INTRODUCTION
Fundamental Rights are among the most significant provisions of the Constitution of India, enshrined
in Part III (Articles 12–35). They are justiciable guarantees, meaning citizens can directly approach
the courts if these rights are violated, and they form the cornerstone of Indian democracy. This
assignment documents a reflective discussion held with a fellow friend, Mahi, in which she first
shared what she knew about fundamental rights before formal academic study and then compared it
with her current, informed understanding. The exercise was aimed at gauging how prior knowledge
differs from constitutional fact and how education bridges that gap.
PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
When asked what Fundamental Rights are, my friend described them as rights that give people
freedom specifically mentioning the right to speech. She correctly guessed that there are six
Fundamental Rights, though she was uncertain and added "more are there, but I don't know the perfect
number." This suggests a partially correct but unconfident understanding, without any awareness of
why the number changed historically.
She believed that if Fundamental Rights are violated, "there are many rules that punish the person."
She connected rights violations to her personal experience as a hosteler, citing freedom of speech
issues in college, where seniors and leaders feel superior. She did not mention any specific legal
remedy or constitutional provision for redressal.
She identified the Right to Freedom as the most important, particularly from the perspective of
women's freedom. She expressed that women are more "bounded" than men in Indian society and that
everyone should be free to do whatever they want. She also honestly acknowledged that many rights
should be added and that she does not remember all the rights. On awareness, she admitted, "As of
now, 20 years old, I don't think so" meaning she does not consider herself fully aware of her rights as
a citizen. She attributed this to gaps in school education, where rights were taught only superficially in
EVS and Moral Science without real emphasis.
This surface-level understanding was evident when she incorrectly included the right to vote as a
Fundamental Right which is actually a constitutional right—and expressed general confusion
regarding the exact nature of these legal protections.
CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
While the friend viewed the Right to Freedom as a general state of being "unbounded," formal study
clarifies that Articles 19–22 guarantee six specific, actionable freedoms, such as speech, assembly,
and movement. Crucially, these rights are not absolute and are subject to "reasonable restrictions" in
the interest of public order, morality, and national sovereignty. The gender-based concerns raised
during the discussion are directly addressed by Article 15, which prohibits discrimination on the basis
of sex, and Article 14, which ensures equality before the law for all persons.
There are indeed six Fundamental Rights today. Originally, there were seven, but the Right to
Property was removed by the 44th Constitutional Amendment in 1978 and reclassified as a legal right
under Article 300A. This historical context is important to understand why the number stands at six
and not seven.
The Constitution provides a specific remedy for rights violations through Article 32, described by Dr.
B.R. Ambedkar as the "heart and soul of the Constitution." It allows any citizen to approach the
Supreme Court directly when their Fundamental Rights are violated. The Court can issue five writs-
Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto to enforce these rights. High
courts also have similar powers under Article 226.
The Right to Freedom under Articles 19–22 guarantees six specific freedoms, including freedom of
speech and expression, assembly, association, movement, residence, and profession. These freedoms
are subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of sovereignty, public order, and morality. The
friend's concern for women's freedom is directly addressed by Article 15, which prohibits
discrimination on the basis of sex, and Article 14, which guarantees equality before law for all persons
regardless of gender. Her observation about weak rights education in schools reflects a real and widely
acknowledged gap in civic literacy in India.
COMPARISON
The recorded discussion with my friend clearly illustrated the gap that exists between prior, informal
knowledge and current, academically informed understanding of fundamental rights. The friend's
prior knowledge was partially correct in places; she knew there were six rights and identified freedom
as the most important but it was also marked by confusion, such as including the right to vote as a
Fundamental Right, and a complete absence of knowledge about constitutional remedies. She was
also unaware of specific articles, the historical context of the 44th Amendment, or the role of the
Supreme Court under Article 32. Her candid admission that she is not fully aware of her rights even at
age 20, and her view that the education system has not done enough to teach these rights, resonates
strongly with the current understanding that constitutional literacy must be treated as an essential life
skill. Formal study transforms vague awareness into precise, actionable knowledge, and this
comparison makes that transformation clearly visible.
CONCLUSION
The comparison between the informal discussion and formal study highlights how vague awareness of
social "boundedness" is transformed into precise constitutional knowledge. While prior knowledge
centered on a general desire for freedom, current academic insights provide a clear understanding of
specific articles, historical amendments, and the vital role of the Supreme Court in enforcing these
rights. Ultimately, this process demonstrates that formal education is essential to bridge the gap
between intuition and actionable civic literacy.