Fundamental Rights in Indian Constitution

Fundamental Rights in Indian Constitution are the basic rights guaranteed to all citizens under Part III of the Constitution, ensuring liberty, equality, and dignity of individuals. In Indian Polity, these rights form the cornerstone of democratic governance and protect citizens against arbitrary actions of the State. They reflect the constitutional vision of justice, freedom, and human rights in India.

Fundamental Rights: Introduction and Development

Rights → Claims of individuals → Recognised by society → Acknowledged by the State

Types of Rights:

• Natural – Legal – Historical
• Negative – Positive

Evolution of Rights:

• Civil Rights → Political → Social and Economic → Human Rights

Karel Vasak: Three Generations of Rights 

History of rights

• 1215 Magna Carta – U.K.
• 1689 Bill of Rights – U.K.
  • Prince William and Mary signed after the bloodless revolution
• 1789   Diclaration of the right of man – France
• 1791  Bill of rights           America
  • The first 10 amendments were made to the Constitution of the USA in 1791 and are collectively called the Bill of Rights.
• December 10, 1948 Universal Declaration by the U.N.O.

Evolution of Rights in India

• 1895: Swaraj Bill – Tilak (First demand for Fundamental Rights).
• 1925: Annie Besant – 07 Fundamental Rights:
  • Individual liberty
  • Freedom of conscience
  • Freedom of expression
  • Right to assemble
  • No gender discrimination
  • Compulsory primary education
  • Use of public places
• The Committee (1928) chaired by Motilal Nehru held the view that like the Constitution of the Irish Free State (1921), Fundamental Rights should be granted constitutional status in India under the title of Fundamental Rights.
  • Note: Granville Austin – The Nehru Report can be called the precursor to the Fundamental Rights specified in the Constitution.

Constituent Assembly Committees and Members

• Advisory Committee (Fundamental Rights and Minorities): Sardar Patel (Chairman)
• Fundamental Rights Sub-Committee: J.B. Kripalani (Chairman)
• Minorities Sub-Committee: H.C. Mukherjee (Chairman)
• Members of the Sub-Committee on Fundamental Rights:
  • J.B. Kripalani (Chairman)
  • Minoo Masani
  • K.T. Shah
  • Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer
  • K.M. Munshi
  • Sardar Harnam Singh
  • Maulana Azad
  • Dr. Ambedkar
  • Hansa Mehta
  • Jairamdas Daulatram
  • K.M. Panikkar
  • Rajkumari Amrit Kaur
• The Sapru Committee (1945) divided Fundamental Rights into two parts: Justiciable and Non-justiciable.

Features of Fundamental Rights

1. Fundamental Rights are not defined by the Constitution.
2. Some are available only to citizens, while others are available to all persons whether they are citizens, foreigners, or legal persons like corporations and companies.
3. They are qualified, not absolute.
4. They are not natural or unenumerated.
5. Some Fundamental Rights are available against individuals as well as the State:
   • Articles 15, 17, 18, 23, 24.
6. They are not unlimited but are justiciable. The State can impose reasonable restrictions on them. However, whether such restrictions are reasonable or not is decided by the courts.
7. Most of them are available against the arbitrary action of the State, with a few exceptions.
8. They are justiciable, allowing persons to move the courts for their enforcement.
9. Fundamental Rights are guaranteed and protected by the Constitution.
10. They are guaranteed and protected by the Supreme Court. An aggrieved person can go directly to the Supreme Court.
11. They are not sacrosanct or permanent. Parliament can curtail or repeal them, but only by a Constitutional Amendment Act and not by an ordinary act.
12. They are negative as they place limitations on the authority of the State (e.g., Articles 14, 15, 16, 20, 21).
13. They are positive as they confer certain privileges on the persons (e.g., Articles 21A, 25, 29(1), 30(1)).
14. They do not require any legislation for their implementation; they are self-executing.
15. The court is bound to declare any law that violates Fundamental Rights as unconstitutional and invalid.
16. They can be suspended during the operation of a National Emergency (except the rights guaranteed by Articles 20 and 21). The six rights guaranteed by Article 19 can be suspended only when the emergency is declared on the grounds of war or external aggression. It cannot be suspended on the ground of armed rebellion (internal emergency).
17. Fundamental Rights do not ensure social, economic, and political justice, whereas Directive Principles do.
18. Their implementation is limited by Article 31A (protection of laws providing for acquisition of estates, etc.).
19. No Renunciation of Fundamental Rights – (Doctrine of Waiver):
    • Olga Tellis Case (1985) [Related to the Right to Livelihood] – Fundamental Rights cannot be waived. 
    • (Note: Waiver is permitted in the U.S.A.).
    • Basheshar Nath Case: Fundamental Rights cannot be renounced.
20. Not a Gift:
    • In the M. Nagaraj Case (2007) [Related to reservation in promotion], the Supreme Court stated that Fundamental Rights are not a gift from the State to its citizens.

Fundamental rights	Legal rights
Guarantees and protections – the Constitution itself	Protection – by laws
Justiciable	Whether or not justiciable
Changes – Constitutional Amendments	Change by simple majority
Not finished/less	Eliminated/Reduced
Restrictions – Emergency only	Such protection is not available
Writs – Supreme Court (Article-32), High Court (Article-226)	Writ – High Court only (Article-226)

Legal Rights

• Outside Part III
• Statutory / Non-Fundamental Rights
• Constitutional (Which are in the Constitution):
• Article 265: No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.
• Article 300A: No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.
• Article 301: Trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India shall be free.
• Article 325: No person to be ineligible for inclusion in, or to claim to be included in a special, electoral roll on grounds of religion, race, caste or sex.
• Article 326: Universal Adult Suffrage (For the election of MPs and MLAs).
• For the protection of these rights, only the High Court can issue writs under Article 226; the Supreme Court cannot under Article 32.
• Provided by Parliamentary Acts: RTI (Right to Information), MGNREGA.

There are two provisions in the Constitution which seem to ensure political equality:

1. (Article 325): No person shall be declared ineligible for inclusion in the electoral rolls on the grounds of religion, race, caste or sex.
2. (Article 326): Provision for adult suffrage for elections to the Lok Sabha and the Legislative Assemblies.

Articles 12 to 35 in Part III of the Constitution contain the description of Fundamental Rights:

• Part III of the Constitution is described as the ‘Magna Carta of India’. ‘Magna Carta’ is the charter of rights issued by King John of England in 1215 under pressure from the barons. This was the first written document relating to the Fundamental Rights of citizens.
• There are a total of 23 Articles in the Constitution regarding Fundamental Rights. Under these, 6 Fundamental Rights have been provided to every citizen.
• Note: By the 44th Amendment Act (1978) of the Constitution, the Right to Property, which earlier fell under the category of Fundamental Rights (Article 31), was removed from the list of Fundamental Rights and made a legal right under Article 300A in Chapter IV of Part XII of the Constitution.

Articles related to fundamental rights

Article	Subject matter
General
12	Definition of State
13	Laws which are inconsistent with or derogatory to fundamental rights.
Right to equality
14	Equality before the law
15	Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race or creed, caste, sex or place of birth.
16	Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment
17	Abolition of untouchability
18	Abolition of titles
Right to freedom
19	Protection of rights related to freedom of expression
20	Protection from conviction for offences
21	Protection of life and personal liberty
21A	Right to education
22	Protection from arrest and detention in certain cases
Right against exploitation
23	Protection from human trafficking and forced labour
24	Prohibition of employment of children in factories
Right to religious freedom
25	Freedom of conscience and freedom to manifest, practice and propagate religion
26	Freedom to manage religious affairs
27	Freedom to pay taxes for the promotion of any particular religion
28.	Attendance for religious instruction or religious worship at certain educational institutionsfreedom of
Cultural and educational rights
29	Protection of the interests of minorities
30	Right of minorities to establish and maintain their own educational institutions
31	Compulsory acquisition of property (Repealed)
Protection of certain laws
31A	Security of law for acquisition of estates
31B	Validity of certain Acts and Regulations
31C	Protection of laws giving effect to the Directive Principles
31D	Protection of laws related to anti-national activities (repealed)
Right to Constitutional Remedies
32	Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
32A	Constitutional validity of State laws not considered under Article 32 (struck down)
33	Power of Parliament to amend the rights conferred by this Part
34.	The powers conferred by this Part are barred when martial law is imposed in any place.
35	Legislation to give effect to the provisions of this Part

Article 12: Definition of the State

• In Part III of the Fundamental Rights, unless the context otherwise requires, “State” includes
  • Government and Parliament of India
  • The Government and Legislature of each of the States.
  • All local and other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India (principle of homogeneity).

(All other bodies, i.e., statutory or non-constitutional authorities, such as LIC, ONGC, SAIL, etc.)[Same definition of State as in Article 26]

Other authorities

Which is the state	Which is not a state
L.I.C. , O.N.G.C., F.C.I., UPSC, ISO, Universities	NCERT, SCERT, CSIR
When the President issues an order under Article 359.	BCCI, Waqf Board, ICICI
Chief Justice of High Courts (when exercising administrative jurisdiction)	Private colleges
Nationalised Banks (not ICICI)	Institute of Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies, New Delhi (TechRajavad)
legal persons	Judiciary
	National Cooperative Consumers Federation

• Common Cause v. Union of India case – Judiciary, Executive, and Legislature, all three can be considered as ‘State’.
• Doctrine of Ejusdem Generis – ‘Other authorities’ under Article 12 are defined through this.

Article 13: Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the Fundamental Rights

[Note: Article 13 is the basis of the power of writs under Article 32 and Article 226.]

• Article 13(1) – Pre-Constitutional Laws
  • All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.
  • Pre-Constitutional laws can be subject to Judicial Review.
  • [Doctrine of Eclipse → Applies to both pre-constitutional and post-constitutional laws – Pre-Constitutional laws which are inconsistent with Part III become ineffective after January 26, 1950.]
  • [Doctrine of Prospectivity (not Retrospective) → Not void from the beginning] – Article 13(1) is not retrospective.
• Article 13(2) – Post-Constitutional Laws
  • The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void. → Judicial Review
  • [Doctrine of Severability → Post-constitutional laws are void only to the extent of the contravention of Fundamental Rights.]
• Article 13(3) :- Under the law, any ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, sub-rule, notification, custom and practice similar to the law in India come under the law, that is, if any of these violates the fundamental rights, then they can be challenged in the court through a writ. → Definition of Law [Under the definition of law → Personal Law ✗]
• Whether a Constitutional Amendment is ‘Law’ –
  • Shankari Prasad Case (1951) – Not a law.
    • Because ‘Law’ includes parliamentary law made by ordinary majority, whereas Article 368 requires a special majority.
      • ↓ Decision reiterated
  • Sajjan Singh Case (1965) – Not a law.
  • Golaknath Case (1967) – It is a law.
    • There is no difference between ordinary law and constitutional amendment law.
    • Doctrine of Prospective Overruling
    • K. Subba Rao Bench
    • 11 members
      • ↓ To nullify the Golaknath judgment
    • 24th Constitutional Amendment – Not a law.
      • In opposition to the Golaknath case (1967), 
      • Article 13(4) was added.
    • Kesavananda Case (1973) – Not a law.
      • S.M. Sikri Bench
      • 13 members – Largest Bench

• Article 13(4): Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under Article 368. Added by the 24th Amendment, 1971.
• In this way, Article 13 is a very important article which provides for the protection of Fundamental Rights.
• The term ‘Judicial Review’ is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution of India.
• Under Article 13, laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights can be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (Article 32) and the High Courts (Article 226). This very power is called Judicial Review.
• That is, constitutional provisions like Articles 13, 32, and 226 give the power of Judicial Review to the courts.

Whether a Constitutional Amendment is ‘Law’?

Whether a Constitutional Amendment under Article 368 is ‘Law’ or not?

• Shankari Prasad Case (1951) –
  • Constitutional amendment is not law because ‘Law’ includes parliamentary law made by ‘ordinary majority’.
  • Whereas Article 368 requires a special majority.
  • The constitutional validity of the First Amendment Act (1951), which curtailed the Right to Property, was challenged.
• Sajjan Singh Case (1965) – The Supreme Court reiterated the same decision.
• Golaknath Case (1967) – Constitutional amendment also comes under ‘Law’.
  • Note: In the case of Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), it was decided that there is no difference between ordinary law and constitutional amendment law.
  • To nullify the effect of the judgment given in the Golaknath case, the 24th Amendment was made in 1971.
  • Through this amendment, clause 13(4) was added to Article 13.
  • In the Golaknath case, there was an 11-member bench and the Chief Justice was K. Subba Rao.The Supreme Court stated that Fundamental Rights cannot be amended for the implementation of Directive Principles.
• Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973) –Constitutional amendments do not come under ‘Law’ as described in Article 13(3).
  • The Supreme Court overruled its judgment in the Golaknath case.
  • It upheld the validity of the 24th Amendment Act (1971) and ruled that Parliament can abridge or take away any of the Fundamental Rights.

Fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution

Right to Equality: (Articles 14-18)

Right to Equality: (Articles 14-18)

• Article – 14: Equality before law and equal protection of laws
• “The State shall not deny to any person (citizens, non-citizens, legal persons) equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”

• Article 14:
  • Prohibits Class Legislation.
  • Permits Reasonable Classification, provided:
    • Classification must be based on an Intelligible Differentia.
    • There must be a Rational Nexus between the classification and the object sought to be achieved.

Exceptions to the Right to Equality:

1. Art. 15(3) – Special provisions for women and children.
2. Art. 15(4) – Reservation for OBC/SC/ST in educational institutions.
3. Art. 15(5) – Reservation for SC/ST/OBC in private educational institutions.
4. Art. 15(6) – 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in government and private educational institutions.
5. Art. 16(4) – Reservation for SC/ST/OBC in government jobs.
6. Art. 16(5) – Permission to the State for discrimination on the basis of religion in public employment.
7. Art. 16(6) – 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in public employment (government jobs).
8. Privileges granted to the President, Governors, foreign diplomats, SC and HC judges, and MP/MLAs are exceptions to equality.
   • Article 361 – Special protection to the President and Governors:
     • Not answerable to any court.
     • No criminal/judicial proceedings shall be instituted or continued
     • Civil proceedings – 2 months’ advance notice.
   • Article 105 – Immunity regarding speeches and votes of Members of Parliament (Privileges and Immunities).
   • Article 194 – Protection to members of State Legislatures (Privileges and Immunities).
9. Article 361-A – Publication of parliamentary proceedings.
10. Laws related to Directive Principles – (Article 31-C):
    • If any law implements Article 39(b) or (c), it cannot be challenged on the ground of violation of Article 14.
      • [Article 31(C) added by the 25th Amendment 1971]
      • SC Statement: “Where Article 31-C comes in, Article 14 goes out.”
11. Foreign sovereigns, ambassadors, and diplomats enjoy immunity from civil and criminal proceedings.
12. The United Nations and its agencies also enjoy diplomatic immunity.
    • In the Minerva Mills case (1980), ‘Rule of Law’ was declared a basic feature of the Constitution.
    • M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2007) – The principle of equality is a basic structure of the Constitution.
    • Akul Chandra Pradhan case (1997) – The right to vote can be classified.
    • Shiv Shankar case (1951) –
      • Equality before law – Equal Justice
      • Equal protection of laws – Equal Justice
    • Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company case (2014) – 
    • Where Article 31(A) begins, the limit of Article 14 ends.
    • Chiranjit Lal v. Union of India – An individual may constitute a class by himself. Therefore, a corporation, being a legal person, also has the right to equality before the law.
    • Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita (2020) – Women in the Indian Armed Forces will also be granted Permanent Commission.
    • Article 14 applies to both Substantive Law and Personal Law.

Article – 15: Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth (05 grounds). The State shall not discriminate against citizens; all citizens have equal rights.

• Art. 15(1) – The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
  • The use of the word ‘only’ means that discrimination on these 5 grounds is prohibited, but discrimination on the basis of ‘language’ and ‘place of residence’ can be made.
• Art. 15(2) – No citizen shall, on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth, be subject to any disability with regard to shops, hotels, places of public entertainment, or the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads, and places of public resort maintained out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.
  • Note: Temples are not mentioned here.
  • This is enforceable against both the State and private individuals.

Art. 15(3), 15(4), 15(5), 15(6) are exceptions to the above rights:

• Art. 15(3) – The State can make special provisions for women and children. E.g., The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Free and compulsory education for children (under the RTE Act); Reservation for women in local bodies.
  • D. Paulraj v. Union of India – Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
• Art. 15(4) – The State can make special provisions for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
  • Reservation for SC/ST/OBC in government educational institutions.
    • Article 15(4) was added by the 1st Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951, following the decision in the ‘Champakam Dorairajan case’ (1951).
    • The case of Smt. Champakam Dorairajan v. State of Madras (1951) concerns reservations in government educational institutions.
    • M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963) – Caste cannot be the sole determinant of backwardness; other criteria should also be considered.
• Art. 15(5) – The State can make special provisions for ST/SC/OBC regarding admission to private educational institutions.
• This was added by the 93rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2005.
  • To override the Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra judgment – that the State cannot impose its reservation policy on minority and private institutions.
  • Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India – Declared it constitutionally valid.
    • Under this, reservation is provided to OBC/SC/ST in private educational institutions. It has (2) conditions:
  • It will not be available to the Creamy Layer among OBCs.
    • The Central Government passed the “Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006”.
    • Under this, 27% reservation was ensured for Backward Classes (OBC).
    • Institutions like IITs and IIMs are also included in this.

Creamy Layer

• This refers to the well-to-do and socially-economically advanced sections of the Backward Classes (OBC) who are not granted the benefit of reservation.
• Categories under Creamy Layer:
  1. Constitutional post-holders.
  2. Group A and B officers.
  3. High-ranking officers of the Armed Forces.
  4. Independent Professionals – Doctors, Engineers, Advocates, Authors, Artists, Consultants, etc.
  5. Persons engaged in trade, industry, or commerce.
  6. Property owners – Owners of buildings in urban areas and those holding large agricultural land, urban plots, or immovable property.
  7. Income-based criteria – Current limit is ₹8 lakh.
• Not Applicable to Minority Institutions
  • Art. 15(6) – 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in government and private educational institutions (103rd Amendment, 2019).
  • Article 15(6) was added by the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019, which provides for 10% reservation for economically backward classes in higher educational institutions, including private institutions. This reservation shall not apply to minority institutions.

Article – 16: Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment

• Art. 16(1) and (2) – No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, descent, or residence (7 grounds), be discriminated against in respect of any Public Employment (government jobs).

Art. 16(3), 16(4), 16(5), and 16(6) are exceptions to the equality of opportunity in public employment.

• Art. 16(3) – Parliament can prescribe residence as a condition for certain government jobs. However, a State Legislature cannot do this. Parliament, by law, can give priority in public employment on the basis of residence.
  • [Parliament has provided this on the basis of residence in Himachal Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka (98th Amendment), Arunachal Pradesh, Tripura, and Manipur.]
• Art. 16(4) – Reservation for Backward Classes in government jobs/Backward Classes ST/SC/OBC.
  • This reservation is subject to certain conditions:
    1. Socially and educationally backward.
    2. The class is not adequately represented in the public services.
    3. Administrative efficiency is not affected.
       • In 1901, Shahu Ji Maharaj of Kolhapur state granted reservation (First-ever reservation).
       • ST/SC ➡️ Term given by the Simon Commission (1929).
       • Miller Commission ➡️ In 1895, Mysore State provided reservation for backward classes in administration and education
       • Reservation for ST/SC in the Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies is granted under Articles 330 and 332 respectively.
       • [Rajkumar Gijroya Case (2016) – Regarding reservation [(providing equal opportunity) + eliminating inequality in public employment].

• Art. 16(4)A – Reservation in Promotion for S.C. and S.T. in government jobs.
  • Added by the 77th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1995.
• [Mukesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) – Discretion of the government, not a constitutional duty (in promotion)].
• Art. 16(4)B – While filling Backlog vacancies, the 50% limit can be crossed.
  • Added by the 81st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2000.
• Art. 16(5) – This permits the State to discriminate on the basis of religion.
  • It provides for the appointment of persons belonging to a specific religion as an office-bearer or member of a religious institution.
• Art. 16(6) – 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in public employment (government jobs).
• 103rd Constitutional Amendment (2019) – Reservation for EWS: Art. 15(6) – 10% reservation in educational institutions.

OBC Reservation Issue

The President, under Article 340, appoints a Backward Classes Commission to identify socially and educationally backward classes.

1. Kaka Kalelkar Commission – First Backward Classes Commission. Established in 1953; submitted Report in 1955.

B.P. Mandal Commission – Second Backward Classes Commission. Established January 1, 1979; submitted report in 1980.

• OBC identified on four bases – Social, Economic, Political, and Educational.

Mandal Commission and its Outcomes:

Establishment: 

• In 1979 by the Morarji Desai Government.
• Chaired by: B.P. Mandal.
• Under Article 340: For identification and recommendations for socially and educationally backward classes.

Commission Report (1980):

• Identified 3743 castes as socially and educationally backward.
• Their population was approximately 52% (excluding SC/ST).
• Recommended 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBC).

Government Action:

• 1990: V.P. Singh Government implemented 27% reservation.
• 1991: Narasimha Rao Government made two amendments:
  • Preference to the poorer sections among OBCs.
  • 10% reservation for the poor among upper castes.

Supreme Court Judgment – Mandal Case (Indra Sawhney Case, 1992)

• 27% reservation for OBC is valid with certain conditions.
• Creamy Layer should be excluded from reservation.
• Reservation only at the time of initial appointment, not in promotion.
• Carry forward (backlog) rule is valid, but within the 50% limit.

Rejected

• 10% reservation for upper castes on an economic basis is unconstitutional.
• Total reservation should not exceed 50%.

Steps Taken After the Judgments:

• Ram Nandan Committee (1993) – For the identification of the Creamy Layer.
• NCBC (1993) – For the inclusion/exclusion of names in the list.
• 76th Amendment (1994) – Placed 69% reservation of Tamil Nadu in the Ninth Schedule to protect it from judicial review.
• 77th Amendment (1995) – Right to reservation in promotion for SC/ST.
• 81st Amendment (2000) – Removed the 50% limit for backlog vacancies.
• 85th Amendment (2001) – Provision for consequential seniority in promotion.

3. Rohini Commission (2017):

• Third Backward Classes Commission.
• Sub-categorization and division within OBC accepted.

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992):

• A 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered the judgment. The then Chief Justice M.H. Kania chaired the bench. 
• It was against the implementation of the B.P. Mandal report.
• The S.C., in its judgment, accepted ‘Caste’ as a valid basis for identifying Other Backward Classes and upheld the 27% reservation in central government jobs given by V.P. Singh.
• However, the Supreme Court imposed certain conditions:
  1. Reservation only for Non-Creamy Layer among OBCs.
     • Doctrine of Creamy Layer – Benefit will be given only to Non-Creamy Layer; not to the Creamy Layer.
     • To identify the Creamy Layer, the Ram Nandan Committee was formed in 1993.
     • Subsequently, the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) was created in 1993.
       • (Statutory Body).
       • By the 102nd Constitutional Amendment 2018, NCBC was given Constitutional Status under Article 338B. 
     • Applies only to OBC.
     • [Jarnail Singh v. Lakshmi Narain (2018) – Creamy layer can be applied to ST/SC as well. The state government may take the decision.]
  2. The limit of reservation shall not exceed 50%.
     • Exceptions:
       • Tamil Nadu – 76th Amendment (1995) – 69% reservation added to the 9th Schedule.
       • Backlog reservation can cross 50% – 81st Amendment (2000).
  3. No reservation in promotion.
     • 77th Amendment (1995) – Reservation in promotion for ST/SC only 
     • (not OBC). 
     • Article 16(4)A added.

1. No reservation in areas of Specialization/Super-specialization.
2. No reservation for a Single Post.

M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006):

• This is related to Backlog reservation.
• The 76th Constitutional Amendment 1995 provided 69% reservation for Tamil Nadu and included it in the 9th Schedule.
• The 77, 81, 82, and 85th Amendments were challenged.
  • 77th Amendment (1995): 
    • Promotion reservation for ST/SC
    • (Art. 16(4)A).
  • 81st Amendment (2000): 
    • Backlog reservation can cross 50% 
    • (Art. 16(4)B).
  • 82nd Amendment (2000): 
    • Relaxation in qualifying marks for ST/SC in Article 335.
  • 85th Amendment (2002): 
    • Benefit of promotion for ST/SC on the basis of seniority 
    • (Art. 16(4)A).

Types of Reservation in India:

1. In Educational Institutions – Articles 15(4), 15(5), 15(6).
2. In Government Jobs – Articles 16(4), 16(4)A, 16(4)B, 16(6).
3. Political Reservation – Articles 330, 331, 332, 333.
   • Article 330: Reservation for SC/ST in the Lok Sabha.
   • Article 331: If the President is of the opinion that the Anglo-Indian community is not adequately represented in the Lok Sabha, he may nominate two members
   • Article 332: Reservation for SC/ST in the Legislative Assemblies.
   • Article 333: Nomination of one Anglo-Indian to the Legislative Assembly by the Governor.
4. By the 104th Amendment Act (2019), Parliament amended Article 334 to extend the reservation for SC and ST in the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies for 10 years (2020-30), while the reservation for Anglo-Indians was not extended.
   • Article 334: Re-examination of reservation for SC, ST, and Anglo-Indians in 10 years.
   • Article 335: Maintenance of administrative efficiency while granting reservation in public services.

Anglo-Indian (Constitutional Definition):

• An “Anglo-Indian” means a person—
  • Whose father or any of whose other male progenitors in the male line is or was of European descent,
  • And who is domiciled within the territory of India,
  • And is or was born within such territory of parents habitually resident therein,
  • And not established there for temporary purposes only.
• This definition is given in Article 366 (2) of the Indian Constitution.

(Article – 17): Abolition of Untouchability

• Enforceable against the State and private individuals.
• Article 35(A)(2) empowers the Parliament to prescribe punishment for this offence by law.
• The definition of ‘Untouchability’ is given neither in the Constitution nor in the Act.

Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955:

• Law passed under Article 17.In 1976, it was renamed as the “Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955”.
• Through this law, there is a provision to punish anyone practicing untouchability in any form.
• The Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 was enacted in 1955.
• This Act came into force on June 1, 1955, but based on the recommendations of the Elayaperumal Committee constituted in April 1965, comprehensive amendments were made in 1976 and its name was changed to the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955.
• This amended Act came into force on November 19, 1976, and is in accordance with the provisions of Article 17 of the Indian Constitution relating to the abolition of untouchability.

Under the Act, untouchability was declared a punishable offence.

• It includes imprisonment for 6 months or a fine of ₹500 or both.
• A person convicted under this is disqualified for election to the Parliament or State Legislature.

(Article – 18): Abolition of Titles

[Article 18 is directory, not mandatory (violation is not punishable), although Parliament can do so.]

• Article 18(1): The State shall confer no title, except military or academic distinction.
• Article 18(2): No citizen of India shall accept any title from any foreign state.
• Article 18(3): A foreigner holding any office of profit or trust under the State shall not, without the consent of the President, accept any title from any foreign state.
• Article 18(4): No person holding any office of profit or trust under the State shall, without the consent of the President, accept any present, emolument, or office of any kind from or under any foreign state.
• In the Balaji Raghavan case (1996), the S.C. stated that Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan, and Padma Shri are Awards, not Titles, because they are not used as a prefix or suffix to the name of a person like a title.
• Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri awards –
  • These awards are not titles and do not violate the provisions of Article 18. Thus, they are not contrary to the principle of equality. However, it was also arranged that they should not be used as suffixes or prefixes to the names of the awardees, otherwise, they would have to forfeit the awards.
  • These national awards were instituted in 1954.
  • In 1977, the Janata Party government headed by Morarji Desai discontinued them, but they were revived by the Indira Gandhi government in 1980.
  • Discontinued in – 1978, 1979 and 1993, 1997.
  • K.M. Munshi refused to accept the Padma Shri, calling it a violation of Article 18.

Right to Freedom: (Articles 19-22)

(Article 19): The right to freedom includes freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, freedom of association, association, trade, and residence.

• Article 19(1) guarantees six fundamental freedoms to all citizens. (There were seven before the 44th Constitutional Amendment.)
• The six freedoms are protected only in cases against the state, not in private matters.
• The freedoms described in 19(1) are not absolute or unrestricted, but the state can impose ‘reasonable restrictions’ on these rights under Articles 19(2), 19(3), 19(4), 19(5), and 19(6) on the following grounds:
  • Sovereignty, integrity, and security of India
  • Public order
  • Morality
  • Contempt of court

19(1) – Six kinds of freedom

S.No.	Article	Reasonable restrictions	Article
1	19(1)(a)	⮕	19(2)	reasonable restriction words add → First Constitutional Amendment (1951)
2	19(1)(b)	⮕	19(3)	The term reasonable restriction was added to the original Constitution.
3	19(1)(c)	⮕	19(4)
4	19(1)(d)	⮕	19(5)
5	19(1)(e)
6	19(1)(g)	⮕	19(6)
–	19(1)(f)	⮕	Abolished by the 44th Amendment (1978)

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

• Freedom of the Press
  • Constituent Assembly member K.T. Shah was an advocate for its explicit mention in 19(1).
  • Brij Bhushan Case – Imposing censorship is a violation of 19(1)(a).
  • State v. Charulata Joshi Case (1999) – Freedom of the press is not absolute. No right to interview a prisoner.
  • Romesh Thappar Case (1950) – 1st Amendment added three grounds of restriction:
    • Friendly relations with foreign states
    • Public order
    • Incitement to an offence
  • [The words “Sovereignty and integrity of India” → added by the 16th Amendment (1963)]
  • Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) → Freedom of speech and expression through the medium of the internet.
• Freedom to hoist the National Flag
• Right of the voter to information
• Right to Information (RTI)
  • RTI is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but:
  • S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1982) – Right to information is a part of the freedom of expression.
  • Subhash Chandra Agarwal Case (2019) – CJI, President, and Prime Minister also under RTI, but not political parties.
• Right to know about candidates and Right to NOTA
  • PUCL Case (2003) + Right to NOTA.
  • PUCL – People’s Union for Civil Liberties → J.P. Narayan → NGO.
• Emmanuel v. State of Kerala Case (1986)
  • Right to remain silent.
• Right to fly the National Flag
  • Naveen Jindal v. Union of India Case (2004)
• Right against phone tapping.
• Right to peace.
• Right against pre-censorship on a newspaper.
• Right to demonstration and picketing, but not right to strike or bandh.
• Arundhati Roy Case (2002)
  • Restrictions can be imposed for the dignity of the court.
• Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. (2012)
  • Open Trial is not an absolute right.

• Grounds for Restriction on Speech and Expression:
  • There are a total of 8 reasonable restrictions under Art. 19(2).
  • In the original Constitution, the words ‘reasonable restriction’ were not mentioned under Article 19(2), but were added to this sub-clause by the First Constitutional Amendment (1951). Although the words ‘reasonable restriction’ were mentioned in Articles 19(3), (4), (5), and (6) since the day the Constitution commenced.
  • The grounds for imposing restrictions are as follows: Sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, incitement to an offence, defamation, etc. [Art. 19(2)]

1. Art. 19(1)(b) – Freedom to assemble peaceably and without arms.
   • The State can impose restrictions on two grounds:
   • Sovereignty and integrity of India and public order, including traffic control in the concerned area. [Art. 19(3)]
2. Art. 19(1)(c) – Freedom to form associations or unions or co-operative societies.
   • The grounds for imposing reasonable restrictions by the State are: [Art. 19(4)]
     • Sovereignty and integrity of India
     • Public order
     • Morality
       • 97th Amendment (2011) – Formation of co-operative societies made a Fundamental Right.
3.  Art. 19(1)(d) – Freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India.
   • There are two grounds for imposing reasonable restrictions: [Art. 19(5)] 
     • Interest of the general public
     • Protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe.
4. Art. 19(1)(e) – Freedom to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India.
   • Reasonable restrictions can be imposed on two grounds: [Art. 19(5)]
     • Specially in the interest of the general public
     • In the interest of Scheduled Tribes.
5. Art. 19(1)(g) – Freedom to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
   • Note: The freedoms described in Article 19(1) are inspired by the Constitution of Ireland (1937) and the Constitution of the Free City of Danzig (1922).
   • The State can impose reasonable restrictions on its exercise in the interest of the general public. [Art. 19(6)]
     • Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee (1989) – Trading on the pavement (hawking) is a Fundamental Right.
   • Art. 19(1)(f) – Freedom to acquire property – This was abolished by the 44th Constitutional Amendment, 1978 on 20.06.1979.

(Article – 20): Protection in respect of conviction for offences

• Art. 20(1): Protection from Ex-post Facto Laws (Retrospective law)
  • No person shall be punished for an act:
    • Which was not an offence at the time of its commission, but was declared an offence later. Or,
    • No person shall be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.
• Art. 20(2): Principle of Double Jeopardy
  • No person shall be:
    • Prosecuted twice for the same offence.
    • Punished twice for the same offence.
  • Applies to judicial proceedings, not to departmental proceedings.
• Art. 20(3): Doctrine of Self-Incrimination
  • No person accused of an offence:
    • Shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
      • Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) – Narco analysis/Polygraph/Brain mapping prohibited.
      • Mr. X v. Mr. Z Case (2002) – DNA Test Valid.

(Article – 21): Protection of Life and Personal Liberty

• Art. 21 – “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law, and not otherwise.”
• Ambedkar – “This is the backbone of the Constitution and the Magna Carta.”
• Art. 20 and 21 – Since the 44th Constitutional Amendment, 1978, these cannot be suspended by the President under Article 359 during a National Emergency (Article 352).

• Right to free education: Article 21(a)
  • In pursuance of Article 21A, Parliament enacted the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009 which provides that the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of 6 to 14 years.
  • After Mohini Jain vs Karnataka (1992)
  • This provision has been made under the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002.

After the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002

Fundamental rights	Directive principles of policy	Fundamental Duties
Art. 21(a) added	Changes in Art. 45	Art. 51(a) added
Compulsory free education from 6 to 14 years (Class 1 to 8)	Before 2002 ➤ 6-14 yearsAfter 2002 ➤ 0-6 years↓Free and compulsory early childhood education	11th duty
Right to Education Act in 2009
RTE in April 2010

• A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, (1950) –The legislature can deprive a person of the right to life and personal liberty by law.
• Manka Gandhi Case – (1978)
  • The Supreme Court said that the established process of law should be just, fair and reasonable.
  • Thus, the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi case (1978) overturned the Gopalan case (1950) decision and re-established the American principle of “due process” of law by giving importance to natural justice under Article 21 along with the “established process of law”.
  • In the Maneka case (1978), the trinity of Articles 14, 19, and 21 were considered interrelated, and the Gopalan decision was overturned. (In Gopalan, Articles 14, 19, and 21 were considered separate.)
• The list of expanded rights developed by the Supreme Court after the Maneka Gandhi case (1978) under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) –
  • Right to life with human dignity
  • Right to live in a pollution-free environment including clean water and air
  • Right to Livelihood
  • Right to Privacy
  • Right to health
  • Right to free education for children up to the age of 14 years (now in Article 21A)
  • Right to free legal aid
  • Right to speedy justice/trial
  • Right against being handcuffed
  • Right to stay execution
  • right to a fair trial
  • Right against public execution
  • Right to be heard (Audi Alteram Partem)
  • Right to Information
  • Right to Sleep

Important cases related to Article 21 –

• ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla case (1976) – Habeas Corpus and Life/Personal Liberty
• Hussain Ara Khatoon v. Bihar (1979) –
  • Case lawyer – Pushpa Hingorani (Mother of Public Interest Litigation in India)
  • First P.I.L. Start
  • Right to speedy trial
  • Right of the poor to get free legal aid
  • Note: PIL movers – P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer (Judges)
• Khelgaon Case (1982) –
  • Right to minimum wages
• Olga Tellis’s case (1985) –
  • Right to livelihood
• Parmanand Katara case (1989) – 
  • Right to medical assistance
• Parmanand Katara case (1995) – 
  • Right to dignity even after death
• Subhash Kumar vs. Bihar (1992) – 
  • Right to pollution-free water and air
• Mohini Jain case (1992)- 
  • Right to education
• Unnikrishnan vs Andhra Pradesh case – 
  • Rights are not absolute
• Gyan Kaur case (1996) – 
  • The right to life does not include the right to die
• M.C. Mehtawad (1997)- 
  • Right to a clean environment
• India Stateware Corporation (1997)  – 
  • Right to livelihood, though not a fundamental right, is the duty of the state.
• Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) – 
  • Preventing harassment of women at the workplace
• National Human Rights Commission case (1996)- 
  • Right to life for both citizens and non-citizens
• Rajdev Sharma case (1998) – 
  • Right to speedy trial
• Murli Deora case (2001) – 
  • No smoking in public places
• PUCL case (2000)- 
  • Right to free food items
• PUCL vs Union of India (2004) – 
  • Phone Tapping – Violation of Right to Privacy
• M.K. Acharya case (2008)- 
  • Right to electricity
• Shuchita Srivastava vs Chandigarh Administration (2010) –
  • It is a woman’s right whether she wants to have children or not.
• Ramlila Maidan case (2012)- 
  • Right to deep sleep
• Ratti Ram Vad (2012) – 
  • Right to a fair trial
• Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A. Nagarajan (2014) – 
  • The life of animals is also included in the right to life.
• K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017) – 
  • Aadhaar card requirement abolished for all services → Right to privacy

Constitution Review Commission (2000) –

• Atal Bihari
• National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (Bankatchaliah Commission) (2002)
• Formed: February 2000
• Report: March 31, 2000
• Chairman: Justice Venkatachaliah.(Ret.CJI)
• Conclusion: The doctrine of basic structure is better for the maturity of the Constitution.
• The Governor is appointed by a committee.
• Recommendation to include the right to privacy as a separate fundamental right
• Common Cause vs Union of India (2018) – The concept of dying with dignity after death
• Common Cause → NGO
  • Aruna Shanbaug
  • Decision – 09 March 2018
    • Passive (euthanasia) passive will death ✔
    • Active euthanasia
    • Living will
• Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India (2018) 
  • Sexual autonomy, choice of sexual partner, right to sexuality
• Shahzada Poonawala v. Union of India (2018) –  
  • Stopping mob lynching
  • Rajasthan was the first state to enact a law
• Sabarimala case (2018)-
  • Equal rights for men and women to enter temples
• Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018)
  • Ban on honor killings
• Fahima Shareen vs. Kerala (2019) 
  • Right to access the Internet
• Attorney General vs. Lichma Devi (1996) 
  • Protection against execution against common people
• Nilavati Bohra vs. Odisa (1993) 
  • Protection against death in police custody
• Premshankar vs. Delhi Administration (1980)
  • Protection against handcuffing
  • (Article 22): Protection from detention and arrest
• Preventive detention-Preventive detention of a person before he or she commits a crime based on potential danger.

Types of custody

1. Punitive Detention:
   • It is given when the crime is proved.
   • After trial in court, one is convicted.
2. Preventive Detention:
   • based only on suspicion
   • Objective: Prevent crime, not punish it
   • A person can be detained without trial.

Article 22 has two parts-

1. General rights of the arrested person (Applicable only for Indian citizens)
   • Right to be informed of the reason for arrest
   • Right to advice and defense by a lawyer
   • Right to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours
   • No longer term detention can be granted without the permission of the Magistrate.
2. Rights of a person in preventive detention (Applicable to both citizens and foreigners)
   1. The detention cannot exceed 3 months, unless:
      • The advisory board (constituted by High Court judges) should not confirm it.
        • Advisory Board – 1 + 2
        • Presiding High Working/Retired Court Judge           H.C. Judge
   2. The reasons for detention must be stated, but:
      • Exemption from disclosing if it is detrimental to the public interest
3. The detained person has the right to representation
4. Powers of Parliament:
   • Under what circumstances is detention possible for more than 3 months?
   • Power to determine procedure by the Advisory Board

44th Constitutional Amendment Act (1978)

• Detention period: Reduced from 3 months to 2 months
• But this amendment was not implemented, the 3-month period is still in effect today.
  • Remedial action 
  • Opportunity to make representation against the order
  • Concurrent list topics 
  • Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava- The pinnacle of failures
  • A. K. Gopalan case 1950 –The Supreme Court called Article 22(2) of the Constitution an ‘Ugly Provision of the Constitution’.

Parliament has enacted the following Acts in exercise of the powers vested in it under Article 22:

1. Preventive Detention Act – 1950– (lasted from 1950 to 1969)
   • AK Gopalan was arrested under this.
2. MISA(From 1971 to 1979) (MISA – Maintenance of Internal Security Act – 1971) – Internal Security Act.
   • This law was introduced by the Indira Gandhi government. It was widely misused during the Emergency of 1975. Lalu Prasad’s daughter, Misa Bharti, is associated with this law.
   • 1978 – Janata Party abolished it.
3. National Security Act (NASA – National Security Act – 1980) This Act, popularly known as NSA, is still in force and is imposed on those who incite communal and caste riots.
4. THEN – (1985-1995) –
   • Terriorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act – 1985 – Sanjay Dutt
   • Immediate circumstances – terrorism in Punjab, Operation Blue Star, assassination of Indira Gandhi
5. POTATO(2002-2004) – (Prevention Of Terrorist Act-2002) Anti-Terrorism Act
   • It was introduced in place of TADA.
   • Atalji passed it in the joint session.
   • Note: “Articles 20, 21, 22 provide for individual fundamental freedoms.”

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act –Originally amended in 1967, effective December 2008

COFEPOSA(Foreign Exchange Conservation and Prevention) Act, 1974Duration up to 02 years

• PBMSECA – 1980 Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act – 1980
• PITNDPSA – 1980 

Right against exploitation: (Articles 23-24)

Right against exploitation (Articles 23-24) →against both state and citizen 

(Article 23): Prohibition of trafficking in human beings, forced labour and exploitation.

• Human trafficking, forced labor (begar), and other forms of forced labor are strictly prohibited.
• This provision applies to both citizens and non-citizens.
• This also includes protection from exploitation by private individuals.
• Major laws made by the Parliament:
  • Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956
  • Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1976
  • Minimum Wages Act, 1948
  • Equal Remuneration Act, 1976
  • Exception: The state may impose compulsory services (such as military service) for public purposes, provided there is no discrimination.
  • Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 (POCSO)-
    • To protect the rights of children, Parliament passed the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, which led to the establishment of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights in 2009. This commission is a statutory commission created by an Act of Parliament, not a constitutional commission.
    • In this, the definition of child includes children between 0-18 years of age.

Article 23(1)– Traffic in human beings, forced labour and forced labor are prohibited.

• Bonded Labour System Abolition Act (1976)
• Dina vs Union of India (1983)
  • Prisoners have the right to fair wages for their work

• Minimum Wages Act (1984)
• Gujarat Statehood Dispute (1998)
  • Compulsory manual labour imposed on a person sentenced to rigorous imprisonment is not forced labour
• Neerja Chowdhary vs M.P. (1984)
  • Liberation of bonded labourers + rehabilitation system
• Bonded Labour Rehabilitation Scheme – 17 May 2016 (Centre)
  • ↓ Exceptions to Article 23(1)

Article 23(2)- The state can impose compulsory labour for public purposes.

• Provided there is no discrimination on the basis of religion, race, caste, class.

(Article 24): Prohibition of employment of children in factories

• It is prohibited to employ children below 14 years of age in hazardous work or in factories, mines etc.
• is absolute (no exceptions)
• Limited work in innocent pursuits is permitted (such as family help).
• Key laws related to:
  • The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (now amended)
  • Factories Act, 1948
  • The Mines Act, 1952
  • Childhood Act – 1966
  • Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005

Child Labour Abolition Act, 1986

• 13 Business Ban
• New name of the Act: The Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 ➔ Crime against a child between 5 and 14 years of age
• Punishment for violation:
  • First time: 6 months to 2 years imprisonment or ₹20,000 – ₹50,000 fine
  • Repeated: 1 to 3 years in prison

Child Labour Amendment Act, 2016

• Children under 14 years of age are prohibited from all activities.
• Not prohibited if not risky
  • Family business Children as actors
  • Applicable to organized and unorganized sectors
• Family related business exemption – only 03 hours after school
• As Artist ➔ Total 05 hours (03 hours allowed without rest)
• Punishment for violation:
  • First time: 6 months to 2 years imprisonment or ₹20,000 – ₹50,000 fine
  • Repeated: 1 to 3 years in prison
• Bandhua Mukti Morcha case (1997) – Children in the carpet industry
• Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act – 2005

↓

• National Commission for Protection of Child Rights was formed in 2007.
  • Children – 0 to 18 years
  • Legal
• Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO)

Right to freedom of religion: (Articles 25-28)

(Article-25): Freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion

• Taken from Constitution of Ireland Article 44(2).
• There is no absolute restriction
• Applicable to all individuals (citizens and non-citizens)
• Four components of religious freedom:
  • Freedom of conscience
  • Right to believe
  • Right to conduct
  • Right to disseminate
• Three grounds for the ban
  • Public order, Morality, Health
• Opening of Hindu religious institutions to all sections of Hindus
• Relating to economic/financial/political/other secular activities by the State
  • Secular words – Only Preamble + Art. 25 (secular)
• Kirpan was considered a part of Sikhism → Recommendation of Motilal Nehru Committee (1928)
• Hindus also include Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains.
  • Stenslaus vs. M.P. (1997) 
    • Religious freedom does not imply conversion
  • Aruna Roy case (2002)
    • Study of religious education in school education is not against the secular spirit of the Constitution.
  • Indian Young Lawyers Association v. Kerala (2010)
    • Women’s entry into Sabarimala
  • Shayrabano vs Union of India (2017)Triple Talaq (Talaq-e-Biddat) has been banned in the case of.
  • Triple Talaq Law – Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act
  • The Act came into force on September 19, 2018.

Public Order

• Public Administration Words → 19(2), 19(3), 19(4), 25(1), 26, 33(b)
• Public Order is a subject of the State List → Entry 1 of the State List of the Seventh Schedule
• Entry 3 of the Concurrent List → The Union and the States can make preventive detention laws based on public order.

Public Interest

The term ‘public interest’

• Article 22(b) – (Preventive Detention) – Refusal to state facts if the authority deems them to be against the public interest
• Article 31(a), (b), (c) – Freezing of property in the public interest
• Art. 263 – The President establishes an Inter-State Council for the promotion of public interest
• Art. 302 – Parliament may make laws prohibiting or restricting trade, commerce, and business in the public interest.
• Art. 304 – A State Legislature may, by law, impose restrictions on trade, commerce, and business between States on the grounds of public interest, but with the prior approval of the President.
• Seventh Schedule – Entries 52, 54, and 56 of the Union List
  • The Union may make laws in the public interest.

(Article 26): Freedom to manage religious affairs

• Right to establish and maintain religious institutions.
• Right to manage its religious affairs.
• The right to acquire and own property.
• The right to administer property according to law.
• Three grounds for the ban
  • Public order, morality, health
• Institutions established by individuals, not those created by parliamentary acts, are exempt from the right to manage religious affairs. For example, Aligarh Muslim University is not.

(Article 27): Freedom from payment of taxes for the promotion of religion

• No person can be compelled to pay tax for the purpose of propagating any particular religion.
• The state cannot use taxes to promote or promote any one religion. If it does so equally, without discrimination, to religious and secular institutions, it is not a violation.
• Secularism of the state towards all religions is ensured.
• This provision applies only to taxes and not to fees.
• Example:
  • A fee may be charged from pilgrims for convenience.
  • Fees are valid for the administration of religious ceremonies.

(Article-28): Freedom from attending religious instruction

• Article 28 distinguishes between four types of educational institutions:

1. Such institutions are fully maintained by the state.
   • Religious instruction is strictly prohibited.
2. Institutions which are administered by the State but are established under an endowment or trust.
   • Religious education is permitted
3. State recognized institute.
   • Religious education is permitted on a voluntary basis.
4. Institutions that are receiving financial assistance from the state.
   • Religious education is permitted on a voluntary basis.

• No person (or guardian of a minor) can be compelled to participate in religious instruction/worship without consent.
  • Arunarai case (2002)
    • National Curriculum Framework for Value Inculcation in School Education
• Catholic Bishop vs. M.P. (2012)
  • No restrictions on moral education
  • The Gita is essentially based on Indian philosophy and not on Indian religion.

Cultural and educational rights: (Articles 29-30)

• This right is a symbol of ‘unity in diversity’ and multiculturalism.
• not to foreigners
• Protection of minority interests

(Article-29): Protection of the interests of minorities

• Article 29(1)– Every citizen of India has the right to preserve his language, script and culture.
  • Collective Right: Protects the rights of a group
  • This right is available to both the minority and the majority.
• Article 29(2)– Admission to educational institutions
  • There will be no discrimination on the basis of religion, race, caste, language only while admitting to the institutions of the state or institutions funded by the state.
  • Individual Rights: Protects the personal dignity of the citizen irrespective of his or her community.

(Article – 30): Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions → No right to formulate curriculum

• Article 30 is only for minorities, not for the majority.
• Article 30(1) –Religious and linguistic minorities have the right to establish educational institutions of their choice and to administer and manage them.
• Article 30(2) –The government will not discriminate between such institutions while providing assistance.
• RTI-2009 is not applicable to minority educational institutions. 
• The term minority is not defined.
• Article 30(1A) –If the State acquires the property of a minority institution, it must pay reasonable compensation (44th Constitutional Amendment, 1978).
• Minority institutions receiving state aid will not be discriminated against.
• There are three types of minority educational institutions:
  • State aided and recognized institutions – have to follow rules.
  • Recognized only, but without financial support – some freedom in teaching and administration.
  • No aid, no recognised institutions – legally independent but normal laws like labour, tax, contract etc. apply.
• Some important limitations and conditions:
  • The rights under Article 30 are not absolutely absolute:
    • The state may impose regulations to ensure academic excellence.
    • The state can intervene in case of mismanagement or administrative chaos.
      • Md. Rafiq vs Kotai Rahmia Higher Madrasa Management Committee and others- 
        • 06 January 2020
        • Minority institutions can be regulated (by the government) (excellence in education)
        • The rights of minorities under Article 30(1) are neither absolute nor above the law.
      • St. Stephen’s College vs. Delhi University – 
        • A government-aided minority educational institution can reserve 50 per cent of seats for its specific community.

Significant other-

• (Article 350A in Part 17):- It will endeavour to provide adequate facilities for education in the mother tongue at the primary stage of education to children belonging to minority communities.
• (Article 351 in Part 17):- Development of Hindi Language: It will be the duty of the Sangh to promote the spread of Hindi language and develop it so that it can become a medium of expression of contemporary culture of India.
• The word ‘minority’ is not defined in the Constitution.
• This has been determined by Supreme Court decisions and the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992.
• Difference between Articles 29 and 30:
  • Article 29 – Protection of language, script and culture of a section of citizens.
  • Article 30 – Right of religious and linguistic minorities only to establish and administer educational institutions.

Right to Property: (Article 31)

• (Article 31): According to the Constitution of India, the right to acquire property, which was initially a fundamental right under Article 31, was removed from the fundamental right category and made a legal right under Article 300(A) of Chapter 4 of Part XII of the Constitution.

Original Position (when the Constitution came into force)

Point	Description
Article 19(1) (F)	Freedom of every citizen to acquire and hold property.
Article 31	Citizens and non-citizens cannot be deprived of property without law; two conditions apply: (1) The acquisition must be for a public purpose; (2) Adequate compensation must be paid to the owner.

Controversy and Constitutional Amendment

Article 31D

• Saving of laws relating to anti-national activities
• Abolished by the 43rd Amendment in 1977

Right to Property: Made a legal right (44th Amendment, 1978)

Point	Description
Removed from the fundamental rights	Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 were omitted.
New provision	Article 300A added – “No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.”
Rights status	Now it is a constitutional/legal right, not a fundamental right

Characteristics as a legal right

• Amendment possible by ordinary law – no constitutional amendment required.
• Protection against the executive – but the law made by the legislature cannot be challenged.
• Writs will not be available under Article 32 – only High Court can be approached under Article 226.
• There is no guarantee of compensation – the government may pay it if it wants, or it may not.

Two exceptions – where damages are mandatory: (Where compensation is still guaranteed under fundamental rights)

1. Article 30 – Mandatory compensation for acquisition of property of minority educational institutions (Added – 44th Amendment, 1978)
2. Article 31A – If a person cultivates agricultural land on his own and the land is within a limited area, he will be entitled to compensation (Added – 17th Amendment, 1964)

Right to Constitutional Remedies: (Article 32)

• There are remedies for enforcing the rights conferred by Part-3.
• Bhim Rao Ambedkar called Article 32 the “heart and soul of the Constitution.” Dr. Ambedkar described this very article as the Constitution’s ramparts.
• Former Chief Justice Gajendra Gadkar called it the foundation stone of the democratic edifice.
• Daryav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1961) – The duty of the SC is to be its guardian and guarantor.

(Article 32): Guaranteed effective, accessible and summary remedies for the protection of fundamental rights.

• Article 32(1): The right of citizens to directly approach the Supreme Court in case of violation of their fundamental rights.
  • Kochi v. Madras (1959) – right to petition is itself a fundamental right
• Article 32(2) –The Supreme Court has the power to issue five types of writs: habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari to enforce fundamental rights.
• Article 32(3) – Under the Act, Parliament has the power to empower courts other than the SC to entertain writ petitions on violation of fundamental rights.
• Article 32(4): This right cannot be suspended unless the Constitution says otherwise.
  • But suspension possible by the President under Emergency (Art. 359).
• Under Article 32, only fundamental rights are guaranteed and not other rights such as non-fundamental constitutional rights, unconstitutional rights, secular rights etc.
• Supreme Court = Guardian and guarantor of fundamental rights
• The Supreme Court (under Article 32) and the High Courts (under Article 226) can issue writs: habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto.

Habeas Corpus:

• It is derived from the Latin word habeas corpus, which literally means ‘to be presented’/to appear in person.
• The writ of habeas corpus can be issued against both a public authority and a private individual.
• This writ cannot be issued if
  • The detention is lawful.
  • The proceedings must have been in contempt of any legislature or court.
  • Detention by the court.
  • The detention must have taken place outside the jurisdiction of the court.
• Article 22 deals with protection from imprisonment.
  • He has the right to know the reason for his detention.
  • He has been given the right to obtain legal aid for himself as per his wish.
  • The detainee must be produced before a judge within 24 hours. These rights do not apply to residents of enemy countries and criminals arrested under the Preventive Detention Act.

• Kanu Sanyal Case (1974) – It is not necessary for the detained person to be produced before the court in person.
• ADM Jabalpur vs Shashikant Shukla (1975)

Command:

• It literally means ‘We order’. 
• It is a writ issued by a court to public officials.
• Individual + Public Authority + Subordinate Court + Government
• Order to perform/not perform public duties illegally
• A writ of mandamus cannot be issued in—
  • against private individuals or entities,
  • Departments that are non-constitutional
  • When the duty is discretionary, not compulsory,
  • against the enforcement of a contractual obligation,
  • against the President of India or the Governors of the States and
  • The Chief Justice of the High Court who is acting in a judicial capacity.

Prohibition: 

• Its literal meaning is ‘to restrain/forbid’.
• It is issued by a higher court to prevent subordinate courts or tribunals from exercising judicial functions beyond their jurisdiction.
• Writs of prohibition can be issued only against judicial and quasi-judicial authorities.
• Not a writ – It is not available against administrative authorities, legislative bodies, and private individuals or bodies.

Certiorari:

• Its literal meaning is “to certify” or “to inform.”
• A writ of certiorari can only be issued against judicial or quasi-judicial authorities.
• A High Court or the Supreme Court can summon any matter from subordinate courts and obtain information.
• Not a writ – It is not available against legislative bodies or private individuals or bodies.
• Difference
  • Prohibition Certiorari
    • Issued before a judgment is –   Issued after a 
    • rendered or during a             judgment is rendered.
  • hearing.         
    • It prevents judicial error.     –    
    • It corrects an error.

Quo-Warranto

• In literal context it means ‘by someone’s authorization or warrant’.
• By what authority are you holding the public office?
• It is issued by a court to investigate a person’s claim to a public office.
• No writ – Ministerial Office / Private Office
• It can be issued by any such interested person and not by the aggrieved person.

Comparison between Supreme Court and High Court in relation to writ –

• The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction regarding the enforcement of Fundamental Rights is original but not exclusive, that is, it is concurrent with that of the High Court.
• Under Article 32, the Supreme Court can issue writs only to protect fundamental rights, while under Article 226, the Supreme Court can issue writs to protect fundamental rights as well as other constitutional and statutory rights. Thus, the Supreme Court’s writ jurisdiction is less extensive than that of the High Courts.
• The Supreme Court can issue writs against any individual or government, while a High Court can issue writs only against individuals within the state or territory within its jurisdiction, or against another state if the matter pertains to another state. Thus, the Supreme Court’s territorial jurisdiction in issuing writs is much broader.

S.No.	Article 32	Article 226
1	Writ issued by S.C.	Writ issued by H.C.
2	Admission to S.C. is guaranteed by the Constitution.	Not guaranteed by H.C.
3	SC writ/direction not refused	May issue/refuse
4	Writs only for fundamental rightsArticle 140– Parliament can give further supplementary powers to the Supreme Court.	Fundamental Rights + Writ for other purposes also
5	An important and integral part of the infrastructure	Not an integral part of the infrastructure
6	Fundamental right of S.C. but not exclusive	Concurrent with H.C.
7	Article 139– Parliament can also give the Supreme Court the power to issue writs for some other purposes.	Issues writ of injunction to provide interim relief

Locks Standee –

• Only the affected parties should come for justice.
• Process is important, not justice.
• Then the PIL came.

Armed Forces and Fundamental Rights: (Articles 33-34)

• Articles 33 and 34 are exceptions to fundamental rights.
• Articles 33 and 34 are exceptions to Article 32.

(Article-33): Armed Forces and Fundamental Rights

• Empowers Parliament to impose reasonable restrictions on the fundamental rights of the armed forces, paramilitary forces, police forces, intelligence agencies and others.
• Restrictions on Article 32
• According to this –
  • Armed Forces – (Army, Air Force, Navy)
  • Forces maintaining public order → Paramilitary forces (BSF, ITBP, CRPF) + State police
  • Intelligence Bureau (I.B.)
  • telecommunication systems associated with such forces
  • They do not even get constitutional remedy under Article 32.

Subject	Description
Objective	Maintaining discipline and operational effectiveness in the armed forces
Right to legislate	Parliament only (not the State Legislature)
Challenge in court	Such a law cannot be challenged on the ground of violation of fundamental rights.
Who applies to	Armed forces, paramilitary forces, police, intelligence agencies and their technical staff (e.g. barbers, cooks, tailors, etc.)
Major Acts	Army Act 1950, Air Force Act 1950, Police Force Act 1966 etc.
Exclusion from writ rights	Military courts, such as courts martial, are outside the jurisdiction of the writ.

(Article- 34): Martial Law and Fundamental Rights

• Restricts fundamental rights when martial law is imposed anywhere in India.

Martial Law

• Meaning of ‘Martial Law’ – The military administration taking over civil administration.
• When is Martial Law imposed? – By passing an Act passed by Parliament in extraordinary circumstances such as war, unrest, or riots.
• Objective: To maintain law and order. It restores law and order when it breaks down.
• Validity of Law – Laws made by Parliament cannot be challenged on the grounds of violation of fundamental rights.
• It only affects fundamental rights.
• It suspends the government and ordinary legal courts.
• It can only be implemented in certain areas of the country.
• There is no specific provision for this in the Constitution. It is implicit.
• Court’s Decision – The writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended.
• Article 34 (Martial Law) is different from Article 352 (Emergency).

S.No.	Article 34(Martial Law)	Article 352 (Emergency)
1	It affects only fundamental rights.	Fundamental Rights also affect Centre-State relations.
2	It is imposed when law and order is disrupted.	It has three bases – 1. War 2. External aggression 3. Armed rebellion
3	It is applicable only in some specific areas of the country.	It applies to the whole country or any part of it.
4	There is no clear explanation for this in the Constitution.	its is .

AFSPA –

• Armed forces special powers act -1958
• The central government is committed to establishing peace in all the disturbed areas of the country.
• Disturbed area declared by the Centre/State
• In Assam (1985).
• Manipur, Nagaland, Arunachal, Jammu and Kashmir
• Tripura – 2015, Meghalaya – 2018 → Withdrawn.

Preventive Detention:

• The relevant provisions are set out in Article 22, Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Indian Constitution. Under the Preventive Detention Act, a person is arrested before they commit a crime. The purpose of preventive detention is not to punish a person for a crime but to prevent them from committing it.

Effect of some fundamental rights:(Article 35)

(Article 35): Empowers Parliament to make laws for the purpose of giving effect to certain fundamental rights.

Subject	Description
Objective	To give exclusive legislative powers only to the Parliament to give effect to the fundamental rights, so that equality can be ensured in the country.
The state legislature has no power	The State Legislature does not have the power to make laws on the subjects to which Article 35 applies.

1. Parliament (and not the Legislature) shall have the power to make laws with respect to the following matters:
   • Residence restrictions on appointment (Article 16(3))
     • Only the Parliament has the power to determine the residency qualification for employment in any State or Union Territory or local bodies.
   • Empowering other courts with writ power (Article 32(3))
     • Only Parliament can make laws to give the power to issue writs to courts other than the Supreme Court and High Courts.
   • Restrictions on the powers of the armed forces, etc. (Article 33)
     • Parliament has the power to impose reasonable restrictions on the fundamental rights of the armed forces, paramilitary forces, police, intelligence agencies, etc.
   • Indemnity Law during Martial Law (Article 34)
     • Only Parliament can make laws to provide legal protection or compensation to government officials or other persons for acts committed under martial law. 
2. Parliament (but not state legislatures) will have the power to make laws providing for punishments under the Fundamental Rights. This includes the following:
   • For the abolition of untouchability (Article 17)
     • Such as – Prevention of Atrocities Act, Civil Rights Act etc.
   • Prohibition of trafficking and forced labour (Article 23)
     • Such as – Bonded Labour Abolition Act, Human Trafficking Prevention Act.

Note : 

• Parliament is obliged to make laws on these subjects.
• All laws relating to these matters in force at the time the Constitution came into force shall continue to be in force until amended, repealed or replaced by Parliament.
• Article 35 aims to maintain the uniformity and effectiveness of fundamental rights.

Exceptions to Fundamental Rights – Articles 31A, 31B, 31C

Article 31A – Protection of laws relating to acquisition of property

• Objective –Implementation of policies such as land reforms and industrial restructuring by the state.
• Exemption from which right – Exemption from Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 19 (Right to Freedom).
• Categories of methods covered –
  • Acquisition or acquisition of property.
  • Taking over the management of the property.
  • Reorganisation or merger of industrial/commercial corporations.
  • Termination of the rights of shareholders of corporations.
  • Amendment or termination of mining leases.

Special situation –

• If a law is passed with the assent of the President, it may also be exempt from judicial review.
• On acquisition of land used by the farmer within limited limits, compensation will have to be paid as per the market value.

Article 31B – Protection of the validity of laws inserted in the Ninth Schedule

• Objective –Protecting land reform laws from judicial challenge.
• Expansion– This article says that even if the laws included in the Ninth Schedule violate any fundamental right, they will still be considered valid.
• Special things –This article is contrary to Article 13(2).
  • Initially only 13 laws were introduced,
  • now (as of 2016) there are over 282.

Important decisions – I. R. Coelho केस (2007)

• Judicial review of laws enacted after 24 April 1973 (the date of the Kesavananda Bharati case) is possible.
• If a law violates the basic structure of the Constitution, it may be invalid.

Article 31C – Protection of laws giving effect to the Directive Principles

• Objective – To help implement the Directive Principles of Socialism.
• protected rights– Exemption from Articles 14 and 19 is granted.
• Policy elements covered –
  • Originally Article 39(b) – Equal distribution of material resources to all.
  • Article 39(c) – Prevention of capital accumulation.

Important decisions –

• Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973) – The right to judicial review would continue.
• The 42nd Amendment (1976) attempted to extend Article 31C to cover the whole of Part IV, but
• Minerva Mills Case (1980) – This extension was declared unconstitutional.

Rights Outside Part III of the Constitution

• Article 265 (Part XII)- No tax can be levied or collected unless there is a method for doing so.
• Article 300A (Part 13)- A person’s property can be taken away only by law, not otherwise.
• Article 301 (Part 13)- There will be no restrictions on trade, commerce and movement throughout the territory of India.
• Article 326 (Part 15)- Elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies shall be held on the basis of adult franchise by all citizens above 18 years of age.

Amendments to Fundamental Rights

• Although the Fundamental Rights can be amended by Parliament under the Constitutional Amendment Act, as described in Article 368, this process has not remained uncontroversial due to ideological differences between the SC Court and Parliament.
• Can the Parliament amend the Fundamental Rights? The following case is famous in this regard –
• Shankari Prasad case – 1951 – Parliament can amend fundamental rights
  • ↓Same decision 
• Sajjan Singh Case – 1965 – The decision in the Shankari Prasad case was repeated.
• Golakhnath Case – 1967 – 
  • Parliament cannot amend the fundamental rights.
  • Constitutional amendment is a law and the state cannot make any such law.
  • 11-member bench
  • Chief Justice – J. Subbarao
    • ↓Decision overturned
• Keshavananda Bharti Vad – – 
  • The largest Constitution Bench till date (13 members) overturned the Golakhnath decision by a majority.
  • Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights, but it also laid down the doctrine of Basic Structure.
  • Chief Justice –  S.M. Sikri
    • ↓Decision reiterated
• Minerva Millswad – 1980– The decision in the Kesavananda Bharati case was reiterated.
  • ➤ Ambedkar – Part – 3 “The most controversial and

     criticized part”➤ Justice M.C. Chagla — Fundamental Rights  Sentinel

Suspension of Fundamental Rights

• When a national emergency is declared under Article 352, Articles 358 and 359 empower the President to suspend fundamental rights.
• Article 358 – In the event of a national emergency (war, external aggression), the rights granted under Article 19 are automatically suspended under Article 358. Therefore, there is no need for the President to issue a separate order.
• Article 359 provides that when a national emergency is imposed for any reason, the President may suspend one or more fundamental rights through a separate proclamation. However, the rights granted under Articles 20 and 21 cannot be revoked under any circumstances.
  • Articles 20 and 21 cannot be revoked under any circumstances (44th Amendment)

Important issues and elements related to the basic structure of the Constitution

Criticism of fundamental rights

Broad boundaries

• Jaspat Roy Kapoor said: “It should be called ‘Limitations on Fundamental Rights’.”
• Dr. Ambedkar called Part-3 the ‘most controversial and criticized’ part.
• Justice Karim Mohammad Chagla – “The fundamental rights in our Constitution have been provided from the point of view of the soldier.

Lack of social and economic rights

• There are no rights like work, social security, rest, which are there in countries like Russia, China.

Lack of clarity

• Terms like “public order”, “reasonable restrictions”, “public interest” are vague.
• Complex language – difficult to understand for a common person.
• Ivor Jennings: “It’s a lawyer’s paradise.”

Lack of stability

• Parliament is able to amend or remove these (e.g., the right to property was removed).
• The ‘Doctrine of Basic Structure’ protects it through the judiciary.

Adjournment in emergency

• In a national emergency, all rights except Articles 20 and 21 can be suspended.

Expensive judicial remedies

• It is expensive for the common man to go to court.

Preventive Detention

• Article 22 gives arbitrary powers to the state.
• Personal freedom affected.

Lack of vision

• Rights are not based on any particular ideological or philosophical principle – difficulty for courts in interpretation.

Importance of Fundamental Rights

1. The foundation of the democratic system.
2. Ensures the physical and moral security of the individual.
3. Defenders of individual liberty.
4. Establish the rule of law.
5. Protect minorities and vulnerable groups.
6. Strengthens secularism.
7. Keeps control over the government (checks and balances).
8. Lay the foundation of social equality and justice.
9. Maintains personal dignity.
10. Provides opportunities for political participation.

Important facts

• Fundamental Rights available only to citizens and not to foreigners:-
  • Articles 15, 16, 19, 29, 30
• Some fundamental rights are against individuals as well as against the state-
  • Articles 15(2), 17, 23 and 24
• Also available against private individuals –
  • Articles 15, 17, 18, 23, 24

• Applies to any person of any nationality on Indian soil-
  • Articles 14, 20, 21, 25 contain
• These have both negative and positive expressions.
  • Negative – i.e. impose restrictions/restrictions on the power of the state e.g. Art. 14/15/16/20/2
  • Positive – Provision of special privileges for individuals. For example, Articles 21(A), 25, 29(1), 30(1)
• S. Radhakrishnan- Regarding fundamental rights
  • It is a pledge to our people and a pact with the civilized world.
• Javed vs. State of Haryana
  • A law disqualifying persons having two or more children from holding the office of Panch or Sarpanch does not violate the right to “equality before the law” (Article 14) and is a valid law.
  • Abortion rights for married/unmarried women – SC decision September 2022 → Pregnancy 20 to 24 Satyagraha
    • ↓
  • (Earlier it was only for married people)
• Balaji v. State of Mysore – Caste alone is not relevant for determining backward class. Poverty, level of education, occupation, etc. are also important.
• Valsamma Pal v. University of Cochin – A person from an unreserved category cannot avail the benefit of reservation under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) if he/she obtains admission into a reserved category through adoption, marriage, or any other grounds.
• Devasan v. Union of India – The SC declared the carry-forward rule made by the government as unconstitutional.
• The “Nemo devit vis vexari” doctrine – Relates to the doctrine of double standards.
• Om Prakash v. State of U.P. – The ban imposed by the state on selling eggs in the Rishikesh Municipal area was held reasonable in the interest of the common man.
• M.M. Haskat v. Maharashtra – Free legal aid
• Chameli Singh v. U.P. – Right to shelter
• Mrs. Ibal vs. Maharashtra – Right to life includes right to die [Section 309, right to suicide, is unconstitutional]
  • ↓Same 
• P. Ratiram vs Union of India – 
  • ↓Reverse
• Gyan Kaur v. Punjab – The right to life does not include the right to die.
• The Ganga and Yamuna rivers are granted the status of living human beings – Uttarakhand High Court decision of March 20, 2017.
• Disabled Persons Rights Bill – 
• Grades 7 to 16
• Reservation – 3% to 4%
• Total – 2.2% population
• Acid victims are also included in the category

• I.R. Coelho vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) –After the Kesavananda Bharati judgment (1973), the Acts included in Schedule 09 can be subjected to judicial review. 
• The word “socialism” is used in the preamble. On the basis of which article SC has the power to define equal pay for equal work as a fundamental right? 
• Articles 19(1)(d) + 21 → Right to privacy
• Included in the Code on Wages, 2019
  • Minimum Wages Act
  • Bonus Payment Act
  • Equal Remuneration Act
• “Can you show me a single independent country where there is separate suffrage?…The British have gone, but they have left behind mischief.”
• People’s Union for Democratic Rights vs. Union of India – 1982
  • ↑
• Also called Asian Games Affairs, 1982.
  • The SC has included in the definition of ‘force’ not only physical force or legal force but also force arising due to economic conditions.
• Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls (Amendment) Act (1956) → Basically.
  • ↓
  • Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956
• The right to vote is constitutional and statutory, not a fundamental right.