You are on page 1of 14

Entry no: 004 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS  ART: 19  (1) All citizens shall have the right—  (a) to freedom of speech and expression;  (b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;  (c) to form associations or unions;  (d

) to move freely throughout the territory of India;  (e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and  (g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or  business. 
guarantee of these rights is limited by the constitution itself by imposing “reasonable restrictions.” “to strike a balance b/w individual liberty and social control. Didn't leave to the courts to determine the grounds and extent of possible state regulation like american courts. Permissible limits mentioned in consti itself.
following heads: Article 19 of the Indian constitution enables the legislature to impose reasonable restrictions on free speech under

I. security of the State, II. friendly relations with foreign States, III. public order, IV. decency and morality, V. contempt of court, VI. defamation, VII. incitement to an offence, and VIII. sovereignty and integrity of India. Reasonable restrictions on these grounds can be imposed only by a duly enacted law and not by executive action scope for judicial review “In India it is the Constitution that is Supreme and Parliament as well as Stale legislatures must not only act within the limits of their respective legislative spheres as demarcated in the three lists occurring in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, but Part 111 of the Constitution guarantees to the citizen certain fundamental rights which the legislative authority can on no account transgress.

A statute or law to be valid must. Test of reasonable restriction: supreme court has laid down the following guidelines.. It can be for an unlimited time. is there an inconsistency b/w two???) then what is judicial review?? is the above written source valid?? Restriction may amount to prohibtion. in all cases.(question is when we have judicial review to state the law as void if its' unconstitutional. court has to determine whether the restriction is reasonable or not.. Courts reasonableness of restriction only not reasonableness of the law itself. Restriction should be reasonable both in substantiative and procedural stand points restriction to implement the directive principles shall be deemed to reasonable judgement shud be objective in the sense that a reasonable person and court should have judgement on the same lines the restriction shud have relation to the object that is sought through the law and not be excessive. Reasonable means law is not arbitary/ beyond needed. Each case should checked. Gopalan vs state of madras: and in each case when an individual complains to the court that his fundamental right has been infringed. . it's the courts not the legislature that will decide the laws are reasonable or not. be in conformity with the constitutional requirements and it is for the judiciary to decide whether any enactment is unconstitutional or not”.


but can be derived from it.Freedom of press though nor expressed explicitly. Freedom of circulation. Right to privacy . Even commercial advertisements could not be denied freedom under art.19 as information is indispensible.

(amend constitution perhaps) ) .(here the sc interpreted the constitution in favour of ADR. now it's left to the legislation to adopt a new law may be.

— (1) 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.html art.  (2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence  more than once. Right to education. He can't claim this at the general investigation.  .  but 3 doesn't mean he can't give his finger prints etc.kamat. Protection of life and personal liberty. 21.—No person shall be  deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure  established by law. 20: protection in respect of conviction for offences.—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. 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. And also it must appear a “formal accusation” has been made.censorship of films (awarding 'u' and 'a' grades): http://www.  (3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness  against  21A. determine.  Protection in respect of conviction for offences. by law. And also it doesn't extend to civil cases.

By the term “life” as here used something more is meant than mere animal existence. citizen or alien. The court ruled that depriving thechild of the right was not only against the interests of the child but against the interest of thesociety as well. There is no guarantee in our constitution against   arbitrary legislation. T the Supreme Court has recognized the rightof a child of 3 years to parental care. a legal practitioner of his choice. obscene or intended forblackmailing. It. “procedure established by the law” : art. under our   constitution be sought from laws made by legislature. of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right  to consult.21  safeguards the individual only from arbitrary   or illegal actions from executive.   So it can't be challenged in the court that it is unjust. however. The safeguards under arbitrary arrest and detention must.(but we have art 22 as a compliment)   Article 21 Applies to natural persons. therefore. scurrilous. 1956 Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases.”  india has a powerful parliament. “to live with human dignity. does not entitle a foreigner theright to reside and settle in India.” he right to life includes right to life with human dignity and decency and. as mentioned in Article 19 (1) (e) By the term “life” as here used something more is meant than mere animal existence. The government is empowered to prohibit the contest as objectionableperformance under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Objectionable Performances ProhibitionAct. even a foreigner can claim this right.  American constitution “due process. The right is available to every person. love and affection.  (2) Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be  . therefore.— (1) no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed. unreasonable etc.Violation of the right by a private individuals not within the preview of Article 21. Thus. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life isenjoyed. as  soon as may be. holdingof beauty contest is repugnant to dignity or decency of women and offends Article 21 of theConstitution only if the same is grossly indecent. and to be defended by.

But the framers of the consti.           “When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under    any law    providing for preventive detention  . Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour. Before 3 months and shall be informed of the grounds of his detention excepting facts which the detaining authority considers to be of public interest.. Were present we needed preventive detention. Since when the country was born the anti-communal elements etc. as soon as may be.. the authority making the order  shall.       And also this preventive detention should be taken only on the reasons mentioned .. ”       it's like i compain to sc or hc tht my right guaranteed by the foregoing provision has been violated by the order of detention made against me. 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.produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty­four 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..         Any law which prevents the detenu from disclosing to the court the grounds communicated to him so as              to enable the court to examine the suffiency or irrelevancy is equally unconstitutional.—(1) Traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour are . this constitutional right is violated and court may declare the detention invalid. then court checks and if it finds facts furnished vague. But doesn't it give arbitrary powers to execution from arresting anyone on suspicion. Scope for judicial review in respect of preventive detention..  exceptions : enemy aliens and preventive detention. Art 23: right against exploitaion: 23. Preventive detention: prevent him from doing something.. improved upon the existing law by subjecting teh power of preventive detention to certain constitutional safeguards upon violation of which individual can approach SC .

and in imposing such service the State shall not make any discrimination on grounds only of religion. caste or class or any of them. i mean like in AP?? can we draw this from that or can't we?? ENTRY 005: THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA                                                                                      FREEDOM OF RELIGION state is concerned in relation b/w man and man not b/w man and god(this belongs to individual   conscience. all persons are  equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right  freely to profess.  (2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation  .prohibited and any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law. Prohibition of employment of children in factories. (2) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from imposing compulsory service for public purposes. etc. practise and propagate religion. morality and health  and to the other provisions of this Part. 24. just observe the way how this makes child labour in homes illegal.—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.) 25. race. (1) Subject to public order.

100 crores every year as the richest temple in India . which collects over Rs. after years of government diversion of funds. the Tirumala Tirupati Devaswom (TTD) authority. and the reference to Hindu religious  institutions shall be construed accordingly.500 acres of temple property have been sold by the Communist government controlledTravancore Devasvom Board to a non-Hindu group. The state government has not Forum for Religious Freedom 3denied a charge that 85% percent of revenues from the TTD.3. 250 crores every year in income. frontal assaults have been made on the very hills of the belovedtemple of Lord Balaji in Tirupati. n Sabarimala. the forested hill with the famous temple of Lord Ayyappa in Kerala.  [[Not too many Indians are aware that even though India is officially a secular democracy.—The wearing and carrying of kirpans  shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the  Sikh religion.They are left alone by the government. but none of them have been asked to pay towards the project. and can take away hundi collections andother donations from temples and use them even for non-Hindu purposes.Samuel Rajsekar Reddy. The non-temple use of this colossal amount of money is not fully accountedfor by the government. financial. Rs 24 crores from the Guruvayoor Devasvom have beenspent on a drinking water project in ten nearby panchayats. And they have beendoing this for almost six decades now all over India.  Explanation II. In March 2006. Even though this Board gets aboutRs. 1000 pillar mantapam in the Tirumala complex. which include 40 churchesand mosques. Such government interference does notoccur with churches or mosques or gurudwaras or other places of worship of non-Hindu faiths.  (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. without state interference. it is almost bankrupt today. Jaina or  Buddhist religion.  political or other secular activity which may be  associated with religious practice. are transferred to the stateexchequer.of any existing law or prevent the State from making  any law—  (a) regulating or restricting any economic. and are allowed to own and operate their institutionsautonomously.2. Hindu temples are singled out for government control and management.]] . In secular India. with an 83% majority of her citizensbeing Hindus.  Explanation I. which iscontrolled by his state. even thoughtheir members will be beneficiaries. Some of these non-Hindu places of worship have larger revenues than the Devasvom. Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (HRCE Act) in 1951 Under the openly Christian evangelical regime of Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y. the government demolished a centuriesold.—In sub­clause (b) of clause (2). the  reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a  reference to persons professing the Sikh.state governments in India can take over Hindu temples and their properties. can appoint thepeople who will run temple committees and operations.

how will justify this behaviour by the state ?? if u see 25 2(b) there is a hint of why it may be justified.  (c) to own and acquire movable and immovable  property. practice  and propagation of  religion.  Freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion. and  (d) to administer such property in accordance with  law. 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. No person shall be compelled to pay any taxes. 26.  27.  28. (1) No religious instruction shall be provided in  any educational institution wholly maintained out of State  . Subject to public order.  Freedom to  manage religious  affairs. But art 26 talks otherwise.  the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in  payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance  of any particular religion or religious denomination.  Freedom of  conscience and free  profession.  (b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion.  Freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in certain   educational  institutions.

  Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.  .  (2) 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. 29. (1) All minorities. his guardian has  given his consent thereto. language or any of them.  (3) 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.  30. if such person is a minor.  (2) 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. script or culture of its own shall have the right  to conserve the same. (1) Any section of the citizens residing in the  territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct  language. whether based on religion or  language.funds.                                                    Cultural and Educational Rights  Protection of interests of minorities.  [(1A) In making any law providing for the  compulsory acquisition of any property of an educational  institution established and administered by a minority. race. caste. shall have the right to establish and administer  educational institutions of their choice.

 the action can be challenged in a court   of law by citizens. though it is still a   constitutional right.A new provision. Article 300­A.It is one of   the main reasons why cpi had a defeat in elections. there would be no   obligation on the part of the State to pay anything as compensation. the right to property is no longer a fundamental right. was added to the constitution which provided that "no   person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law". Ramanna is often considered as the "Father of the Indian nuclear programme" . they agitated under the banner of Bhoomi Raksha Committee. As in 2007 the supreme court unanimously said that the fundamental rights are a basic   structure of the constitution and cannot be removed or diluted.  If the government appears to have acted unfairly. The Nandigram violence was an incident in Nandigram in the West Bengal state of India.  The aggrieved person shall have no right to move the court under Article 32. Farmers of the locality   were adamant they did not want to give land. where.  Thus if a legislature makes a law depriving a person of his property. so called pro farmer   CPIM (COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA MARXIST) forcefully tried to acquire land for SEZ. Thus.