PART III: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN INDIA

---

1. Introduction and Background of Rights

What are Rights?

• Definition: Rights consist of claims of individuals that seek to restrict the arbitrary power of the State and are secured through legal and constitutional mechanisms. They may also include benefits extended by the State to improve the quality of life of its citizens.
• Components of Rights:
• Claim: A demand or assertion that you owe something ("Sada hak, ethe rakh").
• Entitlement: A legal or constitutional guarantee; far more absolute than a mere claim.
• The Formula of Rights: Claim + Entitlement = Rights (A demand made because the law or Constitution recognizes it, e.g., the right to vote for citizens above 18 years).
• Spheres of Rights:
• Negative Rights (Liberties): A sphere where the State is not permitted to enter, establishing limitations on State authority to protect individual liberty (e.g., Articles 19 and 21). John Locke noted, "where there is no law, there is no freedom."
  • Art 19: Shreya Singhal v. UOI (2015) – Struck down Section 66A IT Act, reaffirming free speech as a supreme right.
  • Art 21: Maneka Gandhi v. UOI (1978) – Expanded Article 21 to include the right to live with dignity.
  • Art 25: Shayara Bano v. UOI (2017) – Struck down Triple Talaq, reinforcing religious freedom within constitutional limits.
• Positive Rights (Entitlements): The responsibility of the State to take active measures to secure the rights of individuals and provide certain privileges to promote welfare and equality.
  • Art 21A: Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992) – Recognized education as a Fundamental Right.
  • Art 15(4) & 15(5): Indra Sawhney v. UOI (1992) – Upheld OBC reservations in govt jobs to ensure social justice.
  • Art 39A: Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) – Led to free legal aid for underprivileged prisoners.
• The Indian Approach: India follows the concept of a Welfare State, which aims to harmoniously combine both negative and positive rights as far as feasible.

Theories on the Origin of Rights

• Natural Rights Theory (John Locke): Championed by John Locke, who believed human reason determines rights and common sense ensures their origin. Rights to life, liberty, and property are inherent to human existence (by birth, society-independent, universal).
  Example: Justice S.K. Kaul-led SC bench held that the Right to Property is a Natural, Constitutional, and Legal right.
• Legal Rights Theory (Jeremy Bentham): Jeremy Bentham argued that no right is operative until sanctioned by law. Rights are created by customs and statutes (society-dependent).
  Examples in India: Civil, criminal, and personal laws (e.g., Abortion rights, Transgender rights).
• Historical Rights Theory (Edmund Burke): Edmund Burke viewed rights as the product of historical processes and customs recognized by society over time; thus, there are no fixed, eternal rights for all times.
• Constitutional Rights: Rights explicitly guaranteed under specific provisions of the Constitution outside Part III (e.g., Right to Property under Article 300A, Right to Vote under Article 326).
• Fundamental Rights: Legally speaking, rights explicitly enshrined under Part III of the Constitution, guaranteed with direct writ remedies. They are the "Magna Carta" of India, essential for all-round development.

Historical Evolution of Rights

• Magna Carta (1215): The origin of written entitlements of rights, protecting barons from the arbitrary rule of King John of England.
• US Bill of Rights: The first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, serving as the source of inspiration for Part III of the Indian Constitution.
• Motilal Nehru Committee (1928): The first formal domestic demand for a Bill of Rights in India during the freedom struggle.
• Kazi Syed Karimuddin (1948 Debate): During the Constituent Assembly debates, member Kazi Syed Karimuddin drafted a resolution for an explicit Right to Privacy against unconstitutional searches (inspired by US 4th Amendment). However, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar declined to dedicate a separate article, leaving search protections to criminal procedure codes (CrPC), leading to its later judicial evolution in Puttaswamy (2017).
• Phule's Contribution: Jotirao Phule (1827–1890), a radical social reformer from Maharashtra, provided one of the earliest Indian expressions of the view that rights must encompass both freedom and equality.
• Indian National Movement: The freedom struggle continuously sharpened and expanded the demand for rights, which culminated in the drafting of Part III of the Constitution.

Generations of Rights

As societies civilized, rights became more refined and categorised into distinct generations:

1. First Generation (Civil and Political Rights): Focused on individual liberty and security (e.g., Right to Life, Freedom of Speech).
2. Second Generation (Socio-Economic Rights): Focused on social welfare and equity (e.g., Right to Equality, Right to Work, Right to Education, Right to Food and Shelter).
3. Third Generation (Collective/Fraternal Rights): Rights of groups and the collective (e.g., Rights of sexual minorities, ethnic and religious minorities, consumer rights, rights of the differently-abled, and the right to a clean and healthy environment).
4. Fourth Generation (Future & Technology Rights): Rights affecting humanity's future (e.g., cosmic space exploration, sustainable use of global commons, net neutrality, and the right to internet access as a basic human right).

---

2. Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution

• Enshrined Location: Part III of the Constitution of India (Articles 12 to 35).
• Magna Carta of India: Part III is described as the "Magna Carta of India" due to its comprehensive and elaborate list of justiciable rights, which is more detailed than that of any other nation, including the USA.
• Guaranteed Equality: Guaranteed by the Constitution to all persons, without discrimination, to uphold the equality and dignity of the individual, the public interest, and the unity of the nation.
• Purpose: To promote the ideal of political democracy, prevent the establishment of authoritarian/despotic rule, protect liberties against State invasion, and establish a "government of laws, and not of men."
• Why they are called "Fundamental":
1. They are guaranteed and protected by the Constitution, which is the fundamental law of the land.
2. They are essential for the all-round development (material, intellectual, moral, and spiritual) of individuals.
• Core Judicial Outlook:
• AK Gopalan v. State of Madras: The aim of a declaration of fundamental rights is to make certain elementary rights inviolable and keep them unaffected by shifting majorities in the legislatures.
• M. Nagraj v. Union of India: Fundamental rights are not a gift from the State to its citizens. Individuals possess basic human rights independently of any Constitution, by the simple fact of being members of the human race.

The Evolution of the List of Rights

Originally, the Constitution provided for seven Fundamental Rights. However, the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978 deleted the Right to Property (Article 31) from the list and made it a legal/constitutional right under Article 300-A in Part XII.

At present, only six Fundamental Rights exist:

1. Right to Equality (Articles 14–18)
2. Right to Freedom (Articles 19–22)
3. Right against Exploitation (Articles 23–24)
4. Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25–28)
5. Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29–30)
6. Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32)

---

3. Features and Nature of Fundamental Rights

• Not Absolute but Qualified: They are subject to "reasonable restrictions" imposed by the State (e.g., in the interest of public order, sovereignty, decency, morality). The courts decide whether a restriction is reasonable, striking a balance between individual liberty and social control.
• AK Gopalan v. State of Madras: Enjoyment of rights is subject to reasonable conditions deemed essential by the governing authority for the safety, health, peace, general order, and morals of the community.
• Balancing Competing Rights: Where there is a clash between two fundamental rights (or an individual's right vs. public interest), the right that advances the larger public interest or social order is enforced.
• Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar (2017): In a conflict between two individual rights under Article 21, the greater community interest or collective social order is the deciding principle.
• Vertical vs. Horizontal Operation: Most rights operate vertically (enforceable only against the State to limit arbitrary executive/legislative actions). However, some rights operate horizontally (enforceable against private individuals as well, e.g., Articles 15(2), 17, 23, and 24).
• Justiciable: Enforceable by the courts. Aggrieved individuals can directly approach the Supreme Court (under Article 32) or High Courts (under Article 226) without going through a process of lower court appeal.
• Not Sacrosanct/Permanent: Parliament can curtail or repeal them, but only through a Constitutional Amendment Act (under Article 368), and not by ordinary law. Any such change is subject to the Basic Structure Doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973).
• Suspension during Emergency: Fundamental Rights can be suspended during a National Emergency (under Article 352).
• Articles 20 and 21 can never be suspended under any circumstances.
• The six rights under Article 19 can only be suspended during an external emergency (war or external aggression), and not during an internal emergency (armed rebellion) (added by the 44th CAA, 1978).
• Uniformity of Legislation: Some rights require enabling legislation to prescribe punishments for violations (e.g., Articles 17 and 23). Under Article 35, only Parliament has the power to make these laws, ensuring uniformity across all States.
• Limitations: The scope of Part III is limited by special provisions: Article 31A (estates acquisition), Article 31B (Ninth Schedule protections), and Article 31C (laws giving effect to certain directive principles).
• Special Restrictions: Application of FRs can be restricted/abrogated for armed forces and police personnel (Article 33) or when Martial Law is declared in any area (Article 34).

Fundamental Rights (FR) of Citizens vs. Foreigners

FR Available ONLY to Citizens	FR Available to BOTH Citizens & Foreigners (except enemy aliens)
Article 15: Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.	Article 14: Equality before law and equal protection of laws.
Article 16: Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.	Article 20: Protection in respect of conviction for offences.
Article 19: Protection of six rights regarding freedom of: (i) speech and expression, (ii) assembly, (iii) association, (iv) movement, (v) residence, and (vi) profession.	Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty.
Article 29: Protection of language, script, and culture of minorities.	Article 21A: Right to elementary education.
Article 30: Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.	Article 22: Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases.
Article 23: Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour.
Article 24: Prohibition of employment of children in factories, etc.
Article 25: Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion.
Article 26: Freedom to manage religious affairs.
Article 27: Freedom from payment of taxes for promotion of any religion.
Article 28: Freedom from attending religious instruction or worship in certain educational institutions.

Primacy Debate: Fundamental Rights (FR) vs. Directive Principles (DPSP)

• State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951): The Supreme Court ruled that Fundamental Rights are superior to DPSPs. DPSPs must run as subservient to Part III. However, FRs can be amended by Parliament to give effect to DPSPs.
• Kerala Education Bill (1957): The Supreme Court propounded the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction to avoid conflict, stating that courts must try to give effect to both chapters as much as possible.
• Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967): The SC ruled that Fundamental Rights are sacrosanct and cannot be abridged or diluted by Parliament, even to implement DPSPs.
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Overruled the Golak Nath case. Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Part III, provided it does not damage the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
• Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): The Court struck down the extension of Article 31C (which protected all DPSPs over Articles 14 and 19) and restored the balance. It held that the Indian Constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance between Part III (FRs) and Part IV (DPSPs). A law is protected under Article 31C only if it implements Article 39(b) or 39(c).
• Javed v. State of Haryana (2003): Fundamental Rights are not to be read in isolation; they must be read along with Part IV (DPSPs) and Article 51A (Fundamental Duties).

---

4. Article 12: Definition of State

What does "State" include?

1. Union Government & Parliament: Executive and legislative organs of the Union Government.
2. State Government & Legislatures: Executive and legislative organs of State governments.
3. Local Authorities: Municipalities, Panchayats, District Boards, Port Commissioners, Improvement Trusts, etc., legally entitled to or entrusted with the control or management of a municipal or local fund (defined under Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1897).
4. Other Authorities: Statutory or non-statutory bodies exercising powers or commands under the control of the Government of India (e.g., LIC, ONGC, SAIL, GAIL, etc.).
• Supreme Court Interpretation: Even a private body/agency working as an instrument/agent of the State falls within the definition of "State" under Article 12.

Key Judicial Interpretations of Article 12

• Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal (1967): The SC ruled that the expression "other authorities" is wide enough to include every authority created by a statute and functioning within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. It is not necessary that such an authority perform governmental or sovereign functions.
• Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1981): Established a test to determine whether a corporation or body is an instrumentality of the State:
1. Entire share capital held by the Government.
2. Financial assistance of the State meets almost entire expenditure.
3. Monopolistic status conferred or protected by the State.
4. Deep and pervasive State control.
5. Functions of the corporation are of public importance and closely related to governmental functions.
6. A department department of government is transferred to a corporation.
• State as a Shareholder: When the State purchases shares of a company, it merely assumes the role of a shareholder and does not automatically make the company an "authority" under Article 12 unless it meets the tests of deep State control.
• Kishor Madhukar Pinglikar v. Automotive Research Association (2022): The Supreme Court held that the mere presence of some aspects of public duty or function does not automatically constitute a body as a "State" under Article 12.
• Public Authorities & RTI Act Link: Any body established under the Constitution, by Parliament/State law, or by government notification that qualifies as a "Public Authority" is also subject to public scrutiny under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
• Explicit Exception – BCCI: In Zee Telefilms v. Union of India (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that the BCCI (Board of Control for Cricket in India) is an autonomous private body and does not fall within the definition of "State" under Article 12, as it is not financially, functionally, or administratively dominated by the Government.

Is the Judiciary a "State" under Article 12?

• Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, H.P. (1963): The Supreme Court held that the judiciary, when exercising its rule-making power, is covered under the definition of "State."
• Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (1967): The Court clarified that while the administrative side of the judiciary falls under the definition of "State," the judicial functions do not. A judicial decision cannot be challenged as a violation of Fundamental Rights under Article 12.
• A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988): The SC held that a wrong determination of the Court could not be corrected in proceedings for a writ of certiorari, confirming that the judicial side of superior courts is outside the purview of Article 12.
• Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002): Reaffirmed that no judicial proceeding could be said to violate any Fundamental Right, and superior courts of justice do not fall within the ambit of "State" or "other authorities" under Article 12.

---

5. Article 13: Laws Inconsistent with Fundamental Rights

Key Aspects of Article 13

• Doctrine of Judicial Review: Article 13 is the bedrock of judicial review. This power is explicitly conferred on the Supreme Court (Article 32) and the High Courts (Article 226), which can declare any law unconstitutional if it contravenes Fundamental Rights.
• Definition of "Law" (Article 13(3)):
• Permanent Laws: Enacted by Parliament or State Legislatures.
• Temporary Laws: Ordinances issued by the President or State Governors.
• Delegated Legislation: Orders, bye-laws, rules, regulations, notifications, etc.
• Non-Legislative Sources: Custom or usage having the force of law.
• Constitutional Amendments vs. "Law":
• Article 13(4) (added by the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971) states that a constitutional amendment is not a "law" under Article 13, and thus cannot be challenged.
• However, in the Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973), the SC ruled that a constitutional amendment can be challenged and struck down if it violates the Fundamental Rights that form part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.

Doctrine of Severability (Separability)

• Concept: Under Articles 13(1) and 13(2), if only a part of a law is inconsistent with Fundamental Rights, only that specific part is declared void—not the entire Act—provided the invalid part is severable from the rest.
• A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras: The SC struck down Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, as it violated Article 22, but severed it from the rest of the Act, which remained valid.
• Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University (1989): If the valid and invalid provisions are so inextricably mixed that they cannot be separated from one another, the invalidity of the portion must result in the invalidity of the Act in its entirety.

Doctrine of Eclipse

• Concept: A pre-constitutional law inconsistent with a Fundamental Right under Article 13(1) is not dead ab initio (void from inception); it remains dormant and overshadowed by the Fundamental Right (like an eclipse). If the shadow is removed by a constitutional amendment, the law becomes active again without fresh legislation.
• Bhikaji Narain v. State of M.P. (1955): SC held that an inconsistent pre-constitutional law is not dead, but remains in abeyance. It is valid against non-citizens and revives automatically for all once the constitutional restriction is removed.
• Post-Constitutional Laws: Applies primarily to pre-constitutional laws (Article 13(1)). Post-constitutional laws (Article 13(2)) violating Fundamental Rights are void ab initio.

---

6. RIGHT TO EQUALITY (Articles 14–18)

ARTICLE 14: Equality Before Law & Equal Protection of Laws

• Applicability: Confers rights on all "persons"—including both Biological Persons (natural human beings, whether citizens or foreigners) and Legal Persons (statutory corporations, registered societies, companies, and public institutions).

"Equality Before Law" vs. "Equal Protection of Laws"

• Equality Before Law (British Origin - Negative Concept):
• Derived from A.V. Dicey's concept of the Rule of Law.
• Absence of any special privileges in favour of any person.
• Equal subjection of all persons to the ordinary law of the land administered by ordinary courts.
• No person (rich/poor, high/low, official/non-official) is above the law.
• Equal Protection of Laws (American Origin - Positive Concept):
• Equality of treatment under equal circumstances.
• Similar application of the same laws to all persons similarly situated.
• "Like should be treated alike, and unequals should not be treated equally."

Reasonable Classification Test

Article 14 forbids "class legislation" (arbitrary selection of a class) but permits "reasonable classification" of persons, objects, and transactions by law. The Supreme Court uses a two-fold test to determine valid classification:

1. Intelligible Differentia: The classification must be based on a clear and real distinction (e.g., separating children, seniors, or backward classes from others).
2. Rational Nexus: The distinction must have a reasonable relation (nexus) to the object sought to be achieved by the legislation.

A.V. Dicey's Rule of Law & India's Adaptation

1. Absence of Arbitrary Power: No person can be punished except for a distinct breach of law (applicable in India).
2. Equality Before Law: Everyone is subject to ordinary laws and ordinary courts (applicable in India).
3. Primacy of Individual Rights: The Constitution is the result of rights recognized and enforced by the courts. (Not applicable to India)—in India, the Constitution is the source of rights.
4. Note: The Supreme Court has ruled that the "Rule of Law" in Article 14 is a part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.

Provisions in the Indian Constitution Ensuring Equal Protection of Laws

• Preamble: Secures social, economic, and political justice to all citizens.
• Article 14: Mandates that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws.
• Articles 38 & 39 (DPSPs): Establish a clear mandate. Specifically, Article 38(1) directs the State to strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting a social order in which justice (social, economic, and political) informs all institutions of national life.
• Article 39-A (DPSP): Directs the State to ensure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity, and in particular, to provide free legal aid to ensure that justice is not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities.

Constitutional and Legal Exceptions to Article 14

• President and Governors (Article 361):
• Not answerable to any court for the exercise of their official duties.
• No criminal proceedings can be instituted or continued during their term of office.
• No process for arrest or imprisonment can be issued during their term.
• Civil proceedings for personal acts require a prior 2-month written notice.
• Media Protection (Article 361-A): No civil or criminal liability for publishing true reports of Parliamentary or State Legislature proceedings.
• Parliamentary & Legislative Privileges:
• Article 105: MPs are immune from court proceedings for anything said or any vote given in Parliament or its committees.
• Article 194: State legislators (MLAs/MLCs) enjoy similar immunities in their respective legislatures.
• Directive Principles (Article 31-C): Laws made to implement the socialistic principles of Article 39(b) and 39(c) cannot be challenged for violating Article 14. SC: "Where Article 31-C comes in, Article 14 goes out."
• Diplomatic Immunities: Foreign sovereigns, ambassadors, and diplomats enjoy immunity from civil and criminal proceedings under international conventions (Vienna Convention 1961). The UNO and its agencies enjoy similar immunities.

---

ARTICLE 15: Prohibition of Discrimination on Certain Grounds

• Applicability: Available only to citizens.
• Key Terms:
• "Discrimination": To make an adverse distinction or to distinguish unfavourably.
• "Only": Discrimination is prohibited only on these five grounds. Other grounds (such as residence, language) are not barred.

Specific Clauses of Article 15

Clause	Description	Added by
15(1)	Prohibits the State from discriminating against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth.	Original
15(2)	No citizen shall be subjected to any disability or restriction on these grounds regarding: (a) access to shops, restaurants, hotels, public entertainment; (b) use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads, and public resorts maintained by State funds or dedicated to the general public. (Applies to both State and private individuals).	Original
15(3)	Allows the State to make special provisions for women and children (e.g., reservation of seats in local bodies, free education for children).	Original
15(4)	Allows the State to make special provisions for the advancement of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs), SCs, and STs.	1st Amendment, 1951
15(5)	Allows special provisions/reservations for SEBCs, SCs, and STs in admissions to educational institutions, including private institutions (aided or unaided), except minority educational institutions.	93rd Amendment, 2005
15(6)	Allows the State to provide up to 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in admissions to educational institutions (including private institutions, excluding minority institutions).	103rd Amendment, 2019

Reservation for OBCs in Educational Institutions

• Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006: Enacted under Article 15(5) to provide a 27% reservation for OBCs in central higher educational institutions (IITs, IIMs, AIIMS, etc.).
• Supreme Court Judgment (2008): Upheld the Act and the 93rd Amendment, but directed the government to exclude the "Creamy Layer" from reservation benefits.
• Ram Nandan Committee (1993): Appointed by the Central Government in 1993 to identify the Creamy Layer among OBCs following the Indra Sawhney judgment; its report was submitted and implemented in 1993.
• OBC Creamy Layer Exclusion Categories:
• Holders of constitutional posts (President, Judges, UPSC members, etc.).
• Group A/Class I and Group B/Class II officers of Central/State Services (and corporate/PSU equivalents).
• Armed Forces officers of the rank of Colonel and above (and navy/air force equivalents).
• Professionals (doctors, lawyers, consultants, engineers, etc.) and big business owners.
• Large agricultural landholders and significant urban property owners.
• Gross annual income above the statutory limit (revised to ₹8 lakh in 2017).
• Ceiling History: ₹1 lakh (1993) → ₹2.5 lakh (2004) → ₹4.5 lakh (2008) → ₹6 lakh (2013) → ₹8 lakh (2017).

Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS)

• Eligibility Criteria: Must be EWS and not covered under SC/ST/OBC reservations.
• Family Income: Gross annual family income must be below ₹8 lakh (from all sources like salary, agriculture, business, profession for the FY prior to the application).
• Property Exclusions: Ownership of any of the following excludes a person from EWS reservation:
• 5 acres or more of agricultural land.
• A residential flat of 1,000 sq. ft. or more.
• A residential plot of 100 sq. yards or more in notified municipalities.
• A residential plot of 200 sq. yards or more in non-notified areas.
• Family Definition: Includes the applicant, parents, siblings (below 18 years), spouse, and children (below 18 years).
• State Implementation Autonomy: State governments are free to decide whether to implement the 10% EWS reservation quota in state government jobs and admissions to state educational institutions. The Central government has no role in determining a State's EWS reservation policy.

---

ARTICLE 16: Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment

• Applicability: Available only to citizens.
• Prohibition: No citizen can be discriminated against or declared ineligible for State employment on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, or residence. (Descent and residence are added here compared to Article 15).

Exceptions to Article 16

1. Residence Requirement: Parliament can prescribe residence as a condition for certain employments in a State/UT/local authority. (Now exists only in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana through special constitutional arrangements).
2. Reservation for Backward Classes (Article 16(4)): The State can reserve appointments or posts for any backward class of citizens if they are not adequately represented in the State services.
3. Denominational Institutions: A law can require that the office-holder of a religious/denominational institution belong to that particular religion or denomination (e.g., Hindu Temple Boards, Waqf Boards).
4. EWS Reservation (Article 16(6)): The State can provide up to 10% reservation in public employment for EWS citizens, in addition to the existing reservation cap.

The Mandal Commission and its Aftermath

• Background: In 1979, the Morarji Desai Government appointed the Second Backward Classes Commission under the chairmanship of B.P. Mandal (under Article 340).
• Recommendations (1980):
• Identified 3,743 castes as socially and educationally backward, estimating them at 52% of the population (excluding SC/STs).
• Recommended a 27% reservation for OBCs in government jobs, ensuring the total reservation (SC + ST + OBC) did not cross 50%.
• Implementation:
• In 1990, the V.P. Singh Government implemented the 27% OBC reservation.
• In 1991, the Narasimha Rao Government introduced two modifications:
1. Preference to poorer OBCs within the 27% quota (using income criteria).
2. An additional 10% quota for other economically backward sections (EWS) of the general category.

Indra Sawhney (Mandal) Case, 1992

The Supreme Court examined the scope of Article 16(4) and ruled:

• Upheld the 27% reservation for OBCs.
• Struck down the 10% EWS quota (since it was based on economic criteria alone without constitutional backing at that time).
• Creamy Layer: Advanced sections among OBCs must be excluded from reservation.
• No Reservation in Promotions: Reservation is confined to initial appointments only. (Existing promotion reservations could continue for 5 years, i.e., till 1997).
• 50% Ceiling: Total reservations cannot exceed 50% in any year, except in extraordinary circumstances.
• Backlog Vacancies: Carry-forward of unfilled reserved seats is valid, but the 50% ceiling rule must not be breached in any year.
• NCBC: A permanent statutory body must be established to examine cases of over-inclusion or under-inclusion of castes in OBC lists.

Government Responses and Constitutional Amendments

• Ram Nandan Committee (1993): Appointed to identify the OBC creamy layer; its report was accepted.
• National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC): Established in 1993. Later, the 102nd Amendment Act, 2018 granted it constitutional status by inserting Article 338-B.
• 77th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1995: Inserted Article 16(4A), enabling the State to provide reservation in promotions for SCs and STs if they are not adequately represented in State services.
• 85th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2001: Amended Article 16(4A) to provide for "consequential seniority" for SCs and STs promoted through reservations, with retrospective effect from June 1995.
• 81st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2000: Inserted Article 16(4B), which allowed the State to treat backlog vacancies of a year as a separate class of vacancies, ending the 50% ceiling cap on backlog seats in succeeding years.
• 76th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1994: Placed the Tamil Nadu Reservations Act, 1994 (which provided 69% reservation) in the Ninth Schedule to protect it from judicial review.
• M. Nagaraj Case (2006): SC upheld the 77th, 81st, and 85th CAA but laid down three conditions for promotions: (a) Quantifiable data on backwardness, (b) Inadequate representation, (c) Overall administrative efficiency.
• Jarnail Singh Case (2018): Modified Nagaraj judgment; state does NOT need to collect quantifiable data to prove backwardness for SC/ST, but "Creamy Layer" exclusion applies to SC/ST promotions.
• Mukesh Kumar Case (2020): SC ruled that reservation in promotions is not a Fundamental Right. The State cannot be directed to provide reservation via mandamus.

EWS Reservation in Public Employment

• Added by the 103rd Amendment Act, 2019, providing up to 10% quota in civil posts and services under the Government of India.
• Exemptions: High-grade scientific and technical posts are exempt if they are above the lowest Group A grade and involve research or directing research.

---

SPECIAL SECTION: Affirmative Action & Reservation Mechanics

• Definition: A set of anti-discriminatory measures intended to provide access to preferred positions in society for groups that would otherwise be excluded or under-represented.
• Origins: In 1902, Shahu IV (Ruler of Kolhapur) took the first organized step to provide reservations for backward classes in India. In 1931, J. Hutton (Census Commissioner) drew up the first list of Scheduled Castes (notified in 1936) based on temple entry restrictions and pollution by touch.
• Balaji v. State of Mysore: Laid down that reservation cannot exceed 50% as a general rule.

Types of Reservation & Institutional Scope

Type / Sphere	Classification & Mechanics	Scope & Institutional Rules
Vertical Reservation	SC, ST, OBC, EWS (Social/Economic Quotas)	Each social group has a dedicated percentage quota; candidates selected under open merit are not counted against reserved quotas.
Horizontal Reservation	Women, PwD, Ex-Servicemen, Residence-based	Cut across vertical categories; provided as sub-categories within each vertical compartment (SC, ST, OBC, General).
Political Bodies (LS & State Assemblies)	SC & ST Seats Reservation	Mandated under Part XVI of the Constitution; extended every 10 years by Parliament (currently extended till 2030 by the 104th Amendment Act).
Local Self-Government (PRIs & Urban Bodies)	33% Reservation for Women	Mandated under 73rd & 74th Amendments (Articles 243D & 243T) for seats and chairpersons in Panchayats & Municipalities.
Schools & Colleges (Education)	RTE 25% EWS in Schools (Art 21A) & Higher Ed (Art 15)	Requires 25% seats in private un-aided schools under RTE Act. Colleges covered under Art 15(5).
Exemptions (Minority Institutions)	Article 30 Protected Institutions	Minority educational institutions (e.g., St. Stephen's College, Aligarh Muslim University) do not provide reservations for SC/ST/OBC/EWS.

Arguments in Favour of Affirmative Action

1. Rectification of Historic Injustice: Compensates for generations of systematic exclusion and deprivation.
2. Addressing "Division of Labourers": As B.R. Ambedkar noted, the caste system is not merely a division of labor but a division of laborers based on birth.
3. Labour Market Dualism: Even with equal qualifications, social background affects employment outcomes.
4. Caste-Class Overlap: Class and caste distinctions often coincide, generating a severe combination of poverty and social seclusion.
5. Deterrence of Manual Scavenging: Ensures upward mobility for Dalits and lower castes, who historically did all polluting works.

Arguments Against Affirmative Action

1. Reverse Discrimination: Replaces historical discrimination with a new form of state-sponsored discrimination.
2. Perpetuates Caste Consciousness: Reinforces caste divisions and generates social hostility between communities.
3. Compromises Merit and Efficiency: Placing candidates based on quotas rather than pure competition is argued to affect administrative standards. (The Mismatch Hypothesis).
4. Creamy Layer Dominance: The benefits of reservation are often captured by the relatively well-off within the backward classes.
5. Class vs. Caste: Caste is a medieval notion; affirmative action should be based strictly on economic class.

---

ARTICLE 17: Abolition of Untouchability

• Nature: Absolute right (cannot be suspended or restricted). Enforceable against both the State and private individuals.
• Enabling Law: Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 was comprehensively amended and renamed as the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 in 1976.
• What is "Untouchability"?
• It is not defined in the Constitution or the Act.
• Mysore High Court Ruling: It is not to be understood in its literal or grammatical sense. It refers to the historical social practice in India of imposing social disabilities on certain classes of persons by reason of their birth in certain castes. It does not cover social boycotts of individuals or exclusion from private religious services (e.g., extra-constitutional bodies like Khap Panchayats issuing social boycotts or honour killings, which are prosecuted under ordinary penal statutes).
• Supreme Court (People’s Union for Democratic Rights Case, 1982): The right under Article 17 is available against private individuals, and it is the constitutional obligation of the State to take measures to prevent its violation.
• Khaap Panchayats: Described as non-constitutional, historical legacy bodies whose extra-legal dictates (e.g. social boycotts, honor killings) are illegal and violate fundamental rights under Article 17 and Article 21.

---

ARTICLE 18: Abolition of Titles

Provisions

1. State Prohibition: The State is barred from conferring any title (except military or academic honors) on anyone, citizen or foreigner.
2. Citizen Prohibition: No citizen of India can accept any title from a foreign State.
3. Foreigners in Office of Profit: A foreigner holding any office of profit or trust under the Indian State cannot accept any title from a foreign State without the consent of the President.
4. Presents/Emoluments: No citizen or foreigner holding an office of profit/trust under the State can accept any present, emolument, or office from a foreign State without the President's consent.
5. Effect: Colonial titles of nobility (e.g., Maharaja, Raj Bahadur, Rai Saheb, Dewan Bahadur) are banned as they violate the principle of equal status.

Validity of National Awards

• Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India (1995): The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of National Awards (Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan, Padma Shri).
• SC Ruling:
• These awards are not "titles" under Article 18 as they recognize merit rather than hereditary privilege.
• However, they cannot be used as prefixes or suffixes to the names of the awardees. If misused, the awardee must forfeit the award.
• Award History: Instituted in 1954. Discontinued by the Janata Party government in 1977. Revived by the Indira Gandhi government in 1980.
• Limits: Maximum 3 Bharat Ratnas and 120 Padma Awards can be announced per year (excluding posthumous and foreign/NRI awards).

---

7. RIGHT TO FREEDOM (Articles 19–22)

ARTICLE 19: Protection of Six Rights

• Applicability: Available only to citizens (not to foreigners or corporations).
• Protection: Enforceable only against State action, not private individuals.
• Restrictions: These rights are qualified. The State can impose "reasonable restrictions" only on the specific grounds mentioned in Article 19 itself.

The Six Freedoms under Article 19(1)

1. Freedom of Speech and Expression – Article 19(1)(a)

• Meaning: The right of every citizen to express views, opinions, and beliefs by words, writing, printing, pictures, or any other medium.
• Judicially Recognized Components:
• Freedom of the press and right against pre-censorship of newspapers.
• Right to propagate one's views (as well as views of others).
• Freedom of commercial advertisements.
• Right against tapping of telephonic conversations (Right to Privacy).
• Right to telecast (State has no monopoly over electronic media).
• Right to know about government activities (Right to Information).
• Right to remain silent.
• Right to fly the national flag.
• Right to express gender identity.
• Right to demonstration or picketing (but not the right to strike).
• Right to use the internet and social media.
• Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020): The SC held that freedom of speech and expression and the right to carry on trade/business via the internet is constitutionally protected. Indefinite suspension of internet services is impermissible.
• Reasonable Restrictions (Article 19(2)): Sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, and incitement to an offence.

2. Freedom of Assembly – Article 19(1)(b)

• Meaning: Right to assemble peaceably and without arms (meetings, demonstrations, processions).
• Limits: Must be peaceful and unarmed. Does not protect violent or riotous assemblies, strikes, or assembly on private land.
• Reasonable Restrictions (Article 19(3)): Sovereignty and integrity of India, and public order (including traffic management).
• Relevant Legal Provisions:
• Section 144 of CrPC: A magistrate can restrain an assembly or procession if there is a risk of obstruction, annoyance, danger to human life, health, safety, or public tranquility.
• Section 141 of IPC: An assembly of 5 or more persons becomes unlawful if its object is to resist execution of law, occupy property forcibly, commit criminal trespass/mischief, or threaten officials.
• Ramlila Maidan Incident (2012): SC upheld the right to sleep as a fundamental right under Article 21, and criticized arbitrary police action dispersing a peaceful sleeping assembly.
• Shaheen Bagh Case (2020): Right to protest must be balanced with the right of commuters. Protests cannot occupy public ways indefinitely.

3. Freedom of Association – Article 19(1)(c)

• Meaning: Right to form associations, unions, or cooperative societies (cooperatives added by the 97th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2011).
• Scope: Includes forming political parties, partnership firms, clubs, trade unions, etc. Includes the negative right not to join any association.
• Limits: There is no fundamental right to obtain recognition of an association. Trade unions have no fundamental right to effective bargaining, strike, or lockout; these can be regulated by industrial laws.
• CPI(M) v. Bharat Kumar (1998): SC ruled that calling for a "Bandh" is illegal and unconstitutional as it violates the fundamental rights of other citizens.
• Reasonable Restrictions (Article 19(4)): Sovereignty and integrity of India, public order, and morality.

4. Freedom of Movement – Article 19(1)(d)

• Meaning: Right to move freely throughout the territory of India (internal movement).
• Dimensions of Movement:
• Internal Movement: Protected under Article 19(1)(d).
• External Movement (Right to go abroad & return): Protected under Article 21.
• Reasonable Restrictions (Article 19(5)): In the interest of the general public and the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe (to safeguard tribal culture, customs, language, and properties against exploitation).
• SC/HC Observations: The movement of prostitutes can be restricted on grounds of public health/morals. Similarly, restrictions on the movement of AIDS patients have been validated.

5. Freedom of Residence – Article 19(1)(e)

• Meaning: Right to reside (temporary) and settle (permanent) in any part of India. It overlaps with and is complementary to the freedom of movement.
• Reasonable Restrictions (Article 19(5)): In the interest of the general public and the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe (outsiders can be restricted from settling in tribal areas).
• SC Observation: Certain areas can be banned for prostitutes and habitual offenders.

6. Freedom of Profession, Occupation, Trade, or Business – Article 19(1)(g)

• Meaning: Right of citizens to choose any lawful livelihood.
• Reasonable Restrictions (Article 19(6)):
• In the interest of the general public.
• The State can prescribe professional or technical qualifications for any trade or profession.
• The State can carry on by itself any trade, business, industry, or service to the exclusion (complete or partial) of citizens (State Monopoly). The State is not required to justify its monopoly.
• Limits: Does not include the right to carry on immoral or dangerous businesses (e.g., trafficking in women/children, harmful drugs, explosives). The State can absolutely prohibit or regulate these through licensing.

Master Summary Matrix: Article 19 Rights vs. Constitutional Restriction Grounds

Fundamental Right Clause	Guaranteed Freedom	Specific Grounds of Reasonable Restrictions
Article 19(1)(a)	Speech and Expression	8 Grounds: Sovereignty & Integrity of India, Security of State, Friendly relations with foreign states, Public Order, Decency/Morality, Contempt of Court, Defamation, Incitement to an offence.
Article 19(1)(b)	Peaceful Assembly (without arms)	3 Grounds: Sovereignty & Integrity of India, Security of State, Public Order.
Article 19(1)(c)	Form Associations / Unions / Co-ops	4 Grounds: Sovereignty & Integrity of India, Security of State, Public Order, Morality.
Article 19(1)(d) & (e)	Move Freely & Reside/Settle	2 Grounds: Interests of the general public, Protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe (ST).
Article 19(1)(g)	Practise Profession / Trade / Business	2 Grounds: Interests of the general public (Professional/technical qualifications, State monopoly).

---

ARTICLE 20: Protection in Respect of Conviction for Offences

• Scope: Covers only criminal offenses (not civil liabilities or tax violations). Cannot be suspended during an Emergency.
• Natural Justice Principle: Encompasses the rule of Audi Alteram Partem (hear the other side) - no person should be condemned unheard.

Three Protections under Article 20

(a) No Ex-Post-Facto Law (ex post facto law protection) – Article 20(1)

• Meaning: A person cannot be convicted of an offence except for the violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act. Also, no person can be subjected to a penalty greater than what was prescribed by the law in force at the time of the act.
• Criminal vs. Civil Law: This protection applies only to criminal laws. Civil liability or a tax can be imposed retrospectively.
• Limits: Prohibits only retrospective conviction or sentence, not the trial itself. It cannot be claimed in case of preventive detention or demanding security from a person.

(b) No Double Jeopardy – Article 20(2)

• Meaning: No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. (Based on the principle nemo debet bis vexari).
• Limits: The protection is available only before a court of law or judicial tribunal. It does not apply to departmental or administrative proceedings.

(c) No Self-Incrimination – Article 20(3)

• Meaning: No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. (Based on the presumption of innocence).
• Scope: Applies to criminal proceedings. Covers both oral and documentary evidence.
• What it does NOT cover (Exceptions):
• Compulsory production of material objects.
• Compelling the accused to give thumb impressions, specimen signatures, handwriting, or blood samples.
• Compulsory exhibition of the body.
• NARCO / Polygraph Tests: In Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010), compulsory Narco-analysis and Brain Mapping were held to violate Article 20(3) and Article 21 unless conducted voluntarily.

---

ARTICLE 21: Protection of Life and Personal Liberty

• Applicability: Available to both citizens and non-citizens.
• Emergency status: Cannot be suspended under any circumstances.

The Judicial Evolution of Article 21

The interpretation of Article 21 has undergone a major shift, moving from a narrow literal reading to a wide, expansive constitutional umbrella.

```carousel

Gopalan Case (1950) - Narrow View

• The Case: A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
• The Ruling: The SC took a narrow interpretation of Article 21. It held that the protection is available only against arbitrary executive action, and not against arbitrary legislative action.
• Key Concept: If a law prescribes a procedure, it can deprive a person of life/liberty. "Procedure established by law" was held to be distinct from the American concept of "Due process of law." Personal liberty was restricted strictly to physical bodily freedom.

Maneka Gandhi Case (1978) - Expanded View

• The Case: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
• The Ruling: Overruled the Gopalan judgment, introducing the concept of "Due Process of Law" into Indian jurisprudence.
• Key Concept: The State can only deprive a person of life or personal liberty if the procedure prescribed is "reasonable, fair, and just" (not arbitrary or oppressive).
• Amplitude: Protection now extends against both executive and legislative arbitrariness. "Right to life" is not mere animal existence, but the right to live with human dignity and meaning. "Personal liberty" is of the widest amplitude.

```

Legal Doctrines: Procedure Established by Law vs. Due Process of Law

Aspect	Procedure Established by Law	Due Process of Law
Origin	Borrowed from the Japanese Constitution.	Borrowed from the American Constitution (US 5th & 14th Amendments).
Core Principle	A law is valid if it has been passed by a competent legislature following the prescribed formal procedure.	A law must be valid in procedure AND must be fair, just, and reasonable in substance.
Protection Offered	Protects individual liberty only against arbitrary Executive action.	Protects individual liberty against both arbitrary Executive AND Legislative action.
Judicial Scope	Narrows the scope of Judicial Review; Parliament has wider legislative dominance.	Expands the scope of Judicial Review; Courts examine the wisdom and fairness of legislation.

List of Judicially Recognized Rights under Article 21

The Supreme Court has expanded Article 21 to include several implied rights:

1. Right to live with human dignity.
2. Right to a decent environment (pollution-free water and air, protection against hazardous industries). (Subhash Kumar Case; MC Mehta Case on absolute liability).
3. Right to livelihood.
4. Right to privacy (K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017).
5. Right to shelter.
6. Right to health.
7. Right to free education up to 14 years of age (now codified under Article 21A).
8. Right to free legal aid (M.H. Hoskot Case).
9. Right against solitary confinement (Sunil Batra Case).
10. Right to a speedy trial.
11. Right against handcuffing (Prem Shankar Shukla Case).
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 (doctor's assistance) (Shaffi Mather Case).
18. Right to timely medical treatment in a government hospital.
19. Right not to be driven out of a State.
20. Right to a fair trial.
21. Right of a prisoner to have the necessities of life.
22. Right of women to be treated with decency and dignity.
23. Right against public hanging.
24. Right to road access in hilly areas.
25. Right to information.
26. Right to reputation.
27. Right of appeal from a judgment of conviction.
28. Right to family pension.
29. Right to social and economic justice and empowerment.
30. Right against bar fetters.
31. Right to an appropriate life insurance policy.
32. Right to sleep.
33. Right to freedom from noise pollution.
34. Right to sustainable development.
35. Right to opportunity.
36. Right to a decent burial/cremation.
37. Right to marry a person of one's choice (Hadiya Case / Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, 2018).
38. Right to die with dignity (passive euthanasia / Common Cause v. Union of India, 2018).
39. Right to sexuality and gender identity, decriminalizing homosexuality (Navtej Singh Johar Case, 2018).

---

ARTICLE 21A: Right to Education

• Nature: Makes only elementary education (Classes I–VIII, ages 6–14) a Fundamental Right. Higher or professional education is not included.
• Constitutional Insertion: Added by the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002 (86th CAA 2002) (called by the government "the dawn of the second revolution in the chapter of citizens' rights").

Corresponding Changes by the 86th Amendment & 3-Tier Age Structure

Age Group	Constitutional Location & Category	Nature & Enforceability
Age 0 to 6 Years	DPSP (Part IV, Article 45): State shall endeavour to provide early childhood care and education.	Non-Enforceable (State Directive)
Age 6 to 14 Years	Fundamental Duty (Part IV-A, Article 51A(k)): Duty of parent/guardian to provide educational opportunities.	Non-Enforceable (Moral Civic Duty)
Age 6 to 14 Years	Fundamental Right (Part III, Article 21A): State shall provide free & compulsory elementary education.	Enforceable (Justiciable Writ Remedy)

Judicial Background

• Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992): The SC declared that the Right to Education is a Fundamental Right under Article 21, extending to all levels, including professional courses. This was deemed economically unviable.
• Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993): Overruled Mohini Jain. Held that every child has a Fundamental Right to free education only up to the age of 14 years. Beyond 14, the right is subject to the economic capacity and development of the State. This case linked education to Article 21, paving the way for Article 21A.

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009

• Enacted: To operationalize Article 21A; came into force on 1 April 2010.
• Key Features:
• Every child (6–14 years) has the right to free and compulsory elementary education.
• Free: No child is required to pay any fee or charge that prevents them from pursuing education.
• Compulsory: Casts an obligation on the government to ensure admission, attendance, and completion of elementary education.
• School Management Committees (SMCs): Mandates formation of SMCs comprising 75% parents and 50% women.
• Pupil-Teacher Ratio (PTR): Lays down strict norms for PTR and infrastructure.
• Prohibitions: Strictly prohibits physical punishment, mental harassment, capitation fee, and private tuition by teachers.
• No Detention Policy: Originally prohibited detaining students up to Class 8. Amended in 2019 to allow states to hold back students in Class 5 and 8 if they fail the regular exam and the re-examination.

---

ARTICLE 22: Protection Against Arrest and Detention

Punitive vs. Preventive Detention

• Punitive Detention: Detaining a person after trial and conviction by a court to punish them for an offence committed.
• Preventive Detention: Detaining a person without trial or conviction, based strictly on suspicion. The goal is not to punish for a past act, but to prevent the commission of an offence in the near future (precautionary measure).

Part I: Safeguards under Ordinary Law

Applicable to persons arrested under ordinary criminal laws.

1. Grounds of Arrest: The right to be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible.
2. Legal Consultation: The right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of choice.
3. Production before Magistrate: The right to be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours (excluding travel time).
4. No Detention beyond 24 Hours: No person can be detained beyond 24 hours without authorization from a magistrate.
5. Exceptions: These safeguards are not available to:
• Enemy aliens.
• Persons arrested under a preventive detention law (e.g., National Security Act [NSA], Armed Forces Special Powers Act [AFSPA], UAPA).
6. SC Clarification: Safeguards do not apply to civil arrests, arrests for failing to pay income tax, or deportation of an alien. They apply only to criminal/quasi-criminal acts.

Part II: Safeguards under Preventive Detention Laws

Available to both citizens and foreigners.

1. 3-Month Limit: A person cannot be detained for more than 3 months unless an Advisory Board reports sufficient cause for extended detention. (The Board consists of High Court Judges or those qualified to be High Court Judges).
• Note: The 44th Amendment Act, 1978 reduced this period to 2 months, but this provision has never been brought into force, so the 3-month limit continues.
2. Communication of Grounds: The detenu must be informed of the grounds of detention. However, the State need not disclose facts deemed against public interest.
3. Right to Representation: The detenu must be given the earliest opportunity to make a representation against the detention order.

Legislative Powers re Preventive Detention

The legislative power is divided between Parliament and State Legislatures:

• Parliament (Exclusive Power): For reasons connected with defence, foreign affairs, or the security of India.
• Parliament + State Legislatures (Concurrent Power): For reasons connected with the security of a State, maintenance of public order, or the maintenance of essential supplies and services.

Major Preventive Detention Laws in India

• Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (Expired in 1969).
• Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), 1971 (Repealed in 1978).
• Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA), 1974.
• National Security Act (NSA), 1980.
• Prevention of Black-marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980.
• Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), 1985 (Repealed in 1995).
• Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (PITNDPSA), 1988.
• Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), 2002 (Repealed in 2004).
• Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967 (Amended in 2004, 2008, 2012, 2019).

Global Context & Safeguards Summary

• Preventive detention is unknown in the USA and was used in Britain only during the World Wars. India is the only democratic country where preventive detention is an integral part of the Constitution during normal times.
• Jurists' Opinion: Inimical to democratic values and functions as a "semi-emergency" measure without an emergency declaration.
• Data (2021): The highest number of preventive detention prisoners were in Uttar Pradesh (UP), followed by Jammu & Kashmir (J&K).
• Safeguards Checklist: Must be authorized by law, limited to 3 months without Advisory Board consent, requires Board review within 3 months, requires early representation opportunity, and forbids indefinite detention.

---

8. RIGHT AGAINST EXPLOITATION (Articles 23–24)

ARTICLE 23: Prohibition of Traffic in Human Beings and Forced Labour

• Applicability: Available to both citizens and non-citizens.
• Protection: Enforceable against both the State and private individuals.

Key Concepts

• Traffic in Human Beings: Includes buying and selling of men, women, and children like goods; immoral traffic in women and children (prostitution); the Devadasi system; and slavery.
• Enabling Law: Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
• Begar: Compulsory work without any remuneration (historically practiced by zamindars).
• Forced Labour: Compelling a person to work against their will. "Force" includes physical force, legal force, or economic compulsion (e.g., paying less than minimum wage).
• Enabling Laws: Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976; Minimum Wages Act, 1948; Contract Labour Act, 1970; and Equal Remuneration Act, 1976.

Exceptions

• Article 23(2): The State can impose compulsory service for public purposes (e.g., military conscription, social service), and is not bound to pay for it.
• Non-Discrimination: In imposing compulsory service, the State cannot discriminate on grounds only of religion, race, caste, or class. (Age and sex are not mentioned; "class" is mentioned here but is missing in Articles 15 & 16).
• Data References: Global Slavery Index 2018 (released by Walk Free Foundation) and National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) report thousands of human trafficking cases in India annually.

---

ARTICLE 24: Prohibition of Child Labour

• Limits: Absolutely prohibits employment of children below 14 in hazardous occupations (factories, mines, railways, construction). It does not prohibit employment in harmless or innocent works.
• Enabling Laws: Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. In 1996, the SC directed the setup of the Child Labour Rehabilitation Welfare Fund to improve education and health.

Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2016

This Act completely overhauled the 1986 Act:

1. Total Ban on Children (under 14): Prohibits the engagement of children below 14 years in all occupations and processes.
2. Adolescent Category (14 to 18 years): Prohibits the employment of adolescents in hazardous occupations (mining, explosives, and processes listed in the Factories Act). The list of hazardous occupations was reduced from 83 to 3.
3. Family Enterprise Exception: Allows children (under 14) to work in "family or family enterprises" (after school hours or during vacations) or as artists in the audio-visual entertainment industry, provided it does not affect their education.
4. Note: Working hours are not explicitly mentioned in the Act, only that work must not interfere with schooling.
5. ILO Conventions: In 2017, India ratified ILO Convention 138 (Minimum Age for Admission to Employment) and ILO Convention 182 (Worst Forms of Child Labour).

---

9. RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF RELIGION (Articles 25–28)

ARTICLE 25: Freedom of Conscience and Free Profession, Practice, and Propagation of Religion

• Applicability: Available to both citizens and non-citizens.

Four Key Freedom Dimensions

1. Freedom of Conscience: The inner freedom of an individual to mould their relation with God or creatures in whatever way they desire.
2. Right to Profess: Openly and freely declaring one's religious beliefs and faith (e.g., wearing and carrying of Kirpan in Sikhism).
3. Right to Practice: Performing religious worship, rituals, ceremonies, and exhibiting beliefs. The judiciary applies the Essential Religious Practice Doctrine to determine core vs. non-essential rituals.
4. Right to Propagate: Transmitting and disseminating one's religious beliefs to others.
• No Right to Convert: The right to propagate does not include the right to forcibly convert another person, as this would violate the "freedom of conscience" of the other individual (Rev. Stainislaus v. State of M.P., 1977).

Exceptions and Regulatory Powers

• General Grounds: Subject to public order, morality, health, and other Fundamental Rights.
• Article 25(2): The State can make laws to:
• Regulate or restrict any economic, financial, political, or other secular activity associated with religious practice.
• Provide for social welfare and reform by throwing open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
• Explanation I: Wearing and carrying kirpans is deemed part of the profession of the Sikh religion.
• Explanation II: The term "Hindus" in this article includes persons professing the Sikh, Jaina, or Buddhist religions, and Hindu religious institutions are construed accordingly.

The "Essential Religious Practices" Test

• The Supreme Court developed this test to determine which religious practices are central to a religion (and thus protected under Article 25/26) and which are secular/peripheral and can be regulated by the State.
• Critiques:
• The judiciary often lacks specialized theological knowledge to settle these disputes.
• It privileges certain practices over others, forcing courts to give black-and-white legal answers to subjective cultural questions.

Analytical Section: Challenges and Solutions for Secularism in India

• Challenges:
1. Extreme Religiosity: Focusing on peripheral rituals instead of core spiritual philosophy breeds communal friction.
2. Vague Hate Propaganda Laws: Hate speech is poorly defined, leading to enforcement gaps.
3. Caste & Religion-based Vote-Bank Politics: Political parties exploit religious sentiments for electoral gains.
4. NHRC & NIC Failures: The National Integration Council (NIC) and National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) have often been ineffective in curbing communal violence.
5. Developmental Divide: As identified by the Sachar Committee (2006), minorities face structural developmental gaps. The recommended Equal Opportunity Commission has not been set up.
• Solutions:
1. Rejuvenate the NIC, granting it statutory or constitutional status.
2. Implement a comprehensive and deterrent Communal Violence Act.
3. Amend the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to regulate online social media campaign violations.
4. Inculcate value-based, secular education through families and schools.

---

ARTICLE 26: Freedom to Manage Religious Affairs

Rights of Religious Denominations

(a) To establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes.

(b) To manage its own affairs in matters of religion.

(c) To own and acquire movable and immovable property.

(d) To administer such property in accordance with law.

Meaning of "Religious Denomination"

• *The 3-fold Test (Sri Shirur Mutt Case, 1954):* A body must satisfy three conditions to be classified as a religious denomination:
1. It must be a collection of individuals with a common system of beliefs (doctrines) conducive to their spiritual well-being.
2. It must have a common organization.
3. It must be designated by a distinctive name.
• Ocular Examples: Under these criteria, the SC held that Ramakrishna Mission and Ananda Marga are religious denominations within the Hindu religion. However, the Aurobindo Society is not a religious denomination.

Article 25 vs. Article 26

• Article 25 guarantees the rights of individuals.
• Article 26 guarantees the rights of religious denominations or their sections (collective freedom of religion).

Institutional Governance Breakdown across Religions

• Hindu Temples: Governed by State enactments like the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1951. In the landmark Shirur Mutt Case (1954), the Supreme Court held that the State possesses the power under Articles 25 and 26 to regulate temple administration and financial donations.
• Sikh Gurdwaras: Governed by the SGPC (Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee), established as a democratically elected body of the Sikh community under the historic Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925.
• Muslim Masjids & Properties: Governed by statutory State Wakf Boards under the Wakf Act.

Sabarimala Temple Case (2018) & Haji Ali Dargah Case

• Sabarimala Case: Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018). The SC set aside the traditional ban on the entry of women of reproductive age (10–50 years) into the temple, ruling (4:1) that:
• The exclusion of women was a form of untouchability based on impurity, violating Article 17.
• The devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate "religious denomination" under Article 26 (failing the 3-fold test), and thus cannot claim the right to manage their own affairs to the exclusion of women under Article 26(b).
• Haji Ali Dargah Case: Similarly, the courts denied the respective religious administration the right to exclude women from the inner sanctum, holding that such exclusionary practices do not fall under the protected administrative rights of religious denominations under Article 26(b).

---

ARTICLE 27: Freedom from Taxes for Promotion of any Particular Religion

• Concept: The State cannot use public funds collected via taxes to promote or maintain any particular religion. This establishes the secular character of the Indian State.
• Tax vs. Fee: Article 27 prohibits the levy of a tax (which goes to public revenue for general promotion), but does not prohibit the levy of a fee (which is charged to provide service, safety, or regulation to pilgrims, e.g., entry fees, sanitary fees at festivals).
• Haj Subsidy Case: The Supreme Court directed the government to phase out the Haj subsidy by 2018, holding that funds should instead be spent on education and socio-economic empowerment of the community.

---

ARTICLE 28: Freedom as to Attendance at Religious Instruction

Four Categories of Educational Institutions

Institution Type	Religious Instruction
Wholly maintained by the State (e.g., Government Schools/Colleges)	Completely Prohibited
Administered by State but established under a Trust/Endowment	Permitted (e.g., a school founded on a trust requiring religious teaching)
Recognized by the State	Permitted on a Voluntary Basis (requires consent of the student, or guardian if minor)
Receiving aid out of State funds	Permitted on a Voluntary Basis (requires consent of the student, or guardian if minor)

---

10. CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS (Articles 29–30)

ARTICLE 29: Protection of Interests of Minorities

• Scope: Grants protection to both religious and linguistic minorities.
• Individual vs. Group:
• Article 29(1) protects the group right to conserve language, script, and culture.
• Article 29(2) protects the individual right of a citizen to seek admission without discrimination.
• Not Restricted to Minorities Only: The Supreme Court clarified that the use of the term "section of citizens" in Article 29(1) includes both minorities and the majority community.
• Language Protection: The right to conserve language includes the right to agitate for its protection. Political promises made to conserve a language do not amount to corrupt practices under the RPA, 1951.

The Jallikattu Cultural Right Issue

• Background: In Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014), the SC banned Jallikattu (bull-taming sport in Tamil Nadu).
• Constitutional Question: Can a State/community claim protection under Article 29(1) for a traditional sport like Jallikattu as a "cultural right"?
• Supreme Court Bench Review: Looked into the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017. Animal rights organizations (PETA) argued Jallikattu violates the five animal freedoms. In 2023, a 5-judge bench upheld the Tamil Nadu law, accepting that the legislature is best suited to determine if a practice is part of cultural heritage.

---

ARTICLE 30: Right of Minorities to Establish and Administer Educational Institutions

• Applicability: Confined only to religious or linguistic minorities (unlike Article 29, which covers any section of citizens). The term "minority" is not defined anywhere in the Constitution.
• Right of Medium: Includes the right of a minority to impart education to its children in its own language.

Key Safeguards

• Article 30(1A): If the State compulsorily acquires the property of a minority educational institution, the compensation amount fixed must be fair and must not restrict or abrogate their right. (Inserted by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978).
• Article 30(2): In granting aid, the State shall not discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is managed by a minority.

Classification of Minority Educational Institutions & Regulation

---

11. RIGHT TO CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES (Article 32)

• Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Called Article 32 the "most important article" and the "very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it."
• Basic Structure: The Supreme Court has ruled that Article 32 is a basic feature of the Constitution. It cannot be suspended or taken away even by a constitutional amendment.

Provisions

1. Guaranteed Right: The right of citizens to move the SC directly for FR enforcement is guaranteed.
2. SC Writ Power: Vests the Supreme Court with the power to issue directions, orders, or writs.
3. Subordinate Courts: Parliament can empower other courts to issue writs within their local limits, without affecting the SC's powers. (No such law has been made; High Courts possess this power under Article 226).
4. Suspension Limits: The right cannot be suspended except during a National Emergency (under Article 359, when the President can suspend the right to move courts for FR enforcement).

Original and Concurrent Jurisdiction

• The SC's jurisdiction under Article 32 is original (an aggrieved citizen can go directly to the SC) but not exclusive. It is concurrent with the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226.
• Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950): The SC stated that it is the protector and guarantor of Fundamental Rights, and it cannot refuse to entertain applications seeking protection against Fundamental Rights infringements.
• Procedural Rule: Though a citizen has a choice, the Supreme Court has ruled that if relief through the High Court is available under Article 226, the aggrieved party should first approach the High Court.

---

12. Writs: Types and Scope

The concept of writs in India is borrowed from English Common Law, where they were known as "Prerogative Writs" (issued in the name of the King).

Supreme Court (Art. 32) vs. High Court (Art. 226) Writ Jurisdiction

1. Scope of Rights: The SC can issue writs only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. High Courts can issue writs for FRs and for any other purpose (i.e., enforcement of ordinary legal rights). Thus, the HC's writ jurisdiction is wider in terms of scope.
2. Territorial Scope: The SC can issue writs to any person/authority throughout India. The HC can issue writs only to entities within its territorial jurisdiction (or outside, if the cause of action arises within its territory). Thus, the SC's territorial jurisdiction is wider.
3. Discretionary Nature: The right to move the SC under Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right, so the SC cannot refuse to entertain a writ petition. The remedy under Article 226 is discretionary; the HC can refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction and point the petitioner to an alternative remedy.

---

The Five Types of Writs

1. Habeas Corpus ("To Have the Body Of")

• Meaning: A court order to a detaining authority to produce the detained person before the court. The court examines the legality of the detention; if the detention is found to be illegal, the person is set free.
• Scope: Can be issued against both public authorities and private individuals.
• Not Issued When:
• Detention is lawful.
• Detention is for contempt of legislature or court.
• Detention is by a competent court of law.
• The detained person is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
• Important Judgments:
• P. Rajan Case (Kerala): A father filed a Habeas Corpus writ for his son, a student arrested by police during the Emergency. It was proved that the son died due to custodial torture, leading to police prosecution.
• ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla (1976): Historically, the SC ruled that the right to move the court for Habeas Corpus could be suspended during an Emergency. This controversial ruling was effectively bypassed by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act and was later explicitly overruled in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), ensuring that the right to Habeas Corpus remains unsuspended.
• Narayan v. Ishwarlal: While deciding whether Habeas Corpus writs are civil or criminal in nature, the Supreme Court held that the court will rely on the nature of the procedures in which the detention/custody was executed.

2. Mandamus ("We Command")

• Meaning: A command issued by a superior court to a public official, public body, corporation, inferior court, tribunal, or government, directing them to perform a mandatory public/statutory duty that they have failed or refused to perform.
• Conditions for Issue:
• The applicant must have a legal right to demand the performance of the duty.
• The duty must be public/statutory in nature and not discretionary.
• The writ cannot be issued for an anticipatory injury.
• Not Issued Against:
• Private individuals or private organizations.
• To enforce departmental instructions that lack statutory force.
• To enforce a purely private contract (Binny Ltd. v. V. Sadasivan, 2005; Ramakrishna Mission v. Kago Kunya, 2019).
• Against the President of India or State Governors.
• Against the Chief Justice of a High Court acting in a judicial capacity.
• Important Judgments:
• S.P. Gupta v. Union of India: The Court refused to issue mandamus to the President to fix the number of High Court judges. However, in later cases (Advocates on Record Association), the court ruled that judge appointment processes are justiciable.
• Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra (2020): Reaffirmed that High Courts are obligated to issue Writs of Mandamus to enforce public duties where public officials refuse to perform their statutory tasks.
• C.G. Govindan v. State of Gujarat: The Court refused to issue mandamus to the Governor to approve the fixation of salaries of High Court staff by the Chief Justice under Article 229, confirming that the Governor (acting as the State head) cannot be commanded under this writ.

3. Prohibition ("To Forbid")

• Meaning: A writ issued by a higher court to an inferior court or tribunal to prevent it from exceeding its jurisdiction or usurping a jurisdiction it does not possess.
• Stage of Issue: Issued during the pendency of proceedings (before the final order is passed).
• Nature: Preventive writ ("Prevention is better than cure").
• Not Available Against: Administrative authorities, legislative bodies, or private individuals.
• Bengal Immunity Co. Case: The SC pointed out that where an inferior tribunal acts without jurisdiction, the writ of Prohibition must be issued as a matter of right.

4. Certiorari ("To Be Certified")

• Meaning: A writ issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal to quash an order already passed by it, on the grounds of excess of jurisdiction, lack of jurisdiction, violation of principles of natural justice, or an error of law apparent on the face of the record.
• Stage of Issue: Issued after the final order has been passed to quash the decision.
• Nature: Both curative and preventive.
• Not Available Against: Legislative bodies or private individuals.
• Important Judgments:
• Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai: Explained that Certiorari is only available against inferior courts/tribunals and not against equal or higher courts (e.g., a High Court cannot issue Certiorari against another High Court or the Supreme Court).
• T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa: It was held that Certiorari is generally granted when a court has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of it.
• Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque: The SC held that while quashing an order under Certiorari, the superior court cannot substitute its own decision on merits; it simply quashes the invalid order.
• General Manager, Electrical Rengali Hydro Electric Project, Orissa v. Giridhari Sahu (2019): The Supreme Court laid down the detailed parameters and factors determining the validity and maintainability of a writ of certiorari in industrial and tribunal disputes.

5. Quo Warranto ("By What Authority")

• Meaning: A writ issued by the court to inquire into the legality of the claim of a person to a public office. It prevents the illegal usurpation of a public office by a person.
• Who can seek: Can be sought by any public-minded person (need not be an aggrieved person).
• Conditions for Issue:
• The office in question must be a public office created by a statute or the Constitution.
• The office must be of a substantive and permanent character.
• The office-holder must have asserted a claim to it.
• Not Issued Against: Private offices, ministerial offices, or private corporations (Jamalpur Arya Samaj v. Dr. D. Ram).
• Important Judgments:
• Ashok Pandey v. Mayawati: The Supreme Court held that no Quo Warranto writ can be issued based on a mere technicality of law or presumptions.
• Bharati Reddy v. State of Karnataka (2018): The SC held that Quo Warranto cannot be issued based on assumptions or speculations; there must be clear proof that a public officer is abusing power or lacks the required legal qualifications to hold the office.
• R. v. Speyer (1916): A landmark case where the word "substantive" was interpreted to mean an "office independent of the title," establishing the criteria for public offices.
• 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 in view of Article 164(4), which allows such an appointment for a maximum of six months.

---

Grounds for Dismissal of Writ Petitions under Article 32

The Supreme Court can dismiss a writ petition under the following circumstances:

1. Res Judicata (Section 11, CPC): A subsequent suit cannot be filed on the same cause of action by the same parties once decided.
• Daryao v. State of U.P. (1961): The SC ruled that if a petition is dismissed by a High Court on merits under Article 226, the petitioner cannot file another petition under Article 32 on the same facts (the remedy is an appeal to the SC).
• Exception: The writ of Habeas Corpus is an exception to the rule of Res Judicata (Ghulam Sarwar v. Union of India, 1966).
2. Misrepresentation of Facts: If the petitioner conceals key information or misrepresents facts, the court can dismiss the petition (Shri K. Jayaram v. Bangalore Development Authority, 2021).
3. Availability of Alternative Remedy: The court may direct the petitioner to seek alternative remedies first (State of U.P. v. U.P. Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam, 2008).
4. Inordinate Delay (Laches): Unreasonable delay in filing the petition without satisfactory explanation leads to dismissal (D. Gopinathan Pillai v. State of Kerala, 2007).
5. Malicious or Futile Petition: If the petition submitted is found to be malicious or futile (Shoukat Hussain Guru v. State, 2008).

Recent Article 32 Developments

• Skill Lotto Solutions v. UoI (2020): Reaffirmed that Article 32 is an integral part of the Basic Structure and is the most potent weapon to enforce the Rule of Law.
• Mohammad Moin Faridullah Qureshi v. State of Maharashtra (2020): Once a judgment under Article 32 is declared final, it cannot be disputed again.
• Gayatri Prasad Prajapati v. State of U.P. (2022): Writ petitions cannot be filed under Article 32 for the sole purpose of quashing a criminal proceeding or an FIR.
• Dharmraj Singh v. State of Bihar (2022): The SC warned litigants against filing petitions under Article 32 as a disguise to seek relief under Section 482 of the CrPC.

---

13. Articles 33, 34, and 35

ARTICLE 33: Armed Forces and Fundamental Rights

• Provision: Empowers Parliament (and not State Legislatures) to restrict or abrogate the application of Fundamental Rights to:
• Members of the Armed Forces.
• Para-military forces.
• Police forces.
• Intelligence agencies or counter-intelligence bureaus.
• Persons employed in telecommunication systems set up for these forces/agencies.
• Objective: To ensure the proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline among them.
• Scope:
• Parliamentary laws passed under Article 33 cannot be challenged in any court for violating Fundamental Rights.
• Combatants and Non-Combatants: The term "members of the armed forces" includes non-combatant staff such as barbers, carpenters, mechanics, cooks, tailors, and chowkidars.
• Writ Exclusion: Laws made under Article 33 can exclude military tribunals (courts-martial) from the writ jurisdiction of the SC and HCs.
• Enacted Acts: Army Act 1950, Navy Act 1950, Air Force Act 1950, Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act 1966. These laws restrict freedoms of speech, association, trade unions, press communication, and participation in demonstrations.

---

ARTICLE 34: Martial Law and Fundamental Rights

• Provision: Restricts Fundamental Rights while Martial Law is in force in any area within the territory of India.
• Parliamentary Powers: Parliament can pass an Act of Indemnity to protect government servants and other individuals for any acts done to maintain/restore order in martial law areas. It can also validate any sentence, forfeiture, or punishment inflicted during this period.
• Indemnity Protection: The Act of Indemnity cannot be challenged in court for violating Fundamental Rights.

Concept of Martial Law

• Borrowed from English Common Law; not defined in the Constitution.
• Literally means "military rule." It refers to a situation where the civil administration is suspended, and the military authorities run the area under their own rules outside ordinary law.
• SC Ruling: Imposition of martial law does not automatically suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus.
• Justification: To repel force by force to restore public order in extraordinary situations like war, rebellion, or riots.

Comparison: Martial Law vs. National Emergency (Art. 352)

Martial Law (Article 34)	National Emergency (Article 352)
1. Affects only Fundamental Rights.	1. Affects FRs, Centre-State relations, revenues, legislative powers, and can extend the tenure of Parliament.
2. Suspends the civil administration and ordinary law courts.	2. Civil administration and ordinary law courts continue to function.
3. Imposed strictly to restore breakdown of law and order.	3. Can be declared only on three grounds: War, External Aggression, or Armed Rebellion.
4. Imposed in specific, localized areas of the country.	4. Imposed either in the entire country or in a large part of it.
5. Has no specific detailed provision in the Constitution (implicit).	5. Has explicit, detailed provisions in the Constitution.

---

ARTICLE 35: Legislation to give effect to Part III

• Core Provision: The power to make laws to give effect to certain specified Fundamental Rights vests only in Parliament and not in State Legislatures.
• Purpose: To maintain uniformity throughout India regarding the nature of these rights and the punishments for their violation.
• Subjects under Parliament's Exclusive Domain:
• Prescribing residence requirements for employment (under Article 16(3)).
• Empowering subordinate courts to issue writs (under Article 32(3)).
• Restricting/abrogating FRs for armed forces/police (under Article 33).
• Indemnifying government servants during martial law (under Article 34).
• Prescribing punishments for offences under Part III, specifically:
• Untouchability (under Article 17).
• Human trafficking and forced labour (under Article 23).
• Continuity of Pre-existing Laws: Any law in force on these subjects at the commencement of the Constitution remains in force until altered or repealed by Parliament.

---

14. Special Focus: Right to Property

• Original Status: The Right to Property was originally a Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(f) (right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property) and Article 31 (no deprivation of property except by authority of law).
• Confrontations: It was the most litigated right, causing major conflicts between the judiciary (protecting property rights) and Parliament (attempting land reforms and zamindari abolition). This led to the 1st, 4th, 7th, 25th, 39th, 40th, and 42nd Amendments.
• Abolition: The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978 abolished the Right to Property as a Fundamental Right by repealing Articles 19(1)(f) and 31.
• Current Status: Inserted as Article 300-A in Part XII under the heading "Right to Property." It is now a legal/constitutional right, but no longer a Fundamental Right. It is not part of the Basic Structure.

Implications of Right to Property as a Legal Right

1. It can be regulated, abridged, or modified by Parliament through an ordinary law without requiring a constitutional amendment.
2. It protects private property only against arbitrary executive action, but not against legislative action (Parliament can make laws to acquire property).
3. In case of violation, the aggrieved person cannot move the Supreme Court directly under Article 32; they must approach the High Court under Article 226.
4. There is no guaranteed right to compensation under the Constitution for acquisition of property, except in two cases:
• When the State acquires property of a minority educational institution (Article 30(1A)).
• When the State acquires land held by a person under personal cultivation within the statutory ceiling limits (Article 31A).

---

15. Exceptions to Fundamental Rights

ARTICLE 31A: Saving of Laws Providing for Acquisition of Estates

• Purpose: Protects five categories of laws from being challenged or declared void for violating Article 14 (equality) or Article 19 (freedoms).
• Protected Categories:
1. Acquisition of estates or rights by the State.
2. Taking over management of properties by the State.
3. Amalgamation of corporations.
4. Extinguishment or modification of rights of directors/shareholders.
5. Extinguishment or modification of mining leases.
• Condition: If it is a State law, it must be reserved for the President's consideration and must receive Presidential assent to enjoy this immunity.

---

ARTICLE 31B: Validation of Certain Acts and Regulations (Ninth Schedule)

• Purpose: Immunizes acts and regulations placed in the Ninth Schedule from being challenged or invalidated for violating any Fundamental Right.
• Scope: Wider than Article 31A. It protects laws regardless of whether they fall within the five categories of Article 31A.
• Judicial Evolution:
• Kesavananda Bharati (1973): Ninth Schedule laws are open to challenge if they damage the Basic Structure.
• Waman Rao v. Union of India (1980): Laws placed in the Ninth Schedule before 24 April 1973 (date of the Kesavananda judgment) are immune. Laws placed after that date are open to judicial review.
• I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007): The SC ruled that there is no blanket immunity. Any law placed in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 can be challenged if it violates the Basic Structure or rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21.

---

ARTICLE 31C: Saving of Laws Giving Effect to Certain Directive Principles

• Inserted by: 25th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971.
• Key Provisions:
1. First Provision: No law implementing socialistic principles of Article 39(b) or 39(c) (distribution of resources, preventing concentration of wealth) can be declared void for violating Article 14 or Article 19. (Upheld in the Kesavananda case).
2. Second Provision: No law containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy can be questioned in court. (Struck down in the Kesavananda case, as judicial review is part of the Basic Structure).
• 42nd Amendment (1976) Extension: Attempted to extend this protection to all Directive Principles.
• Minerva Mills Case (1980): The SC struck down this extension, restoring the original position. Only laws implementing Article 39(b) and (c) enjoy protection under Article 31C.
• Presidential Assent: Like Article 31A, a State law requires Presidential assent to receive protection.

---

16. Rights Outside Part III

These are constitutional or legal rights that are not part of Part III and hence are non-fundamental:

1. No Taxation without Law (Article 265): No tax can be levied or collected except by authority of law (Part XII).
2. Right to Property (Article 300-A): No person can be deprived of property except by authority of law (Part XII).
3. Freedom of Trade and Commerce (Article 301): Trade, commerce, and intercourse throughout India shall be free (Part XIII).
4. Adult Suffrage (Article 326): Elections to Lok Sabha and State Assemblies must be based on adult franchise (Part XV).
5. Remedy Difference: For these rights, a person cannot move the SC directly under Article 32. They must file an ordinary civil suit or approach the High Court under Article 226.

---

17. Criticism and Significance of Fundamental Rights

Criticism of Fundamental Rights

• Excessive Limitations: As Jaspat Roy Kapoor noted, FRs come with many restrictions.
• Lack of Socio-Economic Rights: No rights like Right to Social Security, Right to Work (unlike USSR, China).
• Ambiguity & Legal Complexity: Vague, indefinite, and called a "paradise of lawyers" (Sir Ivor Jennings).
• No Permanency: Can be curtailed by the President (e.g., Right to Property).
• Political & Class Bias: Benefits the wealthy (expensive remedies) and can be misused by ruling parties.
• No Consistent Philosophy: Criticized by Sir Ivor Jennings for lacking a unified ideological base.

Significance of Fundamental Rights

• Ensures Individual Freedom: Golaknath case (1967): SC held that "FR enables man to chalk out life in the manner he likes best."
• Bedrock of Democracy: Essential for democratic governance and rule of law.
• Protection & Safeguards: Acts as a formidable bulwark of liberty and secures material, moral well-being.
• Protects Minority & Weak: Strengthens secularism, shields vulnerable groups from oppression.
• Checks Absolute Power: Prevents authoritarianism and ensures balance of power.

Conclusion

Reflects ideal citizens who adhere to society. History played a significant role in drafting.

---

18. Model Mains Question & Answer

Question

Explaining why the Rights mentioned in Part III of the Constitution of India are termed Fundamental Rights, enumerate the characteristics of these rights. (15 marks, 250 words)

Model Answer

Introduction

Part III of the Constitution of India provides a comprehensive list of justiciable civil liberties. Referred to as the "Magna Carta of India," these rights are enshrined from Articles 12 to 35. They represent a blend of negative restrictions on the State and positive entitlements for individuals.

Why these Rights are termed "Fundamental"

These entitlements are called "Fundamental Rights" for two core reasons:

1. Fundamental Law of the Land: They are guaranteed, protected, and enshrined in the Constitution, which is the supreme and fundamental law of the country. They cannot be altered by ordinary legislation.
2. Essential for Individual Development: They are indispensable for the holistic development (material, intellectual, moral, and spiritual) of individuals. Without these rights, individual growth and self-realization are severely hindered.

Characteristics of Rights in Part III

• Not Absolute but Qualified: The rights are not unlimited licenses. The State can impose reasonable restrictions on their exercise to protect the public interest, public order, and national security. The reasonableness of such restrictions is subject to judicial review.
• Justiciability and Constitutional Remedies: They are enforceable by the courts. Aggrieved persons can approach the Supreme Court directly under Article 32, making the right to remedy a fundamental right itself.
• Protection against both State and Private Action: While primarily serving as shields against arbitrary executive and legislative State actions, certain rights (such as Articles 15(2), 17, 23, and 24) are also enforceable against private individuals.
• Varying Applicability: Some rights are exclusively reserved for citizens of India (e.g., Articles 15, 16, 19, 29, and 30), while others are available to all persons, including foreigners and legal corporations (e.g., Articles 14, 20, 21, and 25–28).
• Not Permanent or Sacrosanct: They can be curtailed, amended, or repealed by Parliament via a Constitutional Amendment Act under Article 368. However, such amendments are invalid if they infringe upon the "Basic Structure" of the Constitution (Kesavananda Bharati Case, 1973).
• Suspension during Emergencies: The rights (except those under Articles 20 and 21) can be suspended during a National Emergency. The freedoms of Article 19 can only be suspended in cases of external emergency.
• Uniformity in Implementation: To maintain uniformity across India, Article 35 vests the power to make laws to give effect to certain rights (like prescribing punishments under Articles 17 and 23) exclusively in Parliament, excluding State Legislatures.

Conclusion

In summary, the Fundamental Rights in Part III act as a bulwark of individual liberty, checking the arbitrary exercise of authority and establishing a "government of laws, and not of men." Their balanced nature ensures that individual freedoms coexist with public welfare and national integrity.

19. Landmark Supreme Court Case Vault & Article 361A

Master Landmark Case Vault (Part III Fundamental Rights)

Landmark Case	Article / Right Involved	Key Principle / Legal Ruling
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)	Article 16(4)	Upheld 27% OBC reservation; introduced 50% cap on total reservations & "creamy layer" exclusion. Excluded reservations in promotions.
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corp (1985)	Article 21	Ruled that Right to Livelihood is an integral part of the Right to Life under Article 21.
Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Sec, Bihar (1979)	Article 21	Declared Right to Speedy Trial and free legal aid as a Fundamental Right for undertrial prisoners.
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978)	Article 21	Barred solitary confinement and inhumane treatment of prisoners as violations of human dignity under Article 21.
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)	Article 21	Unanimously declared Right to Privacy as an intrinsic part of Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21.
Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011)	Article 21	Permitted Passive Euthanasia (withdrawal of life support) under strict high court guidelines.
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020)	Article 19(1)(a) & 19(1)(g)	Declared Freedom of Internet access as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a). Indefinite internet shutdowns held illegal.
R. Rajagopal v. State of TN (1994)	Article 21 & 19(1)(a)	(Auto Shankar Case) Ruled that citizens have a right to safeguard their privacy; prior restraint on publication disallowed unless defamatory.
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976)	Article 21 & National Emergency	Habeas Corpus Case (overruled by Puttaswamy 2017): Held that right to life could be suspended during emergency. Struck down by 44th CAA 1978 & Puttaswamy judgment.