CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

1 What are fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution?

2 Discuss: Right to Equality under the Constitution.
3 Discuss in what manner “Right to Equality” is guaranteed under Indian Constitution.
4 What is “discrimination”? State the provisions in the Constitution with regard to “prohibition of
discrimination on certain grounds.”
5 Write short note on abolition of titles.
6 How is the “Right to Freedom” guaranteed under the Indian Constitution?
7 Discuss the provisions in the Constitution forbidding retrospective criminal legislation and
double punishments for the same offence.
8 “No person shall be divided of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law.” Comment.
9 “Article 22 of the Constitution makes provision for protection against arrest and dentition in
certain cases.” Explain fully (a) the scope of and (b) the limitation of this protection.
10 Write short note on “Right against exploitation”.
11 Discuss right to freedom of religion guaranteed under the Constitution.
12 Discuss right to education guaranteed under the Constitution.
13 “No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law”. Comment.
14 Discuss right to property guaranteed under the Constitution.
15 Explain the writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari.
Under what circumstances they are available?
16 Write short notes on : Certiorari and Prohibition.
17 Write short notes on Prerogative writs.
18 Mention and briefly explain the various writs issuable under the Indian Constitution. Who may
issue them?
19 What are the remedies for the enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under the
Constitution?
20 Write short note on Quo Warranto.

Constitution of India – Salient Features

Lengthiest Written Constitution

• Constitutions are classified into written, like the American Constitution, or unwritten, like the
British Constitution.
• The Constitution of India has the distinction of being the lengthiest and detailed Constitutional
document the world has so far produced.
• It is a very comprehensive, elaborate and detailed document.
• The factors that contributed to the elephantine size of the Indian Constitution are:
◦ Geographical factors, that is, the vastness of the country and its diversity.
◦ Historical factors, for instance, the influence of the Government of India Act of 1935,
which was bulky.
◦ Single constitution for both the Centre and the states.
Drawn from Various Sources
• The Constitution of India has borrowed most of its provisions from the constitutions of various
other countries as well as from the Government of India Act of 1935
• The structural part of the Constitution is, to a large extent, derived from the Government of
India Act of 1935.
• The philosophical part of the Constitution (Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles
of State Policy) derive their inspiration from the American and Irish Constitutions respectively.
• The political part of the Constitution (the principle of Cabinet government and the relations
between the executive and the legislature) have been largely drawn from the British
Constitution.
Blend of Rigidity and Flexibility

•  Constitutions are classified into rigid and flexible.

• A rigid constitution is one that requires a special procedure for its amendment, as for
example, the American Constitution.
• A flexible constitution is one that can be amended in the same manner as the ordinary laws
are made, as for example, the British Constitution.
• The Indian Constitution is a unique example of the combination of rigidity and flexibility.
Federal System with Unitary Bias

• The Constitution of India establishes a federal system of government.

• It contains all the usual features of a federation, such as two governments, division of powers,
written constitution, the supremacy of the constitution, the rigidity of the Constitution,
independent judiciary and bicameralism.
• However, the Indian Constitution also contains a large number of unitary or non-federal
features, such as a strong Centre, single Constitution, appointment of state governor by the
Centre, all-India services, integrated judiciary, and so on.
• Hence, the Indian Constitution has been variously described as ‘federal in form but unitary in
spirit’, ‘quasi-federal’ by K C Wheare.
Parliamentary Form of Government

• The Constitution of India has opted for the British Parliamentary System of Government
rather than the American Presidential system of government.
• The parliamentary system is based on the principle of cooperation and coordination between
the legislative and executive organs while the presidential system is based on the doctrine of
separation of powers between the two organs.
Rule Of Law

• More important is the meaning that law is the sovereign in democracy.

• rule of law means a few more things like
◦ There is no room for arbitrariness
◦ Each individual enjoys some fundamental rights, and
◦ The highest judiciary is the final authority in maintaining the sanctity of the law of the
land.
Integrated and Independent Judiciary
• India has a single integrated judicial system.
• The Supreme Court stands as the apex court of the judicial system. Below the Supreme
Court are the High Courts at the state level.
• Under a high court, there is a hierarchy of subordinate courts, that is district courts and the
other lower courts.
• The Supreme Court is a federal court, the highest court of appeal, the guarantor of the
fundamental rights of the citizens and the guardian of the Constitution. Hence, the
Constitution has made various provisions to ensure its independence.
Fundamental Rights

• The Constitution contains the basic principle that every individual is entitled to enjoy certain
rights as a human being and the enjoyment of such rights does not depend upon the will of
any majority or minority.
• No majority has the right to abrogate such rights.
• The fundamental rights are meant for promoting the idea of political democracy.
 • They operate as limitations on the tyranny of the executive and arbitrary laws of the
legislature.
• They are justiciable in nature, that is, enforceable by the courts for their violation.
Directive Principles of State Policy

• According to Dr B R Ambedkar, the Directive Principles of State Policy is a ‘novel feature’ of

the Indian Constitution.
• The Directive Principles were included in our Constitution in order to provide social and
economic justice to our people.
• Directive Principles aim at establishing a welfare state in India where there will be no
concentration of wealth in the hands of a few.
• In the Minerva Mills case (1980), the Supreme Court held that ‘the Indian Constitution is
founded on the bedrock of the balance between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive
Principles’.
Fundamental Duties

• Fundamental Duties were added to our Constitution by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 on
the recommendation of the Swaran Singh Committee.
• Later, the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2002 added one more fundamental duty.
• While the rights are given as guarantees to the people, the duties are obligations that every
citizen is expected to perform.
• However, like the Directive Principles of State Policy, the duties are also non-justiciable in
nature.
12. Indian Secularism

• The Constitution of India stands for a secular state.

• Hence, it does not uphold any particular religion as the official religion of the Indian State.
• The distinguishing features of a secular democracy contemplated by the Constitution of India
are:
◦ The State will not identify itself with or be controlled by any religion;
◦ While the State guarantees to everyone the right to profess whatever religion one
chooses to follow (which includes also the right to be an antagonist or an atheist), it
will not accord preferential treatment to any of them;
◦ No discrimination will be shown by the State against any person on account of his
religion or faith; and
Universal Adult Franchise
• Indian democracy functions on the basis of ‘one person one vote’.
• Every citizen of India who is 18 years of age or above is entitled to vote in the elections
irrespective of caste, sex, race, religion or status.
• The Indian Constitution establishes political equality in India through the method of universal
adult franchise.
Single Citizenship

• In India, there is only single citizenship.

• It means that every Indian is a citizen of India, irrespective of the place of his/her residence or
place of birth.
• He/she is not a citizen of the Constituent State like Jharkhand, Uttaranchal or Chattisgarh to
which he/she may belong but remains a citizen of India.
Emergency Provisions
 • The Constitution makers also foresaw that there could be situations when the government
could not be run as in ordinary times.
• There are three types of emergency
◦ Emergency caused by war, external aggression or armed rebellion [Aricle 352]
◦ Emergency arising out of the failure of constitutional machinery in states [Article 356
& 365]
◦ Financial emergency [Article 360].
Three-tier Government
• Originally, the Indian Constitution provided for a dual polity and contained provisions with
regard to the organisation and powers of the Centre and the States.
• Later, the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts (1992) have added a third-tier of
government (that is, Local Government), which is not found in any other Constitution of the
world.
• The 73rd Amendment Act of 1992 gave constitutional recognition to the panchayats (rural
local governments) by adding a new Part IX and a new schedule 11 to the Constitution.
• Similarly, the 74th Amendment Act of 1992 gave constitutional recognition to the
municipalities (urban local government) by adding a new Part IX-A and a new schedule 12 to
the Constitution.

2. PREAMBLE
A preamble is a preliminary statement of the reasons which have made the passing of statute
desirable. Apart from the enactment of the preamble of the constitution, the preamble of a statute sets
out the main objectives which the legislation is intended to achieve. it is a sort of value- ladden
introduction to the statute and many a time, it is very helpful in understanding the policy and
legislature. It expresses “what we had thought or dreamt for so long. The real value of constitution
and law would, therefore, depends on the extent to which the stated objectives of the preamble have
been achieved.Preamble as such is widely accepted as the quintessence or soul and spirit of a
constitution, as it embodies the fundamentals and the basic of the constitution as well as the vision.

The Importance of the Preamble

The wording of the Preamble highlights some of the fundamental values and guiding principles on
which the Constitution of India is based. The Preamble serves as a guiding light for the Constitution
and judges interpret the Constitution in its light. In a majority of decisions, the Supreme Court of India
has ruled that neither it nor any of its content is legally enforceable. The Preamble plays pivotal role
when there is ambiguity in provisions of any Article or interpretation becomes confusing. This is when
the spirit of the Preamble becomes the guiding factor.

The preamble serves the following points:-

1.      It indicates the sources from where the constitution has com viz. the people of India.
2.      It contains the enacting clause which brings into force the constitution.
3.      It declares the freedoms which the people of India intended to secure it all citizens and the basic
type of government and polity which was to be established.

Explanation of some of the important words in the Preamble

Sovereign:-
The word sovereign means supreme or independent. India is internally and externally sovereign -
externally free from the control of any foreign power and internally, it has a free government which is
directly elected by the people and makes laws that govern the people.

Socialist:-
The word socialist was added to the Preamble by the 42nd amendment act of 1976, during the
Emergency. It implies social and economic equality. Social equality in this context means the absence
of discrimination on the grounds only of caste, colour, creed, sex, religion, or language. Under social
equality, everyone has equal status and opportunities. Economic equality in this context means that
the government will endeavor to make the distribution of wealth more equal and provide a decent
standard of living for all. This is in effect emphasizing a commitment towards the formation of a
welfare state.

Secular:-
The word secular was inserted into the Preamble by the 42nd amendment act of 1976, during the
Emergency. It implies equality of all religions and [religious tolerance]. India therefore does not have
an official state religion. Every person has the right to preach, practice and propagate any religion
they choose. The government must not favor or discriminate against any religion. It must treat all
religions with equal respect. All citizens, irrespective of their religious beliefs are equal in the eyes of
law. No religious instruction is imparted in government or government-aided schools. The Supreme
Court in S.R Bommai v. Union of India held that secularism was an integral part of the basic
structure of the constitution.

Democratic:-
India is a democracy. The people of India elect their governments at all levels (Union, State and local)
by a system of universal adult franchise; popularly known as 'One man one vote'. Every citizen of
India, who is 18 years of age and above and not otherwise debarred by law, is entitled to vote. Every
citizen enjoys this right without any discrimination on the basis of caste, creed, colour, sex, religion or
education.

Republic:-
As opposed to a monarchy, in which the head of state is appointed on hereditary basis for a lifetime or
until he abdicates from the throne, a democratic republic is an entity in which the head of state is
elected, directly or indirectly, for a fixed tenure. The President of India is elected by an electoral
college for a term of five years. The post of the President of India is not hereditary. Every citizen of
India is eligible to become the President of the country.

Preamble:-A Part of The Constitution Or Not

Re Berubari case : The court ruled that no matter the preamble forms an important part of the
constitution, and talks about the country being a sovereign, the legislation can’t be restrained from its
functions. Also, the preamble can’t be used to decide the ambiguous part of the Indian Constitution. 

Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala has created a history. For the first time, a bench of 13
Judges assembled and sat in its original jurisdiction hearing the writ petition. It was held in this case:
a. that the Preamble to the Constitution of India is a part of Constitution
b. that the Preamble is not a source of power nor a source of limitations
c. the Preamble has a significant role to play in the interpretation of statues, also in the interpretation
of provisions of the Constitution. Any negative amendment which result in the taking away of integrity
and unity of the nation cannot be done and Preamble comes under the basic structure of the
constitution as held by this case.

3. Union and Its Territory (Article 1 – 4)

Articles 1 to 4 under Part I of the Constitution explains the Union and its Territory.

Article-1 describes India as a ‘Union of States’. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar said that the Indian federation
was a “Union” because it was indissoluble, and no State had a right to separate from the Indian
Union. The country is one integral unit beside the fact that it consists of different states for the
convenience of administration.The phrases ’ Union of India’ and ‘Territory of India’ has to be
differentiated. The Union of India includes only the States enjoying the Status of being members of
the federal system and sharing the powers with the Union.The territory of India includes not only the
States but also the Union Territories and such other territories as may be acquired by India in future.
First Schedule of the Constitution has specified states and the Territories both.

Article – 2: It deals with admission or establishment of new States. Parliament may by law admit into
the Union, or establish, new States based on terms and conditions.

Article- 3:It states that the Parliament may by law form a new State by separation of a territory from
any State or by uniting two or more States completely or in parts or by uniting any territory to a part of
any State. It deals with the following:

• Formation of new States

• Alteration of areas of States

• Boundaries or names of existing States

Thus Parliament can increase or diminish the area of any State or can alter the boundaries or names
of any State. Parliament follows the following procedures in this regard.

Step-1: Either House of the Parliament, only on the recommendation of the President, can introduce
a Bill giving effect to any or all the changes stated above.

Step-2: If such a bill affects the boundary or name of a State, then the President will refer the Bill to
the concerned State Legislature before introducing it in the Parliament for their opinion.

Step-3: If the State Legislature fails to express an opinion within the given time limit then it is deemed
that it has expressed its views. Parliament is not bound to accept or act upon the views of the State
Legislature even if State has submitted their views within the time period.

In the case of Union Territories, it is not necessary to seek the views of Legislatures of Union
Territories before such Bill.

Article-4: It says that any law referred to in Article-2 or Article-3 will contain such provisions for the
amendment of the Ist  Schedule and the IVth Schedule necessary to provide effects to the provisions
of law and may also contain such supplemental, incidental, and consequential provisions, as the
Parliament may deem necessary.This Article allows for consequential changes in the Ist Schedule i.e.
names of the States in the Union of India and IVth  Schedule i.e. a number of seats allotted in the
Rajya Sabha for each state. Constitution will not treat any such law altering existing States or creating
a new State, as the amendment.

CASE LAWS : Berubari Union case, 1960

In this case, the supreme court held that the power of Parliament to diminish the area of a State
(under Article 3) does not cover the cession of Indian territory to a foreign country. Indian territory can
be ceded to a foreign state only by amending the Constitution Under Article 368. Consequently, the
9th Constitutional Amendment Act (1960) was enacted to transfer the said territory to Pakistan. 
Supreme Court in 1960 ruled that the Settlement of a boundary dispute between India and another
Country does not require a Constitutional amendment. It can be done by executive action as it does
not involve cession of Indian territory to a foreign country.

Babulal Parate v. State of Bombay, court explains the provisions of Article three of the Constitution
of India:The time once the State assembly should specify its views should be determined by the
President; however, the President could extend the point in time. However, if the explicit or extended
term expires and no opinion of the State assembly is adopted, the second condition of the order is
consummated even supposing the views of the State assembly haven’t been detected.

Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel v. Union Of India (1969) The Supreme Court in this case concluded
that the power of government to seed the next line through International treaties and agreements is it
is an exclusive power of the Parliament and no Constitutional provisions are needed to be amended
but it cannot change the boundaries of the Union of India that have been already marketed without
amending the first schedule of the Constitution. 

4. CITIZENSHIP

Citizenship can be defined as a relationship between an individual and a state to which he or she
owes loyalty and is thus protected by the law. Citizenship entails a state of liberty with attendant
duties. Indian Constitution Addresses Citizenship of India in Articles 5 to Article 11. 
Citizenship of India: Constitutional Provision
• Citizenship is listed in the Constitution's Union List and hence falls within Parliament's sole
control.
• The term "citizen" is not defined in the Constitution, however, Part 2 describes the numerous
types of people who are eligible for citizenship (Articles 5 to 11).
Article 5

• Citizenship was granted to all persons who were born and raised in India.
• Even people who were domiciled in India but not born there, yet had one of their parents born
there, were considered citizens.
• Anyone who had lived in India for more than five years was also eligible to seek citizenship.
Article 6

• It granted citizenship rights to certain Pakistani migrants to India.

• Because of Partition and migration prior to Independence, Article 6 stated that anyone who
migrated to India prior to July 19, 1949, automatically became an Indian citizen if one of his
parents or ancestors was born in India.
• Those who arrived in India after this date, on the other hand, had to register.
Article 7

• It Provided certain migrants to Pakistan with the right to citizenship.

• Those who migrated to Pakistan after March 1, 1947 and later returned on resettlement
permits were included in the citizenship net.
• The law was more sympathetic to those who migrated from Pakistan and were referred to as
refugees than to those who were stranded in Pakistan or went there but decided to return
soon.
Article 8

• Provided certain persons of Indian origin residing outside India with the right to citizenship.
• Any Person of Indian Origin residing outside India who was born in India, or either of his or
her parents or grandparents, could register as an Indian citizen with the Indian Diplomatic
Mission.
Article 9 

• Article 9 states that if a person voluntarily obtains the citizenship of a foreign state, he or she
will no longer be a citizen of India.
Article 10 

• Article 10 states that any person who is or is deemed to be a citizen of India under any of the
preceding provisions of this Part shall continue to be such a citizen, subject to the provisions
of any law made by Parliament.
Article 11 

• It gives Parliament the authority to make any provision regarding the acquisition and
termination of citizenship, as well as all matters pertaining to it.
Acts
Acquisition and Determination of Indian Citizenship

▪ There are four ways in which Indian citizenship can be acquired: birth, descent,

registration and naturalisation. The provisions are listed under the Citizenship Act, 1955.

CASE LAW :
Pradeep Jain v. Union of India the Supreme Court recognized that in India Article 5 recognizes the
only domicile, viz., the domicile of India. It does not recognize the notion of State domicile. The
domicile of a person is in that country in which he is either has or is deemed by law to have his
permanent house.

5. Meaning of State under Article 12

For the purposes of Part III of the constitution, the state comprises of the following:

1 Government and Parliament of India i.e the Executive and Legislature of the Union

2 Government and Legislature of each State i.e the Executive and Legislature of the various
States of India

3 All local or other authorities within the territory of India

4 All local and other authorities who are under the control of the Government of India
Government (Union and state), Parliament and State Legislature

• Parliament: The parliament comprises of the President of India, the lower house of the
parliament that is the Lok Sabha as well as the upper house of the Parliament, that is the
Rajya Sabha.

• Executive: It is that organ which implements the laws passed by the legislature and the
policies of the government. The rise of the welfare state has tremendously increased the
functions of the state, and in reality, of the executive. In common usage, people tend to
identify the executive with the government.
• Legislature: The legislature is that organ of the government which enacts the laws of the
government. It is the agency which has the responsibility to formulate the will of the state and
vest it with legal authority and force. It is the assembly of the elected representatives of the
people and represents national public opinion and power of the people.
• Government: The law-making or legislative branch and administrative or executive branch
and law enforcement or judicial branch and organizations of society. Lok Sabha (the lower
house) and Rajya Sabha (the upper house) form the legislative branch. Indian President is
the head of the state and exercises his or her power directly or through officers subordinate to
him. The Supreme Court, High Courts, and many civil, criminal and family courts at the district
level form the Judiciary.
• State Legislature: The legislative body at the state level is the State Legislature. It comprises
of the state legislative assembly and the state legislative council.
Local Authorities

Before understanding what a local authority is, it is important to define Authorities. “Authority”
means a person or body exercising power to command. When read under Article 12, the word
authority means the power to make laws (or orders, regulations, bye-laws, notification etc.) which
have the force of law. It also includes the power to enforce those laws.

The term Local authority includes the following:

1 Local government: According to Entry 5 of the List II of VII Schedule ‘local government’

includes a municipal corporation, improvement trust, district boards, mining settlement
authorities and other local authorities for the purpose of local self-government or village
administration.

2 Village Panchayat: In the case of Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, it was held that within the
meaning of the term local authority, village panchayat is also included.
Test to determine Local AuthoritiesIn Mohammad Yasin v. Town Area Committee, the Supreme Court
held that to be characterized as a ‘local authority’ the authority concerned must;

1 Have a separate legal existence as a corporate body

2 Not be a mere government agency but must be legally an independent entity

3 Function in a defined area

4 Be wholly or partly, directly or indirectly, elected by the inhabitants of the area

5 Enjoy a certain degree of autonomy (complete or partial)

6 Be entrusted by statute with such governmental functions and duties as are usually entrusted
to locally (like health, education, water, town planning, markets, transportation, etc.)

7 Have the power to raise funds for the furtherance of its activities and fulfilment of its
objectives by levying taxes, rates, charges or fees
Other Authorities

The term ‘other authorities’ in Article 12 has nowhere been defined. Neither in the Constitution nor in
the general clauses Act, 1897 nor in any other statute of India. Therefore, its interpretation has
caused a good deal of difficulty, and judicial opinion has undergone changes over time.The functions
of a government can be performed either the governmental departments and officials or through
autonomous bodies which exist outside the departmental structure. Such autonomous bodies may
include companies, corporations etc. So, for the purpose of determining what ‘other authorities’ fall
under the scope of State, the judiciary has given several judgements as per the facts and
circumstances of different cases.

University of Madras v. Shanta Bai, the Madras High Court evolved the principle of ‘ejusdem
generis’ i.e. of the like nature. It means that only those authorities are covered under the expression
‘other authorities’ which perform governmental or sovereign functions. Further, it cannot include
persons, natural or juristic, for example, Unaided universities.

Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal, the Supreme Court held that ‘other authorities’ would
include all authorities created by the constitution or statute on whom powers are conferred by law.
Such statutory authority need not be engaged in performing government or sovereign functions. The
court emphasised that it is immaterial that the power conferred on the body is of a commercial nature
or not.

Whether State includes Judiciary?

Article 12 of the Constitution does not specifically define ‘judiciary’. This gives the judicial authorities
the power to pronounce decisions which may be contravening to the Fundamental Rights of an
individual. If it was taken into the head of ‘State’, then as per the article, it would be  by the obligation
that the fundamental rights of the citizens should not be violated. The answer to this question lies in
the distinction between the judicial and non-judicial functions of the courts. When the courts perform
their non-judicial functions, they fall within the definition of the ‘State’. When the courts perform their
judicial functions, they would not fall within the scope of the ‘State’.

6. ARTICLE 13
Article 13 aids the court and citizens to keep the powers of the legislature under preview. Article 13 of
the Indian Constitution describes the means for judicial review.It enjoins a duty on the Indian State to
respect and implement the fundamental right. And at the same time, it confers a power on the courts
to declare a law or an act void if it infringes the fundamental rights.

The judiciary plays a very important role as a protector of the constitutional rights. The primary
responsibility for implementation of the rule of law lies that the judiciary. It is the significance of judicial
review, to ensure that democracy is inclusive and there is accountability of everyone who wields or
Exercises public power. The principle of judicial review becomes an essential feature of Indian
constitution. The power of judicial review is incorporated in article 226 and 227 of the Constitution as
the high courts are concerned and in regard to Supreme Court article 32 and 136 of the Constitution.
Background of judicial review
The doctrine of judicial review was for the first time propounded by the Supreme Court of America.
Originally there was no express provision for judicial review under Constitution of America. For the
first time in 1803 the Supreme Court in William Marbury versus James Madison confirms the legal
principle of judicial review, the ability of the supreme Court to limit congressional power by declaring
legislation unconstitutional.
The acts of congress in conflict with the Constitution or not law and therefore not binding to the quotes
and that the judiciary is responsible always to uphold the Constitution.

Article 13(1) existing laws inconsistent with the Constitution Doctrine of Eclipse
All laws in force which clash with the exercise of fundamental rights conferred by part III shall to the
extent be void.
This does not make the existing laws which are inconsistent with the fundamental rights void ab initio.
The entire part III of the Constitution is prospective in nature.Article 13(1) existing laws inconsistent
with the Constitution
All laws in force which clash with the exercise of fundamental rights conferred by part III shall to the
extent be void.This does not make the existing laws which are inconsistent with the fundamental
rights void ab initio. The entire part III of the Constitution is prospective in nature.
Article 13(2)  ( Doctrine of Severability) of the Indian Constitution says that the State must not
make laws that are not inconsonance' with the Constitution. And if the law drafted intervened with an
individual's fundamental rights, the said law will become void to the extent of the contravention. This
is an express ground for judicial review after legislation.
Any law made by any legislation or other authority after the commencement of the Constitution which
contravenes any of the fundamental rights shall to the extent of the contravention be void.

The distinction from clause (1) and clause (2) is that former declares the law void and latter declared
the law void ab initio
Article 13(3)(a) includes any law including ordinance, order, bye-laws, rule, regulations, notification,
custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law. In a nutshell, the Clause is not
exhaustive and shall contain all those laws that violate fundamental rights.Article 13(3)(b) includes
laws passed or made by the legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India before the
commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed. It means the same thing as existing
law' defined in Article 372 of the Indian Constitution.

In 2018, Indian Young Lawyers Association v. The State Of Kerala, also called the Sabarimala
Case, dealt with the same question. The Court, in this case, said that the individual' is at the heart of
the Indian Constitution, and as far as any law affected the individual, it could fall under Article 13(3).
Article 13(4)
This clause was inserted by the 24th constitutional amendment act of 1971.
This constitutional amendment was passed to override the effect of Golak Nath v. State of Punjab
judgement. It was held that constitutional amendment passed according to article 368 is a law within
the meaning of article 13.
24th amendment act 1971 override this judgement and declare that amendment under article 368 is
not law within the meaning of article 13.
However 24th amendment act 1971 was declared void in Minerva Mills case, where it was stated
that amendment under article 368 is law within the meaning of article 13 and if it contravenes
fundamental rights it can be declared void.

7.ARTICLE 14 :

The said Article is clearly in two parts – while it commands the State not to deny to any person
‘equality before law’, it also commands the State not to deny the ‘equal protection of the laws’.
Equality before law prohibits discrimination. It is a negative concept. The concept of ‘equal protection
of the laws’ requires the State to give special treatment to persons in different situations in order to
establish equality amongst all. It is positive in character. Therefore, the necessary corollary to this
would be that equals would be treated equally, whilst un-equals would have to be treated unequally
he expression “intelligible differentia” means difference capable of being understood. A factor that
distinguishes or in different state or class from another which is capable of being understood. In State
of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar i.e. the differentia or classification must have a rational nexus with
the object sought to be achieved by the statute in questionSupreme Court in many of its judgment has
clearly indicated about such kinds of classifications as vague and inoperative. The Supreme Court in
landmark judgment of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India clearly ruled out the room for arbitrariness.
‘Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. The
principle of reasonableness, which logically as well as philosophically, is an essential element of
equality or non-arbitrariness, pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence.’ Rule of law which
permeates the entire fabric of the Indian Constitution excludes arbitrariness. Wherever we find
arbitrariness or unreasonableness there is denial there is denial of rule of law.
This new dimension of Art.14 transcends the classificatory principle. Art.14 is no longer to be equated
with the principle of classification. It is primarily a guarantee against arbitrariness in state action and
the doctrine of classification has been evolved only as a subsidiary rule for testing whether a
particular state action is arbitrary or not. If a law is arbitrary or irrational it would fall foul of Art.14. As
an example, it has been held that any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct would
be violative of Art.14. So the impugned act should be tested at the touchstone of Art. 13(2) and should
be declared invalid.

8. ARTICLE 15

The Constitution of India guarantees various rights to its citizens, including no discrimination on

account of religion, race, caste, or place of birth. Part III of the Indian Constitution establishes this
right under the heading of Fundamental Rights. In India, religion and caste-based discrimination have
existed for a very long time. In every part of India before independence, discrimination was evident,
whether through untouchability or the division of upper and lower castes. Discrimination still exists
today, however, the consequences of such discrimination are much more severe and
punishable. Article 15 restricts discrimination on the ground of:
• Religion – It means that no person should be discriminated on the basis of religion from
accessing any public place or policy by the state or any group.

• Race – Ethnic origin should not form a basis of discrimination. For example, a citizen of
Afghan origin should not be discriminated from those of an Indian origin.

• Caste – Discrimination on the basis of caste is also prohibited to prevent atrocities on the
lower castes by the upper caste.

• Sex – Gender of an individual shall not be a valid ground for discrimination in any matter. For
example, discriminating transgenders, females, etc.

• Place of birth – A place where an individual is born should not become a reason for
discriminating among other members of the country.
Often the word ‘Discrimination’ is perceived to be contrary to the principles of equality. Individuals
tend to confuse discrimination with breach of equality.

 Article 15(1), there shall be no discrimination against any citizen of India on the basis of religion,
race, caste, gender, or place of birth.  Despite the fact that castes are divided into scheduled caste/
tribes, backwards classes, and generally, no one should be discriminated against. As a broad term,
discrimination has many aspects, and it is unjust. People of lower castes like Dalits have been the
target of unjust treatment in numerous instances.

Article 15(2)(b) states that no individual can restrict another individual on the basis of religion, race,
caste, gender, or place of birth from using septic tanks, wells, roads, or any other public facility
maintained by the state funds or specifically designated for public use. This provision explains how
discrimination should be prevented instead of being practiced. Any discrimination mentioned above
shall be prohibited and unlawful. It is illegal and unjust to restrict or prevent access to a public place
established by the state exclusively for public use.  

Article 15(3) provides that the state may not prevent itself from making laws that provide special
provisions for women and children.
Article 15(4) stipulates that nothing in Article 15 or Article 29(2) prevents the state from creating
special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes of citizens, or the STs/SCs. There
were two major instances that motivated the inclusion of such a clause in Article 15.
In Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963), the Mysore Government issued an order and decided to provide
68% reservation for students belonging to backward classes for their admissions in medical and
engineering colleges. The government left only 32% of reservation for students getting admission on
merit. Because of this reservation, students with higher marks than those in the reserved category
failed to obtain a seat. In the opinion of the Court, the categorization of backward and even more
backward classes was not justified under Article 15(4). In order to be considered ‘backward’, both
socially and educationally backward can be included. Clause (4) of Article 15 does not talk about
caste but class. Additionally, the Court stated that reserving 68% of seats in medical and engineering
schools would constitute constitutional fraud, as Clause (4) of Article 15 prohibits exclusive provisions
for backward classes. Therefore, reservations could not exceed 50%. 

9.Article 16 of the Indian Constitution guarantees equal opportunity to all citizens in matters related to
employment in the public sector. Article 16(1) states that there shall be equal opportunity for the
citizens in the matter of employment or appointment to any office under the State. The provision of
equality is only applicable to the employment or offices which are held by the State. The State is still
free to lay down the requisite qualifications for the recruitment of employees for the Government
services. The Government can also pick and choose applicants for the purpose of employment as
long as the applicants have been given an equal opportunity to apply for the Government service.
Article 16(1) and (2) lay down provisions for equal opportunity of employment in the public sector.
However, it is stated in clause 3 of Article 16 that nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from
making any law which prescribes to the citizens who are appointed to any office under the State in
regard to any requirements as to residence within that State or Union territory prior to employment or
appointment to any office under the State.Article 16(4) of the Indian constitution provides for the
reservation of services under the State in favor of the backward class of citizens. The State shall
decide whether a particular class of citizens is backward or not. Therefore, the State shall lay down
acceptable criteria in order to ascertain whether a particular class of citizens is a backward class or
not.
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India,2007

The case M. Nagaraj v. Union of India was related to reservation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes and dealt with Articles 16 (4A) and (4B) of the Constitution. It was held in this case that in order
to grant reservations to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the State must collect ‘quantifiable
data’ to demonstrate their backwardness. It was held that the concept of the creamy layer will also
apply to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and therefore, they would not be entitled to any
such reservations. Further, the decision was altered as it was argued by the Attorney-General of India
that both the holdings were incorrect as they were contrary to the judgment which was given in Indira
Sawhney vs Union of India (non-exclusion of creamy layer in matters of reservations).

10. Abolition of Untouchability: Article 17

Untouchability has been abolished by the Indian Constitution through Article 17. The Article states
that the practice of untouchability is prohibited in all forms. Article 17 of the Constitution abolishes the
practice of untouchability. The practice of untouchability is an offense under the Untouchability
Offences Act of 1955 (renamed to Protection of Civil Rights Act in 1976) and anyone doing so is
punishable by law. This Act states that whatever is open to the general public should be open to all
the citizens of India.

In the case of Devarajjah vs. Padmana, the term untouchability was defined. It was stated that the
Untouchability Offences Act, 1955 fails to define the word ‘untouchability’. The Court observed that
‘untouchability’ under Article 17 of the Constitution should not be taken in the literal sense but should
be understood as a practice that has prevailed and developed in India. The framers of the
Constitution had clearly indicated untouchability as a practice that developed historically in this
country. The existence and practice of untouchability in this country and the efforts which have been
made for its eradication during the past decades are matters of common knowledge and can be taken
judicial notice of.Article 17 of the Constitution which was intended to abolish the practice of
untouchability, fails to define the term ‘untouchability’ nor is it defined anywhere else in the
Constitution. Through this case, the Court gave a broader interpretation of the word ‘untouchability’
under Article 17 of the Constitution.

11. Abolition of Titles: Article 18

The Article 18 of the Constitution forbids the State from conferring any titles on the citizens of India
and also they are prohibited from accepting any title given by a foreign State. However, Military and
academic distinctions can be conferred upon. The title which comes along with awards such as
Bharat Ratna and Padma Vibhushan do not fall within the constitutional prohibition and thus, they do
not fall under the definition of title under Article 18 of the Constitution.

 Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India, the petitioners contended that National Awards like Padam
Vibhushan, Padam Bhushan, Padam Shri, and Bharat Ratna should not be given to the individuals as
it is a violation of Article 18. It was argued in the court that the National Awardees very often misuse
the title which is given to them by the Government. The Supreme Court held that National Awards are
not subject to titles as per Article 18 and receiving a National Award was not a violation of equality
under the Constitution. Article 51(A)(f) of the Constitution speaks about the necessary recognition and
appreciation of excellence in the performance of a person’s duty. The Court criticized the
Government’s failure in selecting the right candidates for National Award and also stated that the
whole criteria for selection were vague and the main object of recognition and appreciation of work
was wholly missing.

12.ARTICLE 19
Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India guarantees six fundamental freedoms to every citizen of India,
namely-
Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the freedom of speech and expression to all citizens. Freedom of speech
and expression is the foundation of a democratic society and is one of the most cherished rights of a
citizen. It is the first condition of liberty and plays an important role in forming public opinion. However,
restrictions can be imposed in the interests of justice, but those restrictions must withstand the test
of Article 19(2).
In Bennett Coleman & Co v. Union of India(1972), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the freedom
of the press embodies the right of the people to free speech and expression. It was held that
“Freedom of the press is both qualitative and quantitative. Freedom lies both in circulation and in
content.”
In the landmark case of Romesh Thappar v. The State Of Madras(1950), the Supreme Court
observed that, “freedom of speech and of the press lay at the founda- tion of all democratic
organisations, for without free political discussion no public education, so essential for the proper
functioning of the processes of popular government, is possible”. The Court in this case held that the
freedom of circulation is as important as the freedom of publication.

In the case of Union of India v. Naveen Jindal (2004), the Supreme Court held that flying the National
Flag with respect and dignity is an expression and manifestation of one’s allegiance and feelings and
sentiments of pride for the nation and therefore, is a fundamental right protected under Article 19(1)
(a). However, the flying of the National Flag cannot be for commercial purposes or otherwise and can
be subject to reasonable restrictions.

 Article 19(1)(b) provides for the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. This includes the right
to hold public meetings, hunger strikes, and the right to take out processions. However, the assembly
must be peaceful and without arms. 

Article 19(1)(c) provides for the right to form associations, unions or cooperative societies. An
association refers to a group of persons who have come together to achieve a certain objective which
may be for the benefit of the members of the welfare of the general public or a  scientific, charitable or
any other purpose. The right to form associations is considered as the lifeblood of democracy, as
without such a right, the political parties critical to the functioning of a democracy cannot be formed. 

Article 19(1)(d) provides for the right to move freely throughout the territory of India. This means the
right to locomotion, i.e., the right to move as per one’s own choice. This right includes the right to use
roads and highways. In Chambara soy v. Union of India (2007), some unscrupulous elements had
blocked the road due to which the petitioner was delayed in taking his ailing son to the hospital and
his son died on arrival at the hospital. The Supreme Court held that the right of the petitioner to move
freely under Article 19(1)(d) has been violated due to the road blockage. 

Article 19(1)(e) states that it is the fundamental right of every citizen to reside and settle in any part of
the territory of India. In the case of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Friends Co-op. Housing
Society Ltd.(1995), it was held by the Supreme Court that the right to residence under Article 19(1)(e)
includes the right to shelter and to construct houses for that purpose. 

Article 19(1)(d) and (e) are complementary to each other and confer a right upon the citizens to move
freely or/and to reside and settle in any part of the country.  

Article 19(1)(g) provides for the fundamental right of the citizens to practice any profession or to carry
on any occupation, trade or business. In Excel Wear v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court
declared Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which required an employer to take prior
permission from the government for closure of his industrial undertaking, as unconstitutional and
invalid on the ground that it violated Article 19(1)(g). 

13. ARTICLE 20 : Article 20 of the Indian Constitution makes up of 3 clauses.In a simpler sense,
these three clauses deal with issue of unnecessary and rather undesirable actions by Legislature,
Executive & implementing authorities.The basic crux of these provisions are:First, it establishes that
no one should be convicted for any offence other than those violating the law in force at the time of
the commission of the offence and also, one couldn’t be penalised with a greater punishment than
what existed at the time of the commission of the act.Second, no one could be convicted and
punished more than once for the same offence involving the same set of facts.Third, no one should
be compelled to produce such evidence and information which could be used against him during trial
incompetent judicial tribunals.

Article 20 is among those Articles of the Indian Constitution, which can’t be put aside even during
an emergency. Thus, forms a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution.The provision in question,
i.e. Article 20 (1) says that one must not be prosecuted and convicted in accordance with those laws
which didn’t exist at the time of the commission of the offence by the accused and also must not be
inflicted with punishments greater than those existing at the time of commission.

The Landmark judgement governing this doctrine came in the year 1953, in case of Kedar Nath v.
State of West Bengal. In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that, whenever an
act is declared as a criminal offence and/or provides penalty for same by the legislature, it is always
prospective in nature and can’t be implemented retrospectively to uphold what is being said under
Article 20 (1).

The Doctrine of Double Jeopardy, which traces back its origin to American jurisprudence of
punishment, means that ‘no person can be prosecuted and punished twice for the same offence in
subsequent proceedings’. And, Article 20 (2), which reads that no one could be convicted and
punished more than once for the same offence involving the same set of facts guarantees against the
multiple convictions and Double jeopardy. Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay, where the person
accused was possessing some amount of gold, which was against lex loci at the time and gold was
confiscated by the customs authority. And, later when the person was prosecuted before a criminal
court, the court was confronted with the question whether this amounts to Double Jeopardy.

Another foremost rule which provides for protection from a conviction for offences is ‘Prohibition
against Self-incrimination.’ The same is provided by the Constitution of India in Part III
under Article 20 (3). It describes that no one could be forced to utter and provide such information or
evidence orally or by documentary means which could be used against himself during the further trial
procedure.The term ‘Witness’ includes both, Oral and documentary evidence as held in M.P. Sharma
v. Satish Chandra. As held in the same case, however, there is no restriction where a search for
document or seizures is being done by the authorities. However, the information and evidence
produced voluntarily by the accused is permissible.

If we would bother to analyse all the clauses of the Article 20 of the Indian Constitution, we would
come across this interesting inference that these clauses i.e. Article 20(1), Article 20(2) and Article
20(3) reflects protection of convicted persons from excess of Legislation, Judiciary and Executive
actions respectively.Also, these protections are available to all the people i.e. Indians as well as
foreigners and thus forms the bedrock of the Indian Constitution and guarantees basic human rights
to the convicted and accused people.

14. ARTICLE 21

The article prohibits the deprivation of rights according to procedures established by law. Article 21 is
the heart of the Indian Constitution. It is the most organic and progressive provision in our Indian
Constitution. Fundamental rights are protected under the charter of rights in the Constitution of India.
Article 21 talks about equality before the law, freedom of speech and expression, religious and
cultural freedom, etc. Article 21 is valid for every citizen of India. It is also valid for foreign citizens. 
Article 21 has two types of rights: 

1 Right to life 

2 Right to personal liberty

Right to life, Every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of person. The right to life is the
fundamental right in the Indian constitution. Human rights are only attached to living beings.  The right
to life is the most valuable rights to citizens.

Right to personal liberty, “No person shall be deprived of personal liberty according to the
procedure established by law”.

Manenka Gandhi issued a passport for the foreign tour from the passport office. But the Regional
Passport officer Delhi has informed the petitioner about the passport that this decision is taken by the
Government of India for the acceptance of passport. Because of this reason the petitioner had to
surrender her passport within 7 days. After some time the Government rejected the passport saying it
is against the interest of the general public. Then the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the
government for impounding the passport and declining from doing so.  In the case of Maneka Gandhi
the Supreme Court gave a new direction to Article 21 and said that the right to live is not merely a
physical right but includes the ambit of the right to live with human dignity.

Right to Equality

Right to equality is also the part of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution which is the fundamental right.
This right includes equality before the law, the prohibition of discrimination, etc.  No citizen can be
discriminated against based on sex, caste, colour, creed or religion. And it is a fundamental right
which cannot be violated by anyone. If this right is violated then it is the dishonour of Article 21. 

Hussainara Khatoon vs. the State of Bihar

Supreme Court held that equal justice and free legal aid of an accused person is a fundamental right
under Article 21. It has been held, in the case of Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar, that right to
free legal aid at the cost of the State to an accused who cannot afford legal services for reasons of
poverty, indigence or incommunicado situation is a part of fair, just and reasonable procedure under
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Khatri vs. the State of Bihar, it has also been held that the trial court is under the obligation to inform
the accused of his right to free legal aid.
Joginder Kumar v. the State of U.P. (1994) In this case, the Supreme Court extensively dealt with
the power of arrests and its exercise. This case is also known as ‘guidelines for arrest case’. The
Supreme Court endeavoured to create a balance between the rights of an individual and the rights of
collective individuals as a society in light of the increasing crime rate and complaints of human rights
violations due to indiscriminate arrests over the years. 

15. ARTICLE 22 constituted within the right to freedom is one of the parts of the fundamental rights
guaranteed under the constitution. This article is covered in two major parts, protection and rights
granted in case of arbitrary arrest also known as punitive detention, and safeguards against
preventive detention. The main difference is that whether a person is charged with a crime or not. In
case of detention, the person is not accused of any crime but is restricted on a reasonable suspicion
while in case of arrest the person is charged for a crime.

Therefore it can be said that Article 22 in itself is an incomplete code which means that the legality of
the article is limited to be tested only against it and is not completely in accord with the fundamental
rights of the constitution.
Article 22(1) also states that any person who is arrested has the right to consult at all times and be
defended by a lawyer of his own choice. This right is expanded right from the moment of the person’s
arrest.
Article 22(2) ensures the right of the accused to be produced before a magistrate. When a person is
arrested, the person or police officer making the arrest should bring the arrested person before a
magistrate or judicial officer without any unnecessary delay. This is also supported by Section 56 of
the CrPC.The right available to the accused at the first stage of production before the Magistrate is
not stated directly in Article 22. It is rooted in Section 167 of the CrPC and states that no magistrate
can authorize the detention of the accused in police custody unless the accused is produced in
person before the magistrate. This right protects the accused from being detained on wrong or
irrelevant grounds.

Clause 3 of the Article 22 clearly states that none of the rights mentioned in clause 1 and 2 of the
Article would be applicable for a person who is deemed to be an enemy alien and anybody who is
arrested or detained under the law providing for preventive detention.

In the A K Gopalan v. State of Madras case of 1950, the Supreme Court, taking a narrow view of
Article 21 and 22, refused to consider if the procedure established by law suffered from any
deficiencies. It was of the belief that each article of the constitution was independent of each other.
When the petitioner challenged the validity of his detention on the grounds that it was violating his
rights under Article 19 and 21, the Supreme Court disregarded all the contentions considering that the
detention could be justified merely on the ground that it was carried out according to the ‘procedure
established by law’. The Supreme Court, in this case, followed a restrictive interpretation of the
expression ‘personal liberty’ and the term ‘law’, rejecting all principles of natural justice.

16. ARTICLE 23 AND 24 : The Right against exploitation enshrined in Article 23 and 24 of the Indian
Constitution guarantees human dignity and protect people from any such exploitation. Thus,
upholding the principles of human dignity and liberty upon which the Indian Constitution is based.
Clause 1 of Article 23 prohibits the trafficking of human beings, begar any similar form of forced
labour. It also states that any contravention of this provision is punishable by the law. It explicitly
prohibits:

• Human Trafficking, Begar, Other forms of forced labour: This includes other forms of forced
labour in which the person works for a wage less than the minimum wage. This includes
bonded labour wherein a person is forced to work to pay off his debt for inadequate
remuneration, prison labour wherein prisoners sent in for rigorous imprisonment are forced to
work without even minimum remuneration etc. 

 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, The Court laid down guidelines for determination of bonded
labourers and also provided that it is the duty of the state government to identify, release and
rehabilitate the bonded labourers. It was held that any person who is employed as a bonded labour is
deprived of his liberty. Such a person becomes a slave and his freedom in the matter of employment
is completely taken away and forced labour is thrust upon him. It was also held that whenever it is
shown that a worker is engaged in forced labour, the Court would presume he is doing so in
consideration of some economic consideration and is, therefore, a bonded labour.

Article 24 states that any child under the age of fourteen years can not be employed as a worker in
any factory or be engaged in any other hazardous employment.Hence it prohibits the employment of
children under the age of 14 years in dangerous or unhealthy conditions which could harm their
mental and physical strength.

People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, the petitioner observed the conditions in
which the workers employed in various Asiad projects were working. It was observed that children
under the age of fourteen had been employed.

In the case of M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu, Shri MC Mehta undertook to invoke Article 32,
enabling the Court to look into the violation of fundamental rights of children guaranteed to them
under Article 24. Employing children under the age of 14 years in this industry is prohibited.

17. ARTICLE 25 AND 26 :

Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion to all persons in India. It provides that all
persons in India, subject to public order, morality, health, and other provisions: 

• Are equally entitled to freedom of conscience, and 

• Have the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion.

It further provides that this article shall not affect any existing law and shall not prevent the state
from making any law relating to:

• Regulation or restriction of any economic, financial, political, or any secular activity associated
with religious practice.

• Providing social welfare and reform.

• Opening of Hindu religious institutions of public character for all the classes and sections of
the Hindus. 

Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, (Popularly known as the national anthem case.) The Supreme
Court held that the action of the headmistress of expelling the children from school for not singing the
national anthem was violative of their freedom of religion. The fundamental rights guaranteed
under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 25(1) has been infringed. It further held that there is no provision of
law which compels or obligates anyone to sing the national anthem, it is also not disrespectful if a
person respectfully stands but does not sing the national anthem. 
Article 26 (subject to public order, morality, and health) confers a right on every religious
denomination or any section of such religious denomination of:

• Establishing and maintaining institutions for religious and charitable purposes;

• Managing its affair with regard to religion;

• Owing and acquiring property (movable and immovable);

• Administering the property in accordance with the law.

 Durgah Committee Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali the Supreme Court observed that if the religious
denomination never had the right to administer property or if it has lost its right then such right cannot
be created under Article 26 and therefore cannot be invoked.

The right to religion under Article 26 is subject to certain limitations and not absolute and unfettered. If
any religious practice is in contravention to any public order, morality or health then such religious
practice cannot claim the protection of the state.
18. ARTICLE 27 AND 28 :

Article 27 of the Constitution prevents a person from being compelled to pay any taxes which are
meant for the payment of the costs incurred for the promotion or maintenance of any religion or
religious denomination.

In the case of Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha
Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, the Madras legislature enacted the Madras Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowment Act, 1951 and contributions were levied under the Act. It was contended by
the petitioner that the contributions levied are taxes and not a fee and the state of madras is not
competent to enact such a provision. It was held by the Supreme Court that though the contribution
levied was tax but the object of it was for the proper administration of the religious institution.

Article 28 prohibits: 

• Providing religious instructions in any educational institutions that are maintained wholly out
of the state funds. 

• The above shall not apply to those educational institutions administered by the states but
established under endowment or trust requiring religious instruction to be imparted in such
institution.

• Any person attending state recognized or state-funded educational institution is not required
to take part in religious instruction or attend any workshop conducted in such an institution or
premises of such educational institution. 

19. ARTICLE 29 AND 30

ARTICLE 29

Article 29(1) extends to all the citizens irrespective of the fact whether they are in majority or minority,
the only condition being that such section must have a distinct language, script or culture of its own.It
is an absolute right for the minorities to preserve its language and culture through educational
institutions and cannot be subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public.

Article 29(2) is an individual right given to citizen and not to any community. The present clause gives
an aggrieved person, who has been denied admission on the ground of his religion. If a person has
the academic qualifications but is refused admission only on the grounds of religion, race, caste,
language or any of them, then there is a clear breach of the fundamental right under this section

20. ARTICLE 30

To claim the benefit under article 30(1) it is not necessary-

1 That the institution must seek to conserve the language, script or culture of the minority
community; what is necessary is its establishment by the minority community, it may impart
 religious or secular education wholly unconnected with language, script, and culture.

2 That admission into such institution must be confined exclusively to members of the minority
community, and not a single member of the majority community or other minority communities
should have its advantage.6
In the case of Azeez Basha v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that if an educational
institution is not been established by the minority community then they have no right to administer it.
The term “established” and “administered” have to be read in coordination. The University Grants
Commission Act prohibits the formulation of “University” established by the educational institution
unless and until it is governed by law.

T.M.A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka  it was held that “A minority institution may have its
own procedure and method of admission as well as selection of students, but such a procedure must
be fair and transparent, and the selection of students in professional and higher education colleges
should be on the basis of merit. The procedure adopted or selection made should not tantamount to
maladministration. Even an unaided minority institution ought not to ignore the merit of the students to
the colleges aforesaid, as in that event, the institution will fail to achieve excellence”.

21. PUBLIC INTREST LITIGATION : PIL has not been defined in any Indian statute. However,
Courts have interpreted and defined PIL. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has, in the case of
Janata Dal v. H.S.Chaudhary,held that lexically, the expression ‘PIL’  means a legal action started in
a court of law for the enforcement of public/general interest where the public or a particular class of
the public some interest (including pecuniary interest) that affects their legal rights or liabilities.PILs
are considered to be the most effective as well as the most commonly used judicial tool to safeguard
the environment due to their many advantages including but not limited to speedy results, nominal
court fees, relaxed procedural rules and the wide variety of investigative techniques available to
courts like special committees.

A new era of the PIL movement was heralded by Justice P.N. Bhagawati in the case of S.P. Gupta
vs. Union of India. In this case it was held that “any member of the public or social action group
acting bonafide” can invoke the Writ Jurisdiction of the High Courts (under article 226) or the Supreme
Court (under Article 32) seeking redressal against violation of legal or constitutional rights of persons
who due to social or economic or any other disability cannot approach the Court. By this judgment PIL
became a potent weapon for the enforcement of “public duties” where executive action or misdeed
resulted in public injury. And as a result any citizen of India or any consumer groups or social action
groups can now approach the apex court of the country seeking legal remedies in all cases where the
interests of general public or a section of the public are at stake.
CASE LAW : Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India and Another – This PIL arose
out of misallocation of licences / radio spectrum by Ministry of Communications and Information
Technology in January 2008 to provide 2G services. The licences granted to the private respondents
and subsequent allocation of spectrum to the licensees were declared illegal and were quashed.
Directions were issued for fresh grant of licences and allocation of spectrum for 2G services on the
basis of fresh recommendations by TRAI.

22. CONCEPT OF WELFARE STATE - DPSP

The concept behind the DPSP is to create a ‘Welfare State’. In other words, the motive behind the
inclusion of DPSP is not establishing political democracy rather, it’s about establishing social and
economic democracy in the state. These are some basic principles or instructions or guidelines for the
government while formulating laws/policies of the country and in executing them.According to Dr B R
Ambedkar, these principles are ‘novel features’ of the Constitution. DPSP acts as a guideline for the
state and should be taken into consideration while coming up with some new policy or any law. But no
one can compel the State to consider and follow all that which is mentioned in DPSP, as DPSP is not
justiciable.Part 4 of the Indian Constitution consists of all the DPSP (Directive Principles of State
Policy). It covers the Articles from 36 to 51. 

Significance of DPSP

• Directive Principles are non-justiciable but these are backed by vox populi (voice of the
people), which is the real sanction behind every law in reality.

• DPSP gives the philosophical foundations of a welfare system. These principles makes it a
responsibility of the State to secure it through welfare legislation.

• Their nature is more of moral ideals. They constitute a moral code for the State but this does
not reduce their value as moral principles are very important and the absence of it may
hamper the growth of a society. A state is run by its people and the Government is always
formed and managed by them, so it’s really important to have a set of standards for making
laws in the country.

• Directive Principles act as a guide for the government which helps them in making policies
and laws for the purpose of securing justice and welfare in the State.

• DPSP are like a source of continuity in the Governance of the country because in a
democratic system, the Governments change after regular elections and every new
government makes different policies and laws for the country. The presence of such
guidelines is really important because it ensures that every Government will follow the set of
principles in the form of DPSP while formulating its laws.

• Directive Principles can be called as the positive directions for the State which helps in
securing social and economical dimensions of democracy. DPSP are supplementary to
Fundamental Rights which offers political rights and other freedoms. They both are nothing
without each other as one provides social and economic democracy and the other, political
rights.

• Directive Principles of State Policy make it possible for people to measure the worth of a
government and its working. A Government which doesn’t consider these principles can be
rejected on this ground by the people in favour of a government which gives due importance
to the task of securing these Directive Principles in the state.

Comparison between DPSP and Fundamental rights

BASIS FOR
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES
COMPARISON
The essential or basic rights
The guidelines which are considered
Meaning granted to all the citizens of the
while formulating policies and laws.
country.
Defined  In Part III of the Constitution. In Part IV of the Constitution.
Nature Negative Positive
Enforceability Legally enforceable. Not enforceable.
Democracy Political democracy. Social and economic democracy.
Legislation Not required. Required.
Promotes Individual welfare Public welfare

CASE LAW : State of Madras v. Champakam, the Supreme Court held the Fundamental rights are
superior to the DPSP saying that the Fundamental Rights under Part III prevails over DPSP in case of
any conflict between them.

In the landmark judgment given by the Supreme Court in the Golak Nath case, it was held that the
provisions mentioned under Part III as Fundamental Rights cannot be undermined just to implement
the provisions given under Part IV which enlists some important guidelines for the State in the form of
the DPSP.

23. FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES :

Our Constitution has provided us with various rights and expects us to perform certain duties as a
return. Article 51(A) talks about these Fundamental Duties and has 11 fundamental duties that are
expected to be performed by the citizens (there were 10 earlier and 11th was added later by the 86th
amendment).

• We need to follow our Constitution and should respect our national flag and national anthem.

Should follow the ideals of the freedom struggle.

• Protect the sovereignty and integrity of our nation.

• Protect our nation and provide national services when required.

• Should have the spirit of a common brotherhood.

• Preserve the culture of our country.

• Protect the environment of our country.

• Generate scientific rationale for every thought.

• To protect public property.

• Strive for excellence.

• It is the duty of every parent to send their children between 6-14 years to school.    
From these fundamental duties, one can easily understand the need for the fundamental duty in our
constitution. It is required to protect the sovereignty of our nation. To maintain the unity and integrity
of our nation. Rights and duties go hand in hand and cannot be separated at any cost. Fundamental
duties and fundamental rights are two sides of a coin which we know that it can’t be separated. Also,
it is found as the need of the hour to introduce fundamental duties in our constitution.Directive
Principle of State Policy and Fundamental Duties needs to be read together. Both have a moral
obligation on the state and citizens respectively.

CASE LAW :  AIIMS Student Union v. AIIMS, there was a test of merit (based on marks) over
reservation in the admission process for postgraduate medical courses of the All India Institute of
Medical Sciences.Supreme Court clearly held that though the Fundamental Duties though may not be
enforceable by a writ of the Court they provide a valuable guide in the interpretation of the
constitutional provision. Here, in this case, the State (which includes citizens of our country failed) to
take care of fundamental duty i.e. to strive towards excellence of individuals and collective activity in
order for the betterment of the nation. The Fundamental Duties do not expressly cast any duty on the
State, the duty of each individual became the collective duty of the State.