (1950), the Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966, and the Border Security Force Act, among others.
Nature of Restrictions: These laws generally impose restrictions on various fundamental rights, including the right to freedom of speech and expression, the right to form associations or unions, and the right to participate in political associations. The nature and extent of restrictions can vary depending on the specific legislation and the force in question.
Objective: The primary objective of Article 33 is to ensure that members of these forces can effectively perform their duties without undue interference, while also maintaining discipline within the ranks.
It’s important to note that while Article 33 allows for restrictions on fundamental rights for these personnel, it does not completely deny them all fundamental rights. The exact scope and nature of restrictions are determined by the specific laws enacted by Parliament. Additionally, these laws and restrictions are subject to periodic review and amendments by the legislative authority.

Martial Law and Fundamental Rights

Article 34 of the Indian Constitution outlines provisions for the imposition of martial law in any area within India’s territory. Martial law is declared in extraordinary circumstances such as war, invasion, insurrection, rebellion, riot, or violent resistance to law, primarily to maintain or restore order in society. The Indian Constitution does not explicitly define martial law, but it generally refers to a situation where civil administration is temporarily replaced by military authorities who govern according to their own rules and regulations, often suspending ordinary law.
Article 34 empowers the Indian Parliament to indemnify government servants or individuals for actions taken in connection with the maintenance or restoration of order in areas where martial law is in force. The Parliament also has the authority to validate sentences, punishments, forfeitures, or other actions taken under martial law in a specific area, ensuring that actions taken during martial law may be retroactively considered lawful.
The Act of Indemnity passed by Parliament cannot be challenged in any court on the grounds of contravening fundamental rights. The Supreme Court has clarified that the declaration of martial law does not automatically result in the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, which allows individuals to challenge their detention and ensure their right to personal liberty.

Aspect	Martial Law	Fundamental Rights
Definition	Martial Law refers to the imposition of military rule during extraordinary circumstances, often suspending civil liberties and ordinary law. For example, it may involve military forces taking control of governing and enforcing their own rules.	Fundamental Rights are the constitutional guarantees of individual freedoms and protections. They encompass various rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, equality before the law, and the right to life.
Purpose	Martial Law is typically declared during crises like war, insurrection, or rebellion, aiming to maintain or restore order and security. For instance, it may be invoked during a coup d’état to control the situation.	Fundamental Rights are designed to safeguard citizens’ individual liberties, promote equality, and protect human dignity. They ensure citizens’ ability to express themselves freely and participate in a democratic society.
Authority	Martial Law is imposed by the executive branch of the government, often involving the suspension of civilian authority. Military authorities take control of civil functions. For example, a military general may assume leadership.	Fundamental Rights are enshrined in the constitution and upheld by the judiciary. They are not subject to arbitrary suspension by the executive. For instance, in India, the President or Prime Minister can’t suspend fundamental rights even during an emergency.
Rights Restrictions	During Martial Law, civil liberties and fundamental rights may be restricted or suspended to maintain control. For example, curfews, censorship, and detentions without trial may be implemented.	Fundamental Rights encompass a range of protections, including freedom of speech, religion, the right to life, and protection against discrimination. They are not subject to suspension during crises and apply to all citizens. For example, the right to a fair trial ensures that even during emergencies, individuals have the right to legal representation.
Duration	Martial Law is a temporary and exceptional measure, often lifted when the crisis or emergency subsides. It is not meant to be a permanent state of affairs.	Fundamental Rights are a permanent and integral part of a democratic society. They are not subject to suspension during crises and persist as long as the constitution is in force.
Enforcement	Martial Law is implemented and enforced by the military authorities, which may involve curfews, detentions, and military trials. For instance, Pakistan experienced Martial Law several times in its history.	Fundamental Rights are enforced and protected by the judiciary. Citizens can seek legal remedies through courts if their fundamental rights are violated. For example, in the United States, landmark Supreme Court cases like Brown v. Board of Education have upheld civil rights.

The Authority to Enact Laws in Order to Give Effect to Certain Fundamental Rights

Article 35 of the Indian Constitution deals with the power to make laws to give effect to certain specified fundamental rights. It establishes that the authority to enact laws to enforce and protect these rights lies exclusively with the Parliament of India and not with state legislatures. Here are the key provisions and implications of Article 35:
Exclusive Power of Parliament: Article 35 grants the exclusive power to the Parliament of India to make laws related to specific fundamental rights. State legislatures do not have the authority to enact laws in these areas. This provision ensures uniformity throughout the country in the implementation and protection of these fundamental rights.
Specific Matters Covered: Article 35 identifies and specifies the following matters for which only Parliament can legislate:
Prescribing residence as a condition for certain employments or appointments in a state, union territory, local authority, or other authority (Article 16).
Empowering courts, other than the Supreme Court and high courts, to issue directions, orders, and writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights (Article 32).
Restricting or abrogating the application of fundamental rights to members of armed forces, police forces, and similar forces (Article 33).
Indemnifying any government servant or any other person for any act done during the operation of martial law in any area (Article 34).
Punishment for Offenses: Article 35 also empowers Parliament to make laws prescribing punishment for certain offenses that are declared to be offenses under specific fundamental rights. These include:
Offenses related to untouchability (Article 17).
Offenses related to traffic in human beings and forced labor (Article 23).
Obligation to Enact Laws: The Parliament is obligated to enact laws to prescribe punishment for the offenses mentioned in Article 35. This ensures that specific offenses related to fundamental rights are addressed through legislation.
Continuation of Existing Laws: Any law that is in force at the commencement of the Constitution related to the specified matters covered under Article 35 continues to be in force until altered, repealed, or amended by the Parliament. This provision ensures that existing laws are not automatically invalidated but can be reviewed and modified by Parliament as necessary.
Extension of Parliament’s Competence: Article 35 grants Parliament the authority to make laws in areas that might otherwise fall within the legislative domain of state legislatures (State List). This extension of legislative competence is intended to ensure the effective enforcement of fundamental rights consistently across the country.

Current Status of Right to Property

The right to property in India is a complex issue that has evolved over time. It is currently regulated by Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which states that “no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law”.
The right to property is not a fundamental right in India. It was removed from the list of fundamental rights in 1978 by the 44th Amendment to the Constitution. This was done in order to allow the government to acquire land for public purposes without having to pay excessive compensation.
The right to property is now a statutory right, which means that it is protected by law, but it is not as strong as a fundamental right. The government can still acquire land for public purposes by passing a law to do so, but it must pay compensation to the landowners.
The Supreme Court of India has played an important role in interpreting and applying the right to property. The Court has ruled that the right to property is a human right and that it cannot be arbitrarily taken away by the government. The Court has also ruled that the government must pay fair compensation to landowners when it acquires their land for public purposes.
In recent years, there has been a growing debate about the right to property in India. Some people argue that the right to property is too absolute and that it prevents the government from carrying out important development projects. Others argue that the right to property is essential for economic growth and that it should be strengthened.
The current status of the right to property in India is that it is a statutory right that is protected by law. The government can still acquire land for public purposes by passing a law to do so, but it must pay compensation to the landowners. The Supreme Court of India has played an important role in interpreting and applying the right to property, and it has ruled that the right to property is a human right and that it cannot be arbitrarily taken away by the government.

Exceptions to Fundamental Rights

Article 31A of the Indian Constitution safeguards certain categories of laws from being challenged on the grounds of violating fundamental rights, such as equality before the law (Article 14) and protection of certain rights (Article 19). These laws relate to agricultural land reforms, industry, and commerce and cover areas like the acquisition of estates, taking over property management, corporate amalgamation, modification of corporate rights, and mining lease changes. It’s important to note that these laws must meet specific conditions, including presidential assent, to enjoy protection. Additionally, compensation at market value is required when land is acquired under these protected laws.
Article 31B of the Indian Constitution protects laws and regulations included in the Ninth Schedule from being challenged on the grounds of violating fundamental rights. It provides broader protection than Article 31A, covering all fundamental rights, regardless of whether the laws fall under specific categories. However, a significant Supreme Court ruling in the I.R. Coelho case (2007) clarified that laws in the Ninth Schedule are not entirely immune from judicial review. Laws added to the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, can be challenged in court if they violate fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21, or if they undermine the basic structure of the constitution. The Ninth Schedule originally contained 13 acts and regulations in 1951 but has since grown to include 282 in 2016, covering various topics, with state legislatures focusing on land reforms and Parliament addressing other matters.
Article 31C, introduced by the 25th Amendment Act of 1971, contained two provisions:
It stated that no law aiming to implement the socialist directive principles outlined in Article 39(b) or (c) of the Constitution shall be deemed void for violating fundamental rights under Article 14 (equality before law) or Article 19 (rights related to speech, assembly, etc.).
It further stated that no law declaring its purpose as implementing such policies could be questioned in any court on the grounds of not effectively implementing those policies.
In the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Supreme Court ruled the second provision of Article 31C as unconstitutional because it violated the basic feature of the Constitution, which is judicial review. However, the first provision of Article 31C remained constitutional.
The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 expanded the scope of the first provision of Article 31C, encompassing any law aiming to implement directive principles in Part IV of the Constitution, not limited to just Article 39(b) or (c). Nevertheless, this expansion was also declared unconstitutional.

Significance of Fundamental Rights

Bedrock of Democracy: Fundamental Rights are the foundation upon which India’s democratic system is built. They guarantee essential freedoms and protections that enable citizens to actively participate in the democratic process, ensuring that their voices are heard and respected.
Material and Moral Protection: These rights are crucial for the material and moral well-being of individuals. They safeguard both the physical and psychological aspects of human dignity, ensuring that citizens can lead a life of substance and self-respect.
Bulwark of Individual Liberty: Fundamental Rights act as a robust shield for individual liberty. They prevent arbitrary state actions and encroachments on personal freedoms, allowing individuals to pursue their goals and aspirations without undue interference.
Rule of Law: These rights facilitate the establishment of the rule of law in the country. They ensure that government actions are bound by legal principles and constraints, preventing abuses of power and promoting accountability.
Protection of Minorities and Weaker Sections: Fundamental Rights serve as a safeguard for the interests of minorities and marginalized communities. They prevent discrimination and unequal treatment, fostering inclusivity and social justice.
Strengthening Secularism: By ensuring religious freedom and prohibiting religious discrimination, Fundamental Rights contribute to the secular character of the Indian state. They uphold the principle of religious neutrality and protect the rights of individuals to practice their faith freely.
Checks on Government Authority: These rights act as a check on the absoluteness of government authority. They impose limits on state power, ensuring that the government operates within the boundaries set by the Constitution and respects the rights of citizens.
Foundation of Social Equality and Justice: Fundamental Rights lay the groundwork for social equality and justice. They promote equality before the law, prohibit discrimination, and provide avenues for the redressal of grievances related to social disparities.
Dignity and Respect: Ensuring the dignity and respect of individuals is one of the core functions of Fundamental Rights. They protect citizens from degrading or inhumane treatment and guarantee their right to live with honor and self-esteem.
Participation in Governance: These rights facilitate the participation of people in the political and administrative processes of the country. By providing freedoms such as the right to vote, express opinions, and assemble peacefully, they empower citizens to engage actively in shaping the nation’s policies and decisions.

Critiques of Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution

The fundamental rights of the Indian Constitution have been criticized on a number of grounds. Some of the most common criticisms include:
Excessive limitations: The fundamental rights are subject to a number of exceptions and limitations. This has led to some critics arguing that the rights are not as strong as they should be.
Lack of social and economic rights: The fundamental rights focus on civil and political rights, such as the right to freedom of speech and the right to life. They do not include social and economic rights, such as the right to education and the right to work. This has led to some critics arguing that the fundamental rights are not comprehensive enough.
Lack of clarity: Some of the fundamental rights are not clearly defined. This has led to confusion and litigation.
Suspension during emergency: The fundamental rights can be suspended during a national emergency. This has led to some critics arguing that the fundamental rights are not adequately protected.
Preventive detention: The government has the power to detain people without trial for up to two months under the Preventive Detention Act. This has led to some critics arguing that the fundamental rights are not adequately protected.
In addition to these general criticisms, there have also been specific criticisms of individual fundamental rights. For example, some critics have argued that the right to freedom of speech is not adequately protected because the government has the power to impose restrictions on speech in the interests of public order, national security, and morality.
Despite these criticisms, the fundamental rights of the Indian Constitution are widely regarded as a valuable and important part of the country’s democracy. They have played a vital role in protecting the rights of individuals and groups from government overreach.
It is important to note that the Supreme Court of India has played a crucial role in interpreting and applying the fundamental rights. The Court has expanded the scope of some of the fundamental rights and has imposed limits on the government’s power to restrict these rights. The Court has also played a key role in protecting the rights of minorities and marginalized groups
Overall, the fundamental rights of the Indian Constitution are a strong and effective safeguard of individual liberties. However, there are some areas where the fundamental rights could be strengthened. For example, the government could consider incorporating social and economic rights into the fundamental rights. Additionally, the government could take steps to make the fundamental rights more accessible to ordinary people.

Landmark cases relating to Fundamental Rights

A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)

A.K. Gopalan filed a petition under Article 32 to challenge his detention, but was barred from disclosing the reasons for detention due to Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. He claimed that this detention violated Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution and further violated Article 22. The Supreme Court of India upheld the validity of the Act, except for Section 14, which prohibited disclosure of reasons for detention or representation made by the detainee against such reasons in court. The case led to a landmark judgement that upheld the Constitution’s due process standards.

Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1952)

In the Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1952) case, the Constitutional validity of the First Amendment Act of 1951, which curtailed the right to property, was challenged. The petitioner argued that such amendments, which restricted fundamental rights, were not allowed by Article 13 of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 includes the authority to amend fundamental rights. This decision established that Parliament could amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights, through the prescribed constitutional procedures, without being subject to judicial review under Article 13. The Court upheld the validity of the First Amendment Act of 1951, introducing Articles 31A and 31B, allowing the government to pass laws that could limit the right to property.

Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967)

Golak Nath and his family claimed an excess of 500 land sections in Punjab, but the Punjab Securities and Land Tenures Act, 1950 limited their land holdings to 30 sections. Nath filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, claiming his fundamental right to property was being violated. The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament does not have the power to revise the Fundamental Rights mentioned under Part III of the Constitution of India, and therefore, the enactment was not valid.

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

In the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case, the Supreme Court revisited the earlier Golaknath case. The Court delivered a landmark 7:6 judgment stating that the “basic structure” of the Constitution cannot be amended by Parliament. This ruling established that Parliament lacked the authority to alter or amend the core and unchangeable elements, referred to as the “basic structure,” of the Indian Constitution. This decision marked a crucial turning point in Indian constitutional jurisprudence, emphasizing the permanence and integrity of certain fundamental principles in the Constitution that cannot be modified by ordinary legislative processes.

Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)

In the case of Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), which involved election disputes concerning Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and the 39th Amendment of the Constitution, the primary issue was the validity of clause (4) of the 39th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1975. During this case, the Supreme Court expanded the list of “Basic Features” established in the Kesavananda Bharati case. They included additional elements such as the rule of law, democracy, and judicial review as part of the essential and unalterable components of the Indian Constitution’s basic structure. This decision reinforced the significance of these fundamental principles in the constitutional framework of India.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded in public interest due to the government’s refusal to provide details. She filed a writ petition under Article 32, claiming the action violated Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The government responded by impoaching her passport due to her presence in legal proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled that a procedure under Article 21 must be free from arbitrary, unfair, oppressive, or unreasonable aspects.

Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union Of India and Ors. (1980)

The Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union Of India and Ors. case (1980) clarified the basic structure doctrine in India, stating that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is limited and cannot be unrestricted. The court declared Clause 4 and 5 of the Forty-second Amendment Act, 1976, unconstitutional, highlighting the sacrosanct nature of the Indian Constitution and the inherent limitations of Parliament’s amending power under Article 368. This ruling emphasized that the core features and basic structure of the Constitution cannot be altered to dilute fundamental rights or other essential elements.

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) vs. Union of India(2017)

In the 2017 landmark ruling in the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) vs. Union of India, the Indian Supreme Court recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. This ruling stemmed from a challenge to the constitutionality of the Aadhaar project, a biometric identification system. The court upheld the right to privacy but also established that it is not an absolute right and can be subject to reasonable restrictions. It set a threefold test of legality, necessity, and proportionality for such restrictions. The judgment imposed conditions and safeguards on the Aadhaar project, striking down provisions that allowed private companies access to Aadhaar data and mandated its use for certain services. This ruling has had far-reaching implications for issues related to privacy, data protection, and government intrusion into personal affairs, not only in India but also globally. It is considered a significant development in the protection of privacy rights in the digital age.

Conclusion

The Indian Constitution’s Fundamental Rights are essential for upholding democracy and protecting citizens’ basic rights. These rights protect individual liberties, promote democracy, preserve human dignity, ensure equality and social justice, establish the rule of law, safeguard minorities, strengthen secularism, and act as checks on government authority. They also empower citizens to actively participate in political and administrative processes, fostering greater participation and representation. These rights are the cornerstone of India’s legal system, ensuring the principles of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity are upheld for all citizens.

UPSC PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS

1. With reference to the writs issued by the Courts in India, consider the following statements: (2022)

1. Mandamus will not lie against a private organisation unless it is entrusted with a public duty.
2. Mandamus will not lie against a Company even though it may be a Government Company.
3. Any public minded person can be a petitioner to move the Court to obtain the writ of Quo Warranto.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 2 and 3 only
(c) 1 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3

2. Which Article of the Constitution of India safeguards one’s right to marry the person of one’s choice? (2019)

(a) Article 19
(b) Article 21
(c) Article 25
(d) Article 29

3. Which one of the following categories of Fundamental Rights incorporate protection against untouchability as a form of discrimination? (2020)

(a) Right against Exploitation
(b) Right to Freedom
(c) Right to Constitutional Remedies
(d) Right to Equality

4. Other than the Fundamental Rights, which of the following parts of the Constitution of India reflect/reflects the principles and provisions of the 13. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)? (2020)

1. Preamble
2. Directive Principles of State Policy
3. Fundamental Duties

Select the correct answer using the code given below:

(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 2 only
(c) 1 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3

5. ‘Right to Privacy’ is protected under which Article of the Constitution of India? (2021)

(a) Article 15
(b) Article 19
(c) Article 21
(d) Article 29

6. A legislation which confers on the executive or administrative authority an unguided and uncontrolled discretionary power in the matter of application of law violates one of the following Articles of the Constitution of India? (2021)

(a) Article 14
(b) Article 28
(c) Article 32
(d) Article 44

7. Right of movement and residence throughout the territory of India are freely available to the Indian citizens, but these rights are not absolute. Comment.(2022)

8. Analyze the distinguishing features of the notion of Right to Equality in the Constitutions of the USA and India.(2021)

9. Examine the scope of Fundamental Rights in the light of the latest judgement of the Supreme Court on Right to Privacy. (2017)

What's New

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

CITIZENSHIP

DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY

Indian Polity

POLITICAL PARTIES

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951

ANTI-DEFECTION LAW

COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES

LOKPAL AND LOKAYUKTAS

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION (SIC)

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION (CIC)

Governance

Social Justice

International Relations