Chapter-02

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY, FUNDAMENTAL

DUTIES

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
(Articles 12 to 35 under Part -3)
Definition & Nature
A Fundamental Right is defined as an interest protected by the superior or basic law of the land. Its inclusion in the
Constitution provides these rights a sanctified place that prohibits unreasonable interference of State in their exercise
or enjoyment and also prevents legislature and the executive (i.e., State as defined by Article 12) from becoming
arbitrary or authoritarian. Thus, these rights act as limitations on the State.
Article 12: In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, “the State” includes:
• The Government of India;
• The Parliament of India;
• The government of each of the States;
• The Legislature of each of the States; and
• All local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.
Fundamental rights are enforceable against State. In this case, Bank confiscated property
P D Shamdasani vs. Central on loan default. Supreme Court held that fundamental rights are available against the
Bank of India, 1952 state and not against private individuals because there already are enough safeguards
under ordinary laws for such disputes.

What is State? Definition of State is not narrow. It includes all such entities that are constituted
Rajasthan Electricity Board vs.
by the State. Electricity Board and a University are States. Overruled University of Madras vs.
Mohan Lal, 1996 & Sukhdev
Santa Bai. ONGC, LIC, Industrial Finance Corp. are all states because the rules and regulations
vs. Bhagat ram, 1975
made by them have the force of law.
The Court laid down five tests to be considered “other authority”:
• Entire share capital is owned or managed by State.
R.D. Shetty vs.
• Enjoys monopoly status.
International Airport
• Department of Government is transferred to Corporation.
Authority,
1979 • Functional character governmental in essence.
• Deep and pervasive State control.
• Object of Authority

It has been held that whether a statutory body falling within the purview of the
Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid
expression “other authorities” is to be considered differently. In the opinion of the
Mujib Sehravardi, 1981
minority, the tests laid down, in this case, are relevant only for the purpose of
determining whether an entity is an “instrumentality or agency of the State”.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LEGAL RIGHTS
While an ordinary Legal Right is protected and enforced by the ordinary law of the land (i.e., in cases of violation of Legal
Rights, the aggrieved person may have his relief by filing an ordinary suit in the subordinate courts or by a writ
application to the High Court, which are subject to appeals), a Fundamental Right is one which is protected and
guaranteed by the written Constitution of the State (i.e. in cases of violation of Fundamental Right, an individual is
entitled to approach the Supreme Court directly for getting his grievances redressed). These are called fundamental also,
because while ordinary Legal Rights may be changed by the legislature in its ordinary process of legislation, a Fundamental
Right, being guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be amended by any process shorter than that required for amending the
Constitution itself (i.e., by special majority).
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Judicial Review is the power of superior courts (Supreme Court and the High Courts) to declare a law unconstitutional
and void if it is inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Constitution to the extent of such inconsistency. The power
of Judicial Review is more implicit in the Constitution, that is, it is implied from the Constitutional provisions.

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com Page 10 of 108
Article 13
• All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as
they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.
• The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made
in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.
• In this article, unless the context otherwise requires, (a) “law” includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule,
regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law; (b) “laws in force”
includes laws passed or made by a Legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India before the
commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part
thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas.
• Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under Article 368.
Marbury vs.
US SC held that the judiciary has the power to review actions of the Article 13
Madison,
legislature. The concept of Judicial Review started from here. Judicial Review
US 1803
Only Section 14 of Preventive Detention Act 1950 was held
unconstitutional. Whole act except this section is valid. Article 13
AK Gopalan vs. State
In Romesh Thapar vs. State of Madras, SC held that only if the Doctrine of
of Madras, 1950
unconstitutional portions cannot be removed then the whole act will be Severability.
ultra vires and thus unconstitutional.
Government of Central Province monopolized motor transport by an
act. SC held that the pre-Constitutional law that violates fundamental Article 13
Bhikaji vs. State of
rights is not void ab initio. It is merely eclipsed. When Article 19 was Doctrine of
MP 1954
amended to allow state to monopolize any business, the said act Eclipse
Deep Chand vs. State became Constitutional again. Article 13
Doctrine of Eclipse does not apply to post-Constitutional law because
of Uttar Pradesh, Doctrine of
such a law is void ab initio.
1959 Eclipse
The appellant had reached a settlement with IT department to pay 3
lakhs per month for taxes that he owed under IT act. However, later that
act was determined to be unconstitutional. So, he challenged the
Basheshar Nath vs. Article 13
settlement. IT dept argued that he had waived his right by reaching a
Income Tax Waiver of
settlement.
Commissioner Fundamental
SC held that, unlike USA, Indian Constitution does not follow Doctrine
1959 Rights
of Waiver of Fundamental rights. Fundamental rights are an
obligation imposed upon the state by the Constitution. It is the court’s
duty to enforce them.
SC held that Constitutional amendments do not fall under “laws” as
meant in Article 13. It held that “Law” in Article 13 means rules and
Keshavananda
regulations made under ordinary legislative powers and not Article 13
Bharti vs. State of
amendments made under Constitutional powers. Thus, Constitution Meaning of
Kerala
(24th Amendment Act) Act 1971 by which the 4th clause was added to “law”.
1973
Article 13 was valid. Article 13(4) says, “Nothing in this article shall
apply to any amendment of the Constitution made under Article 368.”
State of Gujarat vs. Article 13
Overruled Deep Chand’s case and held that Doctrine of Eclipse is
Ambika Mills Doctrine of
applicable to non-citizens.
1974 Eclipse
Through this amendment, the disputes or questions regarding
39th Constitutional elections of President, Vice-President, Prime Minister and Speaker
(Amendment) Act, of Lok Sabha were taken out of the purview of judicial review of the
1975 Courts.
Dularey Lodh vs. 3rd
Held that Doctrine of Eclipse to post-Constitutional law is applicable to Article 13
Additional District
citizens as well. Eclipse
Judge, 1984

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com Page 11 of 108
 The power of judicial review of legislative action as vested in SC by
L. Chandra Kumar
Article 32 and in HC by Article 226 is a basic feature of the
vs. Union of India Article 13
Constitution and cannot be curtailed even by Constitutional
1997
amendment.
CONFLICT BETWEEN ARTICLE 13(4) VS. ARTICLE 368
Article 13(2) states that the State shall not make any "law" which takes away or abridges, the rights conferred by Part III of
the Constitution and any law made in contravention to Art.13(2) shall, to the extent of contravention, be void. The question is,
whether the word "law" as used in Art. 13(2) includes Constitutional Amendment Act or not? If an Amendment Act is not
covered under “law”, then Parliament can amend any or all the Fundamental Rights; otherwise, the Fundamental Rights are
unamendable.

Made several changes to the Fundamental Rights provisions of the Indian Constitution. It
1st Constitutional
provided against abuse of freedom of speech and expression, validation of zamindari abolition
(Amendment) Act,
laws, and clarified that the right to equality does not bar the enactment of laws which provide
1951
"special consideration" for weaker sections of society.

1st amendment that inserted Article 31-A and 31-B was challenged. SC held that “Law” in Article
Shankari Prasad vs.
13 refers to ordinary law made under legislative power and does not include amendment of the
Union of India
Constitution. Article 368 gives complete power to the Parliament to amend the Constitution
1951
including fundamental rights.

Sajjan Singh vs. State

17th amendment was challenged. SC followed the judgment in Shankari Prasad case and held that
of Rajasthan
“amendment of the Constitution” means amendment of all the provisions of the Constitution.
1965

17th amendment that inserted certain state acts in the 9th schedule was again challenged.
SC overruled the previous judgment and held that the Parliament does not have the power amend
Golak Nath vs. State
part III so as to take away fundamental rights. It held that Article 368 merely describes the
of Punjab, 1971
procedure of amendment and the actual power of amendment comes from Article 245 and Entry
97 of List 1. “Amendment” is a “law” within Article 13(1).

It was a retaliatory act of Parliament to neutralize the effect of the judgement in the Golak Nath
24th Constitutional
case. Hence, it affirmed the Parliament's power to amend any part of the Constitution, including
(Amendment) Act,
Fundamental Rights by amending Articles 368 and 13. It also made it obligatory for the
1971
President to give assent to Amendment Bills, whenever they are presented to him.

In order to overcome difficulties posed by SC decision in Golak Nath case, Parliament inserted
Article13(3) by 24th amendment, which says that Article 13 will not apply to any amendments
made under Article 368. Further, it added a new clause to Article 368 saying nothing in Article 13
shall apply to amendment made under this Article.
In this case, this amendment was challenged. SC overruled Golak Nath case and held the following:
• “Law” in Article 13 means ordinary law made under legislative power. 24th amendment is only
clarifying that point and so it valid.
Keshavananda • Parliament has wide power of amending the Constitution but it is not unlimited.
Bharati vs. Union of
• The usage of the word “amendment” in the Constitution means that the basic framework of
India, 1973
the Constitution must survive after the amendment. It does not allow destruction of the basic
structure of the Constitution.
• Power to amend the Constitution does not including abrogating the Constitution.
• Chief Justice Sikri said that basic features of the Constitution include:
• Secular character
• Division of powers among judiciary, legislative, executive
• Federal character of the Constitution
• Supremacy of the
CLASSIFICATION OF judiciary
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
• Republic and democratic character
Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com Page 12 of 108
 Article 14 Equality before law and equal protection of laws
Article 15 Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth
Article 16 Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment
Article 17 Abolition of Untouchability
Article 18 Abolition of titles (except military and academic)
Article 19 Protection of six rights regarding freedom.
Article 20 Protection in respect of conviction for offences
Article 21 Protection of life and personal liberty
Article 21A Right to education
Article 22 Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases
Article 23 Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour
Article 24 Prohibition of employment of children in factories etc.
Article 25 Freedom of conscience and tree profession, practice and propagation of religion
Article 26 Freedom to manage religious affairs
Article 27 Freedom from payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion
Article 28 Freedom from attending religious instructions or worships in certain educational institutions
Article 29 Protection of interests of minorities
Article 30 Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions
Article 32 Right to Constitutional remedies
Article 33 Power of Parliament to modify the rights conferred by this part in their application to Forces etc.
Article 34 Restriction on rights conferred by this part while martial law is in force in any area
Article 35 Legislation to give effect to the provisions of this part
RIGHT TO EQUALITY (ARTICLE 14-18)
Equality before law and equal protection of laws (Article 14)
Article 14 guarantees to all persons (citizens as well as non-citizens) equality before the law or the equal protection of
the laws within the territory of India. While Article 14 forbids class legislation, it permits reasonable classification of
persons, objects and transactions by the law. But the classification should not be arbitrary, artificial or evasive. Rather,
it should be based on an intelligible differential and substantial distinction.

SC held that since there was no clear guideline for which cases will be referred to the
Anwar Ali Sarkar vs. State
special court, it violated Article 14. The object of the act “to provide speedier trial to
of West Bengal, 1952
certain cases” is too vague for intelligible classification.

Kathi Raning Rawat vs. SC held that since there were proper guidelines for determining which cases should be
State of Saurashtra, 1952 referred to the special court, it does not violate Article 14.

Krishna Singh vs. State of

SC held that separate rules for land revenue for Marwar region is valid.
Rajasthan, 1955
Saghir Ahmed vs. State of Creating a monopoly in favor of State is valid because State as a person is a class in itself
Uttar Pradesh, 1955 which is different from another person.
New Concept of equality: Lack of arbitrariness. Justice Bhagwati quoted that “Equality is
EP Royappa vs. State of a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be cribbed, cabined, or
Tamil Nadu, 1974 confined with traditional and doctrinaire limits…Equality and arbitrariness are sworn
enemies.”

An airhostess would be retired upon: 35 years of age, marriage if within first 4 years of
service, or first pregnancy, whichever occurs earlier. Managing Director has the
Air India vs.
discretionary power to allow service.
Nargis Meerza,
SC held that the clause of first pregnancy was totally unreasonable because it forces the Air
1981
Hostess to not have children at all. Discretionary powers to the Managing Director also
violate Article 14.

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com Page 13 of 108
 Randhir Singh vs. Union of Held that unequal scales of pay based on irrational classification invalid. Equal pay for
India, 1982 equal work has since become a fundamental right.

Justice Desai assimilated the doctrines of classification and doctrine of arbitrariness.

D S Nakara vs. Union of SC struck down rule 34 of Central services pension rule 1972 on the ground that classification
India, 1983 made by it between pensioners retiring before and after a certain date is arbitrary and so
violates Article 14.

Venkateshwara Theaters
Tax slabs were created for different kinds of theaters such as air- conditioned, air-cooled,
vs. State of Andhra
ordinary. SC held this classification to be valid.
Pradesh, 1993

Right against Discrimination (Article 15)

Article 15 (1) directs that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex
or place of birth or any of them. Article 15(1) mentions the prohibited grounds in any matter which is within the control
of the State.
Article 15(2) prohibits citizens themselves as well as the State from making such discrimination with regard to access to shops,
hotels, public restaurants and all places of public entertainment or the use of bathing ghats, public resort, wells, tanks, roads,
etc.
Article 15(3) gives power to the State to make special provisions for women and children.
Article 15(4) has been added by the 1st Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951, in order to make any special provision for
the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes.
Article 15(5) was introduced by 93rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2005. It empowers the State to make special
provisions by law for the advancement of any social and educationally backward classes of citizen or for the SCs and STs
for their admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by
the State, except the minority educational institutions.
Special provisions for women and children: Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any special
provision for women and children. [Article 15(3)]. This clause is an exception to the rule against discrimination. Thus,
provision of maternity relief for women workers (Article 42), or of free education for children (Article 45) or measures
for prevention of their exploitation [Article 39(f)] will not amount to contravention of Article15. The drafting of this
clause leaves much to be desired. First of all, since Article 15(1) does not include age as a prohibited ground of
discrimination, the reference to children in Article 15(3) serves no purpose.
Champakam Dorairajan vs. State of Prompted the addition of 15(4) that allows state to make special provisions for
Madras, 1951 SCs, STs and other backward classes.
Nayansukh Das vs. State of Uttar
Separate Electoral rolls based on religion was held invalid.
Pradesh, 1953
State of Rajasthan vs. Pratap Singh, Additional taxes for police protection for everybody in a colony except
1960 Muslims and Harijans was held invalid.
Place of residence valid ground for classification. Not prohibited by 15(1). College
DP Joshi vs. State of MP 1960
charged capitation fee from non-Madhya Pradesh students.
Reservation cannot exceed 50%. Caste should not be the only criterion.
Balaji vs. State of MysoreClassification of backward and more backward is invalid. Article 16(4) is an
1963 exception to Article 16(1).
Classes mentioned in 16(4) are same as in 15(4).
Extended the reservation of seats for the SCs and STs and to the Anglo-Indian
23 Constitutional (Amendment) Act, community by nomination in the Lok Sabha and the state question legislative
1969 assemblies for a further period of ten years (i.e., up to 1980).

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com Page 14 of 108
 State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Nivedita Complete relaxation of qualifying marks for SCs/STs for admission to medical
Jain 1981 courses is valid and does not violate either Articles 14, 15(1), 15(2), or 15 (4).
It added Article 15(5) under which the state can make special provision for
the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of
93rd Constitutional (Amendment)
citizens or for the SC or ST for admission to educational institutions including
Act, 2005
private educational institutions whether aided or unaided by the State, other
than minority educational institutions.

103rd Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 2019

In article 15 of the Constitution, after clause (5), the following clause shall be inserted, namely:
“Clause (6) Nothing in this article or sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 or clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the
State from making,
(a) any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes
mentioned in clauses (4) and (5); and
(b) any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes
mentioned in clauses (4) and (5) in so far as such special provisions relate to their admission to educational
institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the
minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of article 30, which in the case of reservation would be
in addition to the existing reservations and subject to a maximum of ten per cent. of the total seats in each category.
Explanation: For the purposes of this article and article 16, “economically weaker sections” shall be such as may be
notified by the state from time to time on the basis of family income and other indicators of economic disadvantage.”
In Article 16 of the Constitution, after clause (5), the following clause shall be inserted, namely:
“Clause (6) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments
or posts in favour of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clause (4), in
addition to the existing reservation and subject to a maximum of ten per cent. of the posts in each category.”
Equality of Opportunity (Article 16)
Article 16 deals with equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.
Article 16(1) guarantees equality of opportunity to all citizens in the matters relating to employment or appointment to
any office under the State.
Article 16(2) provides that no citizen can be discriminated against or be ineligible for any employment or office under
the State on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth or residence or any of them.
In Article 16 clauses 3, 4 and 5 are the three exceptions to this general rule of equality of opportunity.
What Article 16 guarantees is equality of opportunity in matters of appointment in State services. It does not prevent
the State from prescribing the necessary qualifications and selective tests for recruitment for government services. The
qualifications prescribed may be mental excellence, physical fitness, sense of discipline, moral integrity and loyalty to
the State etc. Where the appointment requires technical knowledge, technical qualifications may be prescribed.
Character and antecedents of candidates may be taken into consideration for appointment in government service.
Article 16(3) forbids discrimination on the grounds of residence. However, there may be good reasons for reserving
certain posts in a State for the residents only. This Article empowers Parliament to regulate by law the extent to which
it would be permissible for a State to depart from the above principle.
Article 16(4) empowers the State to make special provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of
any backward class of citizens which in the opinion of the State are not adequately represented in the services under the
State. Thus, Article 16(4) applies only if two conditions are satisfied:
• The class of citizens is backward, i.e., socially and educationally, and
• The said class is not adequately represented in the services of the State. The second test cannot be the sole criterion.
Article 16(4A) introduced by the 77 th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1995 provides for reservation of seats in matter
of promotion, with consequential seniority for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Article 16(4B) introduced by the 81st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2000 provides for carrying over of unfilled
vacancies reserved for SC/ST to subsequent years. This is commonly referred to as “carry forward rule”.

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com Page 15 of 108
Article 16(5) says that a law which provides that a person holding an office in connection with the affairs of a religious
or denominational institution etc. shall be a person professing the same religion or belonging to a particular
denomination shall not be treated to be repugnant to this Article.

Muller was convicted of violating Oregon’s labor laws restricting working hours of
women.
SC upheld the conviction on the grounds that women deserve preferential treatment
(positive sex discrimination).
“That woman's physical structure and the performance of maternal functions place her at
Muller vs. State of Oregon a disadvantage in the struggle for subsistence is obvious. This is especially true when
1908 the burdens of motherhood are upon her. Even when they are not, by abundant testimony
of the medical fraternity continuance for a long time on her feet at work, repeating this
from day to day, tends to injurious effects upon the body, and as healthy mothers are
essential to vigorous offspring, the physical well-being of woman becomes an object of
public interest and care in order to preserve the strength and vigor of the race." 208
U.S. at 412.
Section 497 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 that punishes only a man for adultery even if
Yusuf Abul Aziz vs. State of women are guilty of abetting the crime, is valid because it does not discriminate only
Bombay 1954 on the basis of sex, which is prohibited by Article 15. Article 15(3) allows special
provisions for women.
Devdasan vs. Union of India,
Carry forward rule was held invalid.
1964
Classification requires two conditions: Class must be backward and Class must be not
Triloki Nath vs. State of Jammu
adequately represented in government services. Second condition alone is not
&Kashmir, 1967
sufficient.
Reservation in promotions were held valid.
N.M. Thomas vs. State of Kerala, Relaxation of time for passing a test for SC/ST is valid.
1976 Article 16(4) is not an exception to 16(1) and reservation can be done under 16(1)
itself.
Carry forward rule held valid.
ABSK Union vs. Union of India
50% is a guideline and reservation may exceed 50% but should not be excessive. 64.4%
1981
was not considered excessive.
Equal Pay for equal work. SC held that equality in wages is indeed a Constitutional goal
Randhir Singh vs. Union
and is capable of being enforced through Constitutional remedies given under Article
of India 1982
32.
Caste can be a criterion for identification of backward classes. Economic condition
need not be the only criterion.
16(4) is not an exception to 16(1). Reservation is valid under 16(1) itself because of
the doctrine of reasonable classification adopted by Article 14. 16(4) is just an
instance of classification.
• Classes mentioned in 16(4) are NOT same as in 15(4) but much wider. Article 15(4)
refers to Socially and economically backward classes and SCs, STs. Whereas,
Indra Sawhney vs. Union of Article16(4) refers to any backward class that is not adequately represented in
India 1993 government services.
• Creamy layer must be excluded.
• Backward and more backward – valid.
• Only economic criteria – not valid.
• Reservation cannot exceed 50%.
• Any new criteria must be discussed only in SC.
• Reservation in promotions – not valid. This was nullified by 77th Amendment
1995refarding Article 16 (4A), that allows reservation in promotions.

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com Page 16 of 108
 SC held that the rule 22A introduced by AP govt. that reserves posts for women is
valid. It held that Article 15(3) is a recognition of the fact that women of this country
have been for centuries socially and economically backward and so they are unable to
State of AP vs. PB Vijayakumar
participate in the socio-economic progress of the country on an equal footing. Thus,
1995
the making special provisions for women in employment is an integral aspect of
15(3) and there is no need for its explicit mention in Article 16. The power inherent
in Article 15(3) is not whittled by Article 16.
85th Constitutional This Amendment provided for the reservation in matters of promotion with
(Amendment) Act, 2001 consequential seniority i.e., amendment in Article 16(4A).

Abolition of Untouchability (Article 17)

“Untouchability” is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of any disability arising out of
“Untouchability” shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.

Devarajjah vs. Padmanna Mysore, “Untouchability” is not to be considered in a literal sense but to be understood as a
1958 practice that has evolved historically due to castism.
Asiad Project Workers Case i.e.,
People’s Union for Democratic Rights under Article 17 are available against private individual as well as the
Rights vs. Union of India, government. And it is the duty of the state to ensure that these rights are not violated.
1983

Respondents were tried for offences under section 4 and 7 of Protection of Civil Rights
State of Karnataka vs. Appa
Act, 1955. They prevented a person from filling water from a bore well because he was
Balu Ingle, 1993
untouchable. SC upheld the conviction.

Abolition of Titles (Article 18)

• No title, not being a military or academic distinction, shall be conferred by the State.
• No citizen of India shall accept any title from any foreign State.
• No person who is not a citizen of India shall, while he holds any office of profit or trust under the State, accept
without the consent of the President any title from any foreign State.
• No person holding any office of profit or trust under the State shall, without the consent of the President, accept any
present, emolument, or office of any kind from or under any foreign State.
Right to Freedom (Article 19-22)
Right to Six Democratic Freedoms (Article 19)
All citizens shall have the right
• to freedom of speech and expression;
• to assemble peaceably and without arms;
• to form associations or unions;
• to move freely throughout the territory of India;
• to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; [and]
• to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making
any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-
clause in the interests of [the sovereignty and integrity of India,] the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign
States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
Nothing in sub-clause (b) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent
the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of [the sovereignty and integrity of India or] public order,
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause.
Nothing in sub-clause (c) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent
the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of [the sovereignty and integrity of India or] public order or
morality, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause.

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com Page 17 of 108
Nothing in [sub-clauses (d) and (e)] of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes,
or prevent the State from making any law imposing, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights conferred
by the said sub-clauses either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled
Tribe.
Nothing in sub-clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent
the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of
the right conferred by the said sub-clause, and, in particular, [nothing in the said sub-clause shall affect the operation of
any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to: (i) the professional or
technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business, or (ii)
the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any trade, business, industry or
service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise].
Romesh Thapar was the publisher of Cross Roads, a left leaning paper, critical of Govt. State
of Madras banned its entry and circulation in Madras on the grounds of public safety.
Romesh Thapar vs. State SC held freedom of circulation is covered under freedom of speech and that public safety is out
of Madras, 1959 of scope of Article 19 (2). After this, in Constitutional 1st Amendment, Article 19 (2) was
amended to include public order, security of state, incitement of offence as grounds for
restricting the freedom of speech and expression.
Hamdard Dawakhana
Obnoxious and Fraudulent advertising is not protected under Article 19(1).
vs. Union of India, 1960

This effected changes in Article 19 enables Parliament to make laws providing reasonable
16th Constitutional
restrictions on the freedom of expression in the larger interests of sovereignty and
(Amendment) Act,
integrity of India. It also brought amendment in form of oath contained in the Third
1963
Schedule and emphasized on upholding the sovereignty and, integrity of India.

Ranjit Udeshi vs. State of

Bookseller banned for selling obscene books.
Maharashtra, 1965
Prabhu Dutt vs. Union of
People have right to know news and functioning of the govt.
India, 1982

Manubhai wrote an article in LIC's magazine about the problems with LIC that affected policy
holders. LIC published a response to that but did not give a chance to publish a rejoinder. SC held
LIC vs. Manubhai D
that LIC being a State as per Article 12, must publish his response. It also held that it does
Shah, 1992
not mean everybody has a right to publish in a magazine and this right should be
determined on a case-by-case basis.

Tata Press Ltd. vs.

Commercial advertisements are protected under freedom of speech.
MTNL, 1995

SC has held that one has the right to publicize his expression as well. A game of cricket is an
expression and the organizers have a right to propagate it everywhere in the world. So
Ministry of I& B vs. CAB,
Doordarshan must provide its up linking facilities to CAB for transmitting the signals out of
1995
country. Article 19 (2) does not allow restrictions on 19 (1) (a) on the grounds of creating
monopoly of the govt.

CPI (M) vs. Bharat

Bandhs are illegal.
Kumar, 1998
Association for
Democratic Reforms vs. People have right to know about the assets, liabilities, wealth, education of the candidate before
Union of India, voting.
2002
97th Constitutional Added the words "or co-operative societies" after the word "or unions" in Article 19(1) (c)
(Amendment) Act, and inserted article 43B i.e., Promotion of Co-operative Societies and added Part-IXB i.e.,
2012 The Co-Operative Societies.

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com Page 18 of 108
Protection in respect of conviction for offences (Article 20)
• Retrospective criminal legislation,
• Double jeopardy or punishment for the same offence more than once, and
• Compulsion to give self-incriminating evidence.
The significance of this Article lies in the fact that 44th Amendment Act has provided that it cannot be suspended even
during an emergency by an order of the President under Article 359.
Right to life (Article 21)
Article 21 states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established
by law.
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, 1978
Passport was confiscated without providing any reason. Prior to this case, Article 21 guaranteed protection against arbitrary
action only of executive and not from legislative action. After this case a person can be deprived of life and personal liberty
only if:
• There is a law.
• The law must provide a procedure.
• The procedure is just, fair, and reasonable.
• The procedure must satisfy Article 14.
Important Points
• Fundamental rights represent the values cherished by people since Vedic ages and are calculated to provide dignity
to human beings and to create conditions that enable a human being to develop his personality to fullest extent. (J
Bhagvati).
• Provisions of Part III should be given widest possible interpretation.
• Rights in Part III are not mutually exclusive but form a single scheme.
• Laws under Article 21 must satisfy the test of reasonability under Article 14 and also stand the test of Article 19.
• SC has accepted that “law” should be reasonable law and not just an enacted law. To be fair and just, it should
follow the principles of natural justice. Thus, even if “due process of law” is not explicitly mentioned, the effect is
same.
Although Article 21 uses negative words, it has a positive dimension as well. Thus, it does not just mean -Right to mere
existence but a right to live with human dignity.
• Compensation for violation of Article 21.
• 44th amendment- Emergency - Article 21 cannot be suspended on Presidential order under Article 359

A communist leader was detained under Preventive Detention Act, 1950.

1. Fundamental Rights are not absolute.
2. Rights in Part III are mutually exclusive and that liberty in Articles 19 and 21 are
different things. (Overruled in Menaka Gandhi)
3. Held that “law” means state made law and not jus naturale (principles of natural
AK Gopalan vs. State of Madras
justice).
1950
4. Rejected that “procedure established by law” is same as “due process of law” of the US
Constitution.
5. Held that Article 21 protects against loss of personal physical liberty and 19 deals with
unreasonable restrictions.
Article 14/19/ 21 Golden Triangle
UP Police performed domiciliary visits to make sure that he was at home in the nights.
This was challenged. SC held the following.
• Personal liberty is not confined only to bodily restraint or confinement in prisons but
Kharak Singh vs. State of UP,
includes all those things through which life is enjoyed.
1963
• Personal Liberty means much more than mere animal existence.
• Article 19 gives some of the freedoms required to enjoy personal liberty, while
Article 21 constitutes the rest.

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com Page 19 of 108
 Since there was no law which could justify domiciliary visits, they were held to be an
unauthorized intrusion into a person’s life and were held to be in violation of Article
21.
MH Hoskot vs. State of
Right to free legal aid.
Maharashtra, 1978
Hussainara Khatun vs. State of
Right to speedy trial.
Bihar, 1979
Olga Tellis vs. BMC
(Pavement Dweller’s case), Right to livelihood.
1986
Parmanand Katara vs. Union
Right to health and medical assistance.
of India, 1989
Subhas Kumar vs. State of
Right to pollution free air and water.
Bihar, 1991
Mohini Jain vs. State of
Right to education
Karnataka, 1992
Chameli Singh vs. State of UP,
Right to shelter.
1996
PUCL vs. Union of India
(Telephone Tapping case), Right to privacy.
1997
Murli Deora vs. Union of
Ban on smoking in public places.
India, 2002
Right to Education (Article 21 A)
86th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 2002: By this Amendment, Article 21A and Article 51A(k) were inserted in the
Constitution. It also changed the subject matter of article 45 in Directive principles.

Unni Krishnan vs. State of AP, Right to education flows from right to life. Right to education for children
1993 up to 14 years of age is a fundamental right.

Protection against arrest and detention (Article 22)

Article 22 provides procedural safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention. Article 22 states that:
• No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed of the grounds for such arrest;
• Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a
period of twenty-four hours of arrest; and
• No such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period (24 hours) without the authority of a
magistrate.
• The above safeguards are not, however, available to (a) an enemy alien, (b) a person arrested or detained under
a law providing for preventive detention.
Some of the preventive detention acts enacted by Parliament are Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of
Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA) 1974, National. Security Act (NASA), 1980, Terrorist and Disruptive Activities
(Prevention) Act (TADA), 1985, repealed in 1990, Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act (PITNDPSA), 1988 etc.
Right Against Exploitation (Article 23-24)
Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour (Article 23)
Article 23 prohibits traffic in human beings and ‘begar’ and other similar forms of forced labour. Prohibition of traffic in
human beings means prohibition of slavery, traffic in women, children or crippled persons for immoral or other
purposes etc. ‘Begar’ means involuntary work without payment. However, the Constitution empowers the State to
impose compulsory service for public purpose without any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or
class or any of them.

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com Page 20 of 108
Prohibition of employment of children in Factories, etc. (Article 24)
Article 24 prohibits employment of children below the age of 14 years in any factory or mine or any other hazardous
employment. The prohibition employed by Article 24 is absolute and does not admit of any exception for the
employment of children in a factory or a mine etc.
Right to Freedom of Religion (Article 25-29)
Freedom of Conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion (Article 25)
Article 25(1) guarantees to every person the freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice and propagate
religion. This right is, however, subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of Part III of the
Constitution. Further the State is empowered by law -
• To regulate or restrict any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with
religious practice.
• To provide for social welfare and reform, and to throw open Hindu religious institutions of public character to all
classes and sections of Hindus.
To ‘profess’ a religion means to declare freely and openly one’s faith and belief. He has the right to practice his belief by
practical expression in any manner he likes.
To ‘practice’ religion is to perform the prescribed religious duties, rites and rituals, and to exhibit his religious beliefs
and ideas by such acts as prescribed by the religious order in which he believes.
To ‘propagate’ his religion means to spread and publicize his religious views for the edification of others.
Article 25 guarantees "freedom of conscience" to every person and not merely to the followers of one particular religion. It,
therefore, postulates that there is no fundamental right to convert another person to one’s own religion because if a person
purposely undertakes the conversion of another person to his religion, as distinguished from his effort to transmit or spread
the tenets of his religion that would impinge on the “freedom of conscience" guaranteed to all the persons of the country alike.
Freedom to manage religious affairs (Article 26)
Article 26 states that, subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section of it shall
have the following rights:
• To establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes;
• To manage its own affairs in matters of religion;
• To own and acquire movable and immovable property; and
• To administer such property in accordance with law.
Freedom from Taxes for Promotion of any particular Religion (Article 27)
Article 27 provides that no person shall be compelled to pay any tax for the promotion or maintenance of any particular
religion or religious denomination. This Article emphasizes the secular character of the State.
Freedom from Attending Religion instructions (Article 28)
According to Article 28 no religious instructions shall be imparted in any educational institution wholly maintained out
of Slate funds.
Thus Article 28 mentions four types of educational institutions:
• Institutions wholly maintained by the State;
• Institutions recognized by the State;
• Institutions that are receiving aid out of the State funds; and
• Institutions that are administered by the State but are established under any trust or endowment.
In the Institutions of (a) type no religious instructions can be imparted, in (b) and (c) types of institutions, religious
instructions may be imparted only with the consent of the individuals. In (d) type institutions, there is no restriction on
religious instructions.

State of Bombay vs. Varasu An act that banned bigamy held valid because bigamy is not an essential part of
Bapamali, 1953 Hinduism.
Md Hanif Quareshi vs. State of Ban on cow slaughter does not violate Article 25 because cow slaughter is not an
Bihar, 1958 essential part of Islam.

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com Page 21 of 108
 Punjab University mandated that the medium of education in all affiliated colleges must
DAV College, Bhatinda vs.
be Punjabi. SC held it to be invalid because the right of minority to establish and
State of Punjab, 1971
administer the educational institution includes medium of education as well.
Guru Nanak University directed the state to make provision for study and research on
life and teachings of Guru Nanak. This was challenge on the ground that it violates Article
DAV College, Jalandhar vs.
28.
State of Punjab, 1971
SC held that it did not violate because the study was only academic and did not
amount to religious instruction or promotion of any religion.
Relation between Articles 29(1) and 30(1). In this landmark case, some sections of Gujarat
St. Xavier’s College vs. State of University Act imposed several restrictions that affected its managerial rights on the
Gujarat, 1974 college. SC held that provisions that effectively take control of the management of an
educational institution are not applicable to minority institutions.
Rev Stainislaus vs. State of MP,
Forcible conversions are not allowed.
1977
SR Bommai vs. Union of India, SC held that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution. Indian secularism is
1994 different from American secularism.
Santosh Kumar vs. Ministry of Teaching of Sanskrit language is not anti-secular because it is the mother of all Aryan
HRD, 1995 languages.
Ashutosh Lahiri vs. State of Exemption on cow slaughter on Bakarid day invalid because it is not an essential to the
WB, 1995 religion.
Church of God vs. KKRMC
Noise pollution in the name of religion not allowed.
Welfare Association, 1999
Aruna Roy vs. Union of India, Study based on all religions in school is not anti-secular. Must keep “sarva dharma
2002 samabhav” and not “sarva dharma abhav”.
Javed vs. State of Haryana,
Two children norm not a violation of Article 25.
2003
Cultural and Educational Rights (Article 29-30)
Protection of interests of minorities (Article 29)
Article 29(1) guarantees to every section of the citizens residing in any part of India having a distinct language, script or
culture-of its-own, the right to conserve the same, i.e., language, script or culture. A minority community can preserve
its language, script or culture by and through educational institutions. Therefore, the right to establish and maintain
institutions of their choice is a necessary concomitant to the right to preserve its distinctive language, script or culture.
This right is guaranteed to them by Article 30(1) and is further protected by Article 30(2).
According to Article 29(2), no citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institutions maintained by the State
or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them.
Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions (Article 30)
Article 30(1) says that all minorities whether based on religion or language shall have the right to establish and
administer educational institutions of their choice.
Article 30(2) says that the State in granting aid to educational institutions shall not discriminate against any educational
institutions on the ground that it is under the management of a minority whether based on religion or language.
Difference between Article 29 (1) and Article 30 (1)
Article 29 (1) Article 30 (1)

Gives right to all citizens having a distinct language, Gives right to minorities to establish and administer
script, or culture, to preserve the same. educational institutions.

Provides right to all citizens. Provides right to minorities.

Deals only with language, script, and culture. Deals with language and religion.

90Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com

Head Page 22 of 108
 Concerned with right to conserve language, script, and Gives right to establish and manage educational
culture. institutions of their choice to minorities.
Deals only with establishment and administration of
Does not necessarily mean educational institutes.
educational institutions.
Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32)
• The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by
this Part is guaranteed.
• The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas
corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement
of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
• Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by law
empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable
by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
• The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.
Article 32 guarantees to individuals the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the
enforcement of the Fundamental Rights conferred under Part III of the Constitution. Unlike the other Fundamental
Rights, this right is remedial in nature. It is this remedial right which makes the other Fundamental Rights real and
meaningful. If there is no remedy, there is no right at all. It is the guaranteed remedy which provides teeth to all the
Fundamental Rights! That is why Article 32 itself has been incorporated as a Fundamental Right in the Constitution.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly described Article 32 as the most important of all the Articles and an
Article without which the Constitution would be a nullity. According In him, it is the very heart and soul of the
Constitution. It is this Article which makes the Supreme Court the protector and guarantor of Fundamental Rights, since
in the event of infringement of any of the Fundamental Rights of an individual; the Constitution places a duty on the
Supreme Court to engage the petition of an aggrieved individual and provide remedial measures for him. Thus Article
32 is the fundamental of all the Fundamental Rights. Article 32 is available only in cases of violation of Fundamental
Rights and not in case of violation of other legal rights.
Writs
Habeas Corpus- A writ of habeas corpus can be issued against any person, private or official. It is in the nature of an
order calling upon the person who has unlawfully detained another person to produce the latter before the court. The
expression habeas corpus literally means ‘to have the body’.
Mandamus- Mandamus literally means ‘command’. It is, thus an order of a superior court commanding a person holding
a public office or a public authority (including the Government) to do or not to do something, in the nature of public
duty.
Prohibition- A writ of prohibition is issued by a superior court to an inferior court or tribunal to prevent it from
exceeding its jurisdiction and to compel it to keep within the limits of its jurisdiction. Its sole purpose is, therefore, to
prevent inferior courts from usurping a jurisdiction with which they are not legally vested A writ of prohibition can be
issued, when there is excess of jurisdiction or absence of jurisdiction?).
Certiorari- A writ of certiorari has much in common with a writ of prohibition. The only difference between the two is,
whereas a writ of prohibition is issued to prevent an inferior court or tribunal to go ahead with the trial of a case in
which it has assumed excess of jurisdiction, writ of certiorari is issued to quash such orders).
Quo Warranto- The words quo warranto means ‘What is your authority’? A writ of quo warranto is issued against the
holder of a public office to show to the court under what authority he holds the office.
Armed Forces and Fundamental Rights
Under Article 33 of the Constitution, Parliament can restrict or abrogate by law the Fundamental Rights applicable to
the members of the armed forces or the forces charged with maintenance of public order. The justification given for
these restrictions is that it enables the members of these forces to properly discharge their duties.
Martial law and Fundamental Rights
Article 34 provides for the restriction on Fundamental Rights while martial law is in force in any area within the territory
of India. It provides that Parliament may by law indemnify any person in the service of the Union or of a state or any
other person in respect of any act done by him in connection with the maintenance or restoration of order in any area

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com Page 23 of 108
within the territory of India where martial law was in force or validate any sentence passed, punishment inflicted,
forfeiture ordered or other act done under martial law in such area.
25th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1971
By this amendment, clause 2 of Article 31 was amended and clause 2A was inserted. It also inserted Article 31 C.
Therefore, it deprived the jurisdiction of the Courts over acquisition laws with regard to adequacy of ‘Compensation’
which was deleted and substituted by the word ‘amount’. It also provided that no law passed by the State to give effect
to Directive Principles specified under clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39 can be declared void on the ground that it was
inconsistent with fundamental rights conferred by Articles 14, 19 and 31.
43rd Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1976
The 43rd Amendment omitted many Articles inserted by 42nd Amendment; it restored the writ jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court and the High Courts, which had been deprived by the 42nd Amendment.
Right to Property
Right to property under the original provisions of the Constitution as mentioned under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 had a
threefold provision as to this:
• It guaranteed the right of every citizen to acquire and dispose of any property. This was limited by the exigencies
of public welfare and protection of the interests of Scheduled Tribes.
• No person shall be deprived of his property except by authority of law.
• If the State intended to acquire the private property of an individual that could be done only on two conditions:
(a) public purpose; (b) adequate compensation was to be paid to the owner of the property that was to be
acquired.
But through subsequent amendments starting with the first amendment up to the 25 th amendment, the right was
gradually diluted. The process of dilution ultimately culminated in all vestiges of the right being eliminated by the 44 th
Amendment Act 1978. Thus Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 were altogether deleted from the Constitution. The right
under Article 31 in a limited form was put under a new Article 300A added by this Amendment. It reads, “No person
shall be deprived of his property except by authority of law".
Article 300A- No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.
Chapter 4 of Part 12- Right to Property- Ins. by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, s. 34 (w.e.f. 20-6-
1979).
1st Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1951
This amendment added Article 15(4) and Article 19(6) and brought changes in the right to private property in pursuance
with the decision of Supreme Court concerning Fundamental Rights. 9 th schedule to the Constitution was added.
44th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1978
This amendment was brought by the Janata Party Government which repealed some of the changes effected by 42 nd
Amendment; omitted a few and provided alterations, the most important of them are as follows:
• Right to property was taken away from the list of Fundamental Rights and placed in a new Article 300A as mere
legal right.
• Constitutionality of the Proclamation of Emergency by the President can be questioned in a court on the ground
of mala fide. (42nd Amendment had made it. immune from judicial review).
• It brought the revocation of a Proclamation under Parliamentary control.
• Under National Emergency, the words ‘internal disturbance’ has been substituted by the words ‘armed rebellion’.
• It limited the duration of Proclamation made under Article 356 to a period of one year, unless a Proclamation
under Article 352 is in operation and Election Commission certifies the impossibility to hold election to state
assembly concerned, in which case it may be extended up to three years, by resolution for continuance being
passed by both Houses of Parliament.
• It. authorized the President to refer back the advice to the Council of Ministers for reconsideration, but made it
binding for the President to act on the-reconsidered advice.
• The power of the Courts to decide disputes regarding election of Prime Minister and Speaker was restored.
• Constitutional protection on publication of proceedings of Parliament and State legislatures was provided.

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com Page 24 of 108
 DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY
(Articles 36 to 51 under Part IV)
Socialistic Principles Articles 38, 39, 39A, 41,42, 43, 43A, 47
Gandhian Principles Articles 40, 43, 46, 47, 48
Liberal-intellectual Principles Articles 44, 45, 48, 48A, 49, 50, 51

Sanction behind the Directive Principles of State Policy

The Directive Principles being non-justiciable by nature cannot be enforced in a court of law. The sanctions behind them are
not legal but political and moral in nature and they enjoin upon the State the duty to give them a concrete shape as and when
it finds it practicable to do so. No Ministry or Government responsible to the people can afford to ignore these principles as it
is answerable to the people in the next General Election.
It provides a potent weapon to the opposition to-discredit the government if any of its executive or legislative act runs
contrary do the Directive Principles. In fact, these principles act as a sign-post to all succeeding governments. It is,
therefore, the duty of the government to move the country towards this ideal sign-post. The Directive Principles provide
the yard-stick for measuring and evaluating the success and failure of these governments.
Directives at the Commencement of the Constitution
• To secure and protect a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people (Article 38).
• In particular, the State shall direct its policy towards securing:
i. Adequate means of livelihood to all citizens;
ii. A proper distribution of the material resources of the community for the common good
iii. Prevention of concentration of wealth and means of production to common detriment;
iv. ‘Equal pay for equal work for both men and women;
v. The protection of the strength and health of workers and avoiding circumstances which force citizens to enter
vocations unsuited to their age or strength;
vi. The protection of childhood and youth against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment
(Article 39).
• To organize village panchayats as units of self-government (Article 40).
• To secure the right to work, education and public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness, etc. (Article
41).
• To secure just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief (Article 42).
• To secure work, a living wage, a decent standard of life, social and cultural opportunities for people, and in particular
to promote cottage industries on an individual or cooperative basis in rural areas (Article 43).
• To secure for all citizens a uniform civil code applicable to the entire country (Article 44).
• To provide, within ten years from the commencement of the Constitution, free and compulsory education to all
children up to the age of fourteen (Article 45). It was substituted by the 86lh Constitutional- Amendment Act 2002
under which the State shall endeavor to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they
complete the age of six years.
• To promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, especially
the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Article 46).
• To raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and secure the improvement of public health
and the prohibition of intoxicating drinks and drugs (Article 47).
• To organize agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and preserve and improve the breeds
and prohibit the slaughter of cows, calves and other milch and draught cattle (Article 48).
• To protect all monuments of historic interest and national importance (Article 49).
• To bring about the separation of the judiciary from the executive (Article 50).
• To endeavor to secure
i. The promotion of international peace and security;
ii. The maintenance of just and honorable relations between nations;
iii. To foster respect for international law and treaty obligations; and
iv. The settlement of international disputes by arbitration (Article 51).

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com Page 25 of 108
 Husband divorced wife under personal law. SC ordered maintenance to be paid
under section 125 of CrPC, which applies to all irrespective or religion. Article 44
Shah Bano vs.
However, Rajiv Gandhi government enacted Muslim Women (Protection of SC urges
Mohd. Ahmed Khan,
Rights of Divorce) Act, 1986 that allows a magistrate to direct her relatives who implementation
1986
would inherit her property to pay for her maintenance after 3 months of iddat. of UCC.
If a woman has no relatives, Waqf board would pay.
Husband changed religion only for second marriage.
Article 44
Sarla Mudgal vs. SC held that under HMA, 1955, marriage is void if a person has a spouse alive
SC urges
Union of India, at the time of marriage. Thus, changing one’s religion will not change
implementation
1995 application of law. Muslim law will apply only if the first marriage was
of UCC.
performed under Muslim law.

Directives added after the Commencement of the Constitution

It introduced a new Article 31C which states that if the State enacts any law giving
By 25th Constitutional
effect to two Directive Principles, namely, equitable distribution of wealth [Article
Amendment Act, 1971
39(b)] and prevention of concentration of wealth in fewer hands [Article 39(c)].
• To secure opportunities and facilities for healthy development of children and in
conditions of freedom and dignity and to protect the childhood and youth against
By 42nd exploitation and against moral and material abandonment [Article 39(f)].
Constitutional • To promote equal justice and to provide free legal aid to the poor (Article 39-A).
Amendment Act, 1976 • To secure the participation of workers in the management of industries (Article
43-A).
• To protect and improve the environment and to safeguard forests and wildlife
(Article 48-A).
The State shall, in particular, strive to minimize the inequalities in income and
By 44th
endeavor to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities, not only
Constitutional
amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people residing in different areas or
Amendment Act, 1978
engaged in different vocations [Article 38(1)].
By 97th Constitutional
Promotion of Co-operative societies (Article 43B).
Amendment Act, 2012

Directives in other parts (not in Part IV) of the Constitution

Every State and every local authority within the State to provide adequate facilities for
Article 350A instruction in mother tongue at the primary stage to the children of linguistic
minorities.
The Union to promote the spread of Hindi language so that it may serve as a medium of
Article 351
expression of all the elements of the composite culture of India.
That the claims of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into
consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the
Article 355
making of appointments to services and posts in connection with affairs of Union or of
a State.
DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES VS. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
The differences between the two are significant. Whereas the Fundamental Rights provide the foundation of political
democracy, the Directives spell out the character of social and economic democracy in India.
The Fundamental Rights lay down the negative obligation or restriction of the State i.e., they are prohibitive in character
and are in the nature of injunction requiring the State not to do certain things. The Directive Principles, on the contrary,
are affirmative or positive directions dealing with the positive or moral obligations of the State towards the citizens.
Another difference between the two is that whereas the Fundamental Rights have been laid down in clear legal language, the
Directive Principles are stated in general terms.
The Fundamental Rights represent something static, to preserve certain rights which already exist. On the other hand,
the Directive Principles of State Policy represent a dynamic move towards a certain objective.
Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com Page 26 of 108
 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES
As the Constitutional provisions reveal, the Fundamental Rights enumerated under Part III are enforceable in a Court of
law, whereas the Directive Principles under Part IV are not justiciable. But Article 37 declares that, nevertheless, the
Directive Principles are fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply the
Directive Principles in making laws.
But the question is, if laws made by the State giving effect to Directive Principles violate the Fundamental Rights, can
they be valid? This question was raised before the Supreme Court as early as in 1951 in Champakam Dorairajan case.
The Supreme Court consistently held that on the whole there is no inherent conflict between-the Fundamental Rights
and the Directive Principles. They are supplementary to each other. They together constitute an integrated scheme, and
therefore, as far as possible they should be interpreted harmoniously.
In 1971, Parliament-passed the 25th Constitutional Amendment Act.
It introduced a new Article 31-C which states that if the State enacts any law giving effect to two Directive Principles,
namely, equitable distribution of wealth [Article 39(b)] and prevention of concentration of wealth in fewer hands
[Article 39(c)] and in that process if the law violates the Fundamental Rights enumerated in Articles. 14,19 and 31, it
cannot be held void merely on this ground. Article 31-C further states that such a law giving effect to Article 39(b) and
(c) cannot be questioned in a Court of law.
The 25th Amendment Act came to be challenged before the Supreme Court in the Keshavananda Bharati case (1973).
The Court making a change from its earlier decisions upheld the first part of Article 31-C which states that a law giving
effect to Article 39(b) and (c) can override Articles 14, 19 and 31. But the second part of the Article which barred the
judicial scrutiny of laws passed to give effect to Directives contained in Article 39(b) and (c) was declared
unconstitutional by the Court.
The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, further amended Article 31-C and widened its scope, and gave
precedence for all the Directive Principles over Articles 14, 19 and 31.
Article 31C as amended by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, empowered the State to make laws giving
effect to all the Directive Principles and in doing so the law can override Articles 14, 19 and 31. Thus the laws made to
this effect were made immune from Judicial Review.

But the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case, 1980, struck down the changes introduced by the 42th Amendment
Act in Article 31-C as unconstitutional on the ground that such total exclusion of Judicial Review would offend the basic
structure of the Constitution. Hence, the present position is that only Article 39(b) and (c) can be given precedence over
Articles 14 and 19 and not all the Directive Principles. (Article 31 dealing with right to property is no longer relevant in
this respect as it has been removed by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978 from the Fundamental Rights and
has been made a legal right under Article 300-A). The Supreme Court in Minerva Mills case also held that our Constitution
is built on a balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles and to give absolute primacy to one over the
other was to disturb the harmony between the two.

FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES

(Articles 51A under Part IVA)

The Fundamental Duties were inserted into the Constitution of India by the 42 nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976
on the recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee. Ten Fundamental Duties were included in Article 51-A under
Part IV-A through this amendment. The 11th Fundamental Duty [51 -A(K)] was added by the 86th Constitutional
Amendment Act, 2002.
Japan is the only democratic country in the world which provides for a set of Fundamental Duties in its Constitution. The
Indian Constitution has borrowed the concept of Fundamental Duties from the Constitutions of Socialist countries (erstwhile
USSR now Russia).
The idea behind the incorporation of the Fundamental Duties was to emphasize the obligations of the citizens in exchange of
the comprehensive
Fundamental Rights enjoyed by them. Basically, the Fundamental Duties were incorporated with the purpose of making the
citizens patriotic, help them to follow a code of conduct that would strengthen the nation, protect its sovereignty and integrity,
help the State in performing its diverse duties and promote ideals of harmony, unity, common brotherhood and religious
tolerance. These ideals are the very cornerstone of the Constitution. The Fundamental Duties-have highlighted the importance
of citizens in the functioning of the State and urges upon them to do their best to discharge their duties.

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com Page 27 of 108
• 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 which inspired our 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 amongst all the people of India transcending
religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of
women;
• To value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture;
• To protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life and to have
compassion for living creatures;
• To develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform;
• To safeguard public property and to abjure violence;
• To strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises
to higher levels of endeavor and achievement;
• Who is parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to his child, or as the case may be, ward between
the age of six and fourteen years.

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com Page 28 of 108