Fundamental Rights
Fundamental Rights (Part III)
Fundamental Rights are enshrined in Part III (Articles 12-35) of the Constitution. Originally seven rights were provided; now six remain after the Right to Property was removed by the 44th Amendment (1978). These rights are justiciable and enforceable through the Supreme Court (Art 32) and High Courts (Art 226). They represent the cornerstone of Indian democracy, protecting individual liberty against state action while permitting reasonable restrictions in the public interest.
Key Dates
Fundamental Rights came into force with the Constitution; seven rights originally guaranteed including Right to Property (Art 19(1)(f) and Art 31)
1st Amendment: added Art 15(4) for special provisions for SCs/STs; added "public order" and "friendly relations with foreign states" as grounds for restriction in Art 19(2); inserted Art 31A, 31B and the Ninth Schedule to protect agrarian reform laws from FR challenges
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan — SC upheld Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights (following Shankari Prasad, 1951)
Golaknath v. State of Punjab — SC (11-judge bench) reversed position, held Parliament CANNOT amend Fundamental Rights; they are "transcendental and immutable"
24th Amendment: restored Parliament's power to amend any part of the Constitution including Fundamental Rights; 25th Amendment: Art 31C gave primacy to Art 39(b) and (c) over Art 14, 19
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala — SC (13-judge bench) upheld 24th and 25th Amendments but introduced Basic Structure doctrine; Parliament can amend FRs but cannot destroy the basic structure
42nd Amendment: added Fundamental Duties (Part IVA), extended Art 31C to all DPSPs (struck down in Minerva Mills 1980), curtailed judicial review of FR amendments
44th Amendment: removed Right to Property from FRs; made it a legal right under Art 300A; restored Art 19 freedoms during Emergency; provided Art 20-21 cannot be suspended during Emergency
Minerva Mills v. Union of India — SC struck down parts of 42nd Amendment; held balance of FRs and DPSPs is part of basic structure; judicial review is a basic feature
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (Mandal case) — SC upheld 27% OBC reservation under Art 16(4); introduced 50% ceiling on total reservations; excluded "creamy layer" from OBC reservations
86th Amendment: Art 21A — Right to Education for children aged 6-14 became a Fundamental Right
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India — SC (9-judge bench) declared Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right under Art 21
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India — SC struck down Section 377 IPC, decriminalized consensual homosexual acts; based on Art 14, 15, 19, 21
SC upheld 103rd Amendment (10% EWS reservation) in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India; held economic criterion for reservation does not violate basic structure
Article 12 — Definition of "State"
Article 12 defines "State" for the purposes of Part III: it includes (a) the Government and Parliament of India, (b) the Government and Legislature of each State, (c) all local authorities (municipalities, panchayats, district boards, improvement trusts), and (d) "other authorities" within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. The phrase "other authorities" has been interpreted broadly by the SC: in Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal (1967), the SC held that it includes any authority created by statute and exercising governmental or quasi-governmental functions. In R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority (1979), the SC developed tests for identifying "other authorities": (1) entire share capital held by government, (2) financial assistance of the state, (3) functional or structural character is governmental, (4) deep and pervasive state control, (5) monopoly status. In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1981), the SC formulated the "instrumentality or agency of the state" test. Public sector undertakings, nationalized banks, LIC, ONGC, IITs, UGC-funded universities, and even some cooperative societies have been held to be "State" under Art 12. However, in Zee Telefilms v. Union of India (2005), the SC held that BCCI is NOT "State" despite exercising substantial control over cricket. Article 13 provides that any law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights is void — this is the basis of judicial review. Art 13(2) prohibits the State from making any law that abridges FRs. Art 13(3) defines "law" to include ordinances, orders, bye-laws, rules, regulations, notifications, customs, and usages having the force of law.
Right to Equality — Articles 14-18
Article 14: "The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India." This contains two concepts: (a) equality before the law (British concept, negative — absence of special privileges or discrimination; derived from Dicey's Rule of Law) and (b) equal protection of the laws (American concept, positive — equals must be treated equally, and the State can make reasonable classifications). The SC in State of WB v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) established the "doctrine of reasonable classification" — a classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia and must have a rational nexus with the object of the legislation. Art 14 applies to ALL persons (citizens + foreigners). Article 15: Prohibition of discrimination on grounds ONLY of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Art 15(2): no restriction on access to public places, shops, restaurants, wells, tanks, roads, etc. Art 15(3): State can make special provisions for women and children. Art 15(4) (1st Amendment 1951): special provisions for advancement of SCs/STs and socially/educationally backward classes. Art 15(5) (93rd Amendment 2005): special provisions for SCs/STs/OBCs in educational institutions including PRIVATE institutions (except minority institutions under Art 30). Art 15(6) (103rd Amendment 2019): special provisions for economically weaker sections (EWS — up to 10% reservation). Article 16: Equality of opportunity in public employment. Art 16(1)-(2): no discrimination in government employment. Art 16(3): Parliament can prescribe residence requirement for employment within a state. Art 16(4): reservation for backward classes not adequately represented. Art 16(4A) (77th Amendment 1995): reservation in promotion for SCs/STs. Art 16(4B) (81st Amendment 2000): carry-forward of unfilled reserved vacancies. Art 16(6) (103rd Amendment 2019): 10% reservation for EWS. Article 17: Abolition of Untouchability — its practice in any form is an offence punishable under law (Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955; SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989). This is an ABSOLUTE right — no exception is permitted. Article 18: Abolition of titles — (1) no title (not being a military or academic distinction) shall be conferred by the State; (2) no citizen shall accept any title from a foreign state; (3) no person who is not a citizen shall, while holding any office of profit under the State, accept any title from any foreign state without the consent of the President. Note: Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan, etc. are awards/decorations, NOT titles — the SC in Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India (1996) upheld this distinction.
Right to Freedom — Articles 19-22 (Part 1: Art 19)
Article 19 guarantees six freedoms to CITIZENS ONLY (not foreigners): (a) freedom of speech and expression — includes freedom of press (Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, 1950; Indian Express Newspapers v. UoI, 1985), right to know (Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, 2002), right to silence (Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, 1986 — Jehovah's Witnesses not compelled to sing national anthem); (b) freedom to assemble peaceably and without arms; (c) freedom to form associations or unions — includes right to form political parties, but NOT right to strike (T.K. Rangarajan v. Government of TN, 2003); (d) freedom to move freely throughout India; (e) freedom to reside and settle in any part of India; (g) freedom to practice any profession, trade, or business. Note: Art 19(1)(f) (freedom to acquire, hold and dispose of property) was deleted by the 44th Amendment (1978). Each freedom has corresponding reasonable restrictions: Art 19(2) for speech — sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to an offence. Art 19(3) for assembly — sovereignty and integrity + public order. Art 19(4) for associations — sovereignty and integrity + public order + morality. Art 19(5) for movement — interests of general public + protection of scheduled tribes. Art 19(6) for profession — professional and technical qualifications, state monopoly. The SC in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) struck down Section 66A of the IT Act as unconstitutional for violating Art 19(1)(a) — a landmark for digital rights.
Right to Freedom — Articles 20-22
Article 20: Protection in respect of conviction for offences — three safeguards: (1) no ex post facto criminal law — no person shall be convicted for an offence not defined as such at the time of commission (Art 20(1)); (2) no double jeopardy — no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once (Art 20(2)); (3) no self-incrimination — no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself (Art 20(3)). Art 20 applies to ALL persons and CANNOT be suspended even during National Emergency (Art 359(1) proviso, added by 44th Amendment). Article 21: "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." This is the most expansive FR through judicial interpretation. Key cases: A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) — narrow interpretation, Art 21 protects only against executive action, not legislative action; Maneka Gandhi v. UoI (1978) — SC expanded Art 21, held the "procedure" must be "right, just and fair" (effectively importing American "due process"); since Maneka Gandhi, Art 21 has been interpreted to include: right to livelihood (Olga Tellis v. BMC, 1985), right to education (Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, 1992; Unnikrishnan v. State of AP, 1993 — later Art 21A), right to clean environment (M.C. Mehta v. UoI, 1987), right to health and medical care, right to speedy trial (Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, 1980), right to free legal aid (M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, 1978), right to live with dignity (Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Delhi, 1981), right to privacy (K.S. Puttaswamy v. UoI, 2017 — 9-judge bench), right against solitary confinement, right against custodial violence, right to shelter, right to travel abroad, right against sexual harassment at workplace, and right to die with dignity (Common Cause v. UoI, 2018 — passive euthanasia/living will). Article 21A (86th Amendment, 2002): Right to Education — the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children aged 6-14 years; implemented through RTE Act, 2009. Article 22: Protection against arrest and detention — divided into two parts: (a) rights of arrested persons (Art 22(1)-(2)): right to be informed of grounds of arrest, right to consult a lawyer, right to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours; (b) preventive detention (Art 22(3)-(7)): maximum period without Advisory Board opinion — 3 months; Advisory Board must have HC judge qualifications; Parliament can prescribe maximum period, class of cases, procedure for Advisory Board. Preventive detention laws include National Security Act 1980, COFEPOSA 1974.
Right Against Exploitation (Art 23-24) and Right to Freedom of Religion (Art 25-28)
Article 23: Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour (begar). "Traffic in human beings" includes slavery, prostitution, devadasi system, trafficking for bonded labour, organ trafficking. "Forced labour" includes begar and all forms of compulsory work without payment or with nominal payment. Exception: State can impose compulsory service for public purposes (national service, military service) without discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, or class. Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 implements this provision. In PUDR v. Union of India (1982), the SC held that paying less than minimum wage amounts to "forced labour" under Art 23. Article 24: Prohibition of employment of children below 14 years in factories, mines, or hazardous employment. Complemented by Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (amended 2016 — prohibits employment of children below 14 in ALL occupations and adolescents aged 14-18 in hazardous occupations). Article 25: Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion — subject to public order, morality, health, and other Part III provisions. State can regulate secular activities associated with religious practice (e.g., temple entry laws). State can provide for social welfare and reform (e.g., Hindu temple entry for all castes). Sikhs' wearing of kirpan is expressly protected under Art 25(2)(b). Article 26: Freedom to manage religious affairs — every religious denomination or section thereof can: establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, manage its own affairs in matters of religion, own and acquire property, and administer such property according to law. Article 27: Freedom from taxation for religious promotion — no person shall be compelled to pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion. Note: fees for regulation (not promotion) are permitted. Article 28: No religious instruction in wholly state-funded educational institutions. In state-recognized or aided institutions, religious instruction is permitted but attendance is voluntary. This article does NOT apply to institutions run by endowments or trusts even if they receive state aid, if their founding document requires religious instruction.
Cultural & Educational Rights (Art 29-30)
Article 29: Protection of interests of minorities — (1) any section of the citizens residing in India having a distinct language, script, or culture has the right to conserve the same; (2) no citizen shall be denied admission to any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving state aid on grounds ONLY of religion, race, caste, language, or any of them. Note: Art 29(1) is available to any section of citizens (not just minorities), while Art 29(2) applies to state-maintained or aided institutions. Article 30: Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions — (1) all minorities, whether based on religion or language, have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice; (1A) (44th Amendment): in fixing the acquisition amount for compulsory acquisition of property of minority educational institutions, the State shall ensure that the amount does not restrict or abrogate the rights under Art 30(1); (2) the State shall not discriminate against any educational institution managed by a minority in granting aid. Key case law: TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) — 11-judge bench held: (a) "minority" is determined STATE-WISE (not nationally); (b) minority institutions have the right to admit students of their choice (but can regulate admissions process); (c) aided minority institutions must follow reasonable regulations; (d) unaided private institutions (minority or non-minority) have autonomy in admissions and fee fixation. St. Stephen's College v. University of Delhi (1992) — SC allowed St. Stephen's to reserve 50% seats for Christians as a minority institution. Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. UoI (2012) — SC upheld RTE Act but excluded unaided minority institutions from its ambit. The distinction between minority and non-minority, aided and unaided institutions is a frequently tested area in UPSC.
Right to Constitutional Remedies (Art 32-35)
Article 32: Right to Constitutional Remedies — Dr. Ambedkar called it "the heart and soul of the Constitution." Art 32(1) guarantees the RIGHT to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of FRs. Art 32(2) empowers the SC to issue directions, orders, or writs including Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto. Art 32 is itself a Fundamental Right — it cannot be suspended except during Emergency under Art 359 (Presidential Order suspending enforcement of specified FRs). However, after the 44th Amendment, Art 20 and 21 CANNOT be suspended even during Emergency (Art 359(1) proviso). The FIVE WRITS: (1) Habeas Corpus ("to have the body") — directed to the detaining authority to produce the detained person; used against illegal detention; (2) Mandamus ("we command") — commands a public authority to perform its legal duty; cannot be issued against private individuals or the President/Governor; (3) Prohibition ("to forbid") — issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal to prevent it from exceeding its jurisdiction; issued only while case is pending; (4) Certiorari ("to be certified") — issued by a higher court to quash the order of a lower court or tribunal that has acted without jurisdiction or against natural justice; issued after order is passed; (5) Quo Warranto ("by what authority") — challenges the legal authority of a person holding a public office; ensures public offices are not usurped. HIGH COURTS issue writs under Article 226 — which is BROADER than Art 32 in two ways: (a) HCs can issue writs for enforcement of ANY legal right, not just FRs; (b) HCs can issue writs to any person or authority (not limited to "State"). Art 226 is NOT a Fundamental Right — it is a constitutional provision. Art 33 allows Parliament to restrict/abrogate FRs of armed forces, police, intelligence agencies, and analogous forces. Art 34 empowers Parliament to indemnify government actions during martial law. Art 35 gives Parliament (not state legislatures) exclusive power to make laws implementing certain FRs — specifically Art 16(3), 32(3), 33, 34, and punishments under Art 17, 23.
Availability — Citizens Only vs All Persons
A critical distinction for exams: some FRs are available ONLY to citizens while others are available to ALL persons (including foreigners and corporations). Rights available ONLY to CITIZENS: Art 15 (no discrimination), Art 16 (equality in public employment), Art 19 (six freedoms), Art 29 (protection of cultural/linguistic interests), Art 30 (minority educational institutions). Rights available to ALL PERSONS (including foreigners): Art 14 (equality before law), Art 20 (protection against conviction), Art 21 (life and personal liberty), Art 21A (right to education — though operationally applies to children 6-14 in India), Art 22 (protection against arrest and detention), Art 23 (prohibition of trafficking and forced labour), Art 24 (prohibition of child labour), Art 25-28 (freedom of religion). This distinction has practical implications: a foreign national in India can claim Art 14 protection if discriminated against by the State, can invoke Art 21 if deprived of liberty without due procedure, but CANNOT claim Art 19 rights (freedom of speech, movement, etc.). In Louis De Raedt v. Union of India (1991), the SC held that foreign nationals do not have a right to reside in India under Art 19(1)(e) — their stay is regulated by the Foreigners Act and visa conditions.
Amendment of Fundamental Rights — Key Cases
The question of whether Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights has produced some of the most important cases in Indian constitutional history. Phase 1 — Parliament CAN amend: Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) — SC upheld the 1st Amendment, holding that "law" in Art 13 does not include constitutional amendments; Parliament has unrestricted power to amend FRs under Art 368. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1964) — SC reaffirmed Shankari Prasad by majority. Phase 2 — Parliament CANNOT amend: Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) — 11-judge bench reversed the earlier position by a 6:5 majority; held FRs are "transcendental and immutable" and cannot be abridged by constitutional amendments; amendments are "law" under Art 13; applied the doctrine of prospective overruling (amendment validity not questioned retrospectively). Phase 3 — Parliament CAN amend, subject to Basic Structure: 24th Amendment (1971) — restored amending power; explicitly stated Art 368 confers constituent power, and "law" in Art 13 does not include amendments; 25th Amendment (1971) — inserted Art 31C, giving DPSPs (Art 39(b) and (c)) primacy over Art 14 and 19. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) — 13-judge bench (7:6) upheld 24th and 25th Amendments but established the Basic Structure Doctrine: Parliament can amend any provision including FRs, but CANNOT destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. Basic structure includes: supremacy of the Constitution, republican and democratic form of government, secular character, separation of powers, federal character, individual freedom and dignity, unity and integrity, judicial review, rule of law, harmony between FRs and DPSPs. Phase 4 — Basic Structure reaffirmed: Minerva Mills v. UoI (1980) — struck down Section 55 of 42nd Amendment (which gave unlimited amending power to Parliament and excluded judicial review); held judicial review and the balance between FRs and DPSPs are basic structure. Waman Rao v. UoI (1981) — the Ninth Schedule protection would not apply to laws enacted after 24 April 1973 (the Kesavananda judgment date). I.R. Coelho v. State of TN (2007) — 9-judge bench held that even laws placed in the Ninth Schedule can be reviewed for violation of basic structure.
Fundamental Rights During Emergency
The relationship between FRs and Emergency is governed by Articles 358 and 359. Article 358: When a proclamation of National Emergency is in operation (Art 352 — external aggression or armed rebellion), Article 19 is automatically suspended. After the 44th Amendment (1978), Art 19 is suspended only during a proclamation on grounds of "war or external aggression" (NOT armed rebellion). Article 359: The President may, by order, suspend the right to move any court for enforcement of specified FRs (except Art 20 and 21, as per the 44th Amendment). This means: (1) Art 20 (protection against conviction) and Art 21 (right to life and personal liberty) CANNOT be suspended even during Emergency — this was a safeguard added by the 44th Amendment after the excesses of the 1975-77 Emergency; (2) Art 19 is automatically suspended during Emergency based on external aggression/war; (3) Other FRs can be suspended only if the President specifically orders suspension under Art 359; (4) During the 1975-77 Emergency, the infamous ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) case (Habeas Corpus case) — 4:1 majority held that during Emergency, even the right to life (Art 21) could be suspended; the lone dissent by Justice H.R. Khanna is celebrated as one of the bravest judicial acts — he stated "life and liberty are not the gifts of the government to the people." The 44th Amendment overturned this holding by explicitly providing that Art 20 and 21 cannot be suspended. In 2017 (Puttaswamy case), the 9-judge bench expressly overruled ADM Jabalpur, stating the majority view was "seriously flawed."
Art 21 — The Expanding Universe of Life and Liberty
Article 21 has been transformed through judicial interpretation from a narrow procedural guarantee into the most dynamic and expansive fundamental right. The evolution from A.K. Gopalan (1950, narrow view) to Maneka Gandhi (1978, due process imported) to Puttaswamy (2017, right to privacy) represents the SC's progressive interpretation. Rights read into Art 21 include: right to live with human dignity (Francis Coralie Mullin, 1981), right to livelihood (Olga Tellis, 1985), right to health and medical care (Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity, 1996), right to clean environment (M.C. Mehta, 1987; Subhash Kumar, 1991), right to education (Mohini Jain, 1992; Unnikrishnan, 1993 — later Art 21A), right to speedy trial (Hussainara Khatoon, 1980), right to free legal aid (M.H. Hoskot, 1978), right to shelter (Chameli Singh v. State of UP, 1996), right against solitary confinement (Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, 1978), right against custodial violence, right against delayed execution (T.V. Vatheeswaran, 1983), right to travel abroad (Satwant Singh Sawhney, 1967), right to privacy (Puttaswamy, 2017), right against handcuffing (Prem Shankar Shukla, 1980), right against sexual harassment at workplace (Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, 1997), right to sleep (Ramlila Maidan Incident, 2012), right to electricity (a developing area), right to clean drinking water, right to die with dignity/passive euthanasia (Common Cause v. UoI, 2018), right against noise pollution, right to reputation, right to fair trial, right against public hanging. Art 21 applies to ALL persons (not just citizens) — this is significant for protecting the rights of foreigners, refugees, and stateless persons in India.
Reservation and Affirmative Action Under Fundamental Rights
The Indian Constitution provides one of the most comprehensive affirmative action frameworks in the world, primarily through Articles 14, 15, 16, and related provisions. Key provisions: Art 15(4) — special provisions for SCs/STs and socially/educationally backward classes (added by 1st Amendment after Champakam Dorairajan, 1951); Art 15(5) — reservation in private educational institutions (93rd Amendment, 2005); Art 15(6) — 10% EWS reservation (103rd Amendment, 2019); Art 16(4) — reservation for backward classes in public employment; Art 16(4A) — reservation in promotion for SCs/STs (77th Amendment, 1995); Art 16(4B) — carry-forward of unfilled reserved vacancies (81st Amendment, 2000); Art 16(6) — EWS reservation in employment (103rd Amendment, 2019); Art 46 (DPSP) — promotion of educational/economic interests of SCs, STs, and weaker sections. Key cases: Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992, Mandal case) — 9-judge bench upheld 27% OBC reservation; established 50% ceiling on total reservations (subject to extraordinary circumstances); introduced "creamy layer" exclusion for OBCs (not for SCs/STs); held reservation in promotions is not a FR but a matter of policy. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) — SC upheld reservation in promotions for SCs/STs subject to three conditions: (1) state must collect quantifiable data on backwardness, (2) inadequacy of representation, (3) administrative efficiency must not be affected. Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018) — SC held "creamy layer" concept applies to SCs/STs also in promotions. Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022) — 3:2 majority upheld the 103rd Amendment (EWS reservation); held that economic criterion for reservation does not violate the basic structure; dissent argued that excluding SCs/STs/OBCs from EWS violates equality.
Art 19(1)(a) — Freedom of Speech and Expression: Detailed Case Law
Article 19(1)(a) — freedom of speech and expression — is the most litigated fundamental right. It is available ONLY to citizens. Key judicial developments: (1) Freedom of Press — not explicitly mentioned but implied; Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi (1950) and Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950) were the first cases recognizing press freedom under Art 19(1)(a); Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1985) — SC struck down a government notification imposing additional import duty on newsprint as violating press freedom; (2) Right to Know — Secretary, Ministry of I&B v. Cricket Association of Bengal (1995) — right to know is part of free speech; Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) — voters have a right to know the criminal record, assets, and educational qualifications of election candidates; (3) Right to Silence — Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986) — Jehovah's Witnesses students who refused to sing the national anthem but stood respectfully were within their rights; silence is part of free speech; (4) Right to Advertise — Tata Press Ltd v. MTNL (1995) — commercial speech is protected under Art 19(1)(a) but subject to Art 19(2) restrictions; (5) Digital Rights — Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) — SC struck down Section 66A of the IT Act (criminalizing "offensive" online speech) as overbroad and unconstitutional; Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) — internet shutdown in J&K must satisfy tests of necessity and proportionality; freedom of speech through the internet is a fundamental right; (6) Right to Criticize — Government criticism is protected unless it falls within Art 19(2) grounds. The 8 grounds for restricting Art 19(1)(a) under Art 19(2) are: sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, and incitement to an offence. Notably, "sedition" is NOT explicitly listed as a ground — the SC in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) read it within "security of the State" and "public order" but limited its scope to speech having a tendency to incite violence or public disorder.
Fundamental Rights vs Directive Principles — The Constitutional Tension
The relationship between Fundamental Rights (Part III — justiciable) and Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV — non-justiciable) has been one of the most debated constitutional questions. The tension arises when the State enacts laws implementing DPSPs that restrict FRs. Phase 1 — FRs Supreme: State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951) — SC held that DPSPs cannot override FRs; if there is a conflict, FRs prevail. This led directly to the 1st Amendment adding Art 15(4). Phase 2 — DPSPs Given Partial Primacy: 25th Amendment (1971) inserted Art 31C — laws giving effect to Art 39(b) and (c) cannot be challenged as violating Art 14 or 19. The SC in Kesavananda Bharati (1973) upheld this limited primacy. Phase 3 — DPSPs Expanded, Then Struck Down: 42nd Amendment (1976) expanded Art 31C to give primacy to ALL DPSPs over Art 14 and 19. The SC in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) struck down this expansion, holding that the BALANCE between FRs and DPSPs is itself part of the basic structure — neither can be subordinated to the other. Current Position: Art 31C in its original form (covering only Art 39(b) and (c)) survives. The SC treats FRs and DPSPs as complementary, not contradictory. In Unnikrishnan v. State of AP (1993), the SC read DPSPs into FRs to derive the right to education. In Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008), the SC upheld OBC reservation in higher education by reading Art 15(5) with Art 46 (DPSP). The SC has said: "DPSPs constitute the conscience of the Constitution" — they guide the interpretation of FRs and give content to concepts like equality, liberty, and social justice.
Ninth Schedule — Shield Against FR Challenge
The Ninth Schedule (Art 31B) was added by the 1st Amendment (1951) to protect agrarian reform laws from being challenged as violating Fundamental Rights. Any law placed in the Ninth Schedule was immune from judicial review under Art 13 (which declares laws violating FRs void). Originally containing only 13 laws (all land reform acts), the Ninth Schedule has expanded to contain 284 laws (as of 2024), including the Tamil Nadu 69% reservation law, several state land reform acts, and other socially important legislation. The blanket immunity was challenged and modified in I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), where a 9-judge bench held: laws placed in 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. Laws placed BEFORE that date remain protected. This is a critical distinction for exams: the Ninth Schedule provides protection from Art 13 judicial review, but NOT from basic structure review (for post-1973 additions). The Schedule has been criticized as a constitutional device for bypassing judicial scrutiny — the SC in Coelho emphasized that the Schedule cannot be used as a "safe harbor" for unconstitutional legislation.
Significance for Competitive Exams
Fundamental Rights is the single most important topic in Indian Polity for all competitive exams. UPSC Prelims typically tests 2-3 questions annually on FRs. Key testing areas: (1) Article numbers — matching articles with their subject matter (Art 14 = equality before law, Art 17 = untouchability, Art 19 = six freedoms, Art 21 = life and liberty, Art 32 = constitutional remedies); (2) citizens only vs all persons — which FRs apply to citizens only (15, 16, 19, 29, 30) and which to all (14, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25-28); (3) Emergency provisions — Art 20 and 21 cannot be suspended; Art 19 suspended automatically during war/external aggression; (4) Landmark cases — Maneka Gandhi (due process), Puttaswamy (privacy), Kesavananda (basic structure), Minerva Mills (balance of FRs-DPSPs), Indra Sawhney (Mandal, 50% ceiling); (5) Five writs — Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, Quo Warranto; (6) Amendments — 1st (Art 15(4), Ninth Schedule), 24th (amending power restored), 44th (Right to Property removed, Art 20-21 non-suspendable), 86th (Art 21A), 93rd (Art 15(5)), 103rd (EWS reservation); (7) Reasonable restrictions on Art 19 freedoms — what grounds apply to which freedom; (8) "Consider the following statements" format — testing nuanced understanding of FR provisions and their limitations.
Relevant Exams
The single most important topic in Indian Polity for all exams. UPSC Prelims tests 2-3 questions on FRs annually — landmark cases, article numbers, scope of Art 21, types of writs, restrictions on Art 19, citizens-only vs all-persons distinction, and Emergency provisions. SSC exams test factual questions. The Kesavananda-Minerva Mills-Puttaswamy case trilogy is essential knowledge.