JusticeMarg.com

Profile
go Premium
Menu

PART 3: Constitution Of India

Uncategorized /

 PART III: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

This crucial part guarantees basic rights to citizens (and some to non-citizens as well).

General

Article 12: Definition [of “the State”]

  • Original Text: “In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, “the State” includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and 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.”
  • Simple Explanation: For the purpose of Fundamental Rights (Part III), the term “the State” doesn’t just mean the central or state governments. It has a broad definition and includes:
    • The Central Government and Parliament.
    • The State Governments and State Legislatures.
    • Local authorities (like Municipal Corporations, Panchayats, District Boards).
    • Other authorities (like government agencies, public sector undertakings – e.g., LIC, ONGC, etc. – and even some bodies that perform public functions, as interpreted by courts). These authorities can be within India or under the Indian government’s control (like an embassy abroad).
  • Why it Matters: Fundamental Rights are primarily enforceable against “the State”. This broad definition ensures that citizens can claim their fundamental rights not just against the government directly, but also against various public bodies and agencies acting under the government’s authority.
  • Example: If a Municipal Corporation makes a rule that violates your fundamental right to equality (Article 14), you can challenge it in court because the Corporation falls under the definition of “the State” in Article 12. Similarly, if a Public Sector Bank discriminates in employment, it can be challenged as it’s considered “State” for this purpose.

Article 13: Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights

  • Clause (1):
    • Original Text: “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.”
    • Simple Explanation: Any law that existed in India before January 26, 1950, automatically became invalid to the extent that it conflicted with the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution. The entire pre-constitutional law doesn’t become void, only the parts that clash with Fundamental Rights.
    • Example: If an old British-era law allowed discrimination based purely on religion, that specific provision would be void after 1950 because it violates Article 15 (Prohibition of discrimination).
  • Clause (2):
    • Original Text: “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.”
    • Simple Explanation: This prohibits “the State” (as defined in Article 12) from making any new law after January 26, 1950, that takes away or reduces Fundamental Rights. If the State does make such a law, that law (or the specific conflicting part) will be invalid. This is the basis for judicial review of legislation.
    • Example: If Parliament passes a law that unreasonably restricts freedom of speech beyond the limits allowed in Article 19(2), the Supreme Court or High Courts can declare that law void under Article 13(2).
  • Clause (3):
    • Original Text: “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… before the commencement of this Constitution…”
    • Simple Explanation: Clarifies that the term “law” in Article 13 is very broad. It includes not just Acts passed by legislatures but also:
      • (a) Temporary Ordinances, government orders, official rules and regulations, notifications, and even established customs or usages that are legally enforceable.
      • (b) Pre-constitutional laws made by any authority that were not repealed before 1950.
    • Example: A government notification, a municipal bye-law, or even a long-standing custom recognized by courts, if found to violate a Fundamental Right, can be declared void under Article 13.
  • Clause (4):
    • Original Text: “Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under article 368.” (Note: Inserted by 24th Amendment, 1971).
    • Simple Explanation: This clause states that constitutional amendments made under the procedure in Article 368 are not considered “law” for the purposes of Article 13. This was added to assert Parliament’s power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. (However, the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case held that amendments cannot violate the “basic structure” of the Constitution).
    • Example: When Parliament amends the Constitution (e.g., adding Article 21A for Right to Education), this clause intends to shield that amendment from being automatically declared void under Article 13(2) just because it modifies fundamental rights provisions.

Right to Equality

Article 14: Equality before law

  • Original Text: “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”
  • Simple Explanation: This fundamental right guarantees two aspects of equality to every person (citizen or non-citizen) within India:
    • Equality before the law: No one is above the law. Everyone is subject to the ordinary law of the land, regardless of rank or status. It’s a negative concept implying the absence of special privileges.
    • Equal protection of the laws: Laws should be applied equally to all persons who are similarly situated. It allows for reasonable classification (treating different groups differently based on logical criteria) but prohibits arbitrary discrimination. It’s a positive concept requiring the state to ensure equality.
  • Example:
    • Equality before law: A government official and a common citizen accused of the same crime are subject to the same legal procedures and penalties.
    • Equal protection: Tax laws can impose different tax rates on people with different income levels (reasonable classification), but cannot arbitrarily charge different rates to people with the same income based on their religion (arbitrary discrimination).

Article 15: Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth

  • Clause (1):
    • Original Text: “The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.”
    • Simple Explanation: Prohibits the State (government, public bodies) from treating any citizen unfairly based only on their religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Discrimination based on other grounds (like qualifications for a job) might be permissible if reasonable.
    • Example: A government department cannot refuse to hire someone solely because they are female, or belong to a particular caste, or were born in a specific state.
  • Clause (2):
    • Original Text: “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.”
    • Simple Explanation: Extends the prohibition of discrimination (based on the same grounds as Clause 1) to access to public places. This applies not just to the State but also prevents private individuals from enforcing such discrimination in these specific public spaces. It ensures social equality in public life.
    • Example: The owner of a shop or restaurant cannot deny entry or service to a citizen solely based on their caste or religion. Similarly, all citizens have the right to use public wells or roads without such discrimination.
  • Clause (3):
    • Original Text: “Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.”
    • Simple Explanation: Allows the State to make special laws or provisions that benefit women and children, even if they seem to treat them differently. This is an exception to the non-discrimination rule, recognizing the need for protective measures or affirmative action.
    • Example: Laws providing maternity benefits for women employees, or reserving seats for women in local bodies, are permissible under this clause. Establishing special juvenile courts or child welfare schemes is also covered.
  • Clause (4):
    • Original Text: “Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.” (Note: Added by 1st Amendment, 1951).
    • Simple Explanation: Allows the State to make special provisions (like reservations in educational institutions or other benefits) for the upliftment of socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs), Scheduled Castes (SCs), and Scheduled Tribes (STs). This is another exception to the general rule of non-discrimination.
    • Example: Reservation of seats for OBC (Other Backward Classes), SC, and ST students in government colleges is permitted under this clause.
  • Clause (5):
    • Original Text: “Nothing in this article or in sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 shall prevent the State from making any special provision, by law, for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes 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.” (Note: Added by 93rd Amendment, 2005).
    • Simple Explanation: Specifically empowers the State to make laws providing reservations for SEBCs, SCs, and STs in admissions to all educational institutions, including private ones (whether they receive government aid or not), except for minority educational institutions (protected under Article 30).
    • Example: Reservation policies for SC/ST/OBC students implemented in private engineering colleges or universities (that are not minority institutions) are enabled by this clause.

Article 16: Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment

  • Clause (1):
    • Original Text: “There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.”
    • Simple Explanation: Guarantees all citizens equal opportunity when it comes to jobs or appointments under the State (government jobs, public sector jobs, etc.).
    • Example: All eligible citizens should have an equal chance to apply and be considered for a government job based on merit, without arbitrary exclusion.
  • Clause (2):
    • Original Text: “No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State.”
    • Simple Explanation: Explicitly prohibits discrimination in public employment based only on religion, race, caste, sex, descent (ancestry), place of birth, or residence. (Note: “Residence” is included here, unlike Article 15(1)).
    • Example: A state government cannot disqualify candidates for a state job solely because they were born in another state or because of their religion or gender.
  • Clause (3):
    • Original Text: “Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from making any law prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office [under the Government of, or any local or other authority within, a State or Union territory, any requirement as to residence within that State or Union territory] prior to such employment or appointment.” (Note: Bracketed text substituted by 7th Amendment, 1956).
    • Simple Explanation: Allows Parliament (not State Legislatures) to make a law requiring residence within a specific State or Union Territory as a condition for certain government jobs within that State/UT. This is an exception to the rule against discrimination based on residence in Clause (2).
    • Example: Parliament could pass a law allowing Andhra Pradesh to require candidates for certain state government posts to be residents of Andhra Pradesh. (The Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957 was an example, though parts of it were later repealed).
  • Clause (4):
    • Original Text: “Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of 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.”
    • Simple Explanation: Allows the State to reserve jobs or posts for backward classes if the State believes they are under-represented in public services. This is the constitutional basis for reservations for OBCs in government jobs.
    • Example: The reservation of a certain percentage of central government jobs for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) is based on this provision.
  • Clause (4A):
    • Original Text: “Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation [in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class] or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State.” (Note: Inserted by 77th Amendment, 1995; Bracketed text substituted by 85th Amendment, 2001, w.e.f. 17-6-1995).
    • Simple Explanation: Allows the State to provide reservations not just in initial appointments but also in promotions for SCs and STs if they are under-represented. It also allows for ‘consequential seniority’, meaning promoted SC/ST candidates retain their seniority in the promoted post over others promoted later.
    • Example: A state government policy that reserves a certain percentage of promotional vacancies in its engineering service for SC/ST employees is enabled by this clause.
  • Clause (4B):
    • Original Text: “Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from considering any unfilled vacancies of a year which are reserved… under clause (4) or clause (4A) as a separate class of vacancies to be filled up in any succeeding year or years and such class of vacancies shall not be considered together with the vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up for determining the ceiling of fifty per cent. reservation…” (Note: Inserted by 81st Amendment, 2000, w.e.f. 9-6-2000).
    • Simple Explanation: Allows the government to carry forward unfilled reserved vacancies from one year to the next. These “backlog” vacancies can be treated as a separate category and are not counted towards the 50% reservation limit for the year in which they are filled. This aims to ensure reserved quotas are met over time.
    • Example: If 10 SC posts remained unfilled in 2023, they can be added to the SC vacancies advertised in 2024. The filling of these 10 backlog posts in 2024 will not be counted when calculating the 50% reservation ceiling for the fresh vacancies arising in 2024.
  • Clause (5):
    • Original Text: “Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any law which provides that the incumbent of an office in connection with the affairs of any religious or denominational institution or any member of the governing body thereof shall be a person professing a particular religion or belonging to a particular denomination.”
    • Simple Explanation: Allows a law to require that the holder of an office related to a religious institution (like a temple, mosque, church) or a member of its governing body must belong to that particular religion or denomination.
    • Example: A law managing Hindu temples could validly require that the priest or a member of the temple trust board must be a Hindu.

Article 17: Abolition of Untouchability

  • Original Text: “”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.”
  • Simple Explanation: Completely bans the practice of “Untouchability” in any shape or form. Any discrimination or disability imposed on someone because of “Untouchability” is a criminal offence punishable by law. This is a rare fundamental right enforceable against private individuals as well as the State.
  • Example: Preventing someone from entering a temple or using a public well because they belong to a particular caste historically considered “untouchable” is a punishable offence under laws like the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, which was enacted by Parliament under the authority of this article.

Article 18: Abolition of titles

  • Clause (1):
    • Original Text: “No title, not being a military or academic distinction, shall be conferred by the State.”
    • Simple Explanation: The State cannot grant titles (like Rai Bahadur, Maharaja, Nawab, etc.) that create social hierarchies. Only military ranks (like General, Major) and academic distinctions (like Dr., Professor) are allowed.
    • Example: The government cannot grant someone the title of “Sir” or “Raja”. Awards like Bharat Ratna or Padma Vibhushan are considered national honours, not titles prohibited by this article, as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
  • Clause (2):
    • Original Text: “No citizen of India shall accept any title from any foreign State.”
    • Simple Explanation: Indian citizens are forbidden from accepting titles (like knighthood) from foreign governments.
    • Example: An Indian citizen cannot accept the title “Lord” or “Sir” conferred by the UK government.
  • Clause (3):
    • Original Text: “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.”
    • Simple Explanation: Foreigners holding a government position (office of profit or trust) in India cannot accept a title from any foreign government without the permission of the President of India.
    • Example: A foreign national working as a consultant for the Indian government must seek the President’s consent before accepting a title from their home country’s government.
  • Clause (4):
    • Original Text: “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.”
    • Simple Explanation: Anyone (citizen or foreigner) holding a government position in India cannot accept gifts, salaries/payments (emoluments), or any kind of office/position from a foreign government without the President’s permission.
    • Example: An Indian government employee cannot accept a paid position or a valuable gift from a foreign embassy without the President’s consent.

Right to Freedom

Article 19: Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.

  • Clause (1): “All citizens shall have the right—”
    • (a) to freedom of speech and expression;
      • Simple Explanation: Citizens have the right to express their thoughts, opinions, beliefs, and convictions freely through various means (speech, writing, printing, pictures, etc.). This includes freedom of the press.
      • Example: Publishing articles critical of government policy, participating in debates, creating art or films expressing certain viewpoints.
    • (b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;
      • Simple Explanation: Citizens have the right to gather peacefully in groups for meetings, processions, or demonstrations, provided they do not carry weapons.
      • Example: Holding a peaceful protest march, organizing a public meeting in a park.
    • (c) to form associations or unions;
      • Simple Explanation: Citizens have the right to create or join groups, clubs, organizations, trade unions, political parties, or cooperative societies.
      • Example: Workers forming a trade union, people forming a residents’ welfare association, individuals joining a political party.
    • (d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;
      • Simple Explanation: Citizens have the right to travel and move from one part of India to another without unreasonable restrictions.
      • Example: A person living in Kerala can travel freely to Delhi or any other state for tourism, work, or any other reason.
    • (e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India;
      • Simple Explanation: Citizens have the right to live and establish a home anywhere within India.
      • Example: A person from Punjab can buy property and settle down permanently in Karnataka.
    • (f) [Omitted] (Right to acquire, hold and dispose of property – was omitted by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978, making the Right to Property a legal right under Article 300A, not a Fundamental Right).
    • (g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
      • Simple Explanation: Citizens have the right to choose and pursue any lawful job, profession, trade, or business.
      • Example: An individual can choose to become a doctor, lawyer, shopkeeper, or start their own company, subject to necessary qualifications or regulations.
  • Clauses (2) to (6): Reasonable Restrictions:
    • Simple Explanation: These clauses state that the freedoms guaranteed in Clause (1) are not absolute. The State can impose “reasonable restrictions” on these rights through laws. The grounds for restrictions vary for each right but generally include:
      • For 19(1)(a) (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. (Note: Grounds like ‘sovereignty and integrity’ were added by later amendments).
      • For 19(1)(b) (Assembly): Sovereignty and integrity of India, public order.
      • For 19(1)(c) (Association): Sovereignty and integrity of India, public order, morality.
      • For 19(1)(d) & (e) (Movement & Residence): Interests of the general public, protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe.
      • For 19(1)(g) (Profession): Interests of the general public. Also allows the state to prescribe professional/technical qualifications or to carry on any trade/business/industry itself (even exclusively).
    • Key Point: The restrictions must be reasonable and imposed by law. Courts can examine if a restriction is reasonable or excessive.
    • Example:
      • Freedom of speech doesn’t allow hate speech inciting violence (restriction for public order).
      • Right to assemble doesn’t allow gathering with weapons or blocking emergency routes (restriction for public order).
      • Right to move freely might be restricted in sensitive border areas or protected tribal areas.
      • Right to practice a profession doesn’t mean anyone can practice medicine without a medical degree (reasonable qualification requirement). The government can also run certain businesses exclusively, like atomic energy production.

Article 20: Protection in respect of conviction for offences

  • Clause (1):
    • Original Text: “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.”
    • Simple Explanation: Protects against ex post facto criminal laws. This means:
      • A person cannot be convicted for an act that was not illegal according to the law at the time the act was committed.
      • A person cannot be given a punishment harsher than what was prescribed by the law at the time the offence was committed.
    • Example: If possessing a certain item becomes illegal today, someone who possessed it yesterday (when it was legal) cannot be punished under the new law. If the penalty for theft was increased today, someone who committed theft yesterday would face the older, lesser penalty.
  • Clause (2):
    • Original Text: “No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.”
    • Simple Explanation: Protects against double jeopardy. A person cannot be tried and punished again for the same crime if they have already been finally convicted or acquitted by a court.
    • Example: If someone is tried for murder and acquitted by the court, they cannot be put on trial again for the exact same murder charge based on the same facts. (Note: This applies to criminal proceedings before a court or judicial tribunal).
  • Clause (3):
    • Original Text: “No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.”
    • Simple Explanation: Protects against self-incrimination. A person accused of a crime cannot be forced to give testimony or evidence that would incriminate them (prove their guilt). This is the right to remain silent.
    • Example: During police interrogation or in court, an accused person cannot be forced or tortured into confessing to the crime. They have the right not to answer questions that might harm their defence.

Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty

  • Original Text: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
  • Simple Explanation: This is one of the most significant fundamental rights. It guarantees that the State cannot take away anyone’s life or freedom arbitrarily. Any deprivation must strictly follow a fair, just, and reasonable procedure laid down by a valid law. The Supreme Court has interpreted “life” not just as mere physical existence but as the right to live with human dignity, including aspects like the right to livelihood, health, clean environment, privacy, speedy trial, etc. “Personal liberty” also has a wide scope beyond just freedom from physical restraint. This right is available to both citizens and non-citizens.
  • Example: The police cannot arrest or detain someone without following the legal procedures (like obtaining a warrant where necessary, informing the person of the grounds for arrest). The Supreme Court’s declaration that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right stems from the interpretation of Article 21. Similarly, the right to a clean environment has been read into Article 21.

Article 21A: Right to education

  • Original Text: “The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine.” (Note: Inserted by 86th Amendment Act, 2002).
  • Simple Explanation: Makes education a Fundamental Right for children between 6 and 14 years old. The State (government) is obligated to provide free and compulsory education to every child in this age group. The details of how this is done are determined by law.
  • Example: The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, was enacted by Parliament to implement this fundamental right. It mandates specific norms for schools, pupil-teacher ratios, and ensures admission for children in this age group in neighborhood schools.

Article 22: Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases

  • Clause (1):
    • Original Text: “No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.”
    • Simple Explanation: Provides two rights to a person arrested under ordinary law:
      • Right to be informed: They must be told the reasons for their arrest as soon as possible.
      • Right to consult a lawyer: They have the right to seek legal advice and be defended by a lawyer of their choice.
    • Example: If the police arrest someone for theft, they must immediately tell the person why they are being arrested. The arrested person also has the right to call their lawyer.
  • Clause (2):
    • Original Text: “Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate.”
    • Simple Explanation: An arrested person must be presented before a judicial magistrate within 24 hours of arrest. Time taken for travel from the place of arrest to the court is not included in this 24-hour limit. Further detention beyond 24 hours is only allowed if authorized by the magistrate. This prevents illegal or prolonged police detention.
    • Example: If someone is arrested in a village at 10 AM, and it takes 3 hours to travel to the nearest magistrate’s court, the police must produce them before the magistrate by 1 PM the next day (10 AM + 24 hours + 3 hours travel exclusion means they must be produced within 27 hours in total, but the legal requirement is calculated based on the 24-hour limit excluding travel).
  • Clause (3):
    • Original Text: “Nothing in clauses (1) and (2) shall apply— (a) to any person who for the time being is an enemy alien; or (b) to any person who is arrested or detained under any law providing for preventive detention.”
    • Simple Explanation: The rights mentioned in Clauses (1) and (2) (being informed of grounds, consulting lawyer, production before magistrate within 24 hours) do not apply to:
      • (a) Enemy aliens (citizens of a country at war with India).
      • (b) Persons arrested or detained under a preventive detention law (laws made to detain someone to prevent them from committing a potential future crime harmful to public order or security, rather than punishing them for a past crime).
    • Example: The safeguards of Article 22(1) and (2) would not apply to a citizen of a country with which India is officially at war, or to a person detained under the National Security Act (a preventive detention law).
  • Clause (4): (Deals with Preventive Detention limits)
    • Original Text: “No law providing for preventive detention shall authorise the detention of a person for a longer period than three months unless— (a) an Advisory Board consisting of persons who are, or have been, or are qualified to be appointed as, Judges of a High Court has reported before the expiration of the said period of three months that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for such detention: Provided that nothing in this sub-clause shall authorise the detention of any person beyond the maximum period prescribed by any law made by Parliament under sub-clause (b) of clause (7); or (b) such person is detained in accordance with the provisions of any law made by Parliament under sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause (7).”
    • Simple Explanation: Sets a limit on preventive detention. Generally, a person cannot be detained under a preventive detention law for more than 3 months unless an Advisory Board (composed of High Court judge-level persons) reviews the case and confirms there is sufficient reason for longer detention before the 3 months expire. Even with Board approval, detention cannot exceed the maximum period set by Parliament (under Clause 7(b)). Parliament can also specify (under Clause 7(a)) certain cases where detention beyond 3 months might be allowed without Board opinion, but within Parliament’s prescribed maximum limit.
    • (Note on 44th Amendment changes indicated in PDF): The 44th Amendment proposed reducing the initial detention period (without Board approval) from 3 months to 2 months and changing the Board’s composition. However, the footnotes in the PDF indicate these specific changes to Article 22(4) and 22(7) were not brought into force. Therefore, the 3-month limit generally remains the operative one unless a specific law under 7(a) & (b) applies.
    • Example: If someone is detained under a preventive detention law, their case must typically go before an Advisory Board within 3 months. If the Board finds no sufficient cause, the person must be released. If the Board approves, detention can continue, but only up to the maximum limit prescribed in the specific Act (e.g., 12 months under NSA, subject to periodic reviews).
  • Clause (5):
    • Original Text: “When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order.”
    • Simple Explanation: Provides two rights to a person detained under preventive detention:
      • Right to be informed of grounds: The detaining authority must tell the person the reasons for their detention as soon as possible.
      • Right to make representation: The person must be given the earliest chance to argue against the detention order.
    • Example: Someone detained under the National Security Act must be informed of the specific grounds (reasons) for their detention and given an opportunity to present their case against it to the authorities/Advisory Board.
  • Clause (6):
    • Original Text: “Nothing in clause (5) shall require the authority making any such order as is referred to in that clause to disclose facts which such authority considers to be against the public interest to disclose.”
    • Simple Explanation: An exception to Clause (5). The authorities do not have to reveal facts related to the detention if they believe disclosing those facts would harm the public interest. However, they still must communicate the grounds (reasons) for detention, even if not all underlying facts are disclosed.
    • Example: While informing a detainee of the grounds for detention (e.g., suspected espionage), the authorities might withhold specific operational details or names of intelligence sources if revealing them could compromise national security.
  • Clause (7):
    • Original Text: “Parliament may by law prescribe— (a) the circumstances under which, and the class or classes of cases in which, a person may be detained for a period longer than three months… without obtaining the opinion of an Advisory Board…; (b) the maximum period for which any person may… be detained under any law providing for preventive detention; and (c) the procedure to be followed by an Advisory Board in an inquiry under sub-clause (a) of clause (4).”
    • Simple Explanation: Gives Parliament the power to make laws detailing:
      • (a) Specific situations or types of cases where detention beyond 3 months might be allowed even without an Advisory Board’s opinion (though this is subject to the maximum limit set by law). (Note: The 44th Amendment proposed omitting this sub-clause, but this omission was not enforced, as per PDF footnotes).
      • (b) The absolute maximum duration for which anyone can be detained under any preventive detention law.
      • (c) The procedures the Advisory Board must follow when reviewing detention cases.
    • Example: Parliament used powers under (b) and (c) when enacting laws like the National Security Act, specifying the maximum detention period (e.g., 12 months) and the procedures for the Advisory Board review.

Right against Exploitation

Article 23: Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour

  • Clause (1):
    • Original Text: “Traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited and any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.”
    • Simple Explanation: Bans trafficking of people (buying/selling humans, including for immoral purposes like prostitution) and begar (forced labour without payment). It also prohibits other similar forms of forced labour where a person is compelled to work against their will. Violating this is a criminal offence. This right is available against both the State and private individuals.
    • Example: Forcing someone to work without pay, human trafficking for sexual exploitation, or bonded labour (forcing someone to work off a debt under oppressive conditions) are all prohibited and punishable under laws like the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act or the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act.
  • Clause (2):
    • Original Text: “Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from imposing compulsory service for public purposes, and in imposing such service the State shall not make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class or any of them.”
    • Simple Explanation: Allows the State to require citizens to perform compulsory service for public purposes (like military conscription during wartime, or social service). However, when imposing such service, the State cannot discriminate based only on religion, race, caste, or class.
    • Example: If India were to introduce compulsory military service, it could do so under this clause, but it could not, for instance, exempt people of a certain religion or caste from that service purely on that basis. Payment of wages is generally required for such compulsory service unless it’s punishment for a crime.

Article 24: Prohibition of employment of children in factories, etc.

  • Original Text: “No child below the age of fourteen years shall be employed to work in any factory or mine or engaged in any other hazardous employment.”
  • Simple Explanation: Prohibits the employment of children under 14 years old in factories, mines, or any other dangerous jobs. This is an absolute prohibition aimed at protecting child health and welfare.
  • Example: Employing a 12-year-old child to work in a firecracker factory, a coal mine, or a construction site involving heavy machinery is illegal under this article and laws like the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act.

Right to Freedom of Religion

Article 25: Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion

  • Clause (1):
    • Original Text: “Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.”
    • Simple Explanation: Guarantees all persons (not just citizens) several freedoms related to religion:
      • Freedom of Conscience: Inner freedom to mould one’s relation with God or creatures in whatever way one desires.
      • Right to Profess: Freedom to declare one’s religious beliefs openly.
      • Right to Practise: Freedom to perform religious worship, rituals, ceremonies, and exhibit beliefs.
      • Right to Propagate: Freedom to transmit and spread one’s religious beliefs to others (but not including forced conversion).
    • Limitations: These freedoms are subject to restrictions necessary to maintain public order, morality, public health, and other Fundamental Rights.
    • Example: A person is free to follow Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism, or any other faith (or no faith). They can wear religious symbols (like a turban for Sikhs, subject to certain regulations), perform prayers, and share their religious teachings with others peacefully. However, religious practices cannot justify crimes like human sacrifice (violates health/morality/law) or using loudspeakers causing excessive noise late at night (violates public order).
  • Clause (2):
    • Original Text: “Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law— (a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice; (b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.”
    • Simple Explanation: Clarifies that the right to freedom of religion does not prevent the State from:
      • (a) Making laws to regulate non-religious (secular) activities connected with religious practices (e.g., managing temple finances or property).
      • (b) Making laws for social welfare, reform, or opening public Hindu temples and institutions to all sections of Hindus (including Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists).
    • Example:
      • (a) The government can pass laws regarding the administration of temple trusts to ensure funds are managed properly, as this is a secular financial activity.
      • (b) Laws passed to abolish practices like Sati or Devadasi system, or laws ensuring Dalits can enter temples previously closed to them, are valid social reforms under this clause.
  • Explanation I:
    • Original Text: “The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion.”
    • Simple Explanation: Specifically clarifies that for Sikhs, wearing and carrying a Kirpan (a ceremonial dagger) is considered part of their religious profession, protected under Article 25.
    • Example: Sikh individuals are generally permitted to carry a Kirpan as part of their religious practice, subject to reasonable regulations (e.g., size restrictions on flights for security).
  • Explanation II:
    • Original Text: “In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.”
    • Simple Explanation: For the purpose of social welfare, reform, and opening religious institutions mentioned in Article 25(2)(b), the term “Hindus” is interpreted broadly to include Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists. Hindu institutions, in that context, also include Sikh Gurdwaras, Jain Temples, and Buddhist Viharas.
    • Example: A law aimed at allowing all sections within the Sikh community access to a public Gurdwara would be covered under the scope of Article 25(2)(b).

Article 26: Freedom to manage religious affairs

  • Original Text: “Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right— (a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes; (b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion; (c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and (d) to administer such property in accordance with law.”
  • Simple Explanation: Guarantees rights to organized religious groups (denominations or sections) to manage their affairs:
    • (a) Right to set up and run their own religious and charitable institutions.
    • (b) Right to manage their internal religious matters (doctrines, practices, appointments of priests, etc.).
    • (c) Right to own and buy property (land, buildings, money).
    • (d) Right to manage (administer) their property, but this administration must follow general laws (e.g., property laws, taxation laws).
  • Limitations: These rights are also subject to public order, morality, and health.
  • Example: A specific denomination like the Ramakrishna Mission has the right to establish its ashrams (a), decide its spiritual doctrines and appoint monks (b), own land and buildings (c), and manage its properties according to property and trust laws (d). However, the State can intervene if a practice violates public order (e.g., causing riots) or health (e.g., unhygienic rituals spreading disease). The State can also regulate the administration of property to prevent mismanagement, through laws applicable to all such institutions.

Article 27: Freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion

  • Original Text: “No person shall be compelled to pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination.”
  • Simple Explanation: Prohibits the State from forcing any person to pay taxes that are specifically used to promote or maintain a particular religion or religious group. This reinforces secularism, ensuring public funds raised through taxes are not used to favour any one religion. However, the State can impose fees for specific secular services provided to religious institutions (e.g., security or administrative arrangements during festivals).
  • Example: The government cannot impose a “Temple Tax” or “Mosque Tax” on citizens, where the money collected is directly used only for building or maintaining temples or mosques. But it can charge a fee from a religious institution to cover the cost of special police arrangements made for a large festival organized by them, as this is a fee for a service, not a tax for religious promotion.

Article 28: Freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in certain educational institutions

  • Clause (1):
    • Original Text: “No religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds.”
    • Simple Explanation: Educational institutions fully funded by the government (State funds) cannot impart religious instruction.
    • Example: A government-run primary school cannot include mandatory classes teaching the doctrines or rituals of any specific religion.
  • Clause (2):
    • Original Text: “Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to an educational institution which is administered by the State but has been established under any endowment or trust which requires that religious instruction shall be imparted in such institution.”
    • Simple Explanation: An exception to Clause (1). If an institution was established under a trust or endowment that requires religious instruction, and this institution is now managed by the State, then religious instruction can be provided there, despite State administration.
    • Example: If a private religious school, set up by a trust mandating religious teaching, is later taken over by the government for administration, it can continue providing the religious instruction required by its founding trust.
  • Clause (3):
    • Original Text: “No person attending any educational institution recognised by the State or receiving aid out of State funds shall be required to take part in any religious instruction that may be imparted in such institution or to attend any religious worship that may be conducted in such institution or in any premises attached thereto unless such person or, if such person is a minor, his guardian has given his consent thereto.”
    • Simple Explanation: In educational institutions that are recognized by the State or receive government aid (even if not fully funded), students cannot be forced to attend religious classes or worship conducted there. Attendance requires the student’s consent (or their guardian’s consent, if the student is a minor).
    • Example: A private school receiving government grants may offer classes on Christianity, but it cannot compel a Hindu or Muslim student (or any student) to attend those classes or participate in Christian prayers without their (or their guardian’s) explicit consent.

Cultural and Educational Rights

Article 29: Protection of interests of minorities

  • Clause (1):
    • Original Text: “Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same.”
    • Simple Explanation: Guarantees the right of any group of citizens within India that has its own unique language, script (writing system), or culture to protect and preserve it. This applies to minorities as well as potentially majorities in specific regions.
    • Example: A community speaking a tribal language has the right to take steps to preserve and promote its language and cultural practices. Tamil citizens have the right to conserve the Tamil language, script, and culture.
  • Clause (2):
    • Original Text: “No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them.”
    • Simple Explanation: Prohibits discrimination in admissions to educational institutions run by the State or receiving financial aid from the State. No citizen can be refused admission based only on their religion, race, caste, or language. (Note: This complements Article 15 but specifically applies to state-maintained/aided educational institutions and includes language as a ground).
    • Example: A government college or a private college receiving government aid cannot refuse admission to a qualified student solely because they belong to a particular religion or speak a particular language. (This right is subject to the special provisions for backward classes under Article 15(4) and 15(5)).

Article 30: Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions

  • Clause (1):
    • Original Text: “All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.”
    • Simple Explanation: Specifically grants religious and linguistic minorities the fundamental right to set up and run their own educational institutions. The “choice” implies they can establish institutions tailored to conserve their distinct culture, language, or religious teachings, alongside general education.
    • Example: The Christian community can establish and manage its own schools and colleges (like St. Stephen’s College). A linguistic minority, like Bengalis living in Delhi, can establish schools primarily teaching in Bengali or focusing on Bengali culture.
  • Clause (1A):
    • Original Text: “In making any law providing for the compulsory acquisition of any property of an educational institution established and administered by a minority, referred to in clause (1), the State shall ensure that the amount fixed by or determined under such law for the acquisition of such property is such as would not restrict or abrogate the right guaranteed under that clause.” (Note: Inserted by 44th Amendment Act, 1978).
    • Simple Explanation: If the government needs to compulsorily acquire the property of a minority educational institution, the compensation amount paid must be adequate, ensuring that the acquisition doesn’t effectively destroy the minority’s right to run their institution. The compensation should not be illusory and should allow them to re-establish the institution elsewhere if needed.
    • Example: If the government acquires land belonging to a school run by a religious minority for a public project, the compensation paid must be fair market value or sufficient so that the right granted under Article 30(1) is not nullified.
  • Clause (2):
    • Original Text: “The State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language.”
    • Simple Explanation: Prevents the State from discriminating against any educational institution when giving financial aid, solely because it is managed by a religious or linguistic minority. If a minority institution meets the criteria for receiving aid applicable to other institutions, it should not be denied aid just because it’s a minority institution.
    • Example: If a state government has a scheme to provide grants to schools meeting certain standards, it cannot refuse the grant to a qualifying school run by a linguistic minority simply on the basis that it is managed by that minority.

[Right to Property – Omitted]

(The sub-heading “Right to Property” was omitted by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978)

Article 31: [Compulsory acquisition of property]

  • Status: Repealed by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978.
  • Simple Explanation: Originally, Article 31 guaranteed the Right to Property as a Fundamental Right, meaning the State could acquire private property only for public purposes and upon payment of compensation. However, due to various controversies and legal challenges related to land reforms and nationalization, this article was removed from the list of Fundamental Rights.
  • Current Status: The Right to Property is no longer a Fundamental Right but still exists as a constitutional/legal right under Article 300A, which states that “No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.” This means the government can still acquire property but must do so under the authority of a valid law, though the grounds for challenging such acquisition (especially regarding compensation amount) are now different than when it was a Fundamental Right.
  • Example: When the government acquires land for building a highway today, it does so under a law like the Land Acquisition Act (or its successor legislation). While the landowner has a right to compensation under that law, they cannot challenge the acquisition directly for violating a Fundamental Right to Property under Article 31 (as it no longer exists). They rely on Article 300A and the specific acquisition law.

[Saving of Certain Laws]

(This sub-heading contains articles designed to protect certain types of laws from being challenged based on conflict with specific Fundamental Rights, mainly Articles 14 and 19).

Article 31A: Saving of laws providing for acquisition of estates, etc.

  • (Note: Inserted by 1st Amendment, 1951, and later substituted by 4th Amendment, 1955).
  • Clause (1):
    • Original Text: “Notwithstanding anything contained in article 13, no law providing for— (a) the acquisition by the State of any estate or of any rights therein… or (b) the taking over of the management of any property… or (c) the amalgamation of two or more corporations… or (d) the extinguishment or modification of any rights of managing agents, directors, etc., of corporations… or (e) the extinguishment or modification of any rights accruing by virtue of any agreement, lease or licence for… mineral or mineral oil… shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with… [article 14 or article 19]…” (Note: Reference to Article 31 omitted by 44th Amendment, 1978).
    • Simple Explanation: This article protects certain categories of laws (mainly related to agrarian and economic reforms) from being struck down by courts just because they violate Article 14 (Equality before law) or Article 19 (Freedoms like the right to practice profession/business). These laws include:
      • (a) Laws for acquiring ‘estates’ (large land holdings) or rights in them, aimed at land reform (like abolishing Zamindari).
      • (b) Laws for temporary government takeover of property management for public good.
      • (c) Laws for merging corporations in the public interest.
      • (d) Laws ending or changing rights of company managers, directors, or shareholders’ voting rights.
      • (e) Laws ending or changing rights related to mining leases/licenses.
    • First Proviso: If such a law is made by a State Legislature, it needs the President’s assent to get this protection.
    • Second Proviso: (Note: Inserted by 17th Amendment, 1964) If the State acquires land under personal cultivation within the land ceiling limit, it must pay compensation at not less than the market value.
    • Example: State laws abolishing the Zamindari system, which acquired large estates from landlords, were protected by Article 31A from challenges based on Articles 14 and 19. If a state government temporarily takes over management of a failing private company to keep it running (public interest), that law is protected.
  • Clause (2):
    • Simple Explanation: Defines the terms “estate” and “rights” in relation to an estate, giving them broad meanings based on local land tenure laws and including various types of land holdings (like jagir, inam, ryotwari land) and rights of intermediaries. (Note: Sub-clause (a) substituted by 17th Amendment, 1964; Sub-clause (b) amended by 4th Amendment, 1955).
    • Example: The definition ensured that various land reform laws across different states targeting different types of land tenure systems could be covered and protected under Article 31A(1)(a).

Article 31B: Validation of certain Acts and Regulations

  • (Note: Inserted by 1st Amendment, 1951).
  • Original Text: “Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in article 31A, none of the Acts and Regulations specified in the Ninth Schedule nor any of the provisions thereof shall be deemed to be void… on the ground that such Act, Regulation or provision is inconsistent with… any provisions of this Part [Part III – Fundamental Rights]…”
  • Simple Explanation: This article creates a special protection mechanism via the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution. Any law placed in the Ninth Schedule by a constitutional amendment is protected from being declared void by the courts on the ground that it violates any Fundamental Right (not just Articles 14 and 19). This protection applies retrospectively, meaning even if a court had previously struck down the law, placing it in the Ninth Schedule validates it from the date it was enacted (subject to Parliament’s power to repeal/amend it).
  • Supreme Court Interpretation: While initially seen as providing absolute immunity, the Supreme Court in I.R. Coelho vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) ruled that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973 (the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment) are open to judicial review if they violate the “basic structure” of the Constitution, particularly Articles 14, 19, and 21.
  • Example: Many land reform laws, nationalization acts, and laws related to reservations have been placed in the Ninth Schedule over the years to protect them from legal challenges based on Fundamental Rights infringement.

Article 31C: Saving of laws giving effect to certain directive principles

  • (Note: Inserted by 25th Amendment, 1971; partially modified by 42nd & 44th Amendments; part declared invalid by Supreme Court).
  • Original Text: “Notwithstanding anything contained in article 13, no law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing [all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV] shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with… [article 14 or article 19]; ⁶[and no law containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy shall be called in question in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such policy]: Provided that where such law is made by the Legislature of a State, the provisions of this article shall not apply thereto unless such law… has received his assent.”
    • (Note: The part “all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV” was substituted by the 42nd Amendment for the original reference to only Article 39(b) and (c). The Supreme Court in Minerva Mills (1980) struck down this substitution, effectively restoring the protection only for laws related to Article 39(b) and (c). Reference to Article 31 was omitted by 44th Amendment).
    • (Note: The part in italics (⁶[…]) was declared invalid by the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati (1973)).
  • Simple Explanation (as currently operative after court rulings): This article protects laws enacted to implement the Directive Principles mentioned in Article 39(b) (equitable distribution of community resources) and Article 39(c) (preventing concentration of wealth) from being declared void just because they conflict with Article 14 (Equality) or Article 19 (Freedoms). If such a law is made by a State legislature, it needs the President’s assent to get this protection. The part that tried to prevent courts from examining whether the law actually gives effect to the policy was struck down.
  • Example: A law nationalizing certain industries to prevent wealth concentration (related to Article 39(c)) could be protected under Article 31C from challenges based solely on Article 14 or 19.

Article 31D: [Saving of laws in respect of anti-national activities]

  • Status: Repealed by the Constitution (Forty-third Amendment) Act, 1977.
  • Simple Explanation: This article was inserted during the Emergency (by the 42nd Amendment, 1976) to protect laws aimed at preventing or prohibiting “anti-national activities” and “anti-national associations” from being challenged under Articles 14, 19, or 31. It was quickly repealed after the Emergency ended.

Right to Constitutional Remedies

Article 32: Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

  • Clause (1):
    • Original Text: “The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.”
    • Simple Explanation: Guarantees the fundamental right to directly approach the Supreme Court if any of your Fundamental Rights (listed in Part III) are violated. This right itself is a Fundamental Right.
    • Example: If someone feels their freedom of speech (Article 19) has been illegally restricted by a government order, they have the right to file a petition directly in the Supreme Court under Article 32.
  • Clause (2):
    • Original Text: “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.”
    • Simple Explanation: Empowers the Supreme Court to issue various types of orders or ‘writs’ to enforce Fundamental Rights. These writs are powerful legal tools:
      • Habeas Corpus: (“You may have the body”) Order to produce a detained person before the court to examine the legality of their detention.
      • Mandamus: (“We command”) Order to a public official or body to perform a public duty they have failed or refused to do.
      • Prohibition: Order to a lower court or tribunal to stop proceedings in a case outside its jurisdiction.
      • Certiorari: (“To be certified”) Order to a lower court or tribunal to transfer a case to the higher court for review, often to quash an illegal order.
      • Quo Warranto: (“By what authority?”) Order to inquire into the legality of a person’s claim to a public office.
    • Example: If someone is illegally detained, their relative can file a Habeas Corpus petition. If a government authority refuses to issue a license legally due to an applicant, a Mandamus writ can be sought.
  • Clause (3):
    • Original Text: “Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court… 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).”
    • Simple Explanation: Allows Parliament to authorize other courts (besides the Supreme Court and High Courts, which already have writ powers under Article 226) to issue these writs for enforcing Fundamental Rights within their local jurisdiction. (Parliament has not enacted such a law for lower courts so far).
    • Example: Theoretically, Parliament could pass a law allowing District Courts to issue writs like Habeas Corpus within their district, but it hasn’t done so.
  • Clause (4):
    • Original Text: “The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.”
    • Simple Explanation: The fundamental right to approach the Supreme Court (Article 32) cannot be suspended, except during a Proclamation of Emergency, as specifically allowed under Article 359 (which permits suspension of the enforcement of certain rights, but notably, not Articles 20 and 21).
    • Example: Even during an Emergency, the right to move the court for violation of Article 21 (Life and Liberty) cannot be suspended (as per the 44th Amendment’s change to Article 359).

Article 32A: [Constitutional validity of State laws not to be considered in proceedings under article 32]

  • Status: Repealed by the Constitution (Forty-third Amendment) Act, 1977.
  • Simple Explanation: Inserted by the 42nd Amendment, 1976, this article briefly barred the Supreme Court (under Article 32) from considering the constitutional validity of State laws unless the validity of a Central law was also in question. This restriction was removed soon after.

Article 33: Power of Parliament to modify the rights conferred by this Part in their application to Forces, etc.

  • (Note: Substituted by 50th Amendment Act, 1984).
  • Original Text: “Parliament may, by law, determine to what extent any of the rights conferred by this Part shall, in their application to,— (a) the members of the Armed Forces; or (b) the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order; or (c) persons employed in any bureau or other organisation established by the State for purposes of intelligence or counter intelligence; or (d) person employed in, or in connection with, the telecommunication systems set up for the purposes of any Force, bureau or organisation referred to in clauses (a) to (c), be restricted or abrogated so as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline among them.”
  • Simple Explanation: Gives Parliament the power to pass laws that restrict or even completely remove the Fundamental Rights (Part III) for members of:
    • Armed Forces (Army, Navy, Air Force).
    • Police forces responsible for public order.
    • Intelligence agencies (like IB, RAW).
    • Personnel in communication systems for these forces/agencies.
  • Purpose: The aim is to ensure they perform their duties effectively and maintain discipline, which might require curtailing rights like freedom of speech, association, etc., that ordinary citizens enjoy.
  • Example: The Army Act, 1950, passed by Parliament, restricts certain fundamental rights of army personnel, such as forming political associations or addressing press on service matters, to maintain discipline and operational effectiveness. Police personnel are also subject to similar restrictions under respective state police acts.

Article 34: Restriction on rights conferred by this Part while martial law is in force in any area

  • Original Text: “Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Part, 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 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.”
  • Simple Explanation: When Martial Law (military rule imposed in extraordinary situations like war, invasion, insurrection, riot) is in force in any area, Parliament can pass a law to protect (indemnify) government servants or any other person for actions taken to maintain or restore order. This means they cannot be sued or punished in courts for such actions, even if those actions might have violated Fundamental Rights during the martial law period. Parliament can also validate sentences or punishments imposed under martial law. This article implicitly allows for the imposition of martial law, though the Constitution doesn’t explicitly define the circumstances.
  • Example: If martial law is declared in a region due to severe internal conflict, and the military takes actions (like restricting movement or conducting searches) that might normally violate fundamental rights, Parliament can later pass an Act of Indemnity to protect the soldiers involved from legal action, provided their actions were necessary for restoring order.

Article 35: Legislation to give effect to the provisions of this Part

  • Original Text: “Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,— (a) Parliament shall have, and the Legislature of a State shall not have, power to make laws— (i) with respect to any of the matters which under clause (3) of article 16, clause (3) of article 32, article 33 and article 34 may be provided for by law made by Parliament; and (ii) for prescribing punishment for those acts which are declared to be offences under this Part; and Parliament shall… make laws for prescribing punishment…; (b) any law in force immediately before the commencement of this Constitution… with respect to any of the matters referred to in sub-clause (i) of clause (a) or providing for punishment… referred to in sub-clause (ii)… shall… continue in force until altered or repealed or amended by Parliament.”
  • Simple Explanation: This article gives exclusive power to Parliament (and denies it to State Legislatures) to make laws regarding:
    • (a)(i): Matters mentioned in Article 16(3) (residence requirement for jobs), Article 32(3) (empowering other courts for writs), Article 33 (modifying rights for armed forces etc.), and Article 34 (indemnity under martial law).
    • (a)(ii): Prescribing punishments for actions declared as offences under Part III (like offences related to untouchability under Article 17, or forced labour under Article 23).
  • It also mandates Parliament to make laws for prescribing punishments soon after the Constitution’s commencement.
  • (b): Any existing (pre-Constitution) laws related to these matters will continue until Parliament changes them.
  • Example: Only Parliament can make a law setting out the punishment for practicing untouchability (like the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955). A State Legislature cannot make its own separate law for this purpose. Similarly, only Parliament can pass laws restricting the fundamental rights of army personnel.

Related Posts