Table of Contents

Constitutional Law – I (Paper III)
#

Unit I: Introduction to Constitution
#

Meaning and Significance of Constitution
#

Basic law of the land.
Everything in the country must be done only in accordance with the Constitution, regardless of whether it is the PM, President, Judiciary, Administration, or citizens.
It is there to ensure fairness, justice, and reason for the people.
It explains how the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary must perform.

Evolution of Modern Constitutions
#

Even before Christ, constitutions were present but not in the present form. It was rudimentary.
Greeks and Romans experimented with democracy. Aristocracy had rights.
Senators were given some rights in the form of a charter. Citizens also had few rights; maybe 10% of the people had the right to vote.
Hammurabi’s Law: The law to be followed in the land.
In India, Manu and Kautilya’s Arthashastra gave some rules.
Plato wrote a book called The Republic, which is an ideal of human civilization. It is ideal because it may not be practical.
Aristotle was the first person to name a book as “Constitution.”
Around 600 BC, philosophers like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Buddha, and Mahavir were contemporaries.
In 1200 AD, King George introduced the Magna Carta, the first charter of rights for the people.
In 1600 AD, the Rights of Man and Citizen emerged as the second charter of rights in France.
In 1789 AD, the USA Constitution came into existence. It was the first proper written Constitution and remains one of the best.
- It contains only 7 Articles and 28 Amendments.
- The Constitution has remained valid for over 250 years due to the Supreme Court of the USA.
- It was the first to provide rights to people through the Bill of Rights, declaring all men equal.
India has the lengthiest Constitution in the world.
The United Kingdom has an unwritten constitution, operating based on traditions and customs.
New Zealand also has an unwritten constitution.
India, being diverse, chose the American model over the British model:
- The American model has a written constitution, equality, and a judiciary that is supreme.
- The British model has parliamentary supremacy with the judiciary subordinate to Parliament.
Indian Constitution incorporates federal features but is a quasi-federal constitution.

Classification of Constitutions
#

Unwritten
- They may not have a statute like the Constitution but rely on a collection of laws, traditions, and customs that guide the country.
- Examples:
  - England
    - Introduced the world to concepts such as protection through police and armed forces, tax collection, welfare for the people, etc.
    - Considered a beacon of democracy.
  - Israel
  - Saudi Arabia (Monarchy)
  - Bahrain (Monarchy)
  - Yemen (Monarchy)
  - Oman (Monarchy)
- Pros and Cons:
  - High power to the Center. Very useful for unitary states. Powers can be given to and taken back from states by the Center.
  - Flexibility: Traditions and customs can be adapted to the people’s wishes without being constrained by a written constitution.
Written
- Examples:
  - India
  - USA
- Pros and Cons:
  - All laws must conform to the constitutional framework. This can make it difficult to enact measures in the best interest of the people as constitutional amendments require a significant effort and consensus.
  - Most federal states have written constitutions as they require a clear division of powers.
Unitary
- Characteristics:
  - Gives all powers to the Central Government.
  - Supremacy of the Parliament.
  - Municipalities have limited powers, which can be taken away by the Parliament.
  - Suitable for nations with uniform language, culture, and traditions.
- Example:
  - United Kingdom / England
- Additional Facts:
  - 166 nations globally have unitary constitutions.
Federal
- Characteristics:
  - Center and States are equal.
  - Written Constitution.
  - Division of powers is clearly listed in the Constitution.
  - Essential for multi-lingual, multi-racial, and multi-cultural countries.

Country	Type of Constitution	Characteristics	Who is Supreme
England	Unwritten/Unitary	High power to the Center; traditions and customs-based; flexible; supremacy of Parliament	Parliament
Israel	Unwritten/Unitary	Lacks a formal written constitution but governed by Basic Laws	Parliament
Saudi Arabia	Unwritten/Monarchy	Governed by religious laws; high central authority; monarchy-led	King/Monarchy
India	Written/Federal	Clearly defined division of powers between Center and States; rigid and difficult to amend	Constitution/Judiciary
USA	Written/Federal	Written constitution with clear division of powers; Federal system with a balance of powers	Constitution
Bahrain	Unwritten/Monarchy	Monarchy-led; high control of central authority; guided by traditional laws	King/Monarchy
Yemen	Unwritten/Monarchy	Governed by central authority and traditions; monarchy	King/Monarchy
Oman	Unwritten/Monarchy	Central control; laws based on monarch’s decisions	King/Monarchy
Australia	Written/Federal	Written constitution; division of powers between federal and state governments; Westminster system	Constitution/Parliament
New Zealand	Unwritten/Unitary	No single written constitution; based on statutes, conventions, and customs	Parliament
Canada	Written/Federal	Federal system with a written constitution; division of powers between federal and provincial governments	Constitution/Parliament

Evolution of Indian Constitution
#

Government of India Act, 1919
#

Submitted by Lord Montagu and Lord Chemsford to the British Parliament, proposing some autonomy for Indians.
Introduced Diarchy:
- Central List: Governor makes laws.
- State List:
  - Transferred Subjects: Provinces could legislate.
  - Reserved Subjects: Governor exclusively legislates.
- Diarchy refers to this dual nature of legislative power.
Limited Voting Rights:
- Only income tax payers or those paying revenue tax above Rs. 3000 could vote (2-3% of the population).
Communal Representation:
- Separate electorates for Muslims, Sikhs, and Hindus.
- Muslims, despite smaller numbers, were awarded significant seats.
- The divide and rule policy emerged, leading to the formation of the Muslim League.
Limitations:
- Indians were elected but their powers were curtailed as Governors and the Governor-General retained veto powers.

Government of India Act, 1935
#

Simon Commission (1927):
- Appointed to review the performance of the Government of India Act, 1919.
- Recommendations led to the Government of India Act, 1935.
- Key Features of Government of India Act, 1935:
  - Creation of Federal Court (now the Supreme Court).
  - Creation of the Reserve Bank of India.
  - Diarchy abolished at the state level but retained at the Center.
  - Introduced principles of Right to Equality (though not explicitly mentioned).
  - Voting Rights extended to about 10% of the population.
- Limitations:
  - Maximum powers still vested with the Governor-General of India.
- Legacy:
  - Influences still visible in the Constitution of India, 2024:
    - President’s Rule.
    - State boundary changes by a simple majority.
    - Significant powers of the Central Government.
Indian National Congress:
- Rejected both the Government of India Act, 1919 and the Government of India Act, 1935.
Continuity in Modern India:
- Elements of the Government of India Act, 1935, persist in contemporary governance:
  - The ability of the Central Government to alter state boundaries or impose President’s Rule with relative ease.

Historical Perspectives
#

Placeholder for future notes.

Framing of the Indian Constitution
#

There were only 2 Constituent Assemblies constituted before this:
- Philadelphia Constituent Assembly
- French Constituent Assembly
There were 385 members, and about 86 people left for Pakistan, leaving 299 members.
The Constituent Assembly included members from princely states, numbering about 70.
87% of the members were part of the Indian National Congress. This has been criticized, as the Constitution of India was perceived to reflect the manifesto of the Indian National Congress.
Gandhi was not a member of the Constituent Assembly. His views, such as making every village a self-sufficient unit like in Japan, were largely ignored.
Some members suggested adopting the Soviet Union’s model advocating communism, but it was rejected as it would have required the elite to relinquish their property.
India adopted a mixed economy, combining capitalism in some areas with socialism in others.

Constituent Assembly Meetings
#

The first meeting was held on 9th December 1946.
- Temporary President: Dr. Satyanand Sinha (oldest member).
- Final President: Dr. Rajendra Prasad (elected on 11th December 1946).

Role of the Drafting Committee of the Constituent Assembly
#

Chairman: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (nominated from Bombay).
The Constitution took 2 years, 11 months, and 18 days to frame.
Time taken by other countries to draft their constitutions:
- America: 4 months.
- Canada: 1 year.
- Australia: 9 years.
- South Africa: 9 months.
Top priority: Ensuring India became a united nation with a strong Center to counter secessionist tendencies.
Fundamental Duties:
- Not justiciable and were added through the 42nd Amendment; they were not part of the original Constitution of India.
The Constitution of India had 395 Articles.
About 75% of its content was derived from the Government of India Act, 1935.

Borrowed Features from Other Countries
#

America:
- Fundamental Rights.
- Judicial Review.
- Impeachment.
Germany:
- Emergency Provisions.
Canada:
- Residuary Powers (powers not in the Central, State, or Concurrent Lists).
Britain:
- Parliamentary form of Government.
- Cabinet System.
- Attorney General of India.
Australia:
- Freedom of Trade and Commerce.
- Concurrent List.
Japan:
- Procedural provisions.
Ireland:
- Directive Principles of State Policy.
- Method of Electing the President.

Adoption and Implementation
#

The Constitution was adopted on 26th November 1949.
It came into force on 26th January 1950, celebrated as Republic Day.

Constituent Assembly Deliberations
#

7885 questions were raised by various members.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar addressed these questions effectively, showcasing his legal acumen and leadership.

Legacy of the Constitution
#

The Constitution of India was meticulously drafted to prevent future governments from acting to the detriment of the people.

Unit II: Salient Features and Fundamental Rights
#

Nature of the Indian Constitution
#

The main question is whether the Constitution of India is a unitary constitution or a federal constitution.

In a unitary constitution, only the Center holds power.
In a federal constitution, both States and the Center have power as they are considered equals.

Features of a Federal Constitution
#

The American Constitution is the mother of all federal constitutions.
Supremacy of the Constitution is a must for a federal constitution. Regardless of whether it is the judiciary, legislature, or executive, the Constitution is always supreme.
A federal state must have a written constitution.
The powers of the Center and the States must be clearly divided and written down. Division of powers is essential between the Center and the States.
The judiciary should be the watchdog of the Constitution. The judiciary should be supreme. Any person should have the right to judicial review.
There should be a rigid form of amendment, to prevent the Center from amending powers excessively.
Federal states have dual citizenship:
- For example, in the USA, a citizen is first a citizen of Texas/New York/Ohio, etc., and then of the USA.
- In contrast, the Constitution of India only provides for Indian citizenship.

Challenges to Being a Federal Constitution
#

Article 3 of the Constitution of India allows Parliament to change the boundaries of states. This goes against the spirit of federalism.
Articles 155 and 156:
- Appointment of Governors by the Center.
- The Governor acts as an agent of the Center and often takes actions against the state government.
- It is a nominated post, and Governors can stop laws passed by representatives of the people.
Emergency Provisions:
- During an emergency, the Center has all the power, leaving the States powerless. This undermines federalism.
President’s Rule:
- The Center can impose President’s Rule in states, allowing almost unlimited power, which goes against federal principles.
Financial Emergency:
- The Center can change the flow of funds between itself and the States, challenging the federal balance.
Concurrent List:
- On subjects in the Concurrent List, both the Center and the States can legislate. However, in case of conflict, the Center’s laws prevail.

As per Professor K.C. Wheare, India has a federal constitution with strong centralizing forces. Therefore, India can be described as a quasi-federal constitution.

America’s Presidential Form of Government
#

Every citizen votes directly for the President.
The President of America can select any person as ministers/secretaries, even if they are not elected representatives.
The President and Secretaries in the USA are not accountable to Congress, which aids in governance.

Salient Features of the Indian Constitution
#

Lengthiest Constitution in the world, with 395 Articles, 22 Parts, and 8 Schedules at the time of its creation. Today, it has approximately 470 Articles. The framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure that future leaders could not take actions detrimental to the people and the nation.
Preamble of the Indian Constitution: Considered the best preamble in the world.
- Is India Secular?

Parliamentary Form of Government
#

Ensures representation of the people through elected members.

Fundamental Rights (Articles 12-32)
#

Right to Equality: Articles 14-18.
Right to Freedom: Article 19.
Right to Religion: Article 28.

Directive Principles
#

Distribution of national wealth equally among citizens.
Workers’ participation in the management of companies.
Uniform Civil Code.
Duty of the State to take care of workers, women, and children.
Special provisions for the advancement of Backward Classes (BCs), Scheduled Castes (SCs), and Scheduled Tribes (STs).

Fundamental Duties
#

The State must develop a scientific temper among citizens.
Citizens must respect the national flag, anthem, and other national symbols.

Emergency Provisions
#

Mentioned under Articles 352, 356, and others.
Fundamental Rights can be suspended during an emergency.

Division of Powers
#

Constitution provides for three lists to divide powers between the Center and States:
- Central List
- State List
- Concurrent List

Amendments
#

Simple Majority: Requires quorum to be met.
Special Majority: Requires 2/3 members present and voting on the day of the decision.

Watchdogs
#

Judiciary: Ensures the rule of law and protects constitutional values.
Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG): Monitors public expenditure and audits government accounts.
Election Commission of India: Ensures free and fair elections.

Preamble to the Indian Constitution
#

Placeholder for notes.

Union and Its Territories
#

Articles 1-4
#

Article 1: India is a Union of States. However, it never explicitly states whether it is unitary or federal.
- In SR Bommai v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that India is a federal state with a strong centralizing tendency. The Union is indestructible and inalienable, meaning no state can secede from the Union.
- In contrast, in the USA, each state has the option to leave the Union, reflecting the true spirit of federalism.
Article 2: Admitting new states into the Union requires a constitutional amendment.
- Examples of states and territories admitted after independence:
  - Sikkim
  - Goa
  - Daman & Diu
  - Puducherry
Article 3: Deals with the creation of new states, alteration of state boundaries, and renaming of states.
- These powers are part of the Union List.
- Examples:
  - Andhra State (1953):
    - Created based on the recommendations of the JPV Commission.
    - Temporary capital: Kurnool.
    - High Court location: Guntur.
  - Andhra Pradesh (1956):
    - Created based on the recommendations of the Fazl Ali Commission.
  - Gujarat: Formed out of Bombay State.
  - Telangana: Created out of Andhra Pradesh in 2014.
Article 4: Whenever laws are made under Articles 2 and 3, corresponding changes must be reflected in Schedule 1 (list of states and union territories) and Schedule 4 (allocation of seats in the Rajya Sabha).

Citizenship
#

Articles 5 to 11
#

Articles 5 to 11 of the Indian Constitution deal with citizenship at the time of the commencement of the Constitution (i.e., January 26, 1950).
These articles establish the criteria for determining who qualifies as a citizen of India during this period.

Article 5: Citizenship at the Commencement of the Constitution
#

Specifies who shall be considered a citizen of India when the Constitution came into force.
Includes three categories:
- Domicile in India: Any person domiciled in India and born in India.
- Parents’ Birthplace: Any person domiciled in India with at least one parent born in India.
- Resident for 5 Years: Any person domiciled in India and residing in India for at least five years before January 26, 1950.

Article 6: Rights of Citizenship of Certain Persons Who Have Migrated to India from Pakistan
#

Covers migrants from Pakistan to India before the Constitution’s commencement.
Two time periods and conditions for eligibility:
- Before July 19, 1948: Migrants who had a domicile in India and resided here since migration were considered citizens.
- On or After July 19, 1948: Migrants needed to register as citizens after six months of residence.

Article 7: Rights of Citizenship of Certain Migrants to Pakistan
#

Pertains to persons who migrated to Pakistan but later returned to India with a permit for resettlement or permanent return.
Such individuals were considered citizens if they intended to settle permanently in India.

Article 8: Rights of Citizenship of Certain Persons of Indian Origin Residing Outside India
#

Grants citizenship to persons of Indian origin residing outside India who:
- Were born in India as per the Government of India Act, 1935.
- Registered with Indian diplomatic or consular offices in their country of residence.

Article 9: Persons Voluntarily Acquiring Citizenship of a Foreign State Not to Be Citizens
#

States that individuals who voluntarily acquire foreign citizenship cease to be citizens of India.

Article 10: Continuance of the Rights of Citizenship
#

Ensures that anyone who becomes a citizen under the provisions of Articles 5 to 9 continues to be a citizen unless Parliament provides otherwise.

Article 11: Parliament to Regulate the Right of Citizenship by Law
#

Grants Parliament the power to make laws related to citizenship, such as the Citizenship Act, 1955, covering acquisition, termination, and renunciation of Indian citizenship.

Definition of State
#

Article 12: Definition of State
#

Defines “State” for the purposes of enforcing fundamental rights.
Includes:
- Central Government and Parliament.
- State Governments and State Legislatures.
- Local bodies such as municipalities.
- Other authorities that derive their powers from the Constitution.
RD Shetty v. International Airport Authority:
- The Supreme Court established criteria to determine whether a body qualifies as “State”:
  - Whether the body is funded by the government.
  - Whether the government controls its rules and regulations.
  - Whether it serves a public purpose.
  - Is or has been connected to any government body.
  - Whether it has a monopoly status.
Private enterprises can also be sued in some cases, as established in:
- Star Enterprises Case
- Asian Village – PUDR Case

General Principles Relating to Fundamental Rights (Art. 13)
#

Article 13 of the Indian Constitution establishes the supremacy of Fundamental Rights and provides for the judicial review of laws to ensure they do not violate Fundamental Rights.
It consists of the following key principles:

Article 13(1): Pre-Constitutional Laws
#

States that all laws existing before the commencement of the Constitution shall be void to the extent that they are inconsistent with Fundamental Rights.
Example: Colonial laws, if inconsistent with Fundamental Rights, are rendered unenforceable.

Article 13(2): Post-Constitutional Laws
#

Prevents the State from enacting laws that infringe Fundamental Rights.
Any law passed after the Constitution’s commencement that violates Fundamental Rights is void ab initio.

Article 13(3): Definition of “Law”
#

Defines “law” to include:
- Ordinances, orders, bye-laws, rules, regulations, notifications, and customs.
- “Law in force” includes laws in effect before the Constitution’s commencement.

Article 13(4): Amendment Excluded from “Law”
#

The 42nd Amendment inserted a provision stating that constitutional amendments are not subject to judicial review.
However, in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court held that amendments could be invalidated if they violate the Basic Structure Doctrine.

Key Doctrines Under Article 13
#

Doctrine of Severability:
- If only a part of a law is inconsistent with Fundamental Rights, the invalid portion can be severed, leaving the rest enforceable.
- Established in AK Gopalan v. State of Madras and reaffirmed in FM Balsar Case.
Doctrine of Eclipse:
- Pre-Constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are not void but remain unenforceable.
- They can be revived if the inconsistency is removed by a constitutional amendment.
Judicial Review:
- Article 13 gives courts the power to review laws for consistency with Fundamental Rights.
- Inspired by the American case of Marbury v. Madison, which introduced the concept of judicial review.

Doctrine of Judicial Review
#

The Doctrine of Judicial Review empowers the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of laws and executive actions.
If a law or action violates the Constitution, courts can declare it invalid or void.

Origin and Basis
#

The doctrine originated in Marbury v. Madison (1803) in the USA. President John Adams lost the election in 1800 and wanted to appoint some persons to various posts of the government. He appointed a few by issuing orders and some others who were to be appointed were not sent orders. Chief Justice Marshall of SCOTUS was also among the persons appointed. The court ruled that appointments which have already been made stand but the appointments yet to be made cannot be made to happen with a writ of mandamus. He enshrined the concept of judicial review.
In India, Article 13 provides the constitutional basis for judicial review.

Key Features of Judicial Review in India
#

Constitutional Supremacy:
- Ensures that no law or executive action can override the Constitution.
Judicial Independence:
- The judiciary, as an independent body, acts as the guardian of the Constitution.
Review of Legislative and Executive Actions:
- Both laws passed by the legislature and actions taken by the executive are subject to judicial scrutiny.
Scope:
- Judicial review applies to:
  - Legislative Acts: To check if they violate Fundamental Rights.
  - Executive Orders: To ensure they comply with legal and constitutional provisions.
Limitations:
- Judicial review does not extend to certain matters, such as those specifically excluded by constitutional amendments or provisions.
- Example: The Ninth Schedule of the Constitution (though subject to review after I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu).

Landmark Cases in India
#

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala:
- Established the Basic Structure Doctrine and held that judicial review applies to constitutional amendments.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India:
- Expanded the scope of judicial review to include procedural fairness.
Minerva Mills v. Union of India:
- Reaffirmed the role of judicial review in preserving the basic structure of the Constitution.

Importance of Judicial Review
#

Ensures the rule of law and prevents arbitrary actions by the legislature or executive.
Protects Fundamental Rights and the basic structure of the Constitution.
Acts as a system of checks and balances, maintaining harmony between the three branches of government.

Doctrine of Judicial Review
#

Article 13: Judicial Review of Laws
#

Establishes the principle of Judicial Review.
Inspired by Marbury v. Madison, where Chief Justice Marshall held that SCOTUS could not issue a writ of mandamus for undelivered appointment orders, creating the rule of judicial review.
Clauses:
1. Pre-Constitutional Laws: Void if inconsistent with fundamental rights.
2. Post-Constitutional Laws: Void if they violate fundamental rights.
3. Defines “Law” and “Law in force.”
4. Amendments: Exempted from judicial review by the 42nd Amendment.
Key Cases:
- AK Gopalan Case: Established the Doctrine of Severability.
- FM Balsar Case: Reaffirmed the Doctrine of Severability.

Doctrine of Eclipse with Respect to Articles 13 and 14
#

The Doctrine of Eclipse applies to pre-constitutional laws that are inconsistent with fundamental rights.
Such laws are not entirely void but remain unenforceable or dormant until the inconsistency is removed through constitutional amendment.

Article 13
#

Article 13(1): Pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are void to the extent of the inconsistency.
Article 13(2): Prevents the State from making laws infringing fundamental rights, rendering such laws void ab initio.

Unit III: Key Fundamental Rights
#

Right to Equality (Art. 14-18)
#

Article 14
#

Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within India.
It prohibits any form of discrimination by the State and mandates that all persons be treated equally in similar circumstances.
Right to Equality includes:
- Equality Before Law: Borrowed from British law, emphasizing the absence of privilege for any individual.
  - Dr. A.E. Dyson wrote extensively about this concept.
- Equal Protection of the Laws: Inspired by the American Constitution, emphasizing fairness in the application of laws.

Key Principles
#

Allows reasonable classification but prohibits unreasonable classification.
- Classification must meet two criteria:
  1. There must be an intelligible differentia separating those included and excluded.
  2. There must be a rational nexus between the classification and the law’s objective.
Any unreasonable act of the State is considered unconstitutional under Article 14.

Doctrine of Eclipse and Article 14
#

Ensures that pre-constitutional laws violating Article 14 become dormant but remain enforceable if the inconsistency is later rectified.

Important Case Laws
#

Joseph Shine v. Union of India:
- Struck down Section 497 IPC (Adultery) as unconstitutional, stating it violated Article 14 by discriminating based on gender.
- Adverse effects: Adultery is now decriminalized, which some argue has led to increased prevalence without consequences.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India:
- Decriminalized Section 377 IPC (homosexuality), ensuring equality and dignity for the LGBTQ+ community.
K.A. Abbas v. Union of India:
- Addressed censorship laws under Article 14, emphasizing the need for fair and non-discriminatory standards.
Nagaraj v. State of AP:
- Dealt with reservation policies and emphasized that equality under Article 14 allows for affirmative action, provided it passes the test of reasonableness.

Section 309 of IPC and Equivalent in BNS
#

Section 309 of the IPC criminalizes attempts to commit suicide, punishable by imprisonment or fine.
This section has been widely criticized as archaic, focusing on penalizing vulnerable individuals rather than addressing the mental health challenges that lead to such acts.
Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS):
- Section 309 IPC has been omitted, signaling a shift in perspective toward treating suicide attempts as a mental health issue.
- Section 224 BNS: Attempts to commit suicide for the purpose of compelling a public servant remain punishable.

Case Analyses Related to Section 309 IPC
#

Maruti Sripati Dubal Case
#

Challenged the constitutionality of Section 309 IPC, arguing it violated Articles 14 and 21.
The court held that Section 309 was unconstitutional, as the right to life under Article 21 includes the right not to live.

P. Rathinam v. Union of India
#

Held Section 309 unconstitutional, interpreting Article 21 as including the right to die.
Later overturned in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, where the court upheld the constitutionality of Section 309 and stated that the right to life does not include the right to die.

Nagabhushan Patnaik Case
#

Questioned whether punishing failed suicide attempts was justifiable under Article 21.
The case highlighted the need to approach the issue with compassion, recognizing mental health challenges.

Doctrine of Waiver
#

In India, fundamental rights cannot be waived.
The framers of the Constitution of India deliberately disallowed waiver, fearing that poor or socially disadvantaged individuals could be coerced into giving up their rights and made bonded labour.
In contrast, the USA allows citizens to waive fundamental rights.

Article 15: Protection Against Discrimination
#

Protection Against Discrimination:
- Nobody shall be discriminated against based on caste, creed, religion, or place of birth.
- Nobody shall be prohibited from admission or usage of public places, such as bathing ghats, public tanks, and restaurants, based on the above criteria.
Special Provisions for Women and Children:
- Free travel for women in buses.
- 33% reservation for women.
- Child Marriage Restraint Act.
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).
- Prohibition of night employment for women under the Industrial Act.
- Right to Education (RTE) for children aged 6-14 years.
Provisions for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes:
- Reservation and protections for BCs, SCs, and STs.
- Laws like Atrocities Against SCs and STs Act and Civil Liberties Act.
- Champakam Dorairajan v. State of Madras:
  - The first case where backward classes received reservation, leading to the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of India.
- Dr. Neelima v. State of AP and Vasanth Kumar Case related to reservation.
103rd Amendment: Introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS).
State of MP v. Niveditha Jain:
- Held that qualifying marks can be reduced to zero for STs if there are no takers.
Sunil Jaitley v. State of Haryana:
- Struck down reservation for students studying in rural areas, as the syllabus was the same.
Mandal Commission Case:
- Established that reservations cannot exceed 50%, though some states exceeded this limit by placing laws in the Ninth Schedule, making them immune from judicial review.

Article 16: Equal Opportunity in Public Employment
#

Guarantees equal opportunity for all citizens of India in employment and public posts.
Prohibits discrimination based on caste, race, religion, sex, place of birth, or residence.
Residence-Based Qualification:
- The State has the power to prescribe residence as a qualification for certain public employment roles.
Special Provisions for Underrepresented Groups:
- Reservation for BCs, SCs, and STs in public employment.
- Reservations in Promotions:
  - Mandal Commission Case (Indra Sawhney v. Union of India): Introduced through the 77th Constitutional Amendment under Article 16(4A).
- Carry Forward Rule:
  - Validated in Devadas Case.
  - 81st Constitutional Amendment introduced Article 16(4B).
Religious Posts:
- Religious posts can only be filled by persons of that religion (e.g., Purohits).
- Administrative roles can be filled by others.
- Recent developments: The Chairman B.R. Naidu of TTD (Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams) proposed changes in employment policies disallowing people of other religions to be employed in any position in TTD.
Reservation for EWS:
- 10% reservation for economically weaker sections in the upper castes.

Mandal Commission Case (Indra Sawhney v. Union of India)
#

The Mandal Commission was appointed during Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s tenure to provide reservations for backward classes.
It put a lot of classes into backward classes and was later challenged in the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India.
Established a 50% ceiling on reservations.

Article 17: Right Against Untouchability
#

Prohibits untouchability in any form.
Declares untouchability a punishable offense under law.

Article 18: Abolition of Titles
#

The State shall not confer any titles except for certain specific cases:
- Prohibited Titles:
  - Padma Shri.
  - Padma Vibhushan.
  - Bharat Ratna.
- Allowed Titles:
  - Gallantry Awards.
  - Academic titles (e.g., Doctor, Professor).
Prohibitions:
- No Indian citizen shall accept titles from foreign governments without the permission of the President.
- No citizen shall accept awards conferred by foreign governments.

103rd Amendment Act, 2019: Introduction of EWS Reservation
#

Overview
#

The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 introduced 10% reservation for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment.
It was a landmark amendment aimed at addressing economic disparities among sections of society that had not been covered under existing reservation policies.

Key Provisions
#

The amendment inserted the following clauses into the Constitution of India:
- Article 15(6): Provides for the reservation of economically weaker sections in educational institutions, including private institutions, except minority educational institutions.
- Article 16(6): Provides for the reservation of economically weaker sections in public employment.

Eligibility Criteria for EWS
#

The central government defined eligibility criteria for EWS as follows:
- Families with an annual income less than ₹8 lakhs.
- Families owning agricultural land less than 5 acres.
- Families owning residential property less than 1,000 square feet.
- Residential plots:
  - In notified municipalities: Less than 100 square yards.
  - In other areas: Less than 200 square yards.

Rationale Behind the Amendment
#

The 103rd Amendment was aimed at:
- Providing representation to economically disadvantaged individuals from unreserved categories.
- Addressing income-based inequality that existing caste-based reservations did not cover.
- Ensuring inclusivity and equal opportunity for economically weaker individuals in higher education and government jobs.

Legal Challenges and Judicial Review
#

The amendment faced several challenges questioning its constitutional validity. The primary arguments against it included:
1. Violation of the 50% Ceiling on Reservations:
  - The Mandal Commission case (Indra Sawhney v. Union of India) had set a 50% limit on reservations. With EWS, total reservations now exceed 50%.
2. Exclusion of SCs, STs, and OBCs:
  - The amendment applies only to unreserved categories, excluding individuals from SC, ST, and OBC categories who are economically weaker.
3. Basic Structure Doctrine:
  - Critics argued that the amendment violates the basic structure doctrine, particularly the principles of equality under Article 14.

Supreme Court’s Verdict
#

In Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 103rd Amendment with a 3:2 majority.
- Majority opinion:
  - Held that economic criteria can be a valid basis for reservation.
  - The 50% ceiling set in the Mandal Commission case is not absolute.
- Dissenting opinion:
  - Argued that excluding SCs, STs, and OBCs from EWS reservations violates the principle of equality under Article 14.

Implications of the Amendment
#

Positive Impact:
- Addresses economic inequality, bringing economically weaker individuals from unreserved categories into the reservation framework.
- Promotes inclusivity in education and public employment.
Criticism:
- Risks further fragmentation of society.
- Raises concerns about breaching the 50% ceiling and its implications for existing reservations.

Freedoms and Restrictions under Article 19
#

Overview
#

Article 19 guarantees six fundamental freedoms to Indian citizens, forming the cornerstone of civil liberties in India.
These freedoms are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions under clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19, balancing individual liberty with public interest.

Fundamental Freedoms under Article 19(1)
#

Freedom of Speech and Expression [Article 19(1)(a)]:
- Citizens have the right to freely express opinions through speech, writing, gestures, or other mediums, including digital platforms.
- Includes the Right to Information (RTI) under the RTI Act, 2005, empowering citizens to seek information from public authorities.
- 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.
  - Incitement to an offense.
Key Case Laws:
- Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950):
  - The Supreme Court struck down a Madras government order banning a publication for endangering public safety, holding that public order restrictions must be narrowly defined. This case introduced “public order” as a valid ground for restricting free speech.
- Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India (1973):
  - Challenged the government’s newsprint policy that restricted the number of pages newspapers could print. The Court held that restricting circulation directly violated the freedom of speech and expression.
- Sakal Papers Ltd. v. Union of India (1962):
  - The Supreme Court invalidated a government-imposed price and page limit for newspapers, emphasizing that economic regulations cannot suppress free speech.
- Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015):
  - Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalized offensive online messages, was struck down for being vague and unconstitutional, reaffirming the importance of free speech in the digital age.
Freedom of Assembly [Article 19(1)(b)]:
- Citizens can assemble peacefully without arms.
- Reasonable Restrictions [Article 19(3)]:
  - Sovereignty and integrity of India.
  - Public order.
Key Case Laws:
- Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar (1962):
  - Struck down a rule prohibiting government employees from participating in peaceful demonstrations, holding that such blanket bans violated Article 19(1)(b).
- Ramlila Maidan Incident Case (2012):
  - The Supreme Court criticized the excessive use of force by police to disrupt a peaceful assembly led by Baba Ramdev, holding that the State must respect the citizens’ right to assemble peacefully.
Freedom of Association [Article 19(1)(c)]:
- Citizens can form associations, unions, or cooperative societies.
- Reasonable Restrictions [Article 19(4)]:
  - Sovereignty and integrity of India.
  - Public order.
  - Morality.
Key Case Laws:
- All India Bank Employees Association v. National Industrial Tribunal (1962):
  - Held that the right to form unions is fundamental, but certain restrictions, like prohibiting strikes by essential service employees, are permissible.
- TK Rangarajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu (2003):
  - The Supreme Court upheld the ban on strikes by government employees, emphasizing that such actions disrupt public welfare and violate public order.
Freedom of Movement [Article 19(1)(d)]:
- Citizens can move freely throughout the territory of India.
- Reasonable Restrictions [Article 19(5)]:
  - Protection of general public interest.
  - Safeguarding Scheduled Tribes’ interests.
Key Case Laws:
- State of MP v. Bharat Singh (1967):
  - Restrictions on movement imposed for public safety were upheld as reasonable.
Freedom of Residence [Article 19(1)(e)]:
- Citizens can reside and settle in any part of India.
- Reasonable Restrictions [Article 19(5)]:
  - Protection of general public interest.
  - Safeguarding Scheduled Tribes’ interests.
Freedom to Practice Any Profession, Trade, or Business [Article 19(1)(g)]:
- Citizens can engage in any lawful profession, trade, or business.
- Reasonable Restrictions [Article 19(6)]:
  - Protection of public interest.
  - Requiring professional or technical qualifications.
  - Allowing State monopolies in certain trades or businesses.
Key Case Laws:
- Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar (1958):
  - A law prohibiting cow slaughter was upheld, considering the religious and public welfare implications.
- Krishna Kumar Narula v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1967):
  - The Supreme Court ruled that selling liquor is a trade, but the State can regulate it in the interest of public health.

Importance of Article 19
#

Article 19 is essential for ensuring individual liberty and forming the foundation of a democratic society.
It balances personal freedoms with the interests of the State and the general public, ensuring that rights are not misused to harm others or disrupt public order.

Article 20
#

Deals with the rights of the accused persons.
There are 3 rights of the accused persons and are given below.

Protection Against Ex-post Facto Law
#

Overview
#

Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India prohibits retrospective criminal laws, ensuring that no person is:
- Convicted for an act that was not a crime at the time it was committed.
- Punished with a harsher penalty than what was applicable at the time of the offense.

Examples
#

If a law passed in 2025 criminalizes vaping, a person who vaped in 2024 cannot be convicted under the new law.
If theft was punishable with a maximum of two years’ imprisonment at the time of the offense but a subsequent law increases it to five years, the enhanced punishment cannot apply to past cases.

Key Points
#

Only Criminal Laws Apply:
- Article 20(1) does not apply to civil laws or procedural changes.
No Creation of New Offenses:
- Actions that were lawful when performed cannot be criminalized retrospectively.

Case Laws
#

Kedar Nath v. State of West Bengal (1954):
- The court emphasized that retrospective criminal laws violate Article 20(1) and upheld that punishment must align with the law at the time of the offense.
Ratan Lal v. State of Punjab (1965):
- A new law increasing the penalty for theft was challenged. The Supreme Court held that the harsher punishment could not apply retrospectively to offenses committed before the amendment.

Guarantee Against Double Jeopardy
#

Overview
#

Article 20(2) protects individuals from being prosecuted and punished twice for the same offense. This principle ensures that the legal process is not misused to harass an individual.

Examples
#

If a person has been tried and convicted for embezzlement, they cannot be tried again for the same act of embezzlement.
If a person is acquitted of theft by a competent court, they cannot be retried for the same theft.

Key Points
#

Applies Only to Prosecution by Courts:
- Departmental inquiries or administrative actions do not fall under this protection.
Requires Previous Conviction or Acquittal:
- The protection is limited to cases where the individual has already been prosecuted and either punished or acquitted.

Case Laws
#

Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953):
- A person whose gold was confiscated by customs authorities argued that subsequent criminal prosecution violated double jeopardy. The court held that confiscation by customs was not a prosecution and did not attract Article 20(2).
Kalawati v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1953):
- The court clarified that Article 20(2) applies only when there is a previous conviction or acquittal by a competent court.
Thomas Dana v. State of Punjab (1959):
- Affirmed that double jeopardy applies only to criminal proceedings and does not bar penalties under civil law.

Privilege Against Self-Incrimination
#

Overview
#

Article 20(3) provides that no person accused of an offense shall be compelled to be a witness against themselves.
This ensures that individuals are not forced to provide evidence that may incriminate them, maintaining the principle of fairness in criminal trials.

Examples
#

An accused person cannot be forced to confess to a crime during interrogation.
A person cannot be compelled to produce documents that directly incriminate them.

Key Points
#

Applies Only to Accused Individuals:
- The protection is available only to those formally accused of a crime.
Limited to Testimonial Evidence:
- Physical evidence such as fingerprints, handwriting samples, or blood samples is not covered under this privilege.
Does Not Apply to Voluntary Statements:
- Any self-incriminating evidence provided voluntarily is admissible in court.

Case Laws
#

M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954):
- The court held that seizure of documents during a search does not violate Article 20(3), as it does not involve testimonial compulsion.
Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978):
- The Supreme Court ruled that an accused person has the right to remain silent during questioning and cannot be compelled to answer questions that may incriminate them.
Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010):
- The court held that involuntary narco-analysis, polygraph tests, and brain mapping violate Article 20(3), as they involve testimonial compulsion and breach the right to remain silent.

Types of Offences
#

There are two types of offences

Summons Case (less than 2y imprisonment) - cannot arrest without warrant. This is a non-cognisable offence and permission must be taken from the magistrate.
Cognisable offences - murder, rape etc. Can arrest without warrant.

Article 21: Protection of Life and Personal Liberty
#

Text of Article 21
#

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.”
Applies to both citizens and non-citizens of India.

Origins and Development of Article 21
#

Historical Origins:
- The phrase “life and liberty” was derived from the US Constitution, while the concept of “procedure established by law” was taken from the Japanese Constitution.
- Unlike the US “due process of law”, the framers of the Indian Constitution opted for “procedure established by law” to avoid judicial activism.
Initial Narrow Interpretation:
- In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), the Supreme Court upheld the Preventive Detention Act and interpreted Article 21 narrowly. The court ruled that as long as the procedure was enacted by a valid law, it could not be challenged, even if it was unjust or unreasonable.
- Fundamental rights were viewed as mutually exclusive and not interconnected.
Shift to Broader Interpretation:
- In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court overruled the restrictive interpretation in Gopalan. It held that the procedure under Article 21 must be fair, just, and reasonable, introducing the concept of substantive due process.
- Article 21 was linked to other fundamental rights, making them mutually inclusive.
Expansion of Article 21’s Scope:
- Over the years, Article 21 has grown to encompass a wide range of rights integral to life and liberty. The Supreme Court’s proactive role has transformed it into the most expansive article in the Indian Constitution.

Key Rights Under Article 21
#

Right to Free Legal Aid, Fair Trial, and Speedy Trial
#

Every individual is entitled to legal representation, a fair hearing, and a speedy trial.
Important Case Laws:
- Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979):
  - Highlighted delays in trials and emphasized the right to speedy justice.
- Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra (1978):
  - Held that the state is obligated to provide free legal aid to accused persons who cannot afford it.

Right to Livelihood
#

Right to livelihood is recognized as an integral part of the right to life.
Important Case Laws:
- Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985):
  - Pavement dwellers could not be evicted without providing alternative means of livelihood, as their right to livelihood was protected under Article 21.
- D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. (1993):
  - Termination of employment without following proper procedure violated the right to livelihood.

Right to Privacy
#

Privacy is now a fundamental right under Article 21.
Important Case Laws:
- K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017):
  - Recognized privacy as intrinsic to the right to life and personal liberty, forming the basis for autonomy over personal decisions.
- Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1975):
  - Held that privacy is not absolute and can be restricted for compelling public interest.

Right Against Sexual Harassment
#

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997):
- Laid down the Vishaka Guidelines for preventing sexual harassment in workplaces, ensuring a safe and dignified working environment for women.

Right to Compensation
#

Article 21 includes the right to compensation for harm caused by the state’s negligence.
Important Case Laws:
- Challa Ramkonda Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1989):
  - Compensation was awarded for the custodial death of a prisoner due to state negligence.
- Saheli v. Commissioner of Police (1990):
  - The court directed compensation to a woman whose son was killed due to police brutality.

Right to Pollution-Free Environment
#

Recognized as an integral part of the right to life.
Important Case Laws:
- Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991):
  - Held that pollution of water resources violated Article 21, as clean drinking water is essential to life.
- MC Mehta v. Union of India (Kanpur Tanneries Case) (1987):
  - The Supreme Court directed the closure of polluting tanneries to protect the environment and public health.

Right to Live with Human Dignity
#

Living with dignity is a core component of Article 21.
Important Case Laws:
- Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981):
  - The court held that the right to live includes the right to live with dignity, encompassing adequate nutrition, clothing, and shelter.
- Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984):
  - Addressed the plight of bonded laborers and directed the government to ensure their release and rehabilitation.

Right to Medical Assistance
#

Every individual has the right to emergency medical care.
Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989):
- The Supreme Court ruled that medical professionals are duty-bound to provide immediate care to accident victims.

Rehabilitation of Bonded Laborers
#

Article 21 mandates the release and rehabilitation of bonded laborers.
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984):
- Directed proactive steps for the welfare of bonded laborers.

Right to Education
#

The Right to Education was established as a fundamental right under Article 21.
Important Case Laws:
- Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993):
  - Recognized education as an essential part of life under Article 21.
- Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992):
  - Held that charging capitation fees in educational institutions violated the right to education.

Development of Article 21 Over the Years
#

Initial Phase:
- Narrow interpretation in A.K. Gopalan allowed procedural laws to override fundamental rights.
Post-Maneka Gandhi Era:
- Introduced the principles of fairness, justice, and reasonableness, creating a foundation for substantive due process.
Modern Interpretation:
- Expanded Article 21 to include rights such as privacy, dignity, and environmental protection, transforming it into the broadest and most significant article in the Constitution.

Right to Education (RTE)
#

Overview
#

The Right to Education (RTE) is a fundamental right under Article 21A, inserted by the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002.
It mandates free and compulsory education for all children aged 6 to 14 years as a state obligation.
This right ensures that every child receives quality education irrespective of their economic or social background, forming a critical component of Article 21’s Right to Life.

Key Features
#

Free and Compulsory Education:
- The State must provide free education in government schools and ensure no child is denied access due to financial constraints.
- Private schools must reserve 25% of their seats for disadvantaged groups without charging fees.
Prohibition of Discrimination:
- No child can be denied admission based on caste, religion, gender, or economic status.
Regulation of Private Schools:
- Prohibits capitation fees and ensures all schools meet minimum infrastructure and teacher standards.

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009
#

The RTE Act operationalizes Article 21A and lays down the following:
- Right to free elementary education for all children aged 6 to 14 years.
- Special provisions for disadvantaged groups like SCs, STs, OBCs, and children with disabilities.
- Ensures that no child is subjected to physical punishment, mental harassment, or discrimination.
- Mandates that every neighborhood has a school within a specified distance.
- Establishes grievance redressal mechanisms for non-compliance.

Case Laws
#

Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992):
- The Supreme Court held that the right to education is a fundamental right under Article 21 and that capitation fees violate this right.
Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993):
- Clarified that the State has an obligation to provide free education to children until they complete the age of 14 years.
Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India (2012):
- Upheld the constitutional validity of the RTE Act, mandating private unaided schools to reserve 25% of seats for disadvantaged groups.

Challenges and Criticisms
#

Infrastructure Gaps:
- Many government schools still lack proper infrastructure and qualified teachers.
Quality of Education:
- Ensuring quality education in under-resourced areas remains a challenge.
Compliance by Private Schools:
- Resistance from private schools in implementing the 25% reservation under the RTE Act.

Protection Against Arrest and Preventive Detention
#

Article 22: Rights of Arrested Persons
#

Article 22 provides procedural safeguards for individuals arrested under ordinary laws and preventive detention laws.
It distinguishes between:
1. Arrest under Ordinary Laws (Article 22(1) and 22(2)).
2. Preventive Detention (Article 22(3) to 22(7)).

Rights of Arrested Persons
#

Right to Know the Grounds of Arrest:
- The individual must be informed of the reasons for their arrest at the time of arrest.
Right to Legal Representation:
- The arrested person has the right to consult and be represented by a lawyer of their choice.
Right to be Presented Before a Magistrate:
- The arrested person must be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, excluding travel time.
Right Against Arbitrary Detention:
- Detention beyond 24 hours requires authorization from a magistrate.

Preventive Detention and Safeguards
#

Preventive Detention:
- Detention to prevent a person from committing an offense, even without trial.
- Permissible under Article 22 but limited by safeguards.
Safeguards:
- Detention cannot exceed 3 months unless approved by an Advisory Board chaired by a High Court judge.
- The detainee must be informed of the grounds for detention unless disclosure is against public interest.

Current Preventive Detention Laws in India (also known as Black Laws)
#

National Security Act, 1980 (NSA):
- Allows preventive detention for up to 12 months to protect national security and public order.
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA):
- Provides for preventive detention and prosecution of individuals engaging in terrorist activities or unlawful associations.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA):
- Addresses economic offenses and allows temporary detention during investigations.
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA):
- Prevents smuggling and regulates foreign exchange.
Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978:
- Applicable in Jammu & Kashmir, allowing detention for up to 2 years without trial for acts prejudicial to the security of the State.

Key Case Laws
#

A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950):
- The court upheld the Preventive Detention Act, ruling that the “procedure established by law” under Article 21 suffices for detention.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978):
- Expanded the scope of Articles 21 and 22, emphasizing that detention laws must be fair, just, and reasonable.
Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1994):
- Laid down guidelines for lawful arrests to prevent arbitrary detentions.
P. Ramulu v. M. Madhava Reddy (1997):
- Police Commissioner of Hyderabad has unlawfully detained Madhava Reddy, a police inspector under PD Act. Madhav Reddy sued Ramulu in his personal capacity for defamation as he had used PD Act which was not pertinent.
- Declared the misuse of preventive detention laws illegal, emphasizing that such laws must not be used vindictively.

Criticism of Preventive Detention
#

Potential for Abuse:
- Preventive detention laws are often criticized for being misused against political opponents or dissenters.
Violation of Fundamental Rights:
- Critics argue that such laws violate the principles of natural justice by denying individuals a trial before incarceration.

Unit IV: Rights and Limitations
#

Rights Against Exploitation
#

Article 23: Prohibition of Traffic in Human Beings and Forced Labour
#

Overview

Article 23 prohibits:
- Bonded Labour: Forcing individuals to work without fair wages under bondage.
- Forced Labour: Making someone work against their will, irrespective of payment.
- Flesh Trade: Prohibition of human trafficking for prostitution or other exploitative purposes.
- Slavery: Total ban on practices akin to slavery.
- Forced Removal of Organs: Prohibition of coercive removal of organs for commercial purposes.

Key Provisions

Prohibition Against Forced Labour:
- Any form of forced labour is unconstitutional, regardless of whether compensation is provided.
- Exception: Compulsory services for public purposes (e.g., military service or social service) are permitted, provided they are applied without discrimination.
Abolition of Human Trafficking:
- Trafficking of persons for sex work, bonded labour, or other exploitative purposes is strictly banned.

Key Case Laws

People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982):
- Known as the Asiad Workers Case, this PIL highlighted the exploitation of workers during the construction of the Asiad Games infrastructure.
- The court expanded the definition of “forced labour” to include working for wages below the statutory minimum wage.
- Women were made to work in the night in violation of the Factories Act. Child labour was used.
- Held that Article 23 aims to eliminate all forms of exploitation.
Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan (1983):
- Held that paying wages below the minimum wage for work under famine relief schemes violated Article 23.
Neerja Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1984):
- Directed the state to take proactive steps for the rehabilitation of bonded labourers after their release.

Article 24: Prohibition of Employment of Children in Hazardous Industries
#

Overview

Article 24 prohibits the employment of children below 14 years in factories, mines, or other hazardous industries.
Aims to safeguard children from exploitation and ensure their right to education and development.

Key Provisions

Ban on Employment in Hazardous Occupations:
- No child under the age of 14 can work in factories, mines, or other occupations deemed hazardous.
Regulation of Child Labour:
- While non-hazardous work is not entirely prohibited, it is regulated under various laws to ensure the child’s well-being and education.

Statutory Framework

Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986:
- Prohibited employment of children in specific occupations.
- Allowed regulated work in non-hazardous industries.
Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 2016:
- Completely prohibited child labour below 14 years.
- Adolescents (14–18 years) are allowed to work in non-hazardous industries.
Factories Act, 1948:
- Prohibits the employment of children below 14 years in factories.
Mines Act, 1952:
- Bans the employment of children under 18 in mines.

Key Case Laws

People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982):
- Highlighted the employment of children in violation of statutory provisions and emphasized strict enforcement of child labour laws.
M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996):
- Directed measures for rehabilitation of children employed in hazardous industries and emphasized ensuring their education.
Sarala Hydroelectric Project v. Union of India (2003):
- Prohibited the employment of children in dangerous occupations, holding that it violated both constitutional and statutory protections.

Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-28)
#

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

Article 25 guarantees the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion to all persons.
This freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interests of:
- Public order, morality, and health.
- Other provisions of Part III of the Constitution.
Key Points:
- Propagation does not mean the right to forcibly convert others. Incentives for conversion are considered forceful and are not permitted.
- The government has the authority to regulate secular activities related to religious practices.
Case Laws:
- Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977):
  - The Supreme Court upheld laws prohibiting forced conversions. Offering incentives to convert was deemed equivalent to coercion, violating Article 25.
- Javed v. State of Haryana (2003):
  - A two-child norm for municipal elections was upheld. The court held that such regulations do not violate religious freedom.
- Ashutosh Lahiri v. State of West Bengal (1995):
  - Prohibited cow slaughter during Bakrid, holding it was not an essential religious practice and upheld restrictions for public order.
- Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986):
  - Known as the National Anthem case. The Supreme Court ruled that students belonging to Jehovah’s Witnesses could not be compelled to sing the national anthem as it conflicted with their religious beliefs.

Article 26: Freedom to Manage Religious Affairs
#

Every religious denomination or its sections has the right to:
- Establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes.
- Manage their own affairs in matters of religion.
- Own and acquire movable and immovable property.
- Administer such property in accordance with the law.
Reasonable Restrictions:
- Subject to public order, morality, and health.
Case Laws:
- A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1996):
  - Abolition of hereditary positions in temples was upheld. The court held that administration of religious institutions is a secular activity and can be regulated by the state.
- N. Aditya v. Travancore Devasthanam Board (2012):
  - Abolition of hereditary positions in temple is valid.
- Ismail Farooqi v. Union of India (1994):
  - Held that religious places being used unlawfully, such as by terrorists for shelter, can be regulated by the state in the interest of public order.

Article 27: Freedom from Taxation for Promotion of Religion
#

No person can be compelled to pay taxes specifically for the promotion or maintenance of any religion or religious denomination.
This ensures the secular character of the state.
Case Laws:
- Dara Singh Case (2007):
  - The court reiterated that any form of state support for religious activities or conversions is prohibited under Article 27.

Article 28: Freedom from Religious Instruction in State-Funded Institutions
#

Religious instruction is prohibited in:
- Educational institutions wholly maintained by the state.
Permitted in institutions managed by religious denominations, provided attendance is voluntary.
Case Laws:
- Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association (2000):
  - The Supreme Court ruled that loudspeakers causing public nuisance in the name of religious practices could be restricted.
- Anand Marg v. State of West Bengal (2004):
  - Restrictions on carrying out the Tandav dance in public places with tridents were upheld for public safety.
- Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018):
  - Known as the Sabarimala case, the court held that the exclusion of women of menstruating age from the temple violated Articles 14 and 25, emphasizing gender equality.
- M. Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors (2019):
  - The Ayodhya verdict awarded the disputed site to Ram Lalla, stating that the right to worship does not extend to every location and must be balanced with constitutional principles.

Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29-30)
#

Article 29: Protection of Interests of Minorities
#

Overview

Article 29 ensures that every section of citizens in India has the right to preserve their distinct culture, language, or script, regardless of whether they belong to a minority or majority group.

Key Provisions

Right to Conserve Culture, Language, and Script:
- Any section of citizens residing in India can take steps to preserve their culture, language, or script.
- This right is available to all citizens, not just minorities.
Non-Discrimination in Admission to Educational Institutions:
- No citizen can be denied admission to any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving State funds solely on grounds of religion, race, caste, language, or any combination of these.

Examples

A linguistic group in Telangana working to preserve Telugu literature can invoke Article 29.
A State-funded educational institution cannot deny admission to students based on caste or religion.

Key Case Laws

The State of Bombay v. Bombay Education Society (1954):
- The Bombay Education Society refused admission to students who were not Anglo-Indians in a school primarily established for Anglo-Indians.
- The Supreme Court held that the denial of admission based on race or religion violated Article 29(2).
P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005):
- Clarified that while Article 29 applies to all citizens, it must not be interpreted to dilute the rights of minorities under Article 30.

Article 30: Right of Minorities to Establish and Administer Educational Institutions
#

Overview

Article 30 provides minorities, based on religion or language, the right to establish and manage educational institutions to preserve their culture and promote education.

Key Provisions

Minorities’ Right to Establish Educational Institutions:
- Religious and linguistic minorities can set up and manage their own institutions to protect and propagate their culture, language, and education.
State’s Non-Discriminatory Aid:
- The State cannot discriminate against minority-managed institutions while granting aid, provided the institution fulfills the conditions for aid.

Examples

Muslims establishing schools to teach religious principles alongside general education under Article 30.
Telugu-speaking communities in Maharashtra setting up Telugu-medium schools to preserve their linguistic identity.

Key Case Laws

St. Xavier’s College v. State of Gujarat (1974):
- The court held that minority institutions have the absolute right to manage their educational institutions but must adhere to reasonable regulations imposed by the State.
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002):
- The Supreme Court clarified the extent of the rights of minorities under Article 30, holding that minorities have the right to set up institutions of their choice but are subject to regulatory measures to ensure educational standards.
Re Kerala Education Bill (1957):
- The Supreme Court emphasized that the State must not discriminate in granting aid to educational institutions solely because they are minority-run.
Azeez Basha v. Union of India (1968):
- Aligarh Muslim University was not considered a minority institution as it was established by an Act of Parliament and not directly by the Muslim minority community.

Interrelation Between Articles 29 and 30
#

Article 29 focuses on the rights of all citizens to conserve their culture, while Article 30 is specific to minorities for establishing and managing institutions.
Both provisions safeguard the pluralistic nature of Indian society, ensuring cultural diversity and minority rights.

Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32)
#

Article 32 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to constitutional remedies, enabling individuals to approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. This Article is considered the “heart and soul” of the Constitution, as described by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.

Key Provisions
#

Enforcement of Fundamental Rights: Individuals can directly approach the Supreme Court when their fundamental rights are violated.
Types of Writs: The Supreme Court is empowered to issue writs for the enforcement of rights, including:
- Habeas Corpus
- Mandamus
- Quo Warranto
- Certiorari
- Prohibition

Writs Under Article 32
#

Habeas Corpus (“Produce the Body”)
- Purpose: To prevent unlawful detention by ensuring that a detained person is presented before the court.
- Application: Can be issued against police, private individuals, or any authority unlawfully detaining a person.
- Key Cases:
  - Leelavati Mehra v. Union of India:
    - A mother petitioned for a habeas corpus writ after her son was allegedly detained illegally. The court ordered his release, emphasizing the importance of liberty.
  - T.V. Eachara Warrier v. Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs (Rajan Case):
    - A writ was issued for the production of Rajan, a student activist allegedly detained and tortured during the Emergency. The case highlighted the misuse of state power.
Mandamus (“We Command”)
- Purpose: To compel a public authority to perform its legal duty or to refrain from performing an unauthorized act.
- Application: Directed to public officials, government bodies, or corporations.
- Example: Forcing a municipality to provide basic amenities to citizens.
Quo Warranto (“By What Authority”)
- Purpose: To challenge a person’s right to hold a public office that they are not entitled to.
- Application: Ensures that public offices are occupied lawfully.
- Example: A petition questioning the appointment of a government official without proper qualifications.
Certiorari (“To Be Certified”)
- Purpose: To quash the decision of a lower court or tribunal that acted without jurisdiction or violated natural justice.
- Application: Used when an inferior court passes a judgment it is not empowered to deliver.
- Example: Striking down orders of a labor tribunal acting beyond its powers.
Prohibition (“To Forbid”)
- Purpose: To prevent lower courts or quasi-judicial bodies from exceeding their jurisdiction.
- Application: Stops proceedings in an inferior court before they result in an invalid order.
- Example: Preventing a lower court from hearing a case outside its competence.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
#

Overview:
- Allows individuals or groups to file cases on behalf of those whose rights have been violated but cannot approach the courts themselves.
- Expanded the scope of Article 32 to include cases affecting the public interest.
Key Cases:
- Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra:
  - A PIL filed on behalf of female prisoners who were subjected to custodial violence. This was a landmark case in which the court issued guidelines for safeguarding their rights.
- Charles Sobhraj v. Union of India:
  - The infamous criminal filed a petition for better prison conditions. The court held that even prisoners are entitled to fundamental rights under Article 21.

Significance of Article 32
#

Safeguard of Fundamental Rights:
- Ensures that no authority can violate fundamental rights without judicial intervention.
Judicial Oversight:
- Empowers courts to oversee the actions of both the executive and legislative branches.
PIL Revolution:
- Instrumental in expanding access to justice for marginalized groups.

Limitations
#

Cannot be invoked for non-fundamental rights.
The doctrine of alternate remedies may require petitioners to first approach the High Court under Article 226.

Article 32, with its writs and PIL provisions, remains a cornerstone of Indian democracy, ensuring that fundamental rights are not mere theoretical guarantees but enforceable entitlements.

Limitations on Fundamental Rights
#

The Constitution of India permits certain limitations on fundamental rights to ensure that the objectives of state policy and public welfare are achieved. These limitations are primarily laid down under Articles 31-A, 31-B, 31-C, 335, 358, and 359, which allow for specific exemptions and overriding powers during particular situations like emergencies and socio-economic reforms.

Article 31-A: Saving of Laws Providing for Acquisition of Estates, etc.
#

Protects laws related to:
1. Land reforms, such as abolishing zamindari.
2. Acquisition of estates and redistribution of land for agrarian reform.
3. Modification or extinguishment of rights in estates or agricultural lands.
Key Provisions:
- Laws under Article 31-A are immune from being challenged on the grounds of violating fundamental rights, especially Articles 14 (equality) and 19 (freedom).
Case Law:
- Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951):
  - Facts: The validity of the 1st Amendment, which introduced Article 31-A to implement land reforms, was challenged.
  - Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the amendment, ruling that Parliament has the power to amend fundamental rights for socio-economic reforms.
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973):
  - Upheld the basic structure doctrine but allowed socio-economic reforms under Article 31-A as a valid limitation on fundamental rights.

Article 31-B: Validation of Certain Acts and Regulations
#

Protects laws included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution from being challenged for violating fundamental rights.
Purpose: To shield laws intended for socio-economic reforms from judicial review.
Key Provisions:
- Laws listed in the Ninth Schedule are deemed valid even if they infringe fundamental rights.
Case Law:
- I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007):
  - Facts: Laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after the Kesavananda Bharati judgment were challenged.
  - Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that laws violating the basic structure of the Constitution, even if included in the Ninth Schedule, are subject to judicial review.

Article 31-C: Laws Giving Effect to Directive Principles
#

Protects laws intended to implement Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) specified under Articles 39(b) and 39(c), which emphasize equitable distribution of resources and preventing concentration of wealth.
Key Provisions:
- Such laws cannot be challenged for violating fundamental rights under Articles 14 or 19.
Case Law:
- State of Tamil Nadu v. Abu Kavur Bai (1984):
  - Upheld state laws promoting agrarian reforms under Article 31-C.
- Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980):
  - Limited the scope of Article 31-C, stating that laws implementing DPSPs must not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.

Article 335: Claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
#

Ensures that the claims of SCs and STs are taken into consideration when making appointments to public services, consistent with administrative efficiency.
Key Provisions:
- While ensuring representation for SCs and STs, it mandates that the overall efficiency of administration must not be compromised.
Case Law:
- Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992):
  - Affirmed that reservations for backward classes, including SCs and STs, must adhere to the efficiency clause under Article 335.
- M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006):
  - Held that reservations in promotions for SCs and STs must comply with the efficiency principle and satisfy quantifiable data requirements.

Article 358: Suspension of Fundamental Rights During National Emergency
#

Applies during a national emergency declared under Article 352.
Key Provisions:
- Automatically suspends rights under Article 19 for the duration of the emergency.
- Any executive or legislative action taken during this period cannot be challenged for violating Article 19.
Case Law:
- Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab (1964):
  - Clarified the scope of Article 358, stating that the suspension applies only to Article 19 rights and only for actions directly linked to the emergency.

Article 359: Suspension of Enforcement of Fundamental Rights
#

Empowers the President to suspend the right to move courts for the enforcement of specific fundamental rights during a national emergency.
Key Provisions:
- The suspension order applies only to rights mentioned in the Presidential proclamation.
- Does not allow rights under Articles 20 and 21 to be suspended, as upheld in the 44th Amendment Act, 1978.
Case Law:
- ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976):
  - Known as the Habeas Corpus case. The Supreme Court controversially upheld the suspension of fundamental rights during the Emergency, ruling that citizens could not challenge unlawful detention.
- Post-44th Amendment:
  - The decision was effectively overturned, affirming that Articles 20 and 21 remain enforceable even during an emergency.

Conclusion
#

Articles 31-A, 31-B, 31-C, 335, 358, and 359 embody specific limitations on fundamental rights to achieve broader constitutional objectives, such as socio-economic reform, equitable representation, and emergency governance. These provisions balance individual rights with the needs of the state, ensuring that governance and public welfare are not unduly hampered by rigid enforcement of rights.

Unit V: Directive Principles and Duties
#

Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP)
#

Significance
#

Enshrined in Part IV of the Constitution, the DPSPs aim to create a welfare state.
They provide guidelines for the state to achieve socio-economic justice and equitable development.
They act as a bridge between Fundamental Rights (civil and political rights) and Directive Principles (socio-economic rights).
Ensure national objectives like reducing inequality, empowering weaker sections, and promoting health and education.

Nature
#

Non-Justiciable: DPSPs cannot be enforced in a court of law (Article 37).
Dynamic Framework: While non-justiciable, they are fundamental to governance and guide the state in making laws.
Inspired by the Irish Constitution, borrowing heavily from Directive Principles of Social Policy.
Provide moral authority to hold the government accountable for welfare and reform policies.

Classification
#

Though there is no official classification, based on the nature of the principles, they have been broadly put into 3 buckets including Socialist, Gandhian, Liberal

Socialistic Principles: Focus on socio-economic justice.
- Article 38: Social order based on justice.
- Article 39: Equal pay, prevention of wealth concentration, livelihood.
- Article 41: Right to work, education, and public assistance.
- Article 42: Just conditions of work, maternity benefits.
Gandhian Principles: Inspired by Gandhi’s vision.
- Article 40: Village panchayats.
- Article 46: Upliftment of SCs, STs, and weaker sections.
- Article 48: Agriculture and animal husbandry.
Liberal Principles: Focus on individual and economic rights.
- Article 44: Uniform Civil Code.
- Article 45: Early childhood care.
- Article 48A: Environmental protection.

Application and Judicial Interpretation
#

DPSPs are often balanced with Fundamental Rights to achieve harmony.
Judicial Interpretation:
- State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951): Fundamental Rights prevail over DPSPs in case of conflict.
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Held that both DPSPs and Fundamental Rights are part of the basic structure.
- Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): Reaffirmed the balance between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs.

Article 36: Definition of State
#

Defines “state” as per Article 12, encompassing:
- The government and Parliament of India.
- State governments and legislatures.
- Local and other authorities within Indian territory or under its control.

Article 37: Non-justiciable Nature of DPSPs
#

States that DPSPs are not enforceable by courts but are fundamental to the governance of the country.

Article 38: State to Secure a Just Social Order
#

The state must:
- Promote social, economic, and political justice.
- Reduce income and status inequalities among individuals and groups.

Article 39: Principles of Policy for Welfare
#

The state must ensure:

Adequate means of livelihood for all citizens.
Material resources are distributed to serve the common good.
Prevention of concentration of wealth and means of production in the hands of a few.
Equal pay for equal work for men and women.
Protection of the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the protection of children.
Children and youth are safeguarded against exploitation and given opportunities for healthy development.

Article 39A: Equal Justice and Free Legal Aid
#

Mandates the state to provide equal justice and ensure free legal aid, particularly for weaker sections of society.

Article 40: Organisation of Village Panchayats
#

The state must organize village panchayats and endow them with powers and authority to function as units of self-governance.
73rd and 74th Amendments granted constitutional status to Panchayati Raj institutions and urban local bodies.

Article 41: Right to Work, Education, and Public Assistance
#

The state must ensure:
- Right to work.
- Right to education.
- Public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness, and disability.

Article 42: Provisions for Just and Humane Conditions
#

Ensures just and humane conditions of work and provides for maternity relief.

Article 43: Living Wage and Workers’ Participation
#

The state must:
- Ensure a living wage for workers.
- Promote participation of workers in the management of industries.

Article 43A: Workers’ Participation in Management
#

Added by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976.
Mandates the state to legislate for workers’ participation in management to enhance industrial democracy.

Article 44: Uniform Civil Code (UCC)
#

Directs the state to strive for a Uniform Civil Code for all citizens to promote national integration and equality.
Challenges include balancing personal laws with constitutional equality.

Article 45: Provision for Early Childhood Care and Education
#

Originally mandated free and compulsory education for children under 14 years.
After the 86th Amendment Act, 2002, it focuses on early childhood care for children below six years of age.

Article 46: Promotion of Educational and Economic Interests of Weaker Sections
#

Directs the state to promote:
- Educational and economic interests of SCs, STs, and other weaker sections.
- Protection against exploitation and discrimination.

Article 47: Duty to Raise the Level of Nutrition and Standard of Living
#

The state must:
- Improve public health and nutrition.
- Prohibit the consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs harmful to health.

Article 48: Organisation of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry
#

The state must:
- Promote modern agricultural practices.
- Prohibit the slaughter of cows, calves, and other milch and draught cattle.

Article 48A: Protection and Improvement of Environment
#

Added by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976.
Directs the state to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife.

Article 49: Protection of Monuments and Heritage
#

The state is tasked with protecting:
- Monuments and places of national importance.
- Sites with historic, archaeological, and artistic significance.

Article 50: Separation of Judiciary from the Executive
#

Ensures that the judiciary functions independently from the executive in public services.
Aims to uphold the principle of the rule of law.

Notable Cases
#

Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980):
- Held that the balance between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973):
- Affirmed the significance of DPSPs, emphasizing their role in governance.
Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992):
- Linked the right to education under DPSPs to Article 21, making it a fundamental right.

DPSPs remain a cornerstone of India’s constitutional framework, guiding the state toward realizing the vision of a welfare state.

Relationship Between Fundamental Rights and DPSP
#

Integration of Rights and Principles:
- Fundamental Rights are enforceable and protect individual liberties.
- DPSPs are non-enforceable and provide guidelines for socio-economic welfare.
Judicial Approach:
- Initially, the judiciary upheld Fundamental Rights over DPSPs (e.g., Champakam Dorairajan).
- Over time, courts emphasized their complementarity (e.g., Minerva Mills).
Examples of Integration:
- Article 21 (Right to Life) now includes the right to education, linking with Article 45 (DPSP).

Fundamental Duties
#

Article 51A in Part IV-A of the Constitution of India lists the Fundamental Duties, which were added by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, based on the recommendations of the Sardar Swaran Singh Committee. These duties aim to promote patriotism, protect the nation’s unity, and encourage responsible citizenship.

List of Fundamental Duties
#

Under Article 51A, it shall be the duty of every citizen of India:

To abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag, and the National Anthem.
To cherish and follow the noble ideals that inspired the national struggle for freedom.
To uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.
To defend the country and render national service when called upon to do so.
To promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood among all the people of India, transcending religious, linguistic, regional, or sectional diversities, and to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women.
To value and preserve the rich heritage of India’s composite culture.
To protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures.
To develop scientific temper, humanism, and the spirit of inquiry and reform.
To safeguard public property and to abjure violence.
To strive toward excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity, so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement.
To provide opportunities for education to children or wards between the ages of 6 and 14 years. (Added by the 86th Amendment Act, 2002.)

Significance
#

Fundamental Duties serve as a moral compass for citizens, ensuring they contribute positively to society and the nation.
They complement Fundamental Rights by emphasizing responsibilities that citizens owe to the state and society.
Promote social harmony, national integrity, and respect for cultural heritage.
Act as a reminder of the constitutional vision for a just and equitable society.

Enforceability
#

Non-justiciable: Fundamental Duties cannot be enforced by courts, unlike Fundamental Rights.
However, they hold moral and constitutional significance and can influence legislation and judicial interpretation.
Laws can be enacted to promote compliance with these duties. For example:
- Environment Protection Act, 1986 (linked to Article 51A(g)).
- Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 (linked to Article 51A(a)).

Judicial Interpretation
#

MC Mehta v. Union of India (1983) - Ganges Pollution Case:
- The Supreme Court linked the Fundamental Duty to protect the environment (Article 51A(g)) with the state’s responsibility under the DPSPs (Article 48A).
AIIMS Students’ Union v. AIIMS (2001):
- Emphasized the duty to uphold dignity and equality of women under Article 51A(e).
Rangnath Mishra v. Union of India (2002):
- Highlighted that Fundamental Duties can guide judicial interpretation in cases of public interest.
Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006):
- Reinforced the need for responsible citizenship to maintain public order and governance.

Constitutional Law – I (Paper III) #

Unit I: Introduction to Constitution #

Meaning and Significance of Constitution #

Evolution of Modern Constitutions #

Classification of Constitutions #

Evolution of Indian Constitution #

Government of India Act, 1919 #

Government of India Act, 1935 #

Historical Perspectives #

Framing of the Indian Constitution #

Constituent Assembly Meetings #

Role of the Drafting Committee of the Constituent Assembly #

Borrowed Features from Other Countries #

Adoption and Implementation #

Constituent Assembly Deliberations #

Legacy of the Constitution #

Unit II: Salient Features and Fundamental Rights #

Nature of the Indian Constitution #

Features of a Federal Constitution #

Challenges to Being a Federal Constitution #

America’s Presidential Form of Government #

Salient Features of the Indian Constitution #

Parliamentary Form of Government #

Fundamental Rights (Articles 12-32) #

Directive Principles #

Fundamental Duties #

Emergency Provisions #

Division of Powers #

Amendments #

Watchdogs #

Preamble to the Indian Constitution #

Union and Its Territories #

Articles 1-4 #

Citizenship #

Articles 5 to 11 #

Article 5: Citizenship at the Commencement of the Constitution #

Article 6: Rights of Citizenship of Certain Persons Who Have Migrated to India from Pakistan #

Article 7: Rights of Citizenship of Certain Migrants to Pakistan #

Article 8: Rights of Citizenship of Certain Persons of Indian Origin Residing Outside India #

Article 9: Persons Voluntarily Acquiring Citizenship of a Foreign State Not to Be Citizens #

Article 10: Continuance of the Rights of Citizenship #

Article 11: Parliament to Regulate the Right of Citizenship by Law #

Definition of State #

Article 12: Definition of State #

General Principles Relating to Fundamental Rights (Art. 13) #

Article 13(1): Pre-Constitutional Laws #

Article 13(2): Post-Constitutional Laws #

Article 13(3): Definition of “Law” #

Article 13(4): Amendment Excluded from “Law” #

Key Doctrines Under Article 13 #

Doctrine of Judicial Review #

Origin and Basis #

Key Features of Judicial Review in India #

Landmark Cases in India #

Importance of Judicial Review #

Doctrine of Judicial Review #

Article 13: Judicial Review of Laws #

Doctrine of Eclipse with Respect to Articles 13 and 14 #

Article 13 #

Unit III: Key Fundamental Rights #

Right to Equality (Art. 14-18) #

Article 14 #

Key Principles #

Doctrine of Eclipse and Article 14 #

Important Case Laws #

Section 309 of IPC and Equivalent in BNS #

Case Analyses Related to Section 309 IPC #

Maruti Sripati Dubal Case #

P. Rathinam v. Union of India #

Nagabhushan Patnaik Case #

Doctrine of Waiver #

Article 15: Protection Against Discrimination #

Article 16: Equal Opportunity in Public Employment #

Mandal Commission Case (Indra Sawhney v. Union of India) #

Article 17: Right Against Untouchability #

Article 18: Abolition of Titles #

103rd Amendment Act, 2019: Introduction of EWS Reservation #

Overview #

Key Provisions #

Eligibility Criteria for EWS #

Constitutional Law – I (Paper III)
#

Unit I: Introduction to Constitution
#

Meaning and Significance of Constitution
#

Evolution of Modern Constitutions
#

Classification of Constitutions
#

Evolution of Indian Constitution
#

Government of India Act, 1919
#

Government of India Act, 1935
#

Historical Perspectives
#

Framing of the Indian Constitution
#

Constituent Assembly Meetings
#

Role of the Drafting Committee of the Constituent Assembly
#

Borrowed Features from Other Countries
#

Adoption and Implementation
#

Constituent Assembly Deliberations
#

Legacy of the Constitution
#

Unit II: Salient Features and Fundamental Rights
#

Nature of the Indian Constitution
#

Features of a Federal Constitution
#

Challenges to Being a Federal Constitution
#

America’s Presidential Form of Government
#

Salient Features of the Indian Constitution
#

Parliamentary Form of Government
#

Fundamental Rights (Articles 12-32)
#

Directive Principles
#

Fundamental Duties
#

Emergency Provisions
#

Division of Powers
#

Amendments
#

Watchdogs
#

Preamble to the Indian Constitution
#

Union and Its Territories
#

Articles 1-4
#

Citizenship
#

Articles 5 to 11
#

Article 5: Citizenship at the Commencement of the Constitution
#

Article 6: Rights of Citizenship of Certain Persons Who Have Migrated to India from Pakistan
#

Article 7: Rights of Citizenship of Certain Migrants to Pakistan
#

Article 8: Rights of Citizenship of Certain Persons of Indian Origin Residing Outside India
#

Article 9: Persons Voluntarily Acquiring Citizenship of a Foreign State Not to Be Citizens
#

Article 10: Continuance of the Rights of Citizenship
#

Article 11: Parliament to Regulate the Right of Citizenship by Law
#

Definition of State
#

Article 12: Definition of State
#

General Principles Relating to Fundamental Rights (Art. 13)
#

Article 13(1): Pre-Constitutional Laws
#

Article 13(2): Post-Constitutional Laws
#

Article 13(3): Definition of “Law”
#

Article 13(4): Amendment Excluded from “Law”
#

Key Doctrines Under Article 13
#

Doctrine of Judicial Review
#

Origin and Basis
#

Key Features of Judicial Review in India
#

Landmark Cases in India
#

Importance of Judicial Review
#

Doctrine of Judicial Review
#

Article 13: Judicial Review of Laws
#

Doctrine of Eclipse with Respect to Articles 13 and 14
#

Article 13
#

Unit III: Key Fundamental Rights
#

Right to Equality (Art. 14-18)
#

Article 14
#

Key Principles
#

Doctrine of Eclipse and Article 14
#

Important Case Laws
#

Section 309 of IPC and Equivalent in BNS
#

Case Analyses Related to Section 309 IPC
#

Maruti Sripati Dubal Case
#

P. Rathinam v. Union of India
#

Nagabhushan Patnaik Case
#

Doctrine of Waiver
#

Article 15: Protection Against Discrimination
#

Article 16: Equal Opportunity in Public Employment
#

Mandal Commission Case (Indra Sawhney v. Union of India)
#

Article 17: Right Against Untouchability
#

Article 18: Abolition of Titles
#

103rd Amendment Act, 2019: Introduction of EWS Reservation
#

Overview
#

Key Provisions
#

Eligibility Criteria for EWS
#