MEANING, DEFINITION & EXPLANATION

Fundamental Rights, enshrined in Part III (Articles 12-35) of the Indian Constitution, are essential human freedoms guaranteed to all citizens. These rights ensure individual liberty, equality, and dignity, forming the cornerstone of India’s democratic framework. They are enforceable by courts, allowing individuals to seek redressal when violated.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND / EVOLUTION

The concept of Fundamental Rights in India draws inspiration from various sources:

• British Legacy: The colonial experience highlighted the need for civil liberties.
• U.S. Constitution: The Bill of Rights influenced the inclusion of justiciable rights.
• International Declarations: Documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights emphasized the global importance of fundamental freedoms.

The framers of the Indian Constitution incorporated these rights to ensure a democratic society where individual freedoms are protected.

CLASSIFICATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

The Fundamental Rights are categorized into six broad classes:

1. Right to Equality (Articles 14-18): Guarantees equality before the law and prohibits discrimination.
2. Right to Freedom (Articles 19-22): Includes freedoms of speech, assembly, association, movement, residence, and profession.
3. Right against Exploitation (Articles 23-24): Prohibits human trafficking, forced labor, and child labor.
4. Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-28): Ensures religious freedom and the right to manage religious affairs.
5. Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29-30): Protects the rights of minorities to preserve their culture and establish educational institutions.
6. Right to Constitutional Remedies (Articles 32-35): Allows individuals to approach courts for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

LEGAL PROVISIONS / PROCEDURE / SPECIFICATIONS / CRITERIA

• Article 12: Defines ‘State’ to include the Government and Parliament of India, the Government and Legislature of each State, and all local or other authorities within Indian territory or under the control of the Government of India.
• Article 13: Declares that laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void. It introduces doctrines like:
  • Doctrine of Severability: Invalid portions of a law can be severed if the rest remains enforceable.
  • Doctrine of Eclipse: A law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights is not null but dormant and can become active if the inconsistency is removed.

CASE LAWS / PRECEDENTS / OVERRULING JUDGMENTS

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Established the Basic Structure Doctrine, ruling that Parliament cannot alter the Constitution’s fundamental framework, including Fundamental Rights.
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Expanded the interpretation of Article 21, asserting that ‘life and personal liberty’ cannot be curtailed except through a procedure established by law, which must be just, fair, and reasonable.
• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017): Recognized the Right to Privacy as intrinsic to the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21.

DOCTRINES / THEORIES

• Basic Structure Doctrine: Asserts that certain fundamental features of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, cannot be altered by amendments.
• Doctrine of Waiver: Individuals cannot waive their Fundamental Rights; they are inalienable.
• Doctrine of Lifting the Veil: Courts can look beyond the literal interpretation of laws to ensure Fundamental Rights are not violated.

MAXIMS / PRINCIPLES

• “Ubi jus ibi remedium”: Where there is a right, there is a remedy. This principle underlies Article 32, ensuring individuals can approach the Supreme Court directly when Fundamental Rights are infringed.

AMENDMENTS / REPEALING

• 44th Amendment Act, 1978: Removed the Right to Property from the list of Fundamental Rights, making it a constitutional right under Article 300A.

GUIDELINES / PRINCIPLES

• Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV): While not enforceable in court, these principles guide the State in formulating policies that aim to establish social and economic democracy, complementing the Fundamental Rights.

CASE STUDY: KESAVANANDA BHARATI v. STATE OF KERALA (1973)

• Facts: Kesavananda Bharati, a seer of a mutt in Kerala, challenged the Kerala government’s attempts to impose restrictions on the mutt’s property, invoking the validity of constitutional amendments that curtailed Fundamental Rights.
• Issue: Whether Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution was unlimited, extending to altering Fundamental Rights.
• Held: The Supreme Court ruled that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its ‘Basic Structure,’ which includes Fundamental Rights.

CASE STUDY: MANEKA GANDHI v. UNION OF INDIA (1978)

• Facts: Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the government without providing reasons, leading her to challenge the action as a violation of her Fundamental Rights.
• Issue: Whether the procedure established by law under Article 21 must be fair, just, and reasonable.
• Held: The Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of Article 21, asserting that any law affecting life and personal liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable, thus broadening the scope of Fundamental Rights.