198185520113

* These Answers are Subject to market risk please Cross-check it. Proof-Reading is Every individual Readers Responsibility before
Exams. Though the editor gave its 100% to make it error-free but in worst case scenario if any error /misspelt/addition/deletion
arises in any of solution then the ‘Copy Paste Editor’ is not liable for that and do not owe any responsibility -Issued in public
interest.

*Source: Most of the answers are based on Dr. Rega Surya, few are From google Search Engine
 CONTENT
1. Indian Constitution is federal in structure but unitary in spirit, Discuss? How do You Explain
that the Constitution of india is a unique Document of “ Electicism Par Excellence “
Discuss?(3-12)
2. Explain the importance of Preamble in the constitution? Is the preamble of the constitution
is justiciable? Preamble is blend of idealism and Realism. Discuss.(12-17)
3. State the provision relating to citizenship under the constitution? Discuss regarding
acquisition or recognition of citizenship of india?(17-22)
4. Briefly discuss the provisions laid down in the Citizenship Act, 1955 regarding acquisition
of citizenship. Also discuss the procedure for termination of citizenship.(22-29)
5. Briefly discuss the provisions along with case laws relating to freedom of Speech and
Expression as provided in our Constitution?(29-36)
6. Explain how Right to life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 has been interpreted by the
Supreme Court?(36-46)
7. What is “Other authority “Under Article 12? Discuss the judicial decisions relating to
interpretation of Article 12?/ The word “STATE “as used in the Article 12 has always attracted
the attention of the courts. Answer with the help of case laws?(46-50)
8. Right to Constitutional remedies is one of the most crucial provisions of the constitution
without which remedy for right violation would be nullity?/Discuss the constitutional
remedies available to a person in the event of violation of his fundamental rights.(50-58)
9.Traffic in human beings includes traffic in women and children for immoral or other
purposes ,Do you agree? Critically examine the scope and limit of freedom of Religion as
guaranteed by the constitution of india.(59-63)
10. State the Interrelationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of state
Policy .(64-69)
11.Discuss the nature and essential character of Directive Principles of state Policy reference
to relevant constitutional Provisions.(69-81)
1. Indian Constitution is federal in structure but unitary in spirit, Discuss? How do You Explain
that the Constitution of india is a unique Document of “ Electicism Par Excellence “ Discuss?.
Introduction
The Constitution of India is a very dynamic creation of our lawmakers. The Constitution of
India as we all know is a supreme law of the country and every citizen of our country has to
abide by the constitution.
The Lengthiest Constitution of the World
1. The Indian Constitution is one of the lengthiest constitutions in the world and it is also
very detailed.
2. At the time of formation, the constitution had 395 Aricles ,22 Parts and 8 Schedules.
3. As Of Now, the Constitution has approx.470 Articles, 25 Parts and 12 Schedules.
4. It May be noted that,still the highest Article Number in the constitution is 395 only(and
Not 470).
5. The Indian Constitution has incorporated various articles by taking inspiration from the
various constitutions around the world. The parent document for drafting the Indian
Constitution was the Government of India Act 1935, and that document itself was very
lengthy.
6. The Constitution makers found it necessary to incorporate various provisions to
provide special attention to States like Assam, Mizoram, and Nagaland. Various
provisions were also incorporated to uplift the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Establishment of a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic
The Preamble of our Constitution provides India to be a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular,
Democratic and Republic Country. The various other terms are Justice, Liberty, Equality, and
Fraternity.
SOVEREIGNTY
1. The term Sovereignty was incorporated in the Preamble to provide supreme power to
the Government.
2. The term “sovereignty” as applied to states implies ‘Supreme, absolute, and
uncontrollable power by which any state is governed, and which resides within itself,
whether residing in a single individual or a number of individuals, or in the whole body
of the people’. The Sovereignty in India is of two types:
 Internal Sovereignty- The States have the power to govern themselves and make laws
in certain matters.
 External Sovereignty- The Government is the supreme authority and can acquire or
cede any part of the territory for proper reasons.
SECULARISM
1. It is mandatory to incorporate this term to promote peace between various
communities in our country.
2. Secularism promotes the development and unity of various religions. The term
“Secular” was added by the 42nd amendment in the Preamble.
CASE LAW
1. In the case of S.R Bommai v Union Of India, it was held that “in matters of State, religion
has no place” and also said that secularism is one of the basic features of the
Constitution.
2. In the famous case of Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Shri Raj Narain & Anr, held that the State
shall not discriminate against any citizen on the grounds of religion.
DEMOCRACY
1. Democracy is an ancient concept that is followed by many south Indian rulers from
time immemorial. Democracy provides people with the power to govern.
2. The representative form of the Government is suitable for governing our country due
to the huge population.
CASE LAW
1. In the case of Mohan Lal Tripathi vs District Magistrate, the meaning of the term
“Democracy” was discussed and according to the case it was held that “Democracy is
a concept, a political philosophy an ideal which is practised by many nations that is
culturally advanced and politically mature via resorting to governance by
representatives of the people elected directly or indirectly”.
2. The main reason for incorporating democracy is to provide freedom to the people to
choose their own representatives and to save them from the tyrant leaders.
SOCIALIST
1. The system of socialism promotes equality among people and ensures the welfare of
people. The term “Socialist” was incorporated by the 42nd amendment.
CASE LAW
1. The term Socialist was discussed in the case of Samantha v State of Andhra
Pradesh, and according to the case,” the term socialist is used to lessen the inequalities
in income and status and to provide equality of opportunity and facilities”.
REPUBLIC
1. The concept of “Republic” was borrowed from the Constitution of France. The term
republic provides the people power to elect their own representatives.
 2. The term republic is the basis of our constitution as it ensures there would be no
hereditary rulers and also ensures that the election would be happening in our
country.
3. The President of India is an elected head of the State for a fixed tenure.
JUSTICE
The Preamble of the Constitution of India guarantees three types of justice to its citizens like:
 Social Justice- The concept of social justice promotes equal treatment of citizens and
promotes the rule of law. This term ensures that there would be no discrimination
among the citizens on different grounds. The fundamental rights also provided in Part
3 of our Constitution also ensures social justice.
 Economic Justice- The concept of economic justice avoids discrimination between
genders, provides equal opportunity to work, and ensures the equal distribution of
wealth.
 Political Justice- This term provides all citizens to participate in the political
proceedings.
LIBERTY AND FRATERNITY
1. The term Liberty and Fraternity is provided in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution.
The term liberty and fraternity was used in the French revolution.
Parliamentary form of Government
1. The Bicameral Legislature system is followed in our country. The Unicameral
legislature system is followed in countries like Norway.
2. The law making procedure is easy in the unicameral legislature but the bicameral
legislature is effective as there would be a lot of discussions and deliberations before
making legislation.
3. Articles 74 and Article 75 is concerned with the Parliamentary system at the centre
and Article 163 and Article 164 is concerned with the Parliamentary system at the
states.
4. Article 74 of the Indian Constitution provides that there should be a Council of
Ministers with the Prime Minister and Council of Minister can aid and advise the
President.
5. Article 75 of the Indian Constitution deals with the other provisions relating to the
appointment of Ministers.
Parliamentary v. Presidential System
1. The Presidential form of Government is followed in countries like the United States of
America. The President is the head of the State in the Presidential System of
Government.
2. The Parliamentary system is preferred over the Presidential system as it ensures the
equal distribution of power and also power is not within the hands of a single person.
3. The drafters of our constitution did not prefer the presidential system as the executive
and legislatures would become independent of each other. The makers felt that this
would be an issue afterwards.
A unique blend of rigidity and flexibility
1. The Indian Constitution is neither rigid nor flexible, this is also one of the reasons for
its length.
2. The famous example of the rigid constitution is the Constitution of the U.S., and it is
known as a rigid constitution as the amendment process is very difficult.
3. The Indian Constitution is not very difficult to amend, as the Constitution of The
U.S.A. It has gone through 103 amendments so far but there are certain steps to be
satisfied before bringing in the amendment.
4. Thus the Indian Constitution is a unique blend of rigidity and flexibility.
Fundamental Rights
Part III of the Indian Constitution deals with fundamental rights.
These rights are called fundamental rights because of two reasons:
1. They are enshrined in the Constitution which guarantees them
2. They are justiciable (enforceable by courts). In case of a violation, a person can
approach a court of law.
List of Fundamental Rights
There are six fundamental rights of Indian Constitution along with the constitutional articles
related to them are mentioned below:
1. Right to Equality (Article 14-18)
2. Right to Freedom (Article 19-22)
3. Right against Exploitation (Article 23-24)
4. Right to Freedom of Religion (Article 25-28)
5. Cultural and Educational Rights (Article 29-30)
6. Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32)
  Why Right to Property is not a Fundamental Right?
-There was one more fundamental right in the Constitution, i.e., the right to property.
-However, this right was removed from the list of fundamental rights by the 44th
Constitutional Amendment.
This was because this right proved to be a hindrance towards attaining the goal of socialism
and redistributing wealth (property) equitably among the people.
Note: The right to property is now a legal right and not a fundamental right.
Introduction to Six Fundamental Rights (Articles 12 to 35)
Under this section, we list the fundamental rights in India and briefly describe each of them.
1. Right to Equality (Articles 14 – 18)
Right to equality guarantees equal rights for everyone, irrespective of religion, gender, caste,
race or place of birth. It ensures equal employment opportunities in the government and
insures against discrimination by the State in matters of employment on the basis of caste,
religion, etc. This right also includes the abolition of titles as well as untouchability.
2. Right to Freedom (Articles 19 – 22)
Freedom is one of the most important ideals cherished by any democratic society. The Indian
Constitution guarantees freedom to citizens. The freedom right includes many rights such as:
 Freedom of speech
 Freedom of expression
 Freedom of assembly without arms
 Freedom of association
 Freedom to practise any profession
 Freedom to reside in any part of the country
Some of these rights are subject to certain conditions of state security, public morality and
decency and friendly relations with foreign countries. This means that the State has the right
to impose reasonable restrictions on them.
3. Right against Exploitation (Articles 23 – 24)
This right implies the prohibition of traffic in human beings, begar, and other forms of forced
labour. It also implies the prohibition of children in factories, etc. The Constitution prohibits
the employment of children under 14 years in hazardous conditions.
4. Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25 – 28)
This indicates the secular nature of Indian polity. There is equal respect given to all religions.
There is freedom of conscience, profession, practice and propagation of religion. The State
has no official religion. Every person has the right to freely practice his or her faith, establish
and maintain religious and charitable institutions.
5. Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29 – 30)
These rights protect the rights of religious, cultural and linguistic minorities, by facilitating
them to preserve their heritage and culture. Educational rights are for ensuring education for
everyone without any discrimination.
6. Right to Constitutional Remedies (32 – 35)
The Constitution guarantees remedies if citizens’ fundamental rights are violated. The
government cannot infringe upon or curb anyone’s rights. When these rights are violated,
the aggrieved party can approach the courts. Citizens can even go directly to the Supreme
Court which can issue writs for enforcing fundamental rights.
Directive Principles of State Policy
1. Part IV of the Indian Constitution deals with the Directive Principles of State Policy. It
is the duty of every State to apply these principles while making any new legislation.
2. The Directive Principles of State Policy is similar to the ‘Instrument of Instructions’ that
is in the Government of India Act 1935.
3. They are basically instructions to the legislature and executive that has to be followed
while framing new legislation by the State. There are various directive principles like,
 The State shall promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as
effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall
inform all the institutions of the national life.
 The state should ensure that the citizens should have adequate means of livelihood.
 The state should make sure that the ownership and control of material resources are
equally distributed among citizens.
 The state should provide equal pay for equal work irrespective of gender.
 The state must also take care of the operation of the economic system and should
make sure it does not lead to concentration of wealth.
 The State shall provide free legal aid shall secure that the operation of the legal system
in order to promote justice.
 The State shall take steps to organise village panchayats and should encourage self-
governance in villages.
  The State shall make provision for providing just and humane conditions of work and
for maternity relief.
 The State shall develop the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections
of the people like the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and can save them
from social injustice and all kinds of exploitation.
 The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of
its people in order to bring improvement in public health.
 The State shall bring out new scientific developments in the field of agriculture and
animal husbandry.
A Federation with a strong centralising tendency
1. The famous salient feature of our Indian Constitution is that it is a federation with a
strong centralising tendency.
2. The constitution of India is neither federal nor unitary. The reasons for calling the
Indian Government unitary is that,
 The division of powers is not equal. The centre has more powers than the state that is
evident from the fact that the Union list contains more matters than the State list.
 The federations like the U.S.A have rights to frame their own constitution, which is not
possible in India as the entire country follows the Single constitution.
 There is no equal representation of States in the houses of Parliament which is not the
same in federations like the U.S.A.
The Indian Constitution is considered as federal for various reasons like:
 There is a written Constitution which is an essential feature of every country following
the federal system.
 The supremacy of the constitution is always protected.
Thus the Indian Constitution can be described as quasi-federal or a federation with a strong
centralizing tendency.
Adult suffrage
1. The concept of Adult suffrage allows every citizen of our country who is above eighteen
years has the right to vote in the elections.
2. Any adult who is eligible to vote should not be discriminated on any basis like gender,
caste and religion. This provision was added in the sixty-first amendment which is also
known as the Constitution Act, 1988.
 3. The accepted age for voting was twenty-one before this amendment afterwards it was
changed to 18 years of age. Article 326 of the Indian Constitution guarantees this right.
There are also certain disqualifications provided under Article like:
 Non-residence;
 Unsound mind;
 Criminals who are indulged in the corrupt and illegal practice.
The persons with these disqualifications are not accepted as a registered voter and they are
not allowed to cast votes in the election.
An Independent Judiciary
1. The Judiciary ensures the proper functioning of the constitution and the enforcement
of various provisions of the Constitution.
2. The Constitution makers ensured that Judiciary has to be independent so that it will
not be biased.
3. The Supreme court is considered as the watchdog of democracy. There are various
provisions in the Article which ensures the independence of the judiciary,
 The appointment of Judges is independent and there is no involvement of any
executive authorities;
 The tenure of Judges is secured;
 The removal of judges from the tenure must be also based on the constitutional
provisions.
A Secular State
1. The term Secular State means that there is no separate religion for the State and every
religion is respected equally in the State.
2. The Preamble of the Indian Constitution itself states that India has to be a secular state.
The Fundamental rights provide the citizens’ freedom to follow their own religion and
religious practices and no one can be forced to follow any religion.
Single Citizenship
1. There is no separate citizenship for the States and the Centre like in various federal
countries like the U.S.A. There is single citizenship provided to our citizens.
2. Part 2 of the Indian Constitution, i.e. Article 5 to Article 11 of the Indian Constitution
deals with citizenship. The Citizenship Act, 1955 which was amended recently in 2019
also deals with citizenship.
3. Single citizenship allows the persons to enjoy equal rights in various aspects across the
country.
 4. According to Article 5, it is clearly mentioned that the persons will be considered as
citizens of the territory of India, which ensures that there would be only single
citizenship. The citizenship of Indians is largely determined by the principle of jus
sanguinis ( i.e. the citizenship is based on the citizenship of the parents).
Fundamental Duties
Article 51A of the Indian Constitution provides various fundamental duties. There are no
specific provisions to enforce fundamental duties in the Courts like the fundamental rights
but it is also necessary to follow the fundamental duties.
Landmark Judgements on Fundamental Duties
In the case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the court
banned all the mining activities in the Mussoorie hills as it was affecting the environment and
ecological balance, as it is one the fundamental duty provided in Article 51 A.
 In the case of Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdulbhai, where the court held that if the
constitutionality of the Act is challenged then the fundamental duties under Article 51
A can be taken into consideration.
 In the case of Ram Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the fundamental duty of every
citizen of India to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective
activity provided under Article 51A was discussed.
Judicial Review
1. The concept of judicial review is an essential feature of the Constitution which helps
the constitution to work properly.
2. The judiciary is considered to be the guardian of the constitution, thus it is the duty of
the judiciary to check the actions that are violative of various articles in the
Constitution.
3. Article 32 and Article 136 of the Indian Constitution are the articles related to the
Judicial review in the Supreme Court. Article 226 and Article 227 are related to the
judicial review in the High Court. The scope of judicial review is limited to three
grounds:
 Unreasonableness and irrationality;
 Illegality;
 Procedural impropriety.
Landmark Judgements on Judicial Review
 In the case of Kesavananda Bharati vs. the State of Kerala, even though the court after
agreeing that the Parliament is not restricted to amend the Constitution, also put a caveat
 of the doctrine of the basic structure. The Court observed that the constitutional
amendments have to be made only after considering the basic structure of the
Constitution.
 In the case of A.K. Gopalan v. the State of Madras, it was held that the law of preventive
detention is subject to such limited judicial review.
 In the case of Binoy Viswam v. Union of India, the scope of judicial review of the legislative
action was discussed in detail.
 In the case of Shayara Bano v. Union of India, it was said that the Judicial review must be
exercised with insight into social values and to supplement the changing social needs.
 In the case of L.Chandra Kumar v. Union of India held that the power of judicial review of
the High Court under Article 226 could not be excluded even by a Constitutional
Amendment.
Conclusion
The Indian Constitution has a lot of salient features which makes it special. The lawmakers
have taken all the factors into consideration and have tried to accommodate all the
differences in our Country. The Constitution and various rights provided in the Constitution
acts as a guardian to our citizens.
2. Explain the importance of Preamble in the constitution? Is the preamble of the
constitution is justiciable? Preamble is blend of idealism and Realism. Discuss.
Introduction
The preamble is also known as the spirit and backbone of the Indian Constitution. Not reading
the preamble makes no sense in reading the Constitution. It is the preamble which gives a
brief idea about why the constitution has been prepared. The preamble can be classified or
broke into 3 parts:
According to the first part, the people of India solemnly resolved India into a “Sovereign,
Socialist, Secular, Democratic, Republic”. Each and every word of the preamble is wisely
chosen and arranged in such a way that by reading, the preamble makes a clear picture of
India’s stand towards its citizen.
The second part says to secure the liberty, equality, justice and to promote unity and integrity
among all.
The last part is declaratory, where the people of India in their constituent assembly adopt,
enacted and gave themselves this constitution.
Meaning and Concept of Preamble
The preamble is the introduction to the statutes i.e. introduction to the constitution. A
preamble means a declaration made by the legislature with the objective for the passing of
the statute and is helpful in the interpretation of any of the statute.
The proper function of the preamble is to explain the meaning of some words and recite
certain facts which are necessary to be explained. A preamble may be used for other reasons,
such as, to limit the scope of certain expression or to explain facts or introduce definitions.
Scope of Preamble
The preamble plays a very important role in shaping the destiny of the country. The preamble
gives a brief idea to the makers of the constitution so that the constituent assembly make
plans and formulates the constitution.
The only question raised about the scope of the preamble is whether it is the part of the
Indian Constitution or not? The answer to this question is dealt later in this article. But the
main purpose of the preamble is to clarify the idea behind the constitution, i.e. what is the
source, what are the ultimate goals and objectives behind it.
The preamble does not grant any power to anyone but it gives the structure on which the
Indian Constitution stands like:
1. The country should be “Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic, Republic”.
2. The government should be elected by the people, for the people, and of the people.
3. The real sovereign power should be vested on the people of India.
4. The people should get Justice, Liberty and Equality.
Basically, all the provisions/Article of the constitution were made by keeping all these in
mind, so that it does not violate public sovereignty.
History of Preamble
The main preamble was drafted by Shri. B.N. Rau and later proposed in the constituent
assembly. The basic structure of the preamble only include ‘Sovereign, Democratic, Republic’
but later the word ‘Secular and Socialist’ were included by 42nd Amendment. The preamble
was restricted only to defining the essential features of the constitution and country, due to
this, the questions were raised on the preamble as to whether the preamble is a part of the
constitution or not.
Content of Preamble
The words included in the preamble are wisely selected and the arrangement of the terms
and their order clearly define their significance and participation in the making of the
constitution.
The main terms in the Preamble:
“We, the people of India”
The term We the people clearly states the participation of the citizen of the country. It defines
that the sovereign authorities are the citizen of India. It clears the fact that all power vested
in the government is given by the people themselves. It is the citizen who chooses the
government. The term ‘We the people of India says that the authors of the constitution are
the people.
Actually, the question of whether and how every citizen voted for the constitution? The
people/ citizen does not directly vote because it is impossible for the millions of the people
to take a direct part in the procedure of making the constitution. The constitution was made
by the representatives of the people, in the name of the people.
In Union of India v. Madangopal.
Here the court referred the word ‘We the people of India and observed that “the brief of our
constitution i.e. preamble derives the authority i.e. citizens of India.
Sovereignty
The term sovereignty means the supreme and absolute power. The power can be real or
nominal. The concept of sovereignty is taken from Article 5 of the Constitution of Ireland.
Sovereignty means India is the supreme power and no other nation can rule or imply their
dominance in the country. The people of India are the sovereign power of India, they transfer
their power to their elected representative.
India became a Sovereign country on 26th January 1950, having equal status with the other
members of the international community, and has decided to remain in the Commonwealth
of Nations.
Socialist
The term socialist was included in the constitution by the 42nd Amendment. Generally
socialist means a political-economic system. The main reason why the term was inserted in
the preamble was to provide the equality in opportunity and a better life for the people and
give the brief to the makers so that they can make the constitution by keeping the concept
of socialist in mind.
In D.S. Nakara v. Union of India
The court observed that the basic reason to include the term Socialist was to brief the makers
so that they can make provision of the constitution which provide a decent life to the citizen
and especially security from cradle to the grave.
In Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union
The court states that the main purpose of the concept of socialism is to establish social order
through the rule of law.
Secular
The word secular was also inserted through the 42nd Amendment in 1976, the word secular
means that India does not has any religion and treats all the religions equally, and with equal
respect. The individual is free to choose his or her religion. It does not mean that India is an
aesthetic state nor anti-religion, it is just because in India millions of people of different
religion reside, and India as a secular state respects their religion but does not follows any
religion nor interferes in their practice.
In St. Xavier’s College v. the State of Gujarat
The Supreme Court, in this case, explains that the concept of secularism. It does not mean
anti-religion but it means that the state will respect every religion and should not interfere
in their practices but does not follow any religion.
Democratic
The term democracy is derived from the Greek word ‘Demo’ which means the people and
‘Kratos’ which means authority. Democracy means government by the people. It is the form
of the government in which people elect their representative and indirectly participate in
government activities.
Democracy can be direct or indirect. In a direct democracy, every people has the voting
power not only in selecting the government but also in changing the constitution. In an
indirect democracy, people have a right to vote and select their representative and those
representatives represent the citizens in the administration.
In Mohan Lal v. District Magistrate, Rai Bareilly
The court defined democracy as the political concept in which the people directly or through
their representative give their involvement in the administration.
In Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms
The court observed that democracy is the important essential of a welfare state, the people
should get a chance to elect their leader who can act for the people.
Republic
The concept of Republic means the people of the state having the supreme power and they
transfer their power to their representative by appointing him as the head of the state. It is
completely different from the concept of monarchy, in monarchy the king, the queen then
their child becomes the head of the state i.e. hereditary is being followed, but in the concept
of a republic, the state is headed by the head of the state elected by the citizen.
In India the head of the state is known as the President who is elected by the people through
voting, all the citizen has a right to vote. He is elected for the term of five years.
Justice
The concept of justice was inserted in the preamble to secure its citizens political, social,
economic justice. Generally, the term justice means to secure the people from all sorts of
inequalities like wealth, opportunity, race, religion etc, and their economic interest like equal
work, payment for their works etc.
In Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union
The court observed that the aim of justice is to secure the political, social, economic interest
of the citizen and provide the opportunity and standard of life and allow them to live with
dignity.
Liberty
Liberty means Freedom. The term Liberty was included as to secure the freedom of the
people of their belief, thought, faith etc. it is essential to provide liberty to the citizen for
their personal growth, and restrict the state from unlawful interference in the freedom of
the citizen.
In Meyer v. Nebraska
In this case, the court observed that the term liberty does not mean absolute freedom, but
the freedom with some lawful social control in order to protect the interest of other people.
Equality
The concept of equality means each and every citizen of the country is equal and the state
will work on the concept of equality before the law. Every person should have equal
opportunity for work, equality in their status i.e. no discrimination on basis of religion, race,
caste, sex etc. it is important for a country to treat its citizen equally for the development of
the person and bring the best out of him.
Fraternity
Generally, fraternity means the spirit of brotherhood. The concept of the fraternity was
introduced so that people feel that all people of the same soil, the same motherland are their
brothers and sisters and are equal in status.
India is the country having diversities based on religion, race, caste so it is important to
promote the spirit of brotherhood among them all.
Arguments regarding the status of preamble
Whether preamble is a part of the Constitution?
It has been the matter of argument and discussion that whether the preamble is a part of the
constitution or not. There are two cases that provide the idea about the status of the
preamble:
Re-Beruberi Case:
Under this case, the eight judges bench observed that even though the preamble serves as
an introduction to the constitution and no doubt it is a concept which opens the mind of the
makers and helps them in making a constitution, that does not mean that the preamble is
the part of the constitution.
Kesavananda Bharati case
This case creates a new history of the constitution the thirteen judges bench held that
preamble is a part of the constitution as:
1. The preamble is an introduction of the constitution.
2. The preamble is not a source of power but played an important role in the interpretation
of the statutes.
Amendment in the Preamble
After the Supreme Court declared the preamble to be a part of the constitution in
Kesavananda Bharti case, it is clear that it can be amended under Article 368 of the Indian
Constitution. The preamble was amended in 1976 and the terms socialist, secular, integrity
was added.
Conclusion
The preamble is the introduction to the statutes i.e. introduction to the constitution. A
preamble means a declaration made by the legislature with the objective for the passing of
the statute and is helpful in the interpretation of any of the statute. The preamble plays a
very important role in shaping the destiny of the country.
The only question raised about the scope of the preamble is whether it is the part of the
constitution or not? But in Kesavananda Bharti Case, the thirteen judges constitutional bench
gave its judgment and declared the preamble is a part of the constitution. The preamble does
not grant any power to anyone but it gives the structure on which the constitution stands
like, the country should be “Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic, Republic”, the
government should be elected by the people, for the people, and of the people, the real
sovereign power should be vested in the people of India, the people should get Justice,
Liberty and Equality.
3. State the provision relating to citizenship under the constitution? Discuss regarding
acquisition or recognition of citizenship of india?
Citizenship: Meaning and Definition
'Citizenship' is a process by which, the State under the Constitution, confers on a person
certain rights, civil and TS on political. In other words, a citizen is a person, who enjoys full
civil and political rights. According to Black's Law Dictionary, "citizen is a member of the civil
State entitled to all its privileges and according to Black's Dictionary, citizen is a constituent
member of the Sovereignty."
Citizenship' means that the Citizen shall receive certain care, protection, facilities, be entitled
to hold offices, be eligible for recruitment to public services and be subjected to certain
obligations such as taxation etc.
Definition: Hans Kelson, a famous jurist defines "citizenship is a legal status determined by
the specific rights and duties of which the status is the condition. Citizen of a State (in
contradiction to mere 'subject') is he who has political rights in, the duty of military service
for, and diplomatic protection abroad by the State concerned."
In Black v. Pausch (113 III 60, 64) - it has been defined that Citizen, 'in the popular and
appropriate sense, one who by birth, naturalisation, or otherwise, is a member of an
independent political society, called a State, Kingdom or empire and as such is subject to its
laws and entitled to its protection in all high rights incident to that relation.
2. Kinds of Citizenship
Citizenship is of two kinds, namely:
i) Dual Citizenship and
ii) Single Citizenship.
i) Dual Citizenship: It means, a person/citizen shall have two citizenships viz.,
(i) Federal Citizenship; and (ii) Citizenship of the State.com
In America, the citizens will have two citizenships viz., Citizenship of America and the State
citizenship viz.. Citizenship of the State of California, New York etc.
ii) Single Citizenship: It means a person will have only one citizenship of his/her country. In
India, the citizens will have only the citizenship of India.
Part-II containing Articles 11 Indian Constitution lay down the provisions relating citizenship.
Indian Constitution provides for 'single citizenship.' It means only citizenship India and there
Is no citizenship of state.
3. Acquisition of Citizenship
Articles 5 to 8 of the Indian Constitution deal with citizenship of India at the commencement
of the Constitution. Articles 9 to 11 deal with the mode of acquisition and loss of citizenship.
The citizens at the time of commencement of the Constitution may be categorised as follows:
1. Citizenship by domicile (Art. 5);
2. Citizens migrated from Pakistan (Art. 6);
3. Persons migrated to Pakistan (Art. 7); and
4. Citizenship of Indians abroad (Art. 8).
1. Citizenship by domicile (Art. 5): Domicile means a permanent home or place, where a
person resides with an intention to remain there permanently. According to Art. 5. a person
is said to be a citizen by domicile if he/she fulfils the following two conditions:
a) At the time of commencement of the Constitution, he must have his domicile in the
territory of India:
b) He must fulfil any of the following conditions:
i) He was born in India; or
ii) Either of his parents was born in India; or
iii) He must have been ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not less than five years
immediately before the commencement of the Constitution.
2. Citizens migrated from Pakistan (Art. 6): Article 6 of the Constitution of India provides,
'Notwithstanding anything in Article 5, a person who has migrated to the territory of India
from the territory now included in pakistan shall be deemed to be a citizen of india at the
commencement of this constitution if-
a) he or she or either of his parents or any of his grand parents was born in India as defined
in the Government of India Act, 1935 (as originally enacted) and
b) i) in the case where such person has not migrated before the nineteenth day of July, 1948,
he has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India since the date of his migration, or
ii) in the case where such person has so migrated on or after the nineteenth day of July, 1948,
he has been, registered as a citizen of India by an officer appointed in that behalf by the
Government of the Dominion of India on an application made by him therefore to such officer
before the commencement of this constitution in the form and manner prescribed by that
Government:
Provided that no person shall be so registered unless he has been resident in the territory of
India for at least six months immediately preceding the date of his application."
This type of citizens are classified into two categories as follows:
i) those, who came to India before July 19, 1948; and
ii) those, who come to India on or after July 19, 1948 19-07-1948 is the date when permit
system was introduced for going from India to Pakistan and for coming from Pakistan to India.
In the case of the persons who migrated from Pakists to India before 19-07-1948, they shall
be deemed to be the citizens of India on the date of its commencement i.e. 26 January, 1950
if they fulfil the following two conditions
a) He or either of his parents or any his grant-parents was born in India and
b) He should have resided in India since the date his migration.
As regard the persons who migrated India from Pakistan on or after 19-07-1948, the following
conditions must be fulfilled to enable them to acquire Indian citizenship and be deemed as
citizens on 26-01-1950
a) He or either of his parents or any of his grand-parents must have been born in India.
b) He must have resided in India, after migration for at least six months.
c) He must have submitted an application for registration to the officer appointed for the
purpose.
d) He must have been registered as citizen by such officer.
Article 6 of the Constitution extends the right of citizenship to the persons who would not
satisfy the test of citizenship provided under Article 5. Article 6 is also subject to Article 7 of
the Constitution.
3. Persons migrated to Pakistan (Art. 7): Article of the Indian Constitution deals with the
citizenship respect of persons migrated to Pakistan. An Indian Citizen (by domicile under
Article 5 or migration under Article 6) ceases to be a citizen (or loses his citizenship) if he has
migrated to Pakistan after March 1, 1947. However, this rule is subject to exception. A
person, who returns to India for re-settlement is entitled to Indian Citizenship, subject to
fulfilment of the conditions under Article 6.
Article 7 of the Constitution provides "Notwithstanding anything in Articles 5 and 6, a person
who has after the day of March, 1947, migrated from the territory of India to the territory
now included in Pakistan shall not be deemed to be a citizen of India:
Provided that nothing in this article shall apply to a person who, after having so migrated to
the territory now included in Pakistan, has returned to the territory of India under a permit
for resettlement or permanent return issued by or under the authority of any law and every
such person shall, for the purposes of Clause (b) of Article 6, be deemed to have migrated to
the territory of India after the nineteenth day of July, 1948."
The provision under Article 7 refers to the following two clauses of persons
a) Persons who migrated from India to Pakistan after the 1st March, 1947. Such persons
would not be citizens of India even if they fall within Article 5 or Article 6.
b) Persons who migrated to Pakistan after the 1st March,1947, but who re-migrate to India,
such persons would become Indian Citizens if the following conditions were fulfilled, viz
i) He or either of his parents or any of his grand parents was born in India;
ii) He had returned to India under a permit for resettlement or permanent return; iii) He had
resided in India, after remigration, for at least six months till 26-01-1950;
iv) He had submitted an application for registration to the officer appointed for the purpose,
and
v) He had been registered as a citizen by such officer
4. Citizenship of Indians Abroad (Art. 8): Article 8 of the Indian Constitution speaks about
the right of citizenship of certain persons. It runs as follows
"Notwithstanding anything in Article 5, any person who or either of whose parents or any of
whose grand-parents was born in India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935 (as
originally enacted), and who is ordinarily residing in any Country outside India as so defined
shall be deemed to be a citizen of India if he has been registered as a citizen of India by the
diplomatic or consular representative of India in the country where he is for the time being
residing on an application made by him therefor to such diplomatic or consular
representative, whether before or after the commencement of this Constitution, in the form
and manner prescribed by the Government of the Dominion of India or the Government of
India."
A person of Indian origin, residing outside India (abroad) can obtain Indian citizenship subject
to fulfilment of the following conditions:
i) Such person or either of his parents or grand parents was born in India as per the
Government of India Act, 1935;
ii) He must have been registered as a citizen of India by the diplomatic or consular
representative of the country, where he has been residing;
iii) If he voluntarily acquired the citizenship of any foreign State, he shall not claim citizenship
of India (Art. 9).
Art. 10 provides that a person who is deemed to be the citizen of India, shall continue to be
the citizen of India subject to the provisions of any law passed by the Parliament. Art. 10 also
confers on the Parliament to take away citizenship of a person. Finally, Art. 11 confers on the
Parliament, power of acquisition and loss/termination of the citizenship.
4. Briefly discuss the provisions laid down in the Citizenship Act, 1955 regarding acquisition
of citizenship. Also discuss the procedure for termination of citizenship.
Citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955
Parliament, in exercise of its power under Article 11 of the Constitution, passed the
Citizenship Act, 1955. The Act makes provisions for acquisition and termination of citizenship,
after the commencement of the constitution in five ways as (Sections 3 to 7 of the Act.):
1. Citizenship by Birth (Section 3).
2. Citizenship by Descent (Section 4).
3. Citizenship by Registration (Section 5).
4. Citizenship by Naturalisation (Section 6) and
5. Citizenship by incorporation of territory (Section 7).
(1) Citizenship by birth (Art.(3)
Section 3 of the Citizenship Act provides:
1) Except as provided in sub-section (2), every person born in India (a) on or after 26th
January, 1950 but before the commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1986; (b)
on or after such commencement and either of whose parents is a citizen of India at the time
of his birth, shall be a citizen of India by birth.
2) A person shall not be such a citizen by virtue of this section if at the time of his birth - (a)
his father possesses such immunity from suits and legal process as is accorded to an envoy
of a foreign sovereign power accredited to the President of India and is not a Citizen of India;
or (b) his father is an enemy alien and the birth occurs in a place then under occupation by
the enemy."
The Citizenship Act, 1955 has been amended by the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1986
(w.e.f. 01-07-1987) to prevent persons coming to India from Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and other
African Countries to become Citizens of India. The Act amends Section 3 and provides that
Citizenship by birth can only be acquired by such persons only if either of his parents is citizen
of India at the time of birth.
(II) Citizenship by descent (Sec.4)
Section 4 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 provides: "1. A person born outside India-
a) on or after the 26th January, 1950, but before the commencement of the Citizenship
(Amendment) Act, 1992 (39 of 1992) shall be a citizen of India by descent if his father is a
citizen of India at the time of his birth;
b) on or after such commencement, shall be a citizen of India by descent if either of his
parents is a citizen of India at the time of his birth:
Provided that if the father of such a person referred to in clause (a) was a citizen of India by
descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of India by virtue of this section unless
a) his birth is registered at an Indian consulate within one year of its occurrence or the
commencement of this Act, whichever is later, or, with the permission of the Central
Government, after the expiry of the said period; or
b) his father is, at the time of his birth, in service under the Government in India:
Provided further that if either of the parents of such person referred to in clause (b) was a
citizen of India by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of India by virtue of this
section unless-
a) his birth is registered at an Indian consulate within one year of its occurrence or the
commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1992, whichever is later, or, with the
permission of the Central Government, after the expiry of the said period; or
b) either of his parents is, at the time of his birth, in The service under a Government of India.
(2) If the Central Government so directs, a birth shall be deemed for the purpose of this
section to have been registered with its permission, notwithstanding that its permission was
not obtained before the registration.
(3) For the purpose of the proviso to sub-section (1), any person born outside undivided India
who was, or was deemed to be, a citizen of India at the commencement of the Constitution
shall be deemed to be a citizen of India by descent only.
(III) Citizenship by Registration (Sec.5)
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and such conditions and restrictions as may be
prescribed, the prescribed authority may, on application made in this behalf, register as a
citizen of India any person who is not already such citizen by virtue of the constitution or by
virtue of any of the other provisions of this Act and belongs to any of the following categories:
a) persons of Indian origin who are ordinarily resident in India and have been so resident for
five years immediately before making an application for registration;
b) persons of Indian origin who are ordinarily resident section in any country or place outside
undivided India;
c) persons who are, or have been, married to citizens of India and are ordinarily resident in
India and have been so resident for five years immediately before making an application for
registration;
d) minor children of persons who are citizens of India,and
e) persons of full age and capacity who are citizens of lavas a country specified in the First
Schedule
The countries specified in the First Schedule are:
(A) The following Commonwealth Countries:
1. United Kingdom (United Kingdom means the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, and include the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and Colonies);
2. Canada;
3. Commonwealth of Australia (Commonwealth of to no Australia includes the territories of
Papua and the territory of Norfolk Island);
4. New Zealand;
5. Union of South Africa;
6. Pakistan;
7. Ceylon;
8. Federation or Rhodesia and Nyasaland;
9. Ghana;
10. Federation of Malaya;
11. Singapore.
(B) The Republic of Ireland:
Provided that in prescribing the conditions and restrictions subject to which persons of any
such country may be registered as citizens of India under this clause, the Central Government
shall have due regard to the conditions subject to which citizens of India may, by law or
practice of that country, become citizens of that country by registration.
Explanation: For the purpose of this sub-section, a person shall be deemed to be of Indian
origin if he, or either of his parents was born in undivided India.
(2) No person being of full age shall be registered as a citizen of India under sub-section (1)
until he has taken the oath of allegiance in the form specified in the second schedule.
The oath of allegiances in the Second Schedule is as follows:
"I. A.B.... do solemnly affirm (or swear) that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the
Constitution of India as by law. established, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of India
and fulfil my duties as a Citizen of India."
(3) No person who has renounced, or has been deprived of, his Indian citizenship, or whose
Indian citizenship has terminated, under this Act shall be registered as a citizen of India under
sub-section except by order of the Central Government.
(4) The Central Government may, if satisfied that there are special circumstances justifying
such registration, cause any minor to be registered as a citizen of India.
(5) A person registered under this section shall be citizen of India by registration as from the
date on which he is so registered; and a person registered under the provisions of clause
(b)(ii) of Article 6 or Article 8 of the Constitution shall be deemed to be a Citizen of India by
registration as from the commencement of the Constitution or the date on which he was so
registered, whichever may be later.
(IV) Citizenship by Naturalisation (Sec.6)
(1) Where an application is made in the prescribed manner by any person of full age and
capacity who is not a citizen of a country specified in the First Schedule for the grant of a
certificate of naturalisation to him, the Central Government may, if satisfied that the
applicant is qualified for naturalisation under the provision of the Third Schedule, grant to
him a certificate of naturalisation:
Provided that, if in the opinion of the Central Government, the applicant is a person who has
rendered distinguished service to the cause of science, philosophy, art, literature, world
peace or human progress generally, it may waive all or any of the conditions specified in the
Third Schedule.
The Third Schedule provides that "The qualification for naturalisation of a person who is not
a citizen of a country specified in the First Schedule are:
(1) that he is not a subject or citizen of any country where citizens of India are prevented by
law or practice of that country from becoming subject or citizens of that country by
naturalisation;
(ii) that, if he is a citizen of any country, he has renounced the citizenship of the country in
accordance with the law therein in force in that behalf and has notified such renunciation to
the Central Government;
(iii) that he has either resided in India or been in the service of a Government in India or partly
the one and partly the other, throughout the period of twelve to months immediately
preceding the date of the application;
(iv) that during the twelve years immediately preceding 8the said period of twelve months,
he has either resided In in India or been in the service of a Government in India, or partly the
one and partly the other, for periods amounting in the aggregate to not less than nine years;
(v) that he is of good character;
(vi) that he has an adequate knowledge of a language specified in the Eighth Schedule to the
Constitution, and
(vii) that in the event of a certificate of naturalisation being granted to him, he intends to
reside in India, or to enter into, or continue in, service under a Government in India or under
an international organisation of which India is a member or under a society, company or body
of persons established in India:
Provided that the Central Government may, if in the special circumstances of any particular
case it thinks fit
i) allow a continuous period of twelve months ending not more than six months before the
date of the application to be reckoned, for the purposes of clause (c) above, as if it had
immediately preceded that date;
ii) allow periods of residence or service earlier than thirteen years before the date of the
application to be reckoned in computing the aggregate mentioned in clause (d) above.
(2) The person to whom a certificate of naturalisation is granted under sub-section (1) shall,
on taking the oath of allegiance in the form specified in the Second Schedule, be a citizen of
India by naturalisation as from the date on which that certificate is granted.
6. Termination of Citizenship: Sections 8 to 10 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 deal with
termination of citizenship as follows:
1. By Renunciation of Indian Citizenship (Section-8).
2. By Acquisition of Citizenship of another country (Section-9)
3. Deprivation of Citizenship (Section-10).
By renunciation of Indian Citizenship (Section 8)
(1) If any Citizen of India of full age and capacity, who is also a citizen or national of another
country, makes in the prescribed manner a declaration renouncing his Indian citizenship, the
declaration shall be registered by the prescribed authority, and upon such registration that
person shall cease to be a citizen of India:
Provided that if any such declaration is made during any comment, war in which India may
be engaged, registration thereof shall be withheld until the Central Government otherwise
directs.
(2) Where a person ceases to be a citizen of India under sub-section (1), every minor child of
that person shall thereupon cease to be a citizen of India
Provided that any such child may, within one year after attaining full age, make a declaration
that he wishes to resume Indian citizenship and shall thereupon again become a citizen of
India.
(3) For the purposes of this section, any woman who is, or has been married shall be deemed
to be of full age.
2. Acquisition of Citizenship of another Country (Sec.9)
(1) Any Citizen of India who by naturalisation, registration or otherwise voluntarily acquires,
or has at any time between the 26th January, 1950 and the commencement of this Act
voluntarily acquired, the citizenship of another country shall, upon such acquisition or, as the
case may be, such commencement, cease to be a citizen of India:
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to a citizen of India who, during any war
in which India may be engaged, voluntarily acquires the citizenship of another country, until
the Central Government otherwise directs.
(2) If any question arises as to whether, when or how any person has acquired the citizenship
of another country, it shall be determined by such authority, in such manner, and having
regard to such rules of evidence, as may be prescribed in this behalf.
3. Depreciation of Citizenship (Sec.10)
(1) A Citizen of India who is such by naturalisation or by virtue only of clause (C) of Article 5
of the Constitution or by registration otherwise than under clause (b) (ii) of Article 6 of the
Constitution or clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of this Act, shall cease to be a citizen
of India, if he is deprived of that citizenship by an order of the Central Government under this
section.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Central Government may, by order, deprive
any such Citizen of Indian origin, if it is satisfied that
a) the registration or certification of naturalisation was obtained by means of fraud, false
representation or the concealment of any material fact, or
b) that citizen has shown himself by act or speech to be disloyal or disaffected towards the
constitution of (2) India as by law established; or
c) that citizen has, during any war in which India may be engaged, unlawfully traded or
communicated with an enemy or been engaged, in or associated with, any business that was
to his knowledge carried on in such manner as to assist any enemy in that war: org d) that
citizen has, within five years after registration or naturalisation, been sentenced in any
country to imprisonment for term of not less than two years;
e) that citizen has been ordinarily resident out of India or a continuous period of seven years,
and during ef that period, has neither been at any time a student of any educational
institution in a country outside India or in the service of a Government in India or of an
international organisation of which India is a member. not registered annually in the
prescribed manner at an Indian consulate his intention to retain his citizenship of India.
(3) The Central Government shall not deprive a person of citizenship under this section unless
it is satisfied that it is not conducive to the public good that person should continue to be a
citizen of India.
(4) Before making an order under this section, the Central Government shall give the person
against whom the order is proposed to be made notice in writing informing him of the ground
on which it is proposed to be made and, if the order is proposed to be made on any of the
grounds specified in sub section (2) other than clause (e) thereof, of his right, upon making
application therefor in the prescribed manner, to have his case referred to a committee of
inquiry under this section.
(5) If the order is proposed to be made against a person on any of the grounds specified in
sub-section (2) other than clause (e) thereof and that person so applies in the prescribed
manner, the Central Government shall, and in any other case it may, refer the case to a
committee of Inquiry consisting of a Chairman (being a person who has for at least ten years
held a judicial officer) and two other members appointed by the Central Government in this
behalf.
(6) The Committee of Inquiry shall, on such reference, hold the inquiry in such manner as
may be prescribed and submit its report to the Central Government; and the Central
Government shall ordinarily be guided by such report in making an order under this section.
7. Whether a Company or Corporation is a Citizen of India: A Company or Corporation is not
a natural person, but a juristic person. Citizenship as defined in Part-II of the Constitution
states that, only the natural persons can claim citizenship. A Company or Corporation being
juristic person cannot claim citizenship either under the Constitution of India, 1950 or Under
Citizenship Act, 1955.
In State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. V. Commercial Tax Officer, AIR 1963 SC 184 - The
Supreme Court held that Company or Corporation is not a citizen of India and hence, it cannot
claim fundamental rights conferred on the citizens.
In Barium Chemical v. Company Law Board (AIR 1967 SC 295) - the Supreme Court has held
that a company being an artificial person cannot claim the protection of Article 19. The
company is not a citizen and therefore has no fundamental right.
However, the Fundamental Rights like Right to Equality (Art. 14), which provide for the
protection of 'person' are available to a Company or Corporation. In R.C. Cooper v. Union of
India (popularly known as Banks' Nationalisation Case) AIR 1970 SC 564 The Supreme Court
held that,where a legislation affects the company for which an individual is a shareholder, it
affects/infringes his rights and hence, he can file a petition on behalf of the company Under
Art. 32 of the Constitution. Thus, an individual's right is not lost for the reason, he is the
shareholder of a company.
In Godhra Electric Co. Ltd. V. State of Gujarat (AIR 1975 SC 32) the Supreme Court has held
that though a company is not a citizen under Article 19 but a shareholder, a managing
director of a company has right to carry on business through agency of company and if that
right is taken away or abridged, he is not disabled from challenging the validity of the
provisions of any Act, which affects his right.
It is clear from the above that, a company can enforce all fundamental rights, which are
available to all persons, whether they are citizens or not. But, it cannot enforce such
fundamental rights, which are available only to the citizens. Therefore, a company is only a
legal person, but not a citizen.
5. Briefly discuss the provisions along with case laws relating to freedom of Speech and
Expression as provided in our Constitution?
Introduction
Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India guarantees six fundamental freedoms to every
citizen of India, namely-
1. Freedom of speech and expression;
2. Freedom to assemble peacefully and without arms;
3. Freedom to form associations, unions or co-operative societies;
4. Freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India;
5. Freedom to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India, and
6. Freedom to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
These six fundamental freedoms are the natural and basic freedoms inherent in the status of
a citizen. However, these freedoms are not absolute or uncontrolled but are subject to
certain reasonable restrictions. In this article, the author will take you through the six
fundamental freedoms provided under Article 19 along with the relevant case laws.
6 fundamental freedoms
Freedom of speech and expression [Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2)]
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.
Meaning of freedom of speech and expression
Freedom of speech and expression means the right to speak, and the right to express oneself
through any medium-by words of mouth, writing, pictures, signs, internet etc. Every citizen
has a right to hold an opinion and to be able to express it, including the right to receive and
impart information. The expression ‘freedom of speech and expression’ has a wide
connotation. It includes the freedom of the propagation of ideas, their publication and
circulation.
Scope of freedom of speech and expression
There are various facets of the freedom of speech and expression which have been
recognised by the courts. Some of those facets or rights that constitute the freedom of
speech and expression are mentioned below:
1.Freedom of the press: Freedom of the press is perhaps the most important freedom under
the right to free speech and expression. Freedom of the press does not find an explicit
mention in the Constitution. However, it has been indisputably held to be an important
aspect of the freedom of speech and expression and is implied under Article 19(1)(a).
Freedom of press means:
1.There can be no pre-censorship in the press;
2.No-pre stoppage of publication in newspapers of articles or matters of public importance;
3.Freedom of circulation;
4.No excessive taxes on the press, etc.;
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.
2.Right to know and to obtain information: In the State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975), the
Supreme Court observed that the right to know is derived from the concept of freedom of
speech. The Court further held that the people of this country have a right to know every
public act, everything that is done in a public way, by their public functionaries. It is a basic
postulate of a democracy that every citizen must have a right to know about what the
government is doing. It is only when the public is aware of the acts of government that
transparency and accountability in governance can prevail. Thus, the right to obtain
information and disseminate it is an important fundamental right. In India, we have the Right
to Information Act, 2005 which provides for the right of a citizen to secure access to
information under the control of public authorities.
3.Right to know the antecedents of the candidates at election: In Union of India v.
Association For Democratic Reforms (2002), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the voters
have a fundamental right to know the antecedents of the candidate contesting election
including his/her criminal past.
4.Right to reply: In LIC v. Prof. Manubhai D. Shah(1992), the Supreme Court ruled that the
right to reply, including the right to get that reply published in the same news media in which
something was published against or in relation to a citizen, is protected under Article 19(1)(a).
5.Right to silence: Right to speak includes the right to not speak or the right to remain silent.
In Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986), the Supreme Court upheld the right to silence of
three children who were expelled from school because they refused to sing the National
Anthem. The Court held that no person can be compelled to sing the National Anthem if he
has genuine conscientious objections based on his religious belief. Hence, the right to speak
and the right to express includes the right not to express and to be silent.
6.Right to fly the national flag: 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.
Reasonable restrictions on the right to free speech and expression
The right to free speech and expression is not an absolute right and is subject to reasonable
restrictions. As per Article 19(2), restrictions can be imposed upon the freedom of speech
and expression in the interests of:
1.sovereignty and integrity of India,
2.the security of the state,
3.friendly relations with foreign states,
4.public order, decency or morality, or
5.in relation to contempt of court,
6.defamation, or
7.incitement to an offence.
Freedom of assembly [Article 19(1)(b) and 19(3)]
The object of holding an assembly or a meeting is the propagation of ideas and to educate
the public. Hence, the right to assemble is a necessary corollary of the right to free speech
and expression. 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.
It is pertinent to note that there is no right to hold an assembly on government premises or
private property belonging to others.
In Himmat Lal v. Police Commissioner, Bombay (1972), the Supreme Court struck down a rule
that empowered the police commissioner to impose a total ban on all public meetings and
processions. It was held that the state could only make regulations in aid of the right of
assembly of citizens and could impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order
but no rule could be prescribed prohibiting all meetings or processions altogether.
Reasonable restrictions on right to freedom of assembly
According to Clause 3 of Article 19, the right to freedom of assembly could be restricted on
the following grounds:
1.In the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, or
2.In the interests of public order.
Freedom to form associations, unions or co-operative societies [Article 19(1)(c) and 19(4)]
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.
The right to form associations and unions includes the right to form companies, societies,
trade unions, partnership firms and clubs, etc. The right is not confined to the mere formation
of an association but includes its establishment, administration and functioning as well.
Some of the facets of the right to form associations are as follows:
1.The right to form associations means the right to be a member of an association voluntarily.
It also includes the right to continue to be or not to continue to be a member of the
association.
In Damyanti v. Union of India(1971), the Supreme Court upheld the right of the members of
an association to continue the association with its composition as voluntarily agreed upon by
the persons forming the association.
2.The right to form an association includes the right not to be a member of an association.
3.The right under Article 19(1)(c) does not prohibit the state from making reservations or
nominating weaker sections into the cooperative societies and their managing committees.
4.No prior restraint can be imposed on the right to form an association.
5.There is no fundamental right of recognition of the association or union by the government.
6.The right to form an association includes no right to achieve the objects of the association.
Reasonable restrictions on right to form association
According to Article 19(4), reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the right to form
associations, unions and co-operative societies, etc. on the following grounds:
1.In the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, or
2.In the interests of public order or morality.
Freedom of movement and residence [Article 19(1)(d), 19(1)(e) and 19(5)]
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.
Freedom of movement
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. The Court
held that the State is liable to pay the compensation for the death of the petitioner’s son due
to the inaction on the part of the State authorities in removing the aforesaid blockage.
Freedom of residence
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.
Reasonable restrictions on right to freedom of movement and residence
As per Article 19(5), the right to freedom of movement and residence could be restricted on
the following grounds:
1.In the interests of the general public, or
2.For the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe.
Freedom of profession, occupation, trade or business [Article 19(1)(g) and 19(6)]
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.
Scope: What’s included and what’s not
1.The right to carry on a business also includes the right to shut down the 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).
2.There is no right to hold a particular job of one’s choice. For example, in the case of closure
of an establishment, a man who has lost his job cannot say that his fundamental right to carry
on an occupation is violated.
3.There is no right to carry on any dangerous activity or any antisocial or criminal activity.
4.No one can claim a right to carry on business with the government.
5.The right to trade does not include the right of protection from competition in trade. Thus,
loss of income on account of competition does not violate the right to trade under Article
19(1)(g).
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) has observed that the
sexual harassment of working women in workplaces violates the fundamental right under
Article 19(1)(g). In this case, comprehensive guidelines and binding directions were issued by
the court to prevent the incidents of sexual harassment of women at workplaces in both
public and private sectors.
Reasonable restrictions on freedom of profession, occupation, trade or business
Article 19(6) provides that the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) can be restricted in
the following ways:
1.By imposing reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public.
2.By state monopoly: Sub-clause (ii) of Article 19(6) enables the state to make laws for
creating state monopolies either partially or completely in respect of any trade or business
or industry or service. The right of a citizen to carry on trade is subordinated to the right of
the state to create a monopoly in its favour.
Also, Sub-clause (i) of Article 19(6) empowers the state to lay down, by law, “the professional
or technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession or carrying on any
occupation, trade or business”.
In State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat (2005), the Supreme Court has held
that the expression ‘in the interest of general public’ in Article 19(6) is of wide import
comprehending public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the
community and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution.
Test of Restrictions under Article 19(2) to 19(6)
The restrictions to be imposed on the fundamental freedoms under Article 19(2) to Article
19(6) must satisfy the following tests:
1.The restriction must be imposed by or under the authority of a law duly enacted by the
appropriate legislature. The law authorising the restriction must be reasonable.
2.The restriction imposed must be for the particular purpose or object envisaged in the
specific clauses, i.e., Article 19(2) to 19(6). There has to be a reasonable nexus between the
restriction imposed and the objects mentioned in the respective clause.
3.The restriction must be reasonable.
Conclusion
In the landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court said that
it is possible that a right does not find express mention in any clause of Article 19(1) and yet
it may be covered by some clause of that Article. This is true for freedom of the press is one
such important fundamental right which, though not expressly mentioned, is implicit in
Article 19(1)(a).
Lastly, it is noteworthy that earlier Article 19(1) provided for seven fundamental freedoms
i.e. Clause(f) provided for the freedom to hold and acquire property which was deleted by
the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978.
6. Explain how Right to life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 has been interpreted by
the Supreme Court?
Protection of Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21)
Introduction: Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees life and personal liberty. It is
the heart of the fundamental rights. It says that 'No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty, except according to procedure established by law.
Prior to 1978, i.e., before the decision of the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi's case, this
right was protected against the arbitrary action of the Executive, but not from legislative
action. After the decision of Maneka Gandhi, Art.21 guarantees to the citizens not only from
the Executive action, but also from the legislative action. In other words, the scope of Art.21
had been elaborated from Maneka Gandhi's Case and subsequent decisions. The protection
under Article 21 is available to the citizens and non-citizens alike.
In National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (AIR 1996 SC 1234) and
in Chairman, Railway Board v. Mrs. Chandrina Das (AIR 2000 SC 988) - the Court has made it
clear that every citizen or non-citizen is entitled to the right to life and personal liberty
guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Meaning and Scope: Article 19 of the Indian Constitution provides for different (six)
freedoms. However, these freedoms are subject to certain reasonable restrictions. Similarly,
under Article 21, a person can exercise his personal liberty and it cannot be curtailed. The
latter part imposes restriction that the person's liberty can be curtailed in accordance with
the procedure established by law. Similarly, provision is enshrined in the Fifth Amendment
to American Constitution that 'No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty
without due process of law."
Article 21 comprises of four words viz., life, personal liberty, law and procedure. To know the
ambit of Article 21. we have to know, how these words are understood/interpreted by the
Supreme Court.
The term 'life' as used in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, meant something more than
mere animal existence. The inhibition against its deprivation to all those limbs and Freedom
of Speech and Expression faculties by which life is enjoyed. The provisions equally prohibit
the mutilation of the body or amputation of the body or amputation of an arm or leg.
In Karak Singh v. State of U.P. (AIR 1963 SC 1295) - it has been observed that the expression
'life' is something more than mere animal existence and, thus it is not limited to bodily
restraint or confinement to prison only. It should not be taken to mean merely the right to
continuance of a person's right to the possession of each of his organs like legs, and arms etc.
Life is essential to any human being. Right to life is a natural right, which cannot be
transferred. However, in the larger interests of the society, life or personal liberty can be
taken away by the State under the process of law in America and procedure established by
law in India. Art.21 of the Indian Constitution is borrowed from American Constitution and
the words 'procedure established by law' are inserted instead of the words 'due process of
law'.
The word 'liberty' is derived from the Latin word 'liber' which means 'free'. According to the
Oxford Dictionary, liberty means the "right or power to do as one pleases or to do
something".
The Dicey says, "Personal liberty means a personal right not to be subjected to imprisonment,
arrest or other physical coercion in any manner that does not admit legal justification. It is
this negative right of not being subjected to any form of physical restraint or coercion that
constitutes the essence of personal liberty and not mere freedom to move to any part of
Indian territory."
According to Blackstone, "This personal liberty consists in the power of locomotion, of
changing situation or moving one's person to whatever place one's own inclination may
direct without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due process of law."
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27 - In this case, procedure established by law
is understood as any type of procedure, but need not be just, reasonable or fair.
(Facts of the case: It was the first leading case on Art.21. A.K. Gopalan was detained under
Preventive Detention Act, 1950. He challenged the validity of the Act, before Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court interpreted the word 'liberty' narrowly, and upheld the validity of the
Act.
The narrow interpretation of the expression personal liberty' in Gopalan's case has not been
followed by the Supreme Court in later decisions.
But, in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 - The Supreme Court held that the
procedure established by law' under Art.21 must be just, reasonable and fair, but not any
type of procedure. This decision overruled the decision of the Supreme Court in Gopalan's
case and wiped out (removed) the difference between 'Due process of law' (America) and
procedure established by law (India).
Facts of Maneka Gandhi's Case (Passport Case): Mrs. Maneka Gandhi (W/o Late Sanjay
Gandhi) was issued Passport. Later, she was informed that the Government decided to
impound her passport and she was required to surrender it, without stating the reasons. She
challenged the Government's decision to impound her passport, as it violates her personal
liberty guaranteed under Article 21. In this case, the Supreme Court considered the scope of
Article 21 elaborately, and held that the Government's action in impounding the passport,
the interest of General Public, is not violative of Article 21.
Meaning of words 'procedure' and 'Law':
Procedure: As per Article 21 of the Constitution of India, "No person shall be deprived of his
life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law". But according to
American Constitution, "No person shall be deprived of his life, personal liberty and property,
without the due process of law." 32 According to old view (in Gopalan's Case) procedure'
means "any type of procedure". According to new view (in Maneka Gandhi's Case) procedure
means 'just, reasonable and fair' procedure.
Law: The word 'Law' in the general sense means law enacted by the Legislature. The
executive instructions without having the sanction of any statutory power cannot be
construed as law within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution. 21 The law includes
Ordinance' as both the law made by the Legislature and Ordinance issued by the President
of India are the products of exercise of legislative power and both are equally subjected to
limitation which the Constitution has placed upon that power.
According to the view in A.K. Gopalan's case, law means 'any type of law. After the decision
of the Maneka Gandhi's case, law means 'just, reasonable and fair law.
Meaning of the words 'life' and 'personal liberty':
Life: Generally 'life' means "keeping soul and body together". Doubt arises if a person is in
coma i.e., neither dead nor alive. Now, the question is what type of life is guaranteed in Art.21
of the Constitution. Right to Life and Personal Liberty, guaranteed under Art.21 of the
Constitution covers/ includes the following:
1. Right to Privacy;
2. Right to Livelihood;
3. Right to Die;
4. Right to Education; and
5. Right to get pollution free Water and Air.
Various rights included in right of life and personal liberty
In P.Nalla Thampi v. Union of India (AIR 1985 SC 1133) - the Supreme Court declared the right
to life included the finer graces of human civilization and this fundamental right virtually
rendered a repository of various human rights.
Right to life and liberty includes the following human rights:
i) Right to livelihood.
ii) Right to family pension.
iii) Right to shelter.
iv) a) Right to good health.
b) Right to doctor's assistance.
c) Right to emergency medical aid.
d) Right to appropriate Life Insurance Policy.
v) Right to Environment
a) Right to pollution free water and air.
b) Right to protection against hazardous industries.
c) Right to freedom from noise pollution.
(vi) Right to privacy.
vi) Right to travel abroad.
vii) Right to reputation.
viii) Right to social justice and economic empowerment.
ix) Right to information.
x) Right to decent burial or cremation.
xi) Right not to be driven out of a State.
xii) Right not to be subjected to bonded labour and to be rehabilitated.
xiii) Right of women to be treated with decency and dignity.
xiv)Prisoner's Rights,
a) Prisoner's right to have necessities of life.
b) Right against hand-cuffing.
(c) Right against torture or third-degree method.
 (d) Right to have interview with his lawyer and family members.
(e) Right to legal aid
(f) Right to bail.
(g) Right against Solitary confinement and no use of Bar fetters.
h) Right to hearing.
i) Right to speedy trial.
j) No right against death sentence.
k) Right against delayed execution of death sentence.
l) Right to appeal.
m) Right against public hanging.
n) Right of compensation for custodial death.
Some of them are discussed hereunder
1. Right to Privacy: 'Right to privacy' is the right to be let alone; the right of a person to be
free from unwarranted publicity. This right is incident to person and not to property. It is
considered as a natural and an absolute or pure right springing from the instincts of nature.
The right of privacy is nothing more than a right to live in a particular way.
The Supreme Court in Kharag Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295 held that, the life
guaranteed under Article 21 is not mere animal existence, and is something more than that.
In this case, domiciliary visits at nights to observe the movements of the accused was held
violative of Art.21 of the Constitution.
Right to privacy is not enumerated as a fundamental right in our Constitution but has been
inferred from Article 21 of the Constitution. The first decision of the Supreme Court dealing
with the right to privacy.
In Karak Singh v. State of U.P (AIR 1963 SC 1295) and it has been observed that an
unauthorized intrusion into a person's home and the disturbance caused to him is the
violation of the privacy of the individual. It has been held that the Police Regulation
authorising domiciliary visits was plainly violative of Article 21 as there was no law on which
it can be justified and it must be struck down as unconstitutional.
In People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (Telephone Tapping Case) AIR 1997
SC 568- the Supreme Court held that telephone tapping is a serious invasion of an individual's
right of privacy, which is part of the right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article
21 of the Constitution, and it should not be resorted to by the State unless there is public
emergency or interest of public safety requires.
In State of Maharashtra v. Madhulkar Narain (AIR 1991 SC 207) - the Supreme Court has
held that even a woman of easy virtue is entitled to privacy and no one can invade her privacy
as and when one likes and it is not open to any person to violate her person as and when he
wishes. She is entitled to protect her person if there is an attempt to violate it against her
wish and she is equally entitled to protect her privacy.
In R.M.Malkani v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1973 SC it has been held that tape recording
the conversation 157) for the purpose of investigation of crime is not unconstitutional.
2. Right to Livelihood: Livelihood' means "of living. sustenance". It is something necessary
for a man to provide for his living or sustenance. It is right to livelihood in this sense that is
stated to be a of the right
The Supreme Court in:
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180, 3 SCC 545 held that, life
under includes the right to livelihood' also
"It does not mean merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away as, for example, by
the imposition and execution of death sentence, except according to procedure established
by law. That is but one aspect of the right to life. An equally important facet of that right is
the right to livelihood because no person can live without the means of livelihood. If the right
to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of
depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood. In
view of the fact that Article 39(a) and (41) require the State to secure to the citizens an
adequate means of livelihood and the right to work, it would be sheer pedantary exclude the
right to livelihood from the content of the right to life."
D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries, (1993) 3 SCC 258 - The Supreme Court held that right to life
under Article 21 includes the right to livelihood and hence, the termination of service without
giving reasonable opportunity of hearing, is unjust, arbitrary and illegal.
People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473 In this case, the
Supreme Court held that the non-payment of minimum wages to the workers as violative of
right to life' under Article 21.
Sodan singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, AIR 1989 SC 1988; (1989) 4 SCC 155 - In
this case, it was held that life under Article 21 does not include right to carry on trade or
business.
In Narendra Kumar v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 460) - it has been held that right to
livelihood is an integral facet of the right to life.
In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raja Mahendra Pal(AIR 1999 SC 1786) it has been held that
the violation of the right to livelihood is required to be remedied. But the right to livelihood
as contemplated under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be so widely construed which
may result in defeating the purpose sought to be achieved by the aforesaid article. It is also
true that the right to livelihood would include all attributes of life but the same cannot be
extended to the extent that it may embrace or take within its ambit all sorts of claims relating
to the legal or contractual rights of parties completely ignoring the person approaching the
Court and thealleged violation of the said right.
3. Right to Die: The question is, whether the Right to life guaranteed under Art.21 includes
right to die?
The Bombay High Court in State of Maharashtra v. Maruti Sripati Dubal, (Suicide Case) 1987
Cr.L.J. 549 held that, right to life under Article 21 also includes the right to die and struck
down Section 309 IPC, which prescribes punishment for attempt to suicide. The Court listed
several instances in which a person may wish to end the life viz.. unbearable pain from a
disease, poverty etc.
Further, the Supreme Court in its landmark judgment in P. Ratnam and Nagabushan Patnaik
v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 394 held that a person has a right to die and declared Section
309, IPC unconstitutional. The right to live in Article 21 includes the right not to live i.e., right
to die.
In the instant case, the petitioner, Nagabushan Patnaik challenged the validity of Sec.309, IPC
as violative of Arts. 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, and prayed for quashing the
proceedings pending against him in the Court of Sub-Judge, Gunupur, Koraput District of
Orissa for attempting to commit suicide. A Division Bench comprising Justice R.M. Shai,
Justice Hansaria held that Sec.309, IPC as violative of Art.21 of the Constitution.
But, recently in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC 648; a five-Judge Constitution
Bench of the Supreme Court has overruled the above decision in P. Ratnam's case and held
that right to live under Art.21 does not include' 'Right to die' or 'right to be killed and
therefore, Section 309 IPC is not violative of Art.21 of the Constitution.
4. Right to get pollution free Water and Air: The word 'environment' is derived from the
French word, 'environner', which means "to do encircle" or "to surround". It literally means
"the surroundings" or "the surroundings and conditions under which a man lives and works".
It is very difficult to define the term "environment". It may be defined as "the surroundings
around us, which constitute, land, water, air space, plants/trees and wild life". According to
Section 2(9) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 of India, the term 'environment
includes 'water, air and land and the inter relationship which exists among and between
water, air and land and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organisms and
property".
In India, pollution free environment is declared by the Apex Court as a Fundamental Right
falling under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., AIR 1988 SC 2187 It is the first
case of this kind in India, involving issues relating to environment and ecological balance. The
R.L. & E. Kendra and others in a letter to the Supreme Court complained about the
illegal/unauthorised mining in the Mussorie, Dehradun belt. As a result, the ecology of the
surrounding area was adversely affected and it led to the environmental disorder.
The Supreme Court treated the letter as writ petition under Art.32 of Constitution and
directed to stop the excavations (illegal mining) under the Environment (Protection) Act,
1986. The respondents contended/argued that the writ petition was registered in 1983 and
the Environment (Protection) Act was passed in 1986 and hence the criminal proceedings
cannot be initiated with retrospective effect. The court rejected the contention of the
respondents and held that the provisions of procedural law shall apply to ordinary criminal
cases and not to the environmental cases. The court directed the Central and State
Governments to take necessary steps to prevent illegal mining and to re-afforestation in the
area of mining.
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086 (Popularly known as Oleum Gas Leak
Case') - the Supreme Court treated the right to live in pollution free environment as a part of
fundamental right to life under Art.21 of the Constitution. Further, the A.P. High Court in T.
Damodar Rao v. S.O., Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, (AIR 1987 AP 171) laid down that
right to live in healthy environment was specially declared to be part of Art.21 of the
Constitution.
- In M.C.Mehta v. Union of India (1987) SCC 463) - the Supreme Court ordered to close all
pollution tanneries which pollute Ganga water.
In M.C.Mehta v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 353) (popularly known as Taj Mahal case) the
Supreme Court opined that the use of coke/coal by industries situated within Taj Trapezium
Zone (TTZ) were emitting pollution and causing damage to Taj Mahal, as also people living in
that area.
In M.C.Mehta v. Union of India (AIR 1988 SC 221) - the Supreme Court has held that right to
live is a fundamental right under Article 21 and it includes the right of enjoyment of pollution
free water and air for full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or impairs that quality of
life in derogation of law, a citizen has right to have recourse to Article 32 for removing the
pollution of water or air which may be determined of the life, to
In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (AIR 1991 SC 420) - it has been held that Right to pollution
free air falls within Article 21.
In M.C.Mehta v. Kamal Nath (AIR 2000 SC 1997) - it has been held any disturbance of the
basic environments, namely, air, water and soil which are necessary for 'life' would be
hazardous to life within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution.
5. Right to Fair and Speedy Trial: In India, owing to population explosion, incidence of crime
is increasing day by day. But, there are no courts and judicial officers/judges commensurate
to the number of undertrail criminals. Consequently, there is inordinate delay in disposal of
cases. For instance, an acquitted person was detained in prison for more than 14 years.
In Mohd. Hussain v. NCT of Delhi (2012) 9 SCC 408) - this Court observed that 'speedy trial'
and 'fair trial' to a person accused of a crime are integral part of Article 21.
In Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569) - the court has observed: The right to
speedy trial begins with the actual restraint imposed by arrest and consequent incarceration
and continues at all stages, namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and
revision so that any possible prejudice that may result from impermissible and avoidable
delay from the time of the commission of the offence till it consummates into a finality, can
be averred.
Fair trial means a trial in which bias or prejudice for or against the accused, the witnesses or
the cause which is being tried is eliminated.
In Nirmak Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab (AIR 2009SC 984) the Court has held that fair trial
includes fair investigation. Further, fair investigation and fair trial are concomitant to
preservation of fundamental right of an accused under Article 21.
In State of Maharashtra v. Champalal (IR 1981 SC 1675) - it has been observed that a fair
trial implies speedy trial and it is implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21 of the
Constitution. No procedure can be reasonable, fair and just unless that procedure ensures a
speedy trial for determination of the guilt of such person. Long pre-trial detention of an
individual in prison jeopardises his personal liberty as such speedy trial is an integral and
essential part of the fundamental right of life and liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the
Constitution.
In Surya Narayana Singh v. State (AIR 1987 Pat. 219 (FB)- it has been held that the rule of
speedy trial is applicable from the stage of police investigation and an inordinate delay in
police investigation itself may equally attract the rule of speedy trial. It has, further, held that
callous and inordinately prolonged delay of five years or more (which does not arise from the
default of the accused) in investigation and original trials of pending cases for capital offences
punishable with death would plainly violate the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial
under Article 21 of the Constitution.
In Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar (AIR 1998 SC 3281) the accused was charged for offences
under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. About 13 years had elapsed since the
institution of the FIR. The accused applied for quashing the prosecution on the ground of
undue delay. The High Court rejected the application as large number of cases were pending
before the only one court of CBI. The Supreme Court has held that the rejection is not proper.
In Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569) - it has been held that speedy trial is a
component of liberty. Personal
In T.V.Vaitheeswaran v. State of T.N. (AIR 1981 SC 643)
- it has been held that delay in execution of death sentence exceeding two years would be
sufficient ground to invoke the protection of Article 21 and the death sentence would be
commuted to life imprisonment.
In Javed Ahmed v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1985 SC 231) - there is delay in execution of
death sentence of more than 2 years and the conduct and behaviour of the accused in the
jail, evident from the report of the jail authorities show that he was showing genuine
repentance and it was held that the death sentence could be commuted to life imprisonment.
6. Sexual Harassment of Working Women: In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1997 SC
3011) - the Supreme Court has held that the sexual harassment of working women amounts
to violation of right of gender equality and right of life and personal liberty under Article 21
of the Constitution. The Supreme Court lays down certain guidelines to be observed at all
work-places to arrest sexual harassment of working women.
7. Right to Development: The right to development cannot be treated as a mere right to
economic betterment or cannot be limited to as a misnomer to simple construction activities.
The right to development encompasses much more than economic well being, and includes
within its definition the guarantee of fundamental human rights. The right to development
includes the whole spectrum of civil, cultural, economic, political and social process, for the
improvement of peoples' well being and realization of their full potential. It is an integral part
of human right. Therefore, the adherence of sustainable development principle is a sine qua
non for the maintenance of the symbiotic balance between the rights to environment and
development. Right to environment is a fundamental right. On the other hand right to
development is also one such right.
Personal Liberty: The Supreme Court understood the concept of personal liberty under
Art.21 as qualified and restrictive, and is with regard to bodily injury or wrongful confinement
and not more than that (as per A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27). Later, the
Supreme Court did not follow this narrow and restrictive operation. Kharak Singh v. State of
U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295- night visits).
After the decision in Maneka Gandhi's case, the Supreme Court adopted dynamic approach
in interpreting personal liberty under Article 21 in subsequent cases.
Art.21 and Emergency: Prior to 44th Amendment, the President under Art.359 was
empowered to suspend the right under Article 21. For the first time, Article 21 was suspended
during the Emergency arising out of the Chinese attack in 1962. In 1971 it was suspended for
the second time when Pakistan attacked India. In 1976, this Art. was again suspended when
the Government headed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi declared emergency on the ground
of internal disturbance.
In A.D.M. Jabalpur v. S. Shukla, AIR 1976 SC 1207 it was held that Art.21 was the sole
repository of the right to life and personal liberty and if the right to move to any court for the
enforcement of that right was suspended by the Presidential Order under Art.359 the
detenue had no locus standi to file a writ petition for challenging the legality of their
detention.
44th Amendment and Art.21: The 44th Amendment had amended Art.359 which now
provides that the enforcement of the right to life and liberty under Art.21 cannot be
suspended by the Presidential Order. In view of the 44th Amendment the A.D.M. Jabalpur v.
S. Shukla, AIR 1976 SC 1207 is no longer a good law.

7. What is “Other authority “Under Article 12? Discuss the judicial decisions relating to
interpretation of Article 12?/ The word “STATE “as used in the Article 12 has always attracted
the attention of the courts. Answer with the help of case laws?
Definition of State (Article 12)
The Indian Constitution guarantees fundamental rights to the citizens of India. In the event,
any fundamental right is violated or infringed, the citizen can enforce his fundamental right
against the State. Now, the question is, what constitutes the State? And what are the
authorities that come within the meaning of the State are to be discussed under this head.
Definition of State (Art. 12): The term 'State' has not been defined rather it is an inclusive
definition under Article 12 of the Constitution for the purpose of protection, promotion and
enforcement of Fundamental Rights as provided under Part-III of the Constitution. The term
State is of vital significance as Article 13, Clause 2 of the Indian Constitution bars the State
from making/passing any law, which infringes a fundamental right. Under Article 36, the
same definition is adopted unless the context otherwise requires for the purpose of
implementation of Directive Principles of State Policy under Part-IV of the Constitution. It
does not apply to Part-XIV or other parts. The word 'State' includes
(1) The Union Government and Parliament;
(2) The State Government and the State Legislature:
(3) All Local and other Authorities within the territory of India and under the control of the
Government of India.
In S.Arjun Singh, S.Meher Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1969 Punjab 554) it was held that
the definition of State does not apply to the word 'State' used in Article 311 of the
Constitution. In SAIL v. National Union Water Front Workers (AIR 2001 SC 357) The Supreme
Court held that the definition of State in Article 12 is applicable only in case of Part III
(Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (Directive Principles) of State Policy and not applicable to
other provisions of the Constitution Eg.: Articles 309, 310, 311 etc.
It is clear from the above that the term 'State' includes executive as well as the Legislative
organs of the Union and States. If any action by these bodies infringes fundamental right, it
can be challenged before the Courts.
1. The Central/Union Government and Parliament: The Government/Union of India for the
purpose of Article 12 includes the Executive organs and Departments including the President
of India. Further, Parliament i.e., the Union Legislature and the law making authority is
included in the definition of the State'.
2. The State Governments and the State Legislatures:
The State Government includes the Executive organs and other Departments viz., the
Governments, the Chief Ministers, the District Collectors and other Government
Departments. The State Legislature, which is the law making body, includes the Governor and
both houses viz., Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council come within the definition of
State under Article 12.
3. All Local or other Authorities within the territory of India and under the control of
Government of India: The term 'Authority', according to Webster's Dictionary means "a
person or body exercising power to command." For the purpose of Article 12, it means "the
power to make laws, orders, regulations, bye-laws, notifications etc., which have the force of
law and power to enforce those laws."
The expression Local Authority' refers to unit of local self-Government. Section 3 (31) of the
General Clauses Act, 1897 defines Local Authority as follows:
"Local Authority shall mean a Municipal Committee, District Board, Panchayats, Body of Port
Commissioners, Improvement Trust and Mining Settlement Boards or other Authority legally
entitled to, or entrusted by the Government with, the control or management of a municipal
or local fund."
In Mohammed Yasin v. Town Area Committee (AIR 1952 SC 115)- the Supreme Court held
that the bye-laws of a Municipal Committee charging a prescribed fee on the wholesale
dealer was an order by a State authority contravened under Article 19(1)(g).
In Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab (IR 1967 SC 856) - it has been held that Village Panchayat is
also included within the meaning of the term 'local authority
The expression "Other Authorities", has neither been defined in the Constitution nor in any
statute. It is left to the discretion of the court to interpret the expression so as to determine
the scope of the fundamental rights.
The expression 'other authorities' came to be interpreted for the first time by the Madras
High Court in the case of:
University of Madras v. Shantha Bai (AIR 1954 Mad. 67)- it was held that the University of
Madras, created by the Madras University Act, 1923, though State aided, was a body
corporate and was not maintained by the State and hence do not come within the scope of
State' under Article 12.
Referring to Article 12, the Court viewed/opined that the words 'local or other authorities
must be construed ejusdem generis'. According to the rule of 'ejusdem generis', only the
authorities exercising governmental or sovereign functions would come within the meaning
of 'other authorities'.
But, the Supreme Court in Ujjambai v. State of U.P., AIR 1962 SC 1621 rejected the above
restricted interpretation or the rule of ejusdem generis and held that the Sales Tax Officer,
constituted under the Sales Tax Act for assessing the tax would come within the meaning of
'other authorities' under Article 12.
It is clear from the decision of the Supreme Court, that other authority is the constitutional
or statutory bodies (i.e. the bodies established or created by the Constitution or Statute on
whom powers have been conferred by law.
Statutory Bodies: Whether the bodies set up under special statutes come within the meaning
of "other authorities" under Article 12 of the Constitution?
This question was answered in the affirmative in: Electricity Board, Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal
(AIR 1967 SC 1857)- In this case, the Supreme Court gave wider interpretation and held that
the expression 'other authorities' includes all authorities created by the Constitution or
Statute on whom powers are conferred by law. It is not necessary that the statutory authority
should be engaged in governmental or sovereign functions. Further, in Sukhdev Singh v.
Bhagatram (AIR 1975 SC 1331) the Supreme Court held that Statutory bodies (Bodies set up
under special statutes) like Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC), Life Insurance
Corporation (LIC). Industrial Finance Corporation (IFC) are authorities within the meaning of
Article 12.
Agency or Instrumentality of the State: An agency or Instrumentality of State, though not a
Government Company established by a statute, but registered under the Indian Companies
Act, 1956 comes within the meaning of 'other authorities' under Article 12. The relevant
leading case on this point is: Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority
of India, (popularly known as Airport Authority's case) AIR 1979 SC 1628.
Facts: The International Airport Authority (IAA), a body corporate was created under the
Airport Authority Act, 1971 passed by the Parliament. The entire capital required for the
establishment of the IAA was invested by the Central Government. The Central Government
is vested with the power to appoint/nominate its Chairman and other members and also
empowered to take away or transfer the management of any airport from the IAA. The IAA
is empowered to manage and administer the airports and air navigation services (which were
performed previously by the Central Government), and also to frame rules and regulations,
penal provisions for violations of such rules.
Principles: The principle applied in the instant case is, where a body created/constituted is
an agency or instrumentality of State, though not a Government Company established by a
statute, but registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 comes within the meaning of
'other authorities' under Article 12.
Now, the question is, whether IAA is an Agency or Instrumentality of State within the
meaning of Article 12.
Judgment/Decision: The Supreme Court through Bhagwati, J. following the test/principle
adopted by Mathew.J. in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram's case and held that the International
Airport Authority (IAA) would come within the meaning of the State' under Article 12.
In Som Prakash v. Union of India (AIR 1981 SC 212) - The Supreme Court through V.R. Krishna
Iyer, J. (applying the functional test) held that Bharat Petroleum Corporation, a Government
Company fell within the meaning of State under Article 12.
Further, the following are held as 'State":
1. Regional Engineering College, Srinagar, sponsored by the Government of India - Ajay Hasia
v. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981 SC 487.
2. Food Corporation of India (FCI)-FCI Workers Union v. FCI, AIR 1990 SC 2178.
Whether the Definition of 'State' under Art. 12 includes Judiciary?
The three main organs of the State/Government are the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary.
Now the question is, whether all these three organs, for the purpose of Article 12 include the
definition of State'?
According to Article 12 of the Constitution, the expression State includes "the Union
Government and Parliament, the State Governments and the State Legislatures, and the
Local and other Authorities make it clear that the term 'State', includes the Executive and
Legislature and does not include the judiciary.
The Bombay High Court in Ratilal v. State of Bombay, AIR 1953 Bom. 242 viewed that the
term 'State' in Article 12 excluded the judiciary and hence, judgments of courts could not be
challenged on the ground that they contravened/ violated fundamental rights. However,
judiciary also includes the definition of State as enumerated hereunder:
In United States, it is well settled that the judiciary is within the prohibition of the 14th
Amendment and a judicial decision is included in the concept of State for the purpose of the
enforcement of Fundamental Rights (Virgina v. Rives, (1880) 100 U.S. 339). In India, there is
no such specific provision to include the judiciary within the definition of State. The Supreme
Court through Gajendragadkar, J. in Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, H.P., AIR 1963
SC 996 viewed that the judiciary, while exercising its rule making power should be included
within the definition of State under Article 12. Mr. H.M. Seervai, in his 'Constitutional Law of
India, p.155 (1* Ed.) opined that the judiciary should be included in the definition of the State'
a Judge acting as a Judge is subject to the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Finally, the
Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, AIR 1988 SC 1531 (7 Judges'Bench) held that,
the Court cannot pass an order or issue a direction, which would be violative of fundamental
rights.
In Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (AIR 2002 SC 1771 (1 Suppl.) - the Supreme Court has
held that the superior Court of Justice do not fall within the ambit of State or other authorities
under Article 12 of the Constitution.
Paramatam Sharan v. Chief Justice (AIR 1964 Raj. 12) - In this case, it has been observed that
when the Chief Justice of the High Court or Supreme Court appoints officers of the Court and
in the exercise of his power of appointment contravenes any fundamental right, it may be
challenged in court because when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or High Court makes
appointments in the exercise of their power in administrative capacity, they are included
within the meaning of term 'State' under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution.
In view of the above, it can be said that the expression *State' under Article 12 includes
judiciary also, when it acts in administrative capacity and would not come within the meaning
of the State, if it acts in the judicial capacity.
8. Right to Constitutional remedies is one of the most crucial provisions of the constitution
without which remedy for right violation would be nullity?/Discuss the constitutional
remedies available to a person in the event of violation of his fundamental rights.
Article 32 is the “soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it”.
The best conferment of the Constitution is the Fundamental Rights. Somehow or another,
they frame the rampart of our Constitution. Each one of these Rights is trivial if there exists
no instrument to authorize them. Article 32 gives such a component. That is the reason it
is the gem, the delegated wonder, the heart, and the spirit of the Constitution.
Right to constitutional remedies
 Article 32 is known as the “spirit of the constitution and exceptionally heart of it” by Dr.
Ambedkar. Preeminent Court has included it in fundamental structure regulation. Further,
it is clarified that privilege to move to Supreme Court can’t be suspended with the
exception of generally given by the Constitution. This suggests this privilege suspended
amid a national crisis under article 359.
 Article 32 makes the Supreme Court the safeguard and underwriter of the major rights.
Further, the capacity to issue writs goes under the original jurisdiction of the Apex Court.
This implies an individual may approach SC straightforwardly for a cure as opposed to by
appeal.
 Article 32 can be used only to get a remedy for fundamental rights enshrined in Article
12-35. It isn’t there for some other legal right for which diverse laws are accessible.
What is WRIT?
A precept in writing, couched in the form of a letter, running in the name of the king,
president, or state, issuing from a court of justice, and sealed with its seal, addressed to a
sheriff or other officer of the law, or directly to the person whose action the court desires to
command, either as the commencement of a suit or other proceeding or as incidental to Its
progress, and requiring the performance of a specified act, or giving authority and
commission to have it done. For the names and description of various particular writs, see
the following titles.
 In old English law. An Instrument In the form of a letter; a letter or letters of attorney. This
is a very ancient sense of the word.
 In the old books, “writ” is used as equivalent to “action;” hence writs are sometimes
divided into real, personal, and mixed.
 In Scotish law. Writing; an instrument in writing, as a deed, bond, contract, etc.
Constitutional Philosophy of Writ Jurisdiction
An individual whose privilege (Fundamental Right) is encroached by an arbitrary
administrative action may approach the Court for a suitable remedy. Article 32(2) of the
Constitution of India gives: “The Supreme Court will have the capacity to issue bearings or
requests or writs, incorporating writs in the idea of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition,
quo warranto, and certiorari, whichever might be suitable, for the requirement of any of
rights given by this Part.” Article 32 is a basic Right directly under Part – III of the Constitution.
Under this Article, the Supreme Court is enabled to loosen up the customary standard of
Locus Standi and permit general society to intrigue case in the name of public interest
litigation (PIL).
Comparative Analysis of Article 32 & 226
Article 32 isn’t to be conjured for encroachment of an individual right of the agreement
(contract), nor is to be summoned for unsettling questions which are fit for transfer under
other laws. Article 226(1) of the Constitution of India, on the other hand says,”
Notwithstanding anything in Article 32, every High Court shall have powers, throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority,
including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or
writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto
and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III
and for any other purpose.”
As is obvious from the uncovered dialect, this Article ensures a person to move the High Court
for implementation of the fundamental rights and also for implementation of some other
lawful right. Article 226 gives wide powers on the High Courts. It fills in as a major repository
of legal capacity to control organization. Its capacity under Article 226 can’t be diminished by
enactment. In this manner, forces of High Courts gave under Article 226 are more extensive
when contrasted with forces presented on the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India.
Types of WRITS
Habeas Corpus:
 Meaning: This writ is in the nature of an order calling upon the person who has detained
another to produce the latter before the Court, in order to let the Court, know on what
ground he has been confined and to set him free if there is no legal justification for the
confinement. In Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar added a new dimension to judicial activism
and raised a set of vital questions, such as, liability of State to compensate for unlawful
detention, feasibility of claiming compensation from the State under Article 32 for
wrongful deprivation of fundamental rights, propriety of the Supreme Court passing an
order for compensation on a habeas corpus petition for enforcing the right to personal
liberty.
 The General Principle: The principle on which Habeas Corpus function is that a person
illegally detained in confinement without legal proceedings is entitled to seek the remedy
of habeas corpus.
 Nature of Writs: While deciding whether Habeas Corpus writs are civil or criminal in
nature, it was held in Narayan v. Ishwarlal that the court would rely on the way of the
procedures in which the locale has been executed.
How a Writ of Habeas Corpus is filed?
1. An application for habeas corpus can be made by any person on the behalf of the
prisoner/detenu as well as the prisoner/detenu himself.
2. Even a letter to the judge mentioning illegalities committed on prisoners in jail can be
admitted. In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration., a convict had written a letter to one of the
Judges of the Supreme Court alleging inhuman torture to a fellow convict. The late justice
Krishna Iyer treated this letter as a petition of habeas corpus and passed appropriate orders.
3. Courts can also act Suo motu in the interests of justice on any information received by it
from any quarter/source.
Habeas Corpus is not issued in certain cases
1. Where the person who is detained or against whom the writ is issued is not within the
jurisdiction of the Court.
2. To save the release of a person who has been imprisoned by a Court for a criminal charge.
3.To interfere with a proceeding for contempt by a Court of record or by Parliament.
Implication in Emergency: In the Landmark case of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla which
is also known as the Habeas Corpus case, it was held that the writ of Habeas Corpus can be
suspended even during the emergency (Article 359).
Damages: The Court may also award exemplary damages. In Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu &
Kashmir , the Hon’ble Apex Court awarded the exemplary damages of Rs.50,000/- (At that
time this was a very significant amount.
Thus, writ of habeas corpus is a bulwark of personal liberty. It has been described as “a great
constitutional privilege” or “first security of civil liberty”. The most quintessential element is
a speedy and effective remedy.
Notable Cases for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
 In Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, while enunciating the real scope of writ of habeas
corpus, the Supreme Court opined that while dealing with a petition for writ of habeas
corpus,the court may examine the legality of the detention without requiring the person
detained to be produced before it.
 In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, the Orissa police took away the son of the petitioner
for the purposes of interrogation & he could not be traced. During the pendency of the
petition, his dead body was found on railway track The petitioner was awarded
compensation of Rs. 1, 50,000.
Mandamus
 Meaning: “A writ issued by a court to compel performance of a particular act by lower
court or a governmental officer or body, to correct a prior action or failure to act.” It is
used for enforcement of various rights of the public or to compel the public statutory
authorities to discharge their duties and to act within the bounds. It may be used to do
justice when there is wrongful exercise of power or a refusal to perform duties.
 The rule of Locus Standi: is strictly followed in while issuing writ of mandamus. The
petitioner has to prove that he has a right to enforce public duty in his favour. The
mandamus is “neither a writ of course nor a writ of right but that it will be granted if the
duty is in nature of public duty and it especially affects the right of an individual, provided
there is no more appropriate remedy.”
The necessary conditions for the issue of the writ of mandamus are:
1. Error of jurisdiction = Lack of jurisdiction/ Excess of jurisdiction.
2. Jurisdictional facts
3. Violation of the principles of natural justice = Principles of Rule against bias and Rule
Of Audi alterum partem
4. Error of law apparent on the face of record –
5. Abuse of jurisdiction. –
* Conditions for Issue of Writ of Mandamus
1. Their ought to be a legal right of the applicant for the performance of the legal duty.
2. The nature of the duty must be public. In The Praga Tools Corporation v. C.V. Imanual, and
Sohanlal v. Union of India,the Supreme Court stated that mandamus might under certain
circumstances lie against a private individual if it is established that he has colluded with a
public authority.
3. On the date of the petition, the right which is sought to be enforced must be subsisting.
4. The writ of Mandamus is not issued for anticipatory injury. But Anybody who is likely to be
affected by the order of a public officer is entitled to bring an application for mandamus if
the officer acts in contravention of his statutory duty
* Exceptions & Limitations (Mandamus)
In India, mandamus will lie not only against officers who are bound to do a public duty but
also against the Government itself as Article 226 and 361 provided that appropriate
proceedings may be brought against the Government concerned.
Further, Mandamus will not be granted against the following persons:
1. The President or the Governor of a State, for the exercise and performance of the powers
and duties of his Office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise
and performance of those powers and duties. In India, it will not lie upon the President and
the Governor of a State in their personal capacities.
2. Mandamus does not lie against a private individual or body whether incorporated or not
except where the State is in collusion with such private party, in the matter of contravention
of any provision of the Constitution or a Statute or a Statutory Instrument.
3. It will not lie against the State legislature to prevent from considering enacting a law
alleged to be violative of constitutional provisions.
4. It will not lie against an inferior or ministerial officer who is bound to obey the orders of
his superiors.
* Inferior Courts: This writ is also available against inferior Courts or other Judicial bodies
when they have refused to exercise their jurisdiction and thus to perform their duty.
* Alternate Remedy: Mandamus is not refused on the ground that there is an adequate
alternative remedy where the petitioner complains that his fundamental right is infringed. In
Rashid Ahmad v. Municipal Board , it was held that in relation to Fundamental Rights the
availability of alternative remedy cannot be an absolute bar for the issue of writ though the
fact may be taken into consideration.
Hence the writ of mandamus is to protect the interest of the public from the powers given
to them to affect the rights and liabilities of the people. This writ makes sure that the power
or the duties are not misused by the executive or administration and are duly fulfilled. It
safeguards the public from the misuse of authority by the administrative bodies. Thus, Writ
of Mandamus is a general remedy whenever justice has been denied to any person.
Landmark Cases for Writ of Mandamus
 The courts are unwilling to issue writ of mandamus against high dignitaries like the
President and the Governors. In the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, judges were of
the view that writ cannot be issued against the President of India for fixing the number of
judges in High Courts and filling vacancies.
 In C.G. Govindan v. State of Gujarat, it was refused by the court to issue the writ of
mandamus against the governor to approve the fixation of salaries of the court staff by
the Chief Justice of High Court under Article 229. Hence, it is submitted that the Governor
or the President means the state or the Union and therefore issuance of mandamus
cannot take place.
Prohibition
 Meaning: A writ of prohibition, also known as a ‘stay order’, is issued to a lower court or
a body to stop acting beyond its powers.
 The Purpose: The basic purpose is to secure that the jurisdiction of an inferior court or
tribunal is properly exercised and that it does not usurp the jurisdiction which it does not
possess. Thus, writ of prohibition is available during the pendency of the proceedings and
before the order is made.
 The Principle: Prohibition is a writ of preventive nature. The principle of this is ‘Prevention
is better than cure’.
* The writ of prohibition can be issued on the following grounds:
1. Absence or Excess of jurisdiction
2. Violation of the principles of natural justice
3. Unconstitutionality of a Statute
4. Infraction of Fundamental Rights.
Landmark Case Laws for Writ of Prohibition
 In the case of East India Commercial Co. Ltd v. Collector of Customs a writ of prohibition
was passed directing an inferior Tribunal prohibiting it from continuing with the
proceeding on the ground that the proceeding is without or in excess of jurisdiction or in
contradiction with the laws of the land, statutes or otherwise.
 Also, it was held in the case of Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd , the Supreme Court pointed out
that where an inferior tribunal is shown to have seized jurisdiction which does not belong
to it than that consideration is irrelevant and the writ of Prohibition has to be issued as a
right.
Certiorari
Meaning: The writ of certiorari issued to quash a decision after the decision is taken by a
lower tribunal while prohibition is issuable before the proceedings are completed. The law
has always been, that a writ of certiorari is issued against the acts or proceedings of a judicial
or quasi-judicial body conferred with power to determine question affecting the rights of
subjects and obliged to act judicially.
The Purpose: of the writ of certiorari is not only negative in the sense that it is used to quash
an action but it contains affirmative action as well. It is preventive as well as curative in
nature. The power of judicial review is not restricted where glaring injustice demands
affirmative action.
Ways in Which a Writ of Certiorari is Issued?
Certiorari is not issued against purely administrative or ministerial orders and that it can only
be issued against judicial or quasi-judicial orders.
1. Either without any jurisdiction or in excess
2. In violation of the principles of Natural Justice.
3. In opposition to the procedure established by law.
4. If there is an error in judgement on the face of it
The conditions necessary for the issue of the writ of certiorari are:
1. Anybody of persons.
2. Having legal authority
3. To determine questions affecting the rights of subjects
4. Having the duty to act judicially.
5. Act in excess of legal authority
The grounds on which the writ of certiorari may be issued are:
1. Error of Jurisdiction Lack of jurisdiction.
2. Excess of jurisdiction. a) Abuse of jurisdiction.
b) Error of law apparent on the face of the record.
c) Violation of principles of natural justice.
Landmark Cases On Writ of Certiorari
 In Naresh S. Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra , it was said that High Court’s judicial orders
are open to being corrected by certiorari and that writ is not available against the High
Court.
 In the case of T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa & Anr., it was held by the constitution bench
that certiorari maybe and is generally granted when a court has acted (i) without
jurisdiction or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction.
 In Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & Ors., the Supreme Court has explained the
meaning, ambit and scope of the writ of Certiorari. It was held that Certiorari is always
available against inferior courts and not against equal or higher court.
 In A.K. Kripak v. Union of India, it was held that the Supreme Court should issue the writ
of certiorari to quash the selection list of the Indian Forest Service on the ground that one
of the selected candidates was the ex-officio member of the selection committee.
Quo Warranto
 Meaning: The writ of Quo Warranto (by what warrant) is issued to inquire about the
legality of a claim by a person or authority to act in a public office, which he or she is not
entitled to. The writ of Quo Warranto is a mode of judicial control in the sense that the
proceedings review the actions of the administrative authority which appointed the
person.
The writ is issued to the person ousting him from holding a public post to which he has no
right. It is used to try the civil right to a public post. Accordingly, the use of the writ is made
in cases of usurpation of a public office and removal of such usurper. Conversely, it protects
citizen from being deprived of public office to which he may have a right. A petition for the
writ of Quo Warranto can be filed by any person though he is not an aggrieved person.
The conditions necessary for the issue of a writ of Quo Warranto are:
1. The office must be public and it must be created by a statute or by the constitution itself.
In the case of Jamalpur Arya Samaj v. Dr D. Ram , the writ was denied on the ground that writ
of quo warranto cannot lie against an office of a private nature. And also, it is necessary that
office must be of substantive character.
2. The office must be a substantive one and not merely the function or employment of a
servant at the will and during the pleasure of another.
3. There has been a contravention of the Constitution or a statute or statutory instrument,
in appointing such person to that office.
4. The claim should be asserted on the office by the public servant i.e. respondent.
The court issues the Writ of Quo Warranto in the following cases:
1. When the public office is in question and it is of a substantive nature. A petition against a
private corporation cannot be filed.
2. The office is created by the State or the Constitution.
Conclusion
In the hands of the Supreme Court PIL in India has taken a multidimensional character. The
deep-rooted ill-disposed framework has been given a pass by. With the coming of legal
activism, letters, paper reports, dissensions by open lively people, social activity bunches
conveying to the notice of the Court in regards to infringement of major rights were managed
regarding them as writ petitions and the alleviation of pay was additionally allowed through
writ jurisdiction.
Article 32 gave to the subjects are the incredible powers with prompt impact. Furthermore,
the writs are generally summoned against the state and are issued when PILs are recorded.
The Writ Jurisdictions which are presented by the Constitution, however, have privilege
controls and are optional in nature but then they are unbounded in its breaking points. The
carefulness, in any case, is practiced on legitimate standards.
Hence, obviously immense forces are vested with the Judiciary to control a managerial
activity when it encroaches fundamental privileges of the subjects or when it goes past the
soul of Grundnorm of our nation i.e Constitution of India. It guarantees the Rule of Law and
appropriate check and equalizations between the three organs of our vote-based framework.
The rationality of writs is very much synchronized in our Constitutional arrangements to
guarantee that privileges of nationals are not smothered by a self-assertive authoritative or
Judicial activity.
9.Traffic in human beings includes traffic in women and children for immoral or other
purposes ,Do you agree? Critically examine the scope and limit of freedom of Religion as
guaranteed by the constitution of india.
Introduction
India is the largest democracy in the world today. This track of progress and development
has a great struggle concealed behind it. India has been a victim of slavery since centuries
altogether. It took several centuries to get India free from slavery and finally after the
enactment of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, slavery was completely abolished in India. The
framers of the Indian Constitution through Article 23 and 24 expunged such practices. The
Constitution of India guarantees liberty and dignity to every individual, hence, leaving no
scope for exploitation, slavery and ill-treatment.
Exploitation means the misuse of services rendered by others with the help of force. The
practice of exploitation violates the basic concept of the Indian Constitution, the Preamble
and opposes the Directive Principle of State Policy given under Article 39 of the Indian
Constitution which stimulates economic equality among the individuals.
Article 23- Prohibition of ‘Traffic in Human Beings’ and Forced Labour
Article 23 of the Indian Constitution expressly prohibits human trafficking, forced labour and
other similar activities. It also states that any violation of this provision will be considered as
an offence and the person acting in contravention of the law will be penalized in accordance
with the law.
Features of Article 23
It has certain features which every individual should be aware of –
 Right against exploitation is prescribed as a fundamental right of the individuals under
Article 23 of the Indian Constitution.
 It protects both the citizens and the non-citizens against exploitation.
 It protects individuals against the State as well as private citizens.
 Article 35 authorises Parliament to make laws for punishing the acts which are prohibited
under Article 23.
This article imposes a positive obligation on the State to abolish immoral practices of
exploitation like human trafficking and other forms of forced labour.
Practices prohibited by Article 23
Article 23 explicitly prohibits the following discussed practices:
 Begar: This is a form of forced labour which means involuntary work without any
remuneration. In other words, it can be said that a person is compelled to work against
his will without being paid for it.
 Bonded Labour/ Debt Bondage: Article 23 prohibits bonded labour as it is a form of forced
labour as per this article. This is a practice under which a person is forced to work to pay
off his debt. The money they get is very little and the work they do gets doubled. Often
these debts get passed over to the next generations. Hence, it is known as a form of
forced labour.
 Human trafficking: It means selling and buying of a human being like goods and includes
immoral trafficking of women and children. Although, slavery is not expressly mentioned
under Article 23 but it is included within the meaning of ‘traffic in human beings’. In
pursuance of Article 23, Parliament has passed the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in
Women and Girls Act, 1956, for punishing human trafficking.
 Other forms of forced labour: Any other practice which comes under Article 23 is also
prohibited by this Article.
An Exception to Article 23
Under clause (2) of Article 23, the State is allowed to impose compulsory services for public
purposes like national defence, removal of illiteracy and other public utility services
(electricity, water, air and rail services, postal services, etc.) provided that in making any such
service compulsory for public purposes, the State, however, cannot make discrimination on
the basis of religion, race, caste or class or any of them.
Landmark Judgments
Some of the important cases pertaining to Article 23 are briefly discussed as follows –
 In the case of People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India[1], the Supreme
Court interpreted the ambit of Article 23. Bhagwati J. held as follows-
“The scope of Article 23 is vast and unlimited. It is not merely ‘begar’ which is prohibited
under this Article. This Article strikes at forced labour in whichever form it may exist as it
violates human dignity and opposes the basic human values. Hence, every form of forced
labour is prohibited by Article 23 without considering whether forced labour is being paid or
not. Also, no person shall be forced to provide labour or services against his will even if it is
mentioned under a contract of service. The word ‘force’ has a very wide meaning under
Article 23. It not only includes physical or legal force but also recognizes economic
circumstances which compel a person to work against his will on less than minimum wage. It
was directed by the court to Government to take necessary steps punishing the violation of
the fundamental rights of the citizens guaranteed under Article 23 by private individuals.”
In Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan, the State employed people for certain work under the
Famine Relief Act. The people were badly hit by famine, thus the State employed them.
However, these people were paid even below the minimum wages on the ground that the
money is given to help them in meeting the famine situation. Bhagwati J. held that-
“The payment of wages lower than the minimum wage to a person employed in Famine Relief
Work is violative under Article 23. The State is not allowed to take undue advantage of the
helplessness of such people with an excuse of helping them to meet the situation of famine
or drought.”
 In Deena v. Union of India, it was held by Chandarchud C. J. that-
“The labours taken from the prisoners without paying remuneration was ‘forced labour’ and
violative of Article 23 of the Constitution. The prisoners are entitled to payment of reasonable
wages for the work taken from them and the Court is under a duty to enforce their claim.”
Article 24- Prohibition of Employment of children in factories, etc.
Article 24 of the Indian Constitution prohibits the employment of children below the age of
14 years in factories, mines or any other hazardous employment. This Article is for the
welfare of the children and ensures a safe and healthy life of children. Article 39 of the Indian
Constitution imposes an obligation on the State to ensure the health and strength of the
workers, men and women and children are not abused and forced by economic necessity to
get engaged in hazardous activities which do not suit their age or strength.
Children are the future of a nation. It is the duty of every nation to make sure that the future
is bright by providing good food, education and health to the children of the country so that
they can become strong enough to do something good in their life which will ultimately
contribute to the progress and development of the nation. That is why Article 24 is read with
Art. 39(e) and Art. 39(f).
However, this Article does not prohibit the employment of children in innocent and harmless
jobs or work like working in agricultural fields, grocery shop, etc.
Features of Article 24
 This Article prohibits the employment of children below 14 years of age in hazardous
work.
 This Article is read with Article 39(e) and (f).
 It ensures safety and healthy life of children.
 It imposes a duty on the State to ensure that children are not abused and forced to work
in harmful places because of financial problems through Article 39.
 It doesn’t prohibit the employment of children in harmless work.
Landmark Judgments
Following are some of the case laws with respect to Article 24 –
 In People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, some people including few
children below the age of 14 were employed in the construction work of the Asiad Project
in Delhi. It was contended that the Employment of Children Act, 1938 was not applicable
 in the case of children employed in construction work since construction industries were
not specified in the schedule of the Children Act. Bhagwati J. held that-
“The contention given by the Government is not at all acceptable. The construction work is
hazardous employment and therefore, the children below 14 years must not be employed in
the construction work even if the construction work is not specifically mentioned under the
schedule of the Employment of Children Act, 1938. The State Government is advised to take
immediate necessary steps in order to include the construction work in the schedule of the
Act and to ensure that Article 24 is not violated on any part of the country.”
 In the case of M. C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu, a public lawyer M. C. Mehta filed a PIL
under Article 32 and informed the court about how the children are engaged in Sivakasi
Cracker Factories. Although the Constitution prohibits exploitation and employment of
children under Article 24, it also directs the State to provide free and compulsory
education to them under Article 41 and still there exists a large number of children
working in hazardous places. Despite the Constitutional provisions and various
enactments passed by many State Governments prohibiting child labour, the issue of child
labour has remained unsolved and is becoming a menace to society day by day. It was
held by Hansaria J. that-
“The children below 14 years cannot be employed in hazardous activities and state must lay
down certain guidelines in order to prevent social, economic and humanitarian rights of such
children working illegally in public and private sector. Also, it is violative of Article 24 and it is
the duty of the state to ensure free and compulsory education to them. It was further
directed to establish Child Labour Rehabilitation Welfare Fund and to pay compensation of
Rs. 20,000 to each child.”
Legislations for Protection of Child Rights
To accomplish the obligations carried by Article 24 and in certain international instruments
like the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child , the Parliament of India enacted some acts
for the welfare and prosperity of children.
 The Employment of Children Act, 1938: This Act prohibits the employment of children
below the age of 14 in the railways and other means of transport.
 The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986: This Act prohibits the
engagement of children in certain employments and regulates the condition of
employment of children where they are not prohibited to work.
 The Mines Act, 1952: This Act explicitly mentions that a person working in the mine should
not be less than 18 years. Thus, prohibiting employment of children in mines.
 The Factories Act, 1948: It prohibits the employment of children below 14 years in
factories. This Act prescribes certain restrictions and proper procedure for employing
children above the age of 14 years.
 The Plantation Labour Act, 1951: This Act fixes the minimum age of employment as 12
years and further lays down provision for periodical fitness checkup for children above 12
years who are employed.
 The Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961: This Act prohibits the employment of children
under the age of 15 years in the motor transport sector.
 The Apprentices Act, 1961: This Act prohibits the children below 14 years to undergo
apprenticeship training.
 The Beedi and Cigar Workers (Condition of Employment) Act, 1966: It prohibits the
employment of children below 14 years of age in any industrial premises manufacturing
bidis and cigars.
In addition to these legislations, there are many committees and commissions established
across the country to look into the matter of child labour. Moreover, many NGOs are also
working for the welfare of the children. Numerous rehabilitation centres have been instituted
which are giving a new shape to the life of children who have been terribly exploited because
of child labour.
India being a member of the United Nations, has ratified many international conventions like
International Labour Organization Conventions in order to safeguard the rights of the child.
Establishment of NCPCR
The National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) is an Indian Government
Commission established in 2007 under the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act,
2005. The objective of this statutory body is to ensure all the laws, policies, programmes and
administrative mechanisms are in accordance with the provisions of child rights enshrined
under the Indian Constitution and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This
commission is installed at both the Centre and the State levels. It also works for speedy trials
of the Children’s Court in case of offences against them or any violation of the child’s right.
Conclusion
Since the genesis of civilization, the stronger has dominated and exploited the weaker. In
such a scenario, it is the need of the hour to protect the weaker from such exploitation and
provide them with equal opportunities in every field to empower themselves. Moreover,
child labour is a crime which is prevailing in the society as a malediction. It is an obstacle
hindering the development and growth of the country. Healthy children lead to the bright
future of a country. Child labour is blemishing, vandalizing and devastating the future of the
children and eventually proves to be a curb in the progress of the country. Hence, proper
implementation of the laws is an absolute necessity.
10. State the Interrelationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of state
Policy .
Introduction
The constitution of India is considered as the longest written constitution of any sovereign
nation in the world. At its birth, it had 395 articles in 22 parts and 8 Schedules and it currently
has a Preamble, 25 Parts with 12 schedules, 5 appendices, 101 amendment and 448 articles.
January 26 is celebrated as the Republic Day every year. The importance of the Constitution
was given effect after 67 years and later on, it was amended 101 times also.
What are Fundamental Rights and DPSP?
Fundamental rights and DPSP as cherished in the Constitution of India together comprises
the human rights of an individual. The Constitution expresses fundamental rights as an idea
which appeared in India in 1928 itself. The Motilal Committee Report of 1928 clearly shows
inalienable rights derived from the Bill of Rights enshrined in the American Constitution to
be given to the individual. These rights were preserved in Part III of the Indian Constitution.
of India.
Fundamental rights are also known as Inherent rights because they are inherent to every
person by birth. These are the rights which provide an individual with some basic rights for
the purpose of survival. No discrimination is made on the basis of religion, caste, race etc.
and if any person feels so that his fundamental rights are being infringed then he can surely
approach to court for the violation of his rights.
There are six fundamental right mentioned under the Constitution of India
 Right to equality
 Right to freedom
 Right to freedom of religion
 Right against exploitation
 Cultural and educational rights
 Rights to constitutional remedies
Right to Equality
Freedom Law is supreme in nature and everyone is equal before the law and equal treatment
should be given to everyone. No discrimination should be done on the basis of race, caste,
creed or gender. An equal amount of opportunity should be given to every individual in the
field of employment. Abolition of untouchability and titles.
Right to Freedom
Every individual has the right to freedom to form an association, peacefully assemble, to
travel or move freely reside and settle at any location and to go or opt for any profession
throughout the territory of India. Right to education, life, liberty and dignity also fall under
this right, protection in respect of arrest and detention and conviction of an offence.
Right against Exploitation
Prohibition of Child labour and Human trafficking and forced labour is a result of this right.
Right to Freedom of religion
This right provides us with the freedom to follow any religion without any question mark and
freedom to attend any religious ceremony at a religious institution or education centre and
pay tax for the promotion of religion. Nobody can force any individual who is not interested
in paying any kind of tax for religious purposes.
Cultural and educational Right
It provides protection to different languages and varieties of culture present in India. It also
protects the rights and culture of minorities. Establishing educational institutions and
primary education to every child below the age of 14 years comes under this head.
Rights to seek Constitutional remedies
An individual has the right to move in any court of law if they feel fundamental rights are
being violated. Our constitution consists of 5 writs. Here writs mean the “Order of court”. If
only fundamental rights are violated then the individual can directly approach to Supreme
Court of India. The writs are explained below:
1. Habeas corpus
2. Mandamus
3. Prohibition
4. Certiorari
5. Quo warranto
Habeas Corpus
It simply means to ‘Produce the body’. This writ is issued to produce a person who has been
detained and to present him before the court to release if such detention is illegal.
Mandamus
This means ‘We Command’. It is an order given by the Superior Court to the Inferior Court to
perform a public duty.
Prohibition
It is basically known as Stay order which prohibits from doing certain actions by the authority
where it has no jurisdiction to deal with the case.
Certiorari
This means ‘to be Certified’. This order can be issued by the Supreme Court for quashing the
order which is already passed by any inferior court, tribunal or authority.
Quo – warranto
It signifies by what authority? It is a writ issued to restrain a person from holding a public
office to which he is not entitled.
The concept of DPSP emerged from Article 45 of the Irish Constitution. DPSP imposes a duty
upon the state not only to protect and acknowledge the Fundamental right of the individual
but also to achieve Social-economic goals. DPSP was summarizing in Part IV of the Indian
Constitution of India.
Certain guidelines are present for the state authority to work upon them for the protection
of society. It mostly focuses on welfare and improvement of society altogether. As
fundamental rights are enforceable in a court of law, DPSP cannot be enforced for making
any rules, policy or guidelines.
Some of the examples of DPSP are:
1.Right to education
2.Maternity benefit
3.Uniform Civil code
4.Providing proper nutrition food
5.Providing adequate means of livelihood
However, it is already a controversial topic in the Constitution about the relationship of
Fundamental rights and DPSP, as there would be conflict in the interest of individual at a
micro level and benefit of the community at a macro level.
The central part of this controversy is the question person should have primacy in the case
of conflict between Chapter III and IV of the Constitution of India.
Relationship between Fundamental Rights and DPSP
Constitution of India is a Grundnorm all the law which are made must conform to the
constitution of India.
The difference between DPSP and FR are:
 Fundamental Rights DPSP

Limited scope. Scope of DPSP is limitless.

Protect the rights of the individual and Protect the rights of a citizen
work at a micro level. and work at a macro level.

If anybody feels that his rights are being DPSP are not enforceable by
violated can approach the court of law. law.

For better understanding about the conflict between DPSP and Fundamental Rights lets study
some of the important case laws and then we can decide what happens when a conflict arises
between both of them.
The first case we are going to study is about Golak Nath vs the State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1976
SCR (2) 762. Firstly, we will see what the Supreme Court has said and then we will discuss
what the parliamentary action was taken. In this case, S.C. said Fundamental rights cannot
be diluted, abridged, diminished, finish or taken away and then in response to it by bringing
Amendment Act of the Constitution and inserted Article 31 (C) in part III now what does
Article 31 (C) say:
By making a law under Article 39 (B) which talk about material resources of community and
Article 39 (C) discuss the operation for an economic system. They say that if any law is framed
with effect to DPSP and if it violates Article 14, 19 and 21 then the law should not declare
constitution as void merely on this ground.
In Champak Dorairajan vs. the State of Madras, the Supreme Court held that DPSP cannot
override the provisions of Part III of the Constitution of India i.e. the Fundamental Rights.
Now DPSP has to run subsidiary to the Fundamental rights and have to confirm them and this
was very important judgement the parliament responded by amending various fundamental
rights which were coming in conflict with DPSP.
So, now we will move to our next Case Kerala Education Bill where the Doctrine of
Harmonious Construction was introduced by the Supreme Court.
Now, what is the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction? It says that you need to constitute
the provision of the constitution in such a way that fundamental rights and DPSP go hand in
hand so this was there to avoid the situation of conflict while enforcing DPSP and
Fundamental rights. So you should construe each and every provision of the constitution is
such a way so they work harmoniously.
Now as per this doctrine the court held that if no inherent power is present then no conflict
will arise but if any conflict comes in force just because the court is trying to interpret a
particular law so they should attempt to give effect to both as far as possible.
So to connect them together by doing something without doing any kind of amendment.
After all the efforts to make everything look balanced if any interpretation is done then the
court has to implement Fundamental rights over DPSP.
In the case of Kesavananda Bharathi, 1973 Supreme Court held that Parliament can amend
any part of the Constitution but without destroying the basic structure of the constitution.
Now, the second clause of Article 31 (C), as we have read earlier, was declared
unconstitutional and void because that was against the basic structure. However, the first
clause of Article 31 (C) was said to be valid. In response, the parliament brought the 42nd
Amendment Act, 1976 and extended the scope of the above provisions of Article 31 (C).
Now in the case of Pathumma vs. the State of Kerala, 1978, the Supreme Court emphasised
on the purpose of DPSP that is to fix some social- economic goals. The constitution aims at
bringing about a combination between DPSP and Fundamental rights which is reflected in
several other cases as well.
In Minerva Mills Case, the Court held that the law under Article 31 (C) would be protected
only if it is made to implement the directive in Article 39 (b) and (c) and not in any other
DPSP. Earlier protection was given to all the DPSP but after this case, it becomes restrictions
and was declared that if protection is given to all DPSP it will be declared as void and
unconstitutional in nature.
In State of Kerala vs. N.M.Thomas, 1976, the Supreme Court said that Fundamental rights
and DPSP should be built in such a way to be with each other and every effort should be
taken by the court to resolve the dispute between them.
In Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985, the Supreme Court has submitted that
DPSP are fundamental in the governance of the country so equal importance should be given
to meaning and concept of fundamental rights
In Dalmia Cement vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court said that Fundamental rights and
DPSP are supplementary and complementary to each other and the preamble to the
constitution which gives an introduction, fundamental rights, DPSP are conscience of the
Constitution.
In Ashok Kumar Thakur Vs. Union of India, 2008, the Supreme Court said that no difference
can be made between the 2 sets of rights. Fundamental rights deal with Civil and political
rights whereas DPSP deals with social and economic rights. DPSP are not enforceable in a
court of law doesn’t mean it is subordinate.
So basically, in all these cases, what they are trying to explain is that Fundamental rights and
DPSP go together. Neither of them is supreme to each other.
Government has done several acts for the implementation purpose like panchayat were
established by 73rd amendment, Nagar Palika under Article 41, compulsory education to
every child who is below the age of 14 years and it was made Fundamental rights, to protect
monuments of national importance now this right was converted into a law that is Ancient
and Historical Monuments and Archaeological sites and remains (Declaration of National
Importance) Act, 1951.
Conclusion
It can be concluded by saying that the basic feature of the constitution is to maintain
harmony between fundamental rights and DPSP. They are complementary and
supplementary to each other. The theme of fundamental rights must be made in light to
DPSP.
11.Discuss the nature and essential character of Directive Principles of state Policy
reference to relevant constitutional Provisions.
Directive Principles of State Policy: Meaning
The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) has been taken from the Irish constitution and
enumerated in Part IV of the Indian Constitution.
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 IV of the Indian Constitution
Part 4 of the Indian Constitution consists of all the DPSP (Directive Principles of State Policy).
It covers the Articles from 36 to 51.
Article 36 of Part IV defines the term “State” as the one, who has to keep in mind all the DPSP
before formulating any policy or law for the country. The definition of “State” in the part IV
will be the same as that of Part III, unless the context otherwise requires a change in it. In
Article 37 the nature of DPSP has been defined. DPSPs are non-justiciable.
Article 38 to 51 contains all the different DPSP’s.
History
 The source of the concept of DPSP is the Spanish Constitution from which it came in the
Irish Constitution. The makers of the Indian Constitution were very much influenced by
the Irish nationalist movement and borrowed this concept of DPSP from the Irish
Constitution in 1937.
 The Government of India Act also had some instructions related to this concept which
became an important source of DPSP at that time.
 The Directive Principles of the Constitution of India have been greatly influenced by the
Directive Principles of Social Policy.
 The Indians who were fighting for the independence of India from the British rule were
greatly influenced by the movements and independence struggles of Ireland at that time,
to free themselves from the British rule and move towards the development of their
constitution.
 DPSP become an inspiration for independent India’s government to tackle social,
economic and various other challenges across a diverse nation like India.
 DPSP and fundamental rights have a common origin. The Nehru Report of 1928 contained
the Swaraj Constitution of India which contained some of the fundamental rights and
some other rights such as the right to education which were not enforceable at that time.
 Sapru Report of 1945 divided fundamental rights into justifiable and non-justifiable rights.
 Justifiable rights, the one which was enforceable in a court of law and included in Part III
of the Constitution. On the other hand, Non-justifiable rights were listed as directive
principles, which are just there to guide the state to work on the lines for making India a
welfare state. They were included in part IV of the Constitution of India as Directive
Principles of State Policy.
 The Constituent Assembly was given the task of making a constitution for India. The
assembly composed of elected representatives and Dr. Rajendra Prasad was elected as its
President.
 Both the Fundamental Rights and the DPSP were enlisted in all the drafts of the
constitution (I, II and III) prepared by the Drafting Committee whose chairman was Dr.
B.R. Ambedkar.
Sources
 The DPSP of the Indian Constitution was inspired by the Irish Constitution which took
these details from Spain.
 Some Instruments of Instructions, which also became the immediate source of DPSP, have
been taken from the Government of India Act, 1935.
 Another source was the Sapru Report, 1945 which gave us both Fundamental Rights
(justiciable) and DPSP(s) (non-justiciable).
Reflection of Preamble
The Preamble is a brief introduction to the constitution and it contains all the objectives
which were there in the mind of the drafters of the Indian Constitution.
According to some scholars, DPSP is ‘the kernel of the Indian Constitution’.
The Directive Principles of the State Policy (DPSP) are the guidelines for the state which it
must consider while formulating new laws and policies and it lay down all the objectives
which the Constitution seeks to achieve.
The expression “Justice – Social, economic and political” that is mentioned in the preamble
is the ultimate aim that has to be achieved through the formulation of the DPSP.
DPSP are enlisted to attain this ultimate aim as mentioned in the preamble i.e. Justice,
Liberty, Equality and fraternity are also known as the four pillars of the Indian Constitution.
It also enlists the idea of the welfare state which was absent under the colonial rule.
Features
 DPSP are not enforceable in a court of law.
 They were made non-justifiable considering that the State may not have enough
resources to implement all of them or it may even come up with some better and
progressive laws.
 It consists of all the ideals which the State should follow and keep in mind while
formulating policies and enacting laws for the country.
 The DPSPs are like a collection of instructions and directions, which were issued under the
Government of India Act, 1935, to the Governors of the colonies of India.
 It constitutes a very comprehensive economic, social and political guidelines or principles
and tips for a modern democratic State that aimed towards inculcating the ideals of
justice, liberty, equality and fraternity as given in the preamble. The Preamble consists of
all the objectives that needs to be achieved through the Constitution.
 Adding DPSP was all about creating a “welfare state” which works for the individuals of
the country which was absent during the colonial era.
List of Directive Principles of State Policy
Article What it says
36 Defines the “state”.
37 Part IV of the Indian Constitution shall not be enforceable in any court of law.
38 Social, Political and Economic Justice.
39 Principles of Policy.
39A Free Legal aid.
40 Organization of Panchayats.
41 Welfare Government.
42 Securing just and humane work and maternity relief.
43 Fair wages and a decent standard of life.
43-A Workers’ participation in management.
43-B Promotion of Cooperatives.
44 Uniform Civil Code.
45 Infant and Child Care.
46 Protection of SCs, STs and other weaker sections from exploitation.
47 Nutrition, Standard of living and public health.
48 Scientific agriculture and animal husbandry.
48-A Environment and Wildlife Protection.
49 Protection of monuments and places and objects which have national importance.
50 Judiciary should be separate from the Executive.
51 The state shall promote international peace and security.
Article 36
 Article 36 contains the definition of State.
 Unless the context otherwise requires, the definition of “the State” is the same as it is
given in Part III which covers Fundamental Rights.
 The definition given in Article 12 shall apply in this part as well which says that the State
includes:
1.The Government of India
2.The Parliament of India
3.The Government of each of the States
4.The Legislature of each of the States
5.All the authorities whether local or any other which are the part of Indian territory or
under the control of the government.
Article 37
Article 37 mentions the two important characteristics of DPSP, and they are:
 It is not enforceable in any court of Law.
 And they are very basic and essential for the governance of the country.
The provisions mentioned in this part shall not be enforceable in any court and the principles
laid down in this part are fundamental for the governance of the country. The State must
make laws according to it because the ultimate aim of the State is the welfare of its citizens.
Socialist principles
 These principles follow the ideology of “Socialism” and lay down the framework of India.
 Its ultimate aim is to provide social and economic justice to all its citizens so that the state
can fulfil the criteria required for a welfare state.
 The articles in DPSP which follows the socialist principles are – Article 38, Article 39, Article
39 A, Article 41, Article 42, Article 43, Article 43 A and Article 47.
Article 38
 Article 38 talks about Social, Political and Economic Justice.
 It directs that the State should secure a social order which provides social, political and
economic justice to all its citizens.
 Article 38(2) says that state shall reduce the inequalities faced by the people on the
grounds like income, status, facilities, opportunities, etc.
Article 39
 Article 39 mentions all the Principles of policy which must be followed by the State.
The State shall make its policies towards securing the following objectives—
 All the men, women and citizens should have the right to an adequate means of livelihood
 The ownership and control of the people over any material resources under the
community should be distributed as it is for the common good of the public;
 The functioning of the economic system should be such that the concentration of wealth
and the means of production don’t result in a loss common to all or which causes
detriment to the citizens;
 There shall be no gender discrimination, both men and women should get equal pay for
equal work.
 The health and strength possessed by any worker, men and women, and the tender age
of children should not be abused and the citizens should not be forced to enter and
indulge into any occupation or profession which is not suitable for their age or strength,
not even out of any financial necessity or economic backwardness
 Children must be given enough opportunities and facilities so that they develop in a
healthy manner and in such conditions where their freedom and dignity, including the fact
that their childhood and youth remain protected, against any form of exploitation and
against any sort of moral and material abandonment.
Article 39A
 Article 39A talks about Free Legal aid.
 It says that the State shall promote justice with the aim of administering Justice on the
basis of equal opportunity, and shall provide free legal aid through any suitable legislation
or schemes which State may think fit ,or, in any other way, so that it could ensure that
the opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen because of economic
backwardness or any other kind of disabilities.
Article 41
 Article 41 talks about Welfare Government.
 It says that state shall make some effective provisions for securing the right to work, etc.
and in cases of unemployment, old age, disablement or any other cases acting in its
economic capacity & development it shall provide public assistance. This article is
employed as a tenet for numerous social sector schemes like social assistance program,
right to food security, old-age pension scheme, MGNREGA, etc.
Article 42
 Article 42 talks about Securing just and humane work and maternity relief.
 It says that state shall create some provisions so that the citizens get easy, just and
humane conditions for working. It shall also provide maternity relief for the women.
Article 43
 Article 43 talks about Fair wages and a decent standard of life.
 It says that the state can endeavor to secure by appropriate legislation or economic
organization to all the workers employed in agricultural, industrial or otherwise, work, a
living wage, conditions of work, ensuring a decent standard of life and enjoyment of
leisure and social-cultural opportunities and promote cottage industries on an individual
or cooperative basis in rural and remote areas of the country.
Article 47
 Article 47 talks about Nutrition, Standard of living and public health.
 it says that the State shall look into the matter of raising the level of nutrition and the
standard of living of its people and it is the duty of the State to keep a check on the
improvement of public health. The State shall also endeavor to prohibit the consumption
of intoxicating drinks and drugs which are injurious for health, except for medicinal
purposes. There are many social development programmes such as National Health
Mission, Mid Day Meal Scheme, etc. which target the marginalized sections of the society
i.e. women, children, weaker sections etc. are inspired by this DPSP.
Gandhian Principles
 These principles reflect the programme of reconstruction ideology propagated by Gandhi
throughout the national movement. In order to fulfil his dreams, some of his concepts
have been included in the form of DPSP.
 They direct the State through these articles – Article 40, Article 43, Article 43 B, Article 46,
Article 47 and Article 48.
Article 40
 Article 40 deals with the Organization of Panchayats.
 It says that the state shall organize Panchayat system and should grant them such powers
which would be necessary for the functioning as units of the self-government system.
 The 73rd and 74th amendments of the constitution which are related to Panchayati Raj
and Municipal Corporations respectively, later ended up as the constitutionally backed
framework for the principle mentioned in Part IV.
Article 43
 Article 43 talks about Fair wages and a decent standard of life.
 It says that the state can endeavor to secure, by appropriate legislation or economic
organization, to all the workers employed in agricultural, industrial or otherwise, work, a
living wage, conditions of work, a decent standard of life and enjoyment of leisure &
social-cultural opportunities and promote cottage industries on an individual or
cooperative basis in rural and remote areas of the country.
Article 43B
 Article 43B deals with the promotion of cooperatives.
 It was inserted by the 97th amendment act in 2011. It says that state shall endeavor to
promote the management of the co-operative societies to help the people who are
engaged in the same.
Article 46
 Article 46 deals with the Protection of SCs, STs, weaker sections from exploitation.
 The State shall promote with special care including the educational and economic
interests of the weaker sections of the society i.e. the SCs and the STs and shall make
provisions to protect them from all forms of exploitation which includes social injustice.
Article 47
 Article 47 talks about Nutrition, Standard of living and public health.
 It says that the State shall look into the matter of raising the level of nutrition and the
standard of living of its people and it is the duty of the State to keep a check on the
 improvement of public health. The State shall endeavor to prohibit the consumption of
intoxicating drinks and drugs which are injurious to health except for medicinal purposes.
 There are many social development programmes such as National Health Mission, Mid
Day Meal Scheme, etc. which target the marginalized sections of the society i.e women,
children, weaker sections etc. are inspired by this DPSP.
Article 48
 Article 48 talks about Scientific agriculture and animal husbandry.
 It says that the State shall endeavor to organize agriculture and animal husbandry using
modern methods and scientific techniques which make people more advanced and helps
in earning their livelihood easily and State shall take some progressive steps for preserving
and improving the existing breeds and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and other cattle.
Liberal-intellectual Principles
 These principles follow the ‘Liberalism’ ideology.
 The articles which follow this approach in DPSP are – Article 44, Article 45, Article 48,
Article 48 A, Article 49, Article 50 and Article 51.
Article 44
 Article 44 talks about the Uniform Civil Code.
 There should be a provision for the citizens to secure a Uniform Civil Code throughout the
territory of India in order to simplify things and reduce ambiguity in the laws which makes
it more complex than it actually is.
Article 45
 Article 45 contains the Provision for free and compulsory education for the children in the
country.
 The State shall make laws to provide free and compulsory education for the children until
they are 14 years old within a period of 10 years from the date of commencement of this
provision in the Constitution.
 This provision was incorporated by the virtue of the 86th Amendment, 2002 in the
Constitution of India.
Article 48
 Article 48 talks about Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry.
 The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry using modern
and scientific technology which is prevalent in the present times and also take steps for
preserving and improving the existing breeds and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and
other cattle in the country for the development of agricultural related practices.
Article 48A
 Article 48A talks about the Environment and Wildlife Protection.
 The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and surroundings.
And to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country to make the environment
sustainable.
Article 49
 Article 49 talks about Protection of monuments and places and objects of national
importance.
 It shall be the duty of the State to protect every monument or place or any object of
historic or artistic interest which has some national importance, from any form of
disfigurement, destruction, etc.
Article 50
 Article 50 talks about Separation of Judiciary from the Executive.
 There should be a line between the judiciary and the executive body of the Government
in the public services of the State as it makes it easier if both do not interfere in each
other’s work and function independently.
Article 51
 Article 51 talks about Promotion of international peace and security.
 The State shall endeavour to —
1. Promote international peace and security;
2.maintain friendly and honourable relations between nations;
3.foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of one person
with another for maintaining harmony between the nations and
4.encourage settlement of international disputes by the method of arbitration.
42nd Amendment
Four Directive Principles which were added by the 42nd amendment are as follows:
 Article 39 – To secure opportunities for healthy development of children.
 Article 39A – It says that the State shall promote justice with the aim of administering it
on the basis of equal opportunity, and shall provide free legal aid through any suitable
legislation or the schemes which State may think fit or in any other way so that State can
ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen because of any
economic or other disabilities.
 Article 43A – The State shall take steps, by suitable legislation or in any other way, to
secure the participation of workers in the management of undertakings, establishments
or other organisations.
 Article 48A – The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and
surroundings and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country to make its
environment liveable.
44th Amendment
 The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 added Article 38(2) in the DPSP.
 Article 38(2) says that the state shall work to minimize the inequalities in income, and
endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, opportunities etc. not only amongst
individuals but also amongst all the groups of people residing in different areas or engaged
in different fields.
86th Amendment
 The 86th Amendment changed the subject of Article 45 in the DPSP and brought it within
the ambit of the fundamental rights mentioned in Part III as Article 21-A has been made
for the children between the age group of 6-14 years of age. The same article was
previously a directive principle which says that the State should take care of the children
who are below 6 years of age.
97th Amendment
 The 97th Amendment act of 2011 inserted Article 43-B in the list of DPSP. It says that the
State shall endeavour to promote voluntary formation, autonomous functioning,
democratic control and professional management of the co-operative societies.
Enforceability of DPSP
DPSP were not made enforceable by the Constituent Assembly which was formed to draft
the Indian Constitution. But the non-enforceability of the Principles does not mean that they
are of no importance.
There are some arguments which are in favor of its enforceability and some are against the
making of DPSP enforceable. Those who favor the enforcement of the Principles argue that
enforceability of DPSPs will keep a check on the Government and would unite India. For
instance, Article 44 of the Indian Constitution talks about the Uniform Civil Code which aims
for uniform provisions of civil law for all the citizens of the country irrespective of their caste,
creed, religion or beliefs.
People who are against the enforcement of the DPSPs are of the view that these principles
need not be separately enforced as there are already many laws which indirectly implements
the provisions mentioned in DPSP. For instance, Article 40 of the Constitution which deals
with Panchayati Raj system was introduced through a constitutional amendment, and it is
very evident that there are numerous panchayats exist in the country today.
Another argument against DPSP is that it imposes morals and values on the citizens of the
country. It should not be clubbed with the law as it is really important to grasp that law and
morals area unit various things. If we impose one on the opposite that will generally impede
the expansion and development of the society.
Importance of DPSP
DPSP covers the Articles 36-51 in Part IV of the constitution.
It mentions protection of women of the country, environmental conservation, rural growth
and development, decentralisation of power, uniform civil code, etc. which are considered
some of the essentials in making laws for a “welfare state”.
Although non-justiciable, they provide a set of guidelines for the Government for its
functioning in the country.
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.
 The Directive Principles constitute a manifesto of a Nation. These reflect the ideas and
views which were there in the mind of the drafters while drafting the constitution. These
reflected the philosophy behind the making of the Constitution and hence provide useful
information to the courts in interpreting the existing provisions in the Constitution and in
coming up with better laws and policies.
 The Directive Principles do not seem to be very rigid in their meanings and this helps the
State in interpreting and applying these principles in accordance with the situation
prevailing at a given time.
Thus, the inclusion of Part IV which contains the Directive Principles of State Policy proved to
be very useful for the country. The Directive Principles provide good foundations for welfare
state. The securing of Directive Principles helped in completing the requirements of a
democratic system. It supplemented the Fundamental Rights of the people and built a State
characterized by these four pillars – Justice, Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.
Implementation of Directive Principles of State Policy
There are some acts and policies from 1950 onwards which had been implemented to give
effect to these Directive Principles. They are as follows:
 The Minimum Wages Act (1948)
 Child Labour Prohibition and Regulation Act (1986)
 The Maternity Benefit Act (1961)
 Equal Remuneration Act (1976)
 Handloom Board, Handicrafts Board, Coir Board, Silk Board, etc. have been set up for the
development of cottage industries in the country.
 Integrated Rural Development Programme (1978)
 Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (1989)
 Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (1999)
 Sampoorna Gram Rozgar Yojana (2001)
 Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Programmes (2006)
 The National Forest Policy (1988)
 Article 21-A was inserted by the 86th amendment, making free education for children
below the age of 14 compulsory.
 Prevention of Atrocities Act safeguarding the interests of SCs and STs.
Conclusion
The significance of DPSPs cannot be looked down upon just because it is not enforceable in
any court of law. These principles were added to facilitate the governance and smooth
functioning of the country. It was added to meet the main objectives and the ultimate goal
of a country i.e to work for the welfare of its citizens. There are some important Acts in the
above-mentioned information, so we can’t say that DPSPs are not implemented and have no
importance at all.
It is like a structure given for the government and it should work and formulate new laws
revolving around that structure only so that the welfare of the people be ensured. Every
policy and law formulated by the state has to meet the standards which are mentioned in
Part IV of the Constitution.