Part III – Fundamental Rights (Article 12 - 35)

 Fundamental Rights are called "Fundamental" because they are essential for the
dignity, liberty and development of the individual. Without these rights, the
functioning of democracy becomes meaningless.
 The Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution are largely based on the Bill of
Rights (first ten amendments) of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Although India adopted the parliamentary system from Britain, it did not adopt the
British model of individual rights. In Britain, due to the supremacy of Parliament,
Parliament can make or amend any law affecting individual rights. Therefore, rights
primarily provide protection against the executive, not against Parliament. In contrast,
the American Bill of Rights binds both the executive and the legislature, and the
judiciary can declare any law unconstitutional if it violates these rights.
 India adopted the American idea that Fundamental Rights act as limitations not only
on the Executive but also on the Legislature. However, unlike the United States, India
does not follow complete judicial supremacy. Instead, the Constitution establishes a
balance between parliamentary supremacy and judicial supremacy. Parliament can
make laws and amend the Constitution under Article 368, but such laws remain
subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court and High Courts. At the same time,
unlike the United States, Fundamental Rights in India are not absolute but qualified.
The Constitution itself authorises the Legislature to impose reasonable restrictions on
several Fundamental Rights. Further, constitutional amendments have also introduced
certain exceptions within Part III itself, such as Articles 31A, 31B and 31C.
 Since Parliament possesses the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368
while the Judiciary has the power of judicial review, conflicts have frequently arisen
between the two. One important example is the Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967)
case, where an 11-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that Fundamental Rights
occupy a "transcendental position" and therefore Parliament could not amend them
under Article 368. Parliament responded by enacting the 24th Constitutional
Amendment Act, 1971, which amended Articles 13 and 368 and expressly declared
that Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including
Fundamental Rights. Subsequently, in the landmark Kesavanandan Bharati v. State of
Kerala (1973) case, the Supreme Court upheld Parliament's power to amend
Fundamental Rights but laid down the Basic Structure Doctrine, holding that
Parliament cannot alter or destroy the basic features of the Constitution. Since then,
the Supreme Court has used this doctrine to examine constitutional amendments and
protect Fundamental Rights whenever the basic structure is threatened.
 Therefore, because of their importance in protecting individual liberty against
arbitrary State action, the Fundamental Rights are often described as the "Magna
Carta of the Indian Constitution." The term Magna Carta literally means "Great
Charter." It refers to the historic charter signed by King John of England in 1215 under
 pressure from the English barons at Runnymede. The Magna Carta limited the
arbitrary powers of the King and recognised certain rights of the people. Similarly, the
Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution impose limitations on the powers of the
State and guarantee essential rights to individuals.
 Originally there were seven Fundamental Rights. However, the 44th Constitutional
Amendment Act, 1978 transferred the Right to Property from Article 31 to Article
300A, making it only a constitutional (legal) right (and no longer a Fundamental Right).
Therefore, there are now six Fundamental Rights.

Classification of Fundamental Rights

 Right to Equality (Article 14- 18)
 Right to Freedom (Article 19-22)
 Right against Exploitation (Article 23 - 24)
 Right to Religious Freedom (Article 25 - 28)
 Cultural and Educational Rights (Article 29-30)
 Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32)

Article 12 – Definition of State

 State will include not only the executive and legislative organs of the Union and all
states but also local bodies such as municipal authorities. It will include as well other
“authorities” that has the power to issue orders, rules, bye-laws or regulations having
the force of law e.g. Board having the power to issue statutory rules or exercising
governmental powers.
 Even the act of a private individual may become an act of the State if it is enforced or
funded by any of the authorities just referred to.
Note – Fundamental rights not only protect us against the aggression of State but as well of
private individuals as we will see in Art15(2), Art 17, Art 18, Art22.

Article 13 - Laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights

 Article 13 declares that any law which is inconsistent with or takes away the
Fundamental Rights shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.
 It is the constitutional basis of the Doctrine of Judicial Review, under which the
Supreme Court (Article 32) and the High Courts (Article 226) can declare a law
unconstitutional if it violates the Fundamental Rights.
Doctrine of Severability
 This doctrine generally applies to post-Constitution laws, i.e., laws made after the
commencement of the Constitution.
 If only a particular provision of a law violates the Fundamental Rights, then only that
offending provision is declared void, while the remaining valid provisions continue to
operate, provided they are capable of functioning independently.
  Remember: Only the unconstitutional part is severed; the rest of the law survives.
Doctrine of Eclipse
 This doctrine applies only to pre-Constitution laws, i.e., laws that were in force before
the commencement of the Constitution.
 If a pre-Constitution law is inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights, the entire law
becomes inoperative (eclipsed) against citizens to the extent of inconsistency. It is not
dead but remains dormant until the inconsistency is removed.
 If the inconsistency is removed by a Constitutional Amendment, the law automatically
revives without being re-enacted.
 Remember: Unlike the Doctrine of Severability, the Doctrine of Eclipse suspends the
operation of the entire inconsistent pre-Constitution law rather than merely removing
one offending provision.
Meaning of "Law" under Article 13
The term "Law" has been given a very wide meaning. It includes:
1. Laws enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures.
2. Temporary laws such as Ordinances issued by the President or Governors.
3. Delegated legislation such as Rules, Regulations, Orders, Bye-laws and Notifications.
4. Customs and Usages having the force of law.
 Thus, not only an Act of Parliament but any of the above can be challenged before the
courts for violating the Fundamental Rights.
Constitutional Amendment and Article 13
 Initially, it was believed that a Constitutional Amendment is not a "law" under Article
13 and therefore could not be challenged.
 However, in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case, the Supreme Court
held that although Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution under Article
368, a Constitutional Amendment can be struck down if it destroys the Basic Structure
of the Constitution.

Right to Equality (Article 14 – 18)

Article 14 – Equality before Law and Equal Protection of Law
 Provisions under this article confer rights to all persons whether citizen or alien.
 The concept of equality before law is of British origin, whereas the concept of equal
protection of law is of American origin.
 Equality before law has been taken from British jurist A. V. Dicey’s book “The Law of
the Constitution” in which he propounds three principles – first, no man shall be
punished or made to suffer in body or good except for the violation of law, such a
violation shall be established in an ordinary court of land in an ordinary legal manner.
Second, all persons whether king or beggar are subjected to the ordinary law of the
land without any distinction of rank or position and are subjected to the jurisdiction of
ordinary courts. And third, Constitution is a result of ordinary law of the land.
  For our case of ‘equality before law’, we accept his first two principles but not the
third where the supremacy does not lie in judicial pronouncements but in the
constitution. As all laws that are to be passed legislatures must be consistent with the
provisions of constitution.
 Exception to equality before law – first, President of India and Governor of states
enjoy the immunity from the court for the exercise or performance of their duties of
the office; no civil or criminal proceedings shall be instituted against the President or
Governor during their term of office. Even no process of arrest or imprisonment can
be issued against them during their term of office. Second, no member of Parliament
or state legislature shall be liable to any proceeding in any court in respect to anything
said or any vote given by him in parliament and state legislature. Third, foreign
diplomats and ambassadors enjoy immunity from civil and criminal proceedings
including UN and its agency’s members.
 Equal Protection of law states i) the equality of treatment under equal circumstances
both in the privileges conferred and liabilities imposed by laws; ii) the similar
application of the same law to all persons who are similarly situated; iii) like should be
treated like without any discrimination.
 Thus, equal protection of law maintains that – equal should be treated equally and
unequal should be treated unequally.
 It is this provision in article 14 that justifies the protective discrimination extended by
the state – the reservation policy in favour of backward class is also justified on basis
of this principle.
 If we pay attention equality before law is somewhat negative concept, it shows the
absence of any discriminatory treatment by law privileging certain birth, descent or
caste etc; whereas equal protection of law is a positive concept, it provides for equal
treatment in equal conditions, it extends the state’s efforts towards individuals in
terms of affirmative action such distribution of resources through various policies etc.

Article 15 – Prohibition of Discrimination on Grounds of Religion, Race, Caste, Sex or Place

of Birth
 15(1) - State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race,
caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
 15(2) - No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or
any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard
to:
a) Access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or
b) The use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained
wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.
Exceptions
  15(3) - Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making special provisions
for women and children.
 15(4) - Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any special provision
for the advancement of any Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs) or for
the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
 15(5) - Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any special provision
for the advancement of any Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs) or for
the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in relation to their admission to
educational institutions, including private educational institutions, whether aided or
unaided by the State, except minority educational institutions under Article 30(1).
 15(6) - Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making special provisions,
including reservation in educational institutions, for the advancement of Economically
Weaker Sections (EWS) of citizens other than those covered under Articles 15(4) and
15(5). Reservation under this clause shall be up to 10% in addition to the existing
reservations.

Article 16 – Equality of Opportunity in Matters of Public Employment

 16(1) - There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to
employment or appointment to any office under the State.
 16(2) - No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of
birth, residence or any of them, be discriminated against in respect of any employment
or office under the State.
Exceptions
 16(3) - Parliament may prescribe residence within a State or Union Territory as a
qualification for certain classes of public employment.
 16(4) - Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making provision for
reservation in appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which,
in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the
State.
 16(5) - A law may require that the holder of an office connected with the affairs of any
religious or denominational institution shall belong to that particular religion or
denomination.
 16(6) - Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making provision for
reservation of up to 10% in appointments or posts for Economically Weaker Sections
(EWS) of citizens other than those covered under Article 16(4).

Note –

State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951)

  The Government of Madras reserved seats in educational institutions on the basis of
caste and community through the Communal G.O.
 Champakam Dorairajan challenged the order after being denied admission despite
securing higher marks.
 The Supreme Court held that such reservation violated Article 15(1) and Article 29(2)
and ruled that Fundamental Rights prevail over the Directive Principles of State Policy.
 To overcome this judgment, Parliament enacted the First Constitutional Amendment
Act, 1951, inserting Article 15(4) empowering the State to make special provisions for
the advancement of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs) and SCs/STs.

Mandal Commission (1979)

 The Second Backward Classes Commission, popularly known as the Mandal
Commission, was constituted in 1979 under the chairmanship of B. P. Mandal by then
Janata Party PM Morarji Desai.
 The Commission was constituted to identify the Socially and Educationally Backward
Classes (SEBCs/OBCs) and recommend measures for their advancement.
 In its report (1980), it estimated that OBCs constituted about 52% of India's population
and recommended 27% reservation for OBCs in Central Government services. Along
with 22.5% reservation for SCs and STs, the total reservation became 49.5%.

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) – Mandal Case

 In 1990, the Central Government with V.P. Singh as Prime Minister, National Front
Party, implemented the recommendation of 27% reservation for OBCs in Central
Government employment, which was challenged before the Supreme Court.
 In the Indra Sawhney Case (1992), a 9-Judge Bench upheld the constitutional validity
of 27% reservation for OBCs, but laid down important principles:
- Reservation should ordinarily not exceed 50%, except in extraordinary
circumstances.
- The concept of Creamy Layer was introduced, excluding socially
advanced persons among OBCs from reservation.
- Reservation under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) cannot be granted solely on
economic criteria, as these provisions are meant for socially and
educationally backward classes.

Subsequent Constitutional Amendments

 93rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2005 inserted Article 15(5), enabling reservation
for SEBCs, SCs and STs in admissions to educational institutions, including private
unaided institutions, except minority educational institutions under Article 30(1).
  103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 inserted Articles 15(6) and 16(6) providing
10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of citizens other than those
covered under the existing reservation provisions.

Remember
 Champakam Dorairajan (1951) → 1st Amendment (1951) → Article 15(4)
 Mandal Commission (1979) → 27% OBC Reservation
 Indra Sawhney Case (1992) → 27% OBC reservation upheld, Creamy Layer introduced
and 50% ceiling on reservation.
 93rd Amendment (2005) → Article 15(5)
 103rd Amendment (2019) → Articles 15(6) & 16(6) (EWS Reservation)

Article 17 – Abolition of Untouchability

 Untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement
of any disability arising out of untouchability shall be an offense punishable in
accordance with law.
 Parliament is authorised to make a law prescribing the punishment of this offence
under Article 35 and Parliament in exercise of this power has enacted Untouchability
(Offences) Act, 1955 which has been amended and renamed in 1976 as Protection of
Civil Rights Act, 1955.
 However, the word untouchability is neither defined in the Constitution nor in the Act
assuming that everybody understands what does it mean.
 Act, though, provides provisions for actions to be considered as offence under this
article such as refusing admission to any person to public institutions such as hospital,
dispensary, educational institution; or preventing any person from worshipping or
offering prayers in any place of public worship or subjecting any person to any disability
with regard to access to any shop, public restaurant, hotel, or public entertainment or
with regard to use of reservoir, tap or other sources of water, road, cremation ground
or any other place where services are rendered to the public.
 1976 amendment enlarges the scope of act – insulting member of a Scheduled Caste
on the ground of untouchability, preaching untouchability directly or indirectly, or
justifying untouchability on historical, philosophical or religious grounds or on the
ground of the caste system.

Article 18 – Abolition of Titles

 State shall not confer any titles except in case of military or academic distinctions. The
military distinctions conferred in the form of Paramvir Chakra, Vir chakra etc and
academic distinctions can be recognized in the form of PhD, D. Literature. These
distinctions are not regarded as titles.
  The purpose of this provision is to prevent the establishment of social hierarchies and
social inequalities in the form of state conferring titles on individuals mainly Sir, Rai
Bahadur, Chaudhary etc.
 However, this article does not prevent individuals or private organisations from
conferring titles.
 It prohibits an Indian citizen from receiving any title from foreign state. For example,
Sunil Gavaskar was conferred title “Sir” by Queen Elizabeth II.

Right to Freedom (Article 19 - 22)

Article 19 – Six Freedoms
 It is available only to citizens.
 It contains six rights which are often called as democratic rights as they are essential
for healthy functioning of the democracy. These rights are classified as the basic
structure of the Constitution thus they are the most important fundamental rights.
 Originally, there were seven freedoms under this article but with 44th amendment,
1978, the freedom under article 19(1)(f) – to acquire, hold and dispose of property –
has been omitted from the Constitution.
 19(1) All citizens shall have the right -
- (a) to freedom of speech and expression
- (b) to assemble peacefully and without arms
- (c) to form associations or unions or cooperative societies
- (d) to move freely throughout the territory of India
- (e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India
- (f) ……………………………
- (g) to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or
business.
 19(2)-19(6) – However nothing in this article prevents the state from making any law
that impose “reasonable restrictions” on these freedoms in the interest of sovereignty
and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states,
public order, decency or morality, or in relation of contempt of court, defamation or
incitement of an offence.
 Freedom of speech and expression includes flying of national flag, a voter’s casting of
vote and right to information etc. Remember, Right to Strike is not a Fundamental Right
under the Constitution. It is only a limited statutory (legal) right available in certain
cases under labour laws, subject to conditions, and government employees have no
right to strike according to the Supreme Court.
 Right to strike –
- All India Bank Employees' Association v. National Industrial
Tribunal (1962)
 - The Supreme Court held that although workers have a Fundamental
Right to form associations (Article 19(1)(c)), this does not include a
Fundamental Right to strike.
- T.K. Rangarajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu (2003)
- The Supreme Court held that government employees have no
Fundamental Right, statutory right, or even moral right to strike.
 Reasonable restrictions seek to balance the overly individualistic orientation of society
with leaving certain powers with authorities on the name of social control, so as to
realise a welfare state. Authorities such as Union, States government, other local or
statutory authorities such as municipalities, local boards etc. within the territory of
India or under the Government of India. All these authorities can impose reasonable
restrictions above freedom if those restrictions are relatable to public interest.
 Reasonable restrictions such as while enjoying the right of assembly, enjoyment of
such right is subject to certain qualifications. That is, assembly must be peaceful,
without arms, not creating public disorder or breach of peace or harm to the
sovereignty and integrity of India.

Article 20 – Protection in respect of conviction for offences

 This article guarantees protection in certain respect against conviction for offences by
prohibiting
- (1) Retrospective criminal legislation, commonly known as ex post facto
legislation
- (2) Double jeopardy or punishment for the same offence more than
once.
- (3) Compulsion to give self – incriminating evidence.
 Provision against Retrospective criminal legislation – No person shall be convicted of
any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the
act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might
have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.
 Provision against Double jeopardy – No person shall be prosecuted and punished for
the same offence more than once.
 Provision against Compulsion to give self-incriminating evidence – No person accused
of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. For example, the
compulsory administration of the narco analysis technique amounts to ‘testimonial
compulsion’ and thereby triggers the protection of article 20(3) of the constitution.
These tests can only be conducted on the prior permission of the courts and the test
cannot be used as ‘sole’ evidence but only as supplementary evidence.

Article 21 – Right to life and Personal liberty

 Right to life here means right to dignified life. It is composite in nature as it contains
various rights in it such as right to safe drinking water, right to pollution free air, right
against hand-cuffing, right against third degree, right to privacy, right to speedy trial,
 right to shelter for workers, right against noise pollution and so on. Article 21 is
therefore seen as core of this democratic nation because all other fundamental rights
and directive principles directly or indirectly aim to extend this quality of life to every
person living within its territories.
 The expression "personal liberty" was borrowed from the U.S. Constitution. The
Supreme Court has interpreted it very broadly, holding that it includes all those
rights and freedoms necessary for the full development of an individual's
personality, except those specifically dealt with under Article 19.

Note

 During a National Emergency declared on the ground of War or External Aggression

under Article 352, most Fundamental Rights may be suspended through a Presidential
Order under Article 359. However, after the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act,
1978, the rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended even
during an Emergency. Therefore, protection in respect of conviction for offences
(Article 20) and the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21) remain enforceable
even during an Emergency.

Article 21A – Right to Education

 This right was introduced through the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002.
 According to this Article, the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all
children of the age of 6 to 14 years in such manner as the State may, by law,
determine.

Note –

 The 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002 brought changes not only in
Fundamental Rights (Part III) but also in the Directive Principles of State Policy (Part
IV) and Fundamental Duties (Part IVA).
 It inserted Article 21A, making Right to Education (6–14 years) a Fundamental Right.
 It substituted Article 45. Earlier, Article 45 directed the State to provide free and
compulsory education up to the age of 14 years. After the amendment, Article 45
directs the State to provide early childhood care and education to all children below
the age of 6 years.
 The amendment also inserted Article 51A(k), adding the 11th Fundamental Duty,
which makes it the duty of every parent or guardian to provide opportunities for
education to his or her child or ward between the age of 6 and 14 years.

Article 22 – Protection against Arbitrary Arrest and Detention

 This provides safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention. It deals with two types
of detention:
 - Ordinary (Punitive) Detention
- Preventive Detention

Protection against Ordinary Arrest (Article 22(1) & 22(2))

 Every person who is arrested has the following rights:
- He shall not be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as
may be, of the grounds of arrest.
- He shall not be denied the right to consult and be defended by a legal
practitioner of his own choice.
- Every person arrested and detained shall be produced before the
nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, excluding the time
necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Court.
- No person shall be detained beyond 24 hours without the authority of
the Magistrate.
Exceptions
These safeguards are not available to:
 Enemy Aliens, and
 Persons arrested or detained under a law providing for Preventive Detention.

Preventive Detention
 Preventive Detention means detention of a person without trial in order to prevent
him from committing an act that may be prejudicial to the security of the State,
defence of the country, maintenance of public order, foreign affairs, or maintenance
of essential supplies and services.
 It is preventive, not punitive. The object is to prevent a future offence, whereas
punitive detention is punishment for an offence already committed.
Some Preventive Detention Laws
 National Security Act (NSA), 1980
 COFEPOSA Act, 1974 (Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling
Activities Act)
 Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities
Act, 1980
Constitutional Safeguards against Preventive Detention
Although Article 22 permits Preventive Detention, it also provides certain safeguards:
 No person can be detained for more than three months unless an Advisory Board
reports that there is sufficient cause for such detention.
 The Advisory Board consists of persons who are, or have been, or are qualified to be
appointed as Judges of a High Court.
 The detained person has the right to be informed of the grounds of detention as soon
as possible.
  However, the Government may refuse to disclose those facts which it considers to be
against the public interest.
 The detained person has the right to make a representation against the detention
order to the appropriate Government.

Right Against Exploitation (Article 23-24)

Article 23 – Prohibition of Traffic in Human Beings and Forced Labour
 This article prohibits traffic in human beings, begar and other similar forms of forced
labour. Any contravention of this provision is an offence punishable in accordance with
law.
 This Article is available to both citizens and aliens. It protects individuals not only
against the State but also against private persons.
The expression "Traffic in Human Beings" includes:
 Buying and selling of men, women and children like commodities.
 Human trafficking for prostitution, sexual exploitation or other immoral purposes.
 Slavery and slave trade.
 Devadasi system and similar exploitative practices.
Begar and Forced Labour
 Begar means compulsory work without any remuneration (payment).
 It was a prevalent practice in India under which landlords or zamindars compelled
tenants or labourers to work without wages.
 The Supreme Court has held that forced labour includes not only work without wages
but also work for wages less than the minimum wage prescribed by law, because
economic compulsion also amounts to force.
Exceptions
 Article 23 does not prohibit compulsory service imposed by the State for public
purposes, such as military service, compulsory social service or disaster management,
provided no discrimination is made on the grounds of religion, race, caste or class.
Note
 To give effect to Article 23, Parliament enacted the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act,
1956 to prevent trafficking for prostitution and punish offenders.
 Parliament also enacted the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, abolishing
the bonded labour system throughout India and making its practice a punishable
offence.
 The Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (as amended
in 2016) prohibits the employment of children below 14 years in all occupations and
prohibits employment of adolescents (14–18 years) in hazardous occupations and
processes.
.
Article 24 – Prohibition of Employment of Children in Factories etc.
  This article prohibits the employment of children below the age of 14 years in any
factory, mine or any other hazardous employment.
 This Article aims to protect children from economic exploitation and hazardous
working conditions.
 Unlike Article 23, which applies to all persons, Article 24 specifically protects children
below 14 years of age.
Note
 To give effect to Article 24, Parliament enacted the Child Labour (Prohibition and
Regulation) Act, 1986.
 The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2016 renamed it as
the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986.
 The amendment completely prohibits the employment of children below 14 years in
all occupations and processes, except:
- where a child helps his or her family enterprise after school hours or
during vacations; and
- where a child works as an artist in the entertainment industry
(excluding circuses), subject to prescribed conditions.
 The amendment also prohibits the employment of adolescents (14–18 years) in
hazardous occupations and processes.
 The Act prescribes punishment of imprisonment from 6 months to 2 years, or a fine
ranging from ₹20,000 to ₹50,000, or both, for employing a child in violation of the Act.
For repeat offences, the punishment is more stringent.

Right to Religious Freedom (Article 25 - 28)

Article 25 – Freedom of conscience, profess, practice and propagate any religion
 This article guarantees Freedom of Religion to all persons (Citizens as well as Aliens).
It contains two-fold freedom:
- (a) Freedom of Conscience, and
- (b) Freedom to Profess, Practice and Propagate any religion of one's choice.
 Freedom of conscience means the inner freedom of an individual to believe or not to
believe in any religion and to mould his relations with God according to his own
conscience without any interference from the State.
- No person can be compelled to accept or reject any religion against his
will.
- Example: A person is free to follow Hinduism, Islam, Christianity,
Sikhism or no religion at all.
 Right to Profess
- Right to profess means the right to openly declare, affirm and freely
express one's religious faith.
 Right to Practice
 - Right to practice means the right to perform religious worship, rituals,
ceremonies, observances, display of religious symbols, customs and
practices associated with one's religion.
 Right to Propagate
- Right to propagate means the right to spread, explain or disseminate
the teachings of one's religion for the purpose of enlightening others.
 Restrictions
- The rights to profess, practice and propagate religion are not absolute.
- The State may impose reasonable restrictions on the grounds of:
- (A)Public Order
- (B)Morality
- (C)Health
Note
Rev. Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977)
 The constitutional validity of anti-conversion laws enacted by the States of Madhya
Pradesh and Odisha was challenged before the Supreme Court.
 The Supreme Court held that the right to propagate religion means the right to spread
or disseminate the teachings of one's religion.
 However, Article 25 does not confer the right to convert another person to one's own
religion by force, fraud or allurement, because such acts interfere with another
person's freedom of conscience.
 Therefore, voluntary religious conversion is permissible, but conversion through
coercion, fraud or inducement can be prohibited by law.

Article 26 – Freedom to manage Religious Affairs

 Where Article 25 guarantees freedom of religion to individuals, Article 26 guarantees
the right of every religious denomination or any section thereof to manage its own
religious affairs.
 Rights guaranteed under Article 26
Every religious denomination has the right:
- 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.
- To administer such property in accordance with law.
Restrictions
 The rights under Article 26 are not absolute.
 The State may regulate these rights on the grounds of:
- Public Order
- Morality
- Health
  The State may also regulate the administration of property belonging to religious
institutions through law. However, it cannot interfere with essential religious practices
except as permitted by the Constitution.
Who is a Religious Denomination?
 In The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha
Swamiar of Shirur Mutt (1954), popularly known as the Shirur Mutt Case, the Supreme
Court held that a religious denomination must satisfy the following conditions:
- It should be a collection of individuals having a common faith or system
of beliefs.
- It should have a common organisation.
- It should be designated by a distinctive name.
 Examples: Ramakrishna Mission, Arya Samaj, Anand Marg, Lingayat community, etc.

Note
 The Shirur Mutt Case (1954) is one of the most important judgments on religious
freedom in India.
 In this case, the Supreme Court also laid down the Essential Religious Practices
Doctrine, holding that the State may regulate the secular or administrative aspects of
religion, but it cannot interfere with essential religious practices, except on
constitutional grounds such as public order, morality and health.

Article 27 – Freedom from Taxation for Promotion of Religion

 No person shall be compelled to pay any taxes for promotion or maintenance of any
particular religion or religious denomination. It can also be read as – State cannot
spend the public money collected by way of taxes for the promotion or maintenance
of any particular religion.
 However, this article does not prohibit the states from spending the money collected
in the form of fee for religious purposes.
 Tax is a compulsory payment, whereas fees are levied for the purpose of some special
service.

Article 28 – Religious Instruction in Educational Institutions

 This article deals with the religious instruction to be imparted in educational
institutions. It divides the educational institutions in to 4 categories:
- (1) Educational Institutions wholly owned by State – No religious
instruction whatsoever can be imparted in such institutions.
- (2) Educational Institutions receiving aid from State fund
- (3) Educational Institutions recognized by the state
- In both (2) and (3), religious instructions can be imparted but it is
optional for student to whether attend that course or not.
 - (4) Educational Institutions that are administered by State but were
established by Religious Endowments – Religious instructions can not
only be imparted but it can be made compulsory for the students.

Cultural and Educational Rights (Article 29-30)

Article 29 – Protection of interest of Minorities
 29(1) - This article deals with any sections of citizen residing in the territory of India
having a distinct language, script or culture of its own. He or she is entitled to preserve
the same – the language, the script or the culture.
 29(2) - No citizen shall be denied admission in to an educational institution maintained
by the State or receiving aid out of State Fund on grounds of religion, race, caste or
language or any of them.

Article 30 – Right of Minorities to establish Educational Institutions

 This article deals with the right of the minority community to establish educational
institutions.
 This article provides for two kind of minorities – one, religious and second, linguistic.
 It also recognizes the right to property of the minority educational institutions. State
may take over the immovable property of such an institution by law in public interest
but the compensation paid should not be so low that prevents the educational
institutions to re-establish itself elsewhere and run it.
 In case of Minority educational institutions, they are free to admit the students of their
own choice including the student of their own communities and non-minority
communities but only to an extent that they do not loose their minority character.
 These institutions are free to follow their own admission procedure including holding
of entrance test and fixing their fee structure.

Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32)

Article 32 – Constitutional Remedies for enforcement of Fundamental Rights
 This article is so fundamental to fundamental rights that B.R. Ambedkar who drafted
the constitution called it “Heart and Soul of the Constitution”. As abstract declaration
of fundamental rights is ineffective until and unless there are means to make them
effective.
 It confers the power on the Supreme court to issue appropriate writs to enforce the
fundamental rights if they find any violation of them. So, we can say this article is legal
remedy which makes other Fundamental Rights real and enforceable.
 Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court: The concept of writ jurisdiction has been
borrowed from England. Under Indian Constitution, the writ jurisdiction is enjoyed by
Supreme Court under article 32 and by High Court under article 226. The five writs are:
 - A) Habeas Corpus – It means “to have the body”. It is issued by court
whenever the arrest and detention of the person is illegal. It can be
issued both against the state and the individual.
- B) Mandamus – It means “command”. It is issued by court in a form of
command against public authorities but not against individuals. It is
issued for the enforcement of a legal right created by Parliament.
However, it cannot be issued against Chief Justice of High Court or the
President of India or State Governor.
- C) Prohibition – It literally means “to forbid or to restrain”. It is issued
whenever a Judicial or quasi—Judicial body has taken up a case in
excess of its jurisdiction. It is issued to prohibit the body from
proceeding on the case.
- D) Certiorari – It literally means “to be certified or to be informed”.
This writ is similar to that of prohibition except that it is issued to quash
a judgement and can also be issued to transfer a case pending before
lower court or tribunal. It is issued on the grounds of excess of
jurisdiction, lack of jurisdiction or error of law. Where Prohibition is
only preventive, Certiorari is both preventive and curative.
- E) Quo – Warranto – It literally means “what is your authority” or “by
what warrant”. It is issued by the court to inquire in to legality of a claim
of a person to public office. Hence, it prevents illegal usurpation of
public office by a person. This writ can be issued only against a
substantive public office but cannot be issued in case of ministerial
office or private office.

Right to Property (Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31)

 Originally, the Right to Property was a Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(f) and
Article 31.
 Article 19(1)(f) guaranteed every citizen the right to acquire, hold and dispose of
property, while Article 31 protected persons against deprivation of property except by
authority of law and on payment of compensation.
 Soon after Independence, the Government introduced land reforms, abolition of the
Zamindari System and redistribution of land to achieve social and economic justice.
These laws were frequently challenged before the courts on the ground that they
violated the Right to Property, leading to repeated conflicts between the Judiciary and
the Parliament.
 To protect land reform laws, Parliament enacted several Constitutional Amendments,
particularly the 1st (1951), 4th (1955), 17th (1964) and 25th (1971) Constitutional
Amendment Acts, progressively restricting the scope of the Right to Property and
protecting agrarian reform legislation from judicial review.
  Finally, the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978 deleted Article 19(1)(f) and
Article 31 from Part III and inserted Article 300A in Part XII of the Constitution. As a
result, the Right to Property ceased to be a Fundamental Right and became only a
Constitutional Right.
 Article 300A provides that "No person shall be deprived of his property save by
authority of law." Therefore, property can be acquired by the State only through a
valid law and not by executive action alone.

Exceptions to Fundamental Rights

Although Fundamental Rights are enforceable against the State, the Constitution itself
provides certain exceptions where some laws or classes of persons are protected from
challenge under Part III.
1. Article 31A – Saving of Laws relating to Agrarian Reforms and Certain Other Matters
 Article 31A protects certain categories of laws from being challenged on the ground
that they violate Articles 14 and 19.
 It was inserted by the First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951 mainly to protect land
reform laws from judicial review.
The protected categories include:
 Acquisition of estates and related rights by the State.
 Taking over the management of properties by the State.
 Amalgamation of corporations.
 Extinguishment or modification of the rights of directors or shareholders of
corporations.
 Extinguishment or modification of mining leases and similar rights.
Thus, Article 31A mainly protects laws relating to land reforms, agriculture, industry and
commerce.
It also provides that when land under the personal cultivation of a person and within the
statutory ceiling limit is acquired by the State, compensation shall not be less than the
market value of such land.

2. Article 31B and the Ninth Schedule

 Article 31B protects the Acts and Regulations placed in the Ninth Schedule from being
challenged on the ground that they violate the Fundamental Rights.
 It was inserted by the First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951.
 The Ninth Schedule was originally created to protect land reform laws from judicial
review.
Judicial Position
 In I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), the Supreme Court held that there can be
no blanket immunity from Judicial Review for laws placed in the Ninth Schedule.
 Referring to the Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973), the Court held that Judicial Review
is a Basic Feature of the Constitution. Therefore, all laws inserted into the Ninth
 Schedule after 24 April 1973 (the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment) can be
challenged if they violate the Basic Structure of the Constitution or Fundamental
Rights forming part of the Basic Structure, particularly Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21.

3. Article 31C – Saving of Laws giving effect to Certain Directive Principles

 Article 31C was inserted by the 25th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971.
 It provides that no law enacted to implement the Directive Principles contained in
Article 39(b) and Article 39(c) shall be declared void on the ground that it violates
Articles 14 or 19.
It originally contained two provisions:
 Laws implementing Article 39(b) and (c) cannot be challenged for violating Articles 14
and 19.
 Such laws could not be questioned in any court on the ground that they did not actually
give effect to those Directive Principles.
Judicial Position
 In the Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973), the Supreme Court upheld the first provision
but struck down the second provision, holding that Judicial Review is a Basic Feature
of the Constitution and cannot be taken away.
 Later, the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 extended Article 31C to all
Directive Principles, but in the Minerva Mills Case (1980) the Supreme Court declared
this extension unconstitutional. Therefore, Article 31C continues to protect only laws
implementing Articles 39(b) and 39(c).
4. Article 33 – Restriction of Fundamental Rights of Armed Forces
 It empowers Parliament to restrict or abrogate the Fundamental Rights of:
- Members of the Armed Forces.
- Paramilitary Forces.
- Police Forces.
- Intelligence Organisations.
- Persons employed in organisations connected with national security.
 The objective is to ensure the proper discharge of duties and the maintenance of
discipline.
 Parliament has enacted laws such as:
- Army Act, 1950
- Air Force Act, 1950
- Navy Act, 1957
- Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966
 The expression "members of the Armed Forces" also includes civilian employees
attached to them, such as barbers, cooks, mechanics, carpenters, etc.

5. Article 34 – Restriction of Fundamental Rights while Martial Law is in force

  Article 34 provides for the restriction of Fundamental Rights when Martial Law is in
force in any area within the territory of India.
 The concept of Martial Law has been borrowed from English Common Law.
 The Constitution does not define the expression "Martial Law."
 Literally, Martial Law means military rule, where the military authorities temporarily
take over the administration because the ordinary civil administration is unable to
function.
 Parliament may by law indemnify any person for acts done in connection with the
maintenance or restoration of order during the operation of Martial Law.

Article 35 – Legislation to Give Effect to Certain Fundamental Rights

 Article 35 provides that Parliament alone has the power to make laws for giving effect
to certain Fundamental Rights, even if those subjects fall within the State List.
 The objective is to maintain uniformity throughout the country in matters relating to
Fundamental Rights.