Unit 2 Introduction to Fundamental Rights and Duties Structure of the Unit 24 2.2 23 24 2.5 2.6 27 28 2.9 2.10 241 2.42 2.13 2.41 Overview of Fundamental Rights and their significance in a Democratic society. Discussion on Fundamental Duties and their role in promoting civic responsibilities. Fundamental Rights (Article 12 - 32) Understanding the Concept of the State (Article 12). Exploring Judicial Review and its role (Article 13). In-depth analysis of Fundamental Rights, including equality, freedom, and protection against discrimination (Articles 14-19). Rights of Accused Persons and the right to a fair trial (Article 20). Right to Life and Personal Liberty, including landmark cases (Article 21). Constitutional Remedies and Directive Principles (Article 32, 36-51) Constitutional Remedies (Writs) and their significance (Article 32). Directive Principles of State Policy, understanding the socio-economic ives (Articles 36-51). The relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. object Fundamental Duties (article 514) and Landmark Cases Overview of Fundamental Rights and their significance in a Democratic society Fundamental Rights, enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution, constitute the cornerstone of indi dual liberties, providing safeguards against potential state excesses and upholding a democratic ethos. Meticulously crafted by the framers, these rights are intrinsic to maintaining the rule of law and fostering@ just society, Indian citizens are endowed with a set of fundamental rights that initially totaled seven. It is noteworthy that the Right to Property, once a fundamental right, has undergone a constitutional transformation, now recognized under Article 300 without retaining its status as a fundamental right. Key Features of Fundamental Rights: Fundamental Rights, being justiciable in nature, empower citizens to seek legal redress in case of infringements, reinforcing the constitutional commitment to the rule of law. The assurance of equality before the law, enshrined in Article 14, serves as the cornerstone, fostering a society devoid of discrimination and prejudice. The nuanced nature of these rights is evident in the provision allowing for the suspension of certain rights during a state of emergency, striking a delicate balance between individual freedoms and national exigencies. Categories of Fundamental Rights: Diverse categories of Fundamental Rights create a comprehensive framework. The Right to Equality, articulated in Articles 15 and 16, guards against discrimination. The expansive Right to Freedom (Articles 19-22) encompasses speech, expression, movement, and profession. Protection against exploitation (Articles 23-24) underscores the commitment to eradicate practices like forced labor. The Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-28) mirrors India’s secularism, ensuring liberty in matters of faith, Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29-30) safeguard minority interests, while the Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32) empowers citizens to seek legal remedies. Si cance in a Democratic Society: Fundamental Rights play a pivotal role in democratic societies by checking potential state overreach. They address social and economic inequalities, contributing to the pursuit of social justice. Dynamic judicial interpretation, as seen in landmark cases, underscores their adaptability. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India expanded the Right to Life, emphasizing personal autonomy. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala established the doctrine of the basic structure, ensuring coreconstitutional principles endure. Reflecting on the interconnectedness of economic security and political liberties, Jawaharlal Nehru aptly stated, "Without economic security and equality, there can be no political liberties." This succinctly captures the essence of India's democratic ideals. Transformation of Fundamental Rights: Historically, citizens enjoyed seven fundamental rights, with the Right to Property holding significance. However, recagnizing the evolving socio-economic landscape and the need for equitable distribution, the framers of the Constitution amended its status. The Right to Property is now a constitutional right under Article 300, reflecting a balance between individual property rights and the larger goals of socio- economic justice. Emergency and Suspension of Fundamental Rights: During a state of emergency, certain fundamental rights can be suspended ta address exceptional circumstances. However, it’s crucial to highlight that the right to life and personal liberty, guaranteed under Article 21, cannot be suspended even during an emergency. This underscores the paramount importance accorded to the protection of these rights, even in challenging times. Distinguishing Rights during Emergency: The suspension of specific fundamental rights during an emergency, as stipulated by Article 359, highlights the nuanced approach. While the Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32) remains suspended, signifying a temporary restriction on citizens’ ability to seek legal remedies directly from the Supreme Court, the right to life and personal liberty retains its inviolable status. This deliberate delineation aims to balance the exigencies of the situation with the preservation of core individual rights, underscoring the constitutional commitment to justice and fairness, even in times of crisis. Fundamental Rights emerge as sentinels of democratic values, embodying Principles of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. Beyond legal provisions, they are dynamic instruments for societal progress, adapting to the evolvingneeds of a nation committed to justice and equality, Landmark cases and constitutional articles provide the jurisprudential framework, ensuring that these rights not only endure but evolve in the pursuit of a just and equitable society. 2.2 Discussion on Fundamental Duties and their role in promoting Fundamental Dut s, entrenched in Part Iv-A of the Indian Constitution under Article 51A, stand as 2 vital dimension of citizenship. Positioned as moral imperatives, these duties serve as guiding principles, encouraging citizens to actively participate in nation-building and fostering the creation of a harmonious society. Overview of Fundamental Duties: While not legally enforceable, Fundamental Duties function as a moral compass, harmonizing the exercise of fundamental rights with @ sense of responsibility. Their inclusion in the Constitution aims to instill commitment and accountability among citizens. Respect for the Constitution: The duty to respect and uphold constitutional ideals emphasizes their pivotal role in shaping a just society. In the landmark case of Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (AIR 1973 SC 1461), the judiciary reaffirmed the duty to respect the Constitution's basic structure. Brotherhood and Unity: The duty to promote a spirit of brotherhood is ‘exemplified in the case of Bijae Emmanuel v, State of Kerala (1986 AIR 1765), where students were allowed not to sing the national anthem on religious grounds, highlighting the nuanced application of this duty. Safeguarding Public Property: The duty to protect public property finds Fesonance in legal actions against vandalism. During protests, this duty acts as a moral imperative to express dissent responsibly. Preserving the Environment: The case of M.C, Mehta v. Union of India (1987 SCR (1) 819) showcases the intersection of Fundamental Duties and environmental conservation, with the judiciary emphasizing the duty to2.3 protect the environment, Education of Children: In Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992 3 SCC 666), the court recognized the duty to educate children, underscoring its significance in realizing the right to education. Role in Promoting Civic Responsibilities: Fundamental Duties play a pivotal role in fostering civic responsibilities, cultivating a sense of belonging and accountability. The synergy between Fundamental Rights and Duties is evident, as seen in the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984 AIR 802), where the duty te abolish untouchability complemented the right to equality. Harmonizing Rights and Duties: Fundamental Duties complement Fundamental Rights, channelizing empowerment toward responsible actions. In the case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985 AIR 547), the court recognized the duty to preserve public property while emphasizing the right to livelihood. Fundamental Duties form the ethical fabric of citizenship, guiding individuals to contribute positively to society. Through their application in legal cases, these duties ensure a delicate balance between individual rights and collective progress, fostering a conscientious and responsible citizenry. Fundamental Rights (Article 12 - 32) Fundamental Rights, enshrined in Articles 12 to 21 of the Indian Constitution, serve as the cornerstone of individual liberties, establishing a robust framework for a democratic society. Derived from the principles of natural justice, these rights play a pivotal role in fostering equality, justice, and freedom for every citizen. The foundation of this protective framework can be traced back to Article 12, which defines the state, and Article 13, which outlines the mechanism for safeguarding these fundamental rights. 2.3.1 Understanding Fundamental Rights: Right to Equality (Article 14-18): The Right to Equality, articulated inArticles 14 to 18, ensures fairness before the law, prohibits discrimination, guarantees equal opportunity in public employment, abolishes untouchability, and restricts titles. The judiciary's commitment to uphalding equality is exemplified in cases like State of Punjab v. Hiralal Jitmal Sodhi (AIR 1961 SC 1602). Right to Freedom (Article 19-22): Articles 19 to 22 encompass the Right to Freedom, safeguarding crucial liberties such as freedom of speech, assembly, association, movement, residence, and profession, Legal milestones, including Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597), expanded the horizons of Article 21, linking the right to travel abroad with personal liberty. Right against Exploitation (Article 23-24): The Right against Exploitation, in Articles 23 and 24, prohibits human trafficking, forced labor, and the employment of children in factories. Cases like People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 1473) highlight judicial efforts to protect citizens from exploitation. Right to Freedom of Religion (Article 25-28); Articles 25 to 28 safeguard the Right to Freedom of Religion, ensuring freedom of conscience, the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion, and autonomy in managing religious affairs. The Shirur Mutt Case (1954 SCR 1005) clarified the protection of essential religious practices under Article 26, Cultural and Educational Rights (Article 29-30): Cultural and Educational Rights in Articles 29 and 30 protect minority interests, granting the right to establish and administer educational institutions. The case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (AIR 2003 SC 355) affirmed the autonomy Of minority educational institutions under Article 30. Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32): Article 32 bestows the Right to Constitutional Remedies, empowering citizens to seek enforcement of fundamental rights directly from the Supreme Court. Even during emergencies, the significance of Article 32 was underscored, notably in the2.4 A.D.M, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla (1976) case, though later overruled by Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597). In essence, the comprehensive protection of individual liberties outlined in Articles 12 to 32 establishes the foundation for 4 just and egalitarian society. These fundamental rights, evolving in response to societal needs as demonstrated through landmark cases, ensure the preservation of individual liberties and justice for all citizens. Understanding the Concept of the State (Article 12) Article 12 of the Indian Constitution acts as the foundation for identifying the entities responsible for upholding fundamental rights enshrined in Part IIT of the Constitution. This article provides a crucial definition of the term "State" within the context of these fundamental rights. A clear understanding of the scope of this definition is essential for ensuring the effective enforcement of these rights. The defin in of "State" under Article 12 encompasses a broad range of entities. It includes the central government, parliament, and all its administrative bodies. This has been further clarified by judicial pronouncements, like the one in R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, which established that bocies performing public functions are also considered part of the State. Similarly, the Parliament of India, comprising the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, is included within the definition of the State. This ensures that legislative actions are subject to judicial review, as exemplified in the case of A.R. Antulay v. B.S, Nayak. This serves as a safeguard against potential misuse of power. State governments, exercising independent authority within their jurisdictions, are also encompassed by Article 12. This has been affirmed through various court rulings, such as Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India. This inclusion ensures that fundamental rights are applicable against the actions of state governments as well.2.5 The term "local or other authorities" under Article 12 casts a wide net, encompassing entities at the grassroots level that exercise governmental functions. Municipal bodies, for instance, fall within this category, as established in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. State of Punjab. The scope of Article 12 has been further expanded through judicial interpretations. In University of Rajasthan v. Ishwar Singh, the court ruled that university authorities, even though not explicitly mentioned, could be considered State agencies if they perform public functions. However, there are challenges in determining whether certain bodies or entities qualify as part of the State under Article 12. The principle of “functional nexus,” as highlighted in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, emphasizes that the nature of the functions performed by a body is crucial in making such determinations. This angoing process of interpretation ensures that the definition of the State remains relevant and adaptable in the face of evalving circumstances. In essence, Article 12, by defining the State, ensures that the protective umbrella of fundamental rights extends to actions of various entities. The evolving interpretations by the judiciary continue to shape the contours of this definition, reaffirming the commitment to protect citizens’ rights from the actions of state and state-like entities. Exploring Ju jal Review and its role (Article 13) Article 13 of the Indian Constitution forms the cornerstone of judicial review, a powerful instrument that safeguards the Constitution's supremacy and the fundamental rights it guarantees. This section delves into the intricacies of judicial review, its significance, and landmark cases that have cemented its role in the Indian legal system. At its core, Article 13(1) acts as a clear constraint on the government's authority. Any law, irrespective of its form, that contradicts or undermines the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part IIL of the Constitution becomes void tothe extent of the infringement. The concept of "law" under Article 13 is deliberately expansive. It extends beyond just statutes to encompass ordinances, regulations, established customs, and even executive orders, This broad interpretation ensures that any state action, regardless of its form, can be subjected to judicial scrutiny if it potentially violates fundamental rights. Judicial review serves as an essential shield against potential legislative or executive overreach that could threaten individual liberties. The judiciary, armed with this power, ensures that all state actions camply with the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution. Article 13 reinforces the Constitution's position as the supreme law of the land. The landmark case of Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) established this principle unequivocally. The court declared that the Constitution reigns supreme, and any law that contradicts its provisions can be struck down. Landmark cases have played a crucial role in illustrating the application of judicial review. In Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), the court established a significant precedent by ruling that Parliament lacked the authority to curtail or abridge fundamental rights through amendments to the Constitution. This judgment was later superseded, but it marked a turning point understanding the boundaries of legislative power. The landmark case of Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) introduced the concept of the basic structure doctrine. While Parliament holds the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its core principles. The judiciary retains the authority to review amendments that transgress these fundamental tenets. This doctrine was further elaborated upon in Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) where the court emphasized the limitations of amending power and the importance of judicial review in safeguarding constitutional principles.It's important to recognize that judicial review is not without limitations. Article 13(2) clarifies that the state's actions related to laws for acquiring property or estates are exempt from judicial scrutiny. Article 13 stands as a formidable barrier against potential violations of fundamental rights, ensuring that the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land. Through judicial review, the judiciary acts as the guardian of the Constitution's supremacy, maintaining a delicate balance between state pawer and individual liberties. Landmark cases, with their intricate details and impactful judgments, have shaped the contours of this essential constitutional principle, solidifying the judiciary's role in upholding the foundational values enshrined in the Constitution. 2.6 In-depth analysis of Fundamental Rights, including equality, freedom, and protection against discrimination (Articles 14-19). Articles 14 to 19 of the Indian Constitution form the bedrock of Fundamental Rights, serving as the foundation for a just and equitable society. This section delves into each of these articles, exploring their significance, real-world implications, and the evolving judicial interpretations that shape their application. Article 14, the cornerstone of equality, guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws for all individuals. It prevents the state from arbitrarily discriminating against those in similar situations. The landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) exemplifies this principle. The court's expansive interpretation of "personal liberty” under Article 14 ensures fair and just procedures when individuals are deprived of their liberty, fostering equality in the application of law. Moving beyond formal equality, Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Tt promotes social equality by allowing affirmative action for disadvantaged groups. The case of M, R. Balajiv. State of Mysore (1963) underscores this concept. The court's upholding of reservations for backward classes highlights the importance of affirmative action in achieving substantive equality and redressing historical injustices. Article 16 emphasizes equality of opportunity in public employment, While ensuring merit, it allows reservations for socially and educationally backward classes, provided it doesn’t hinder administrative efficiency. The landmark Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) case, also known as the Mandal Commission case, exemplifies this delicate balance. The court upheld reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in public services, stressing the need to reconcile merit with affirmative action. Article 17 sti ikes a critical blow against social evils by abolishing untouchability and making it a punishable offense. This commitment to inclusivity is further strengthened by the case of State of Kerala v. N. M. Thomas (1976). The court emphasized the legal obligation to eliminate untouchability, recognizing the power of legislation to prevent its practice. Equality extends beyond titles as well. Article 18 prohibits the conferment of titles, ensuring a classless society where no citizen holds titles except military or academic distinctions. The case of Balaji Raghavan S. P. v. Union of India (1996) reinforces this notion. The court highlighted the importance of preventing an aristocratic class, promoting substantive equality where individuals are valued for their merits. Finally, Article 19 guarantees six fundamental freedoms, including freedom of speech and expression, assembly, association, movement, residence, and the right to practice any profession. The landmark case of Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950) established the broad contours of freedom of speech, recognizing its pivotal role in a democracy and ensuring equal opportunity for expression. In conclusion, Articles i4 to 19 weave a complex yet vital tapestry of Fundamental Rights. They safeguard the principles of equality, freedom, and protection against discrimination. Landmark cases have played a crucial rolein interpreting and expanding these rights, ensuring their practical application and contributing to the ongoing development of India's constitutional law. 2.7 Rights of Accused Persons and the right to a fair trial (Article 20) Article 20 of the Indian Constitution occupies a pivotal position in safeguarding the rights of individuals accused of crimes. It embodies the fundamental principles of justice and fairness, forming the bedrock of a robust legal system. This section delves into the critical provisions of Article 20, analyzing their significance and exploring landmark cases that have shaped the legal landscape surrounding the rights of accused persons. One of the cornerstones of Article 20 is the protectian against double jeopardy, enshrined in Clause 2. This clause prohibits the prosecution and punishment of an individual for the same offense more than once. This safeguard acts as a shield against potential abuse of legal processes and ensures the finality of judgments, as exemplified in the landmark case of K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962). The Supreme Court's verdict in this case, where Commander Nanavati successfully challenged his retrial for murder, emphatically upheld the principle of double jeopardy. Another crucial aspect of Article 20 is the protection against self-incrimination enshrined in Clause 3, This clause safeguards individuals from being compelled to provide testimony that may incriminate themselves. Tt upholds the right to remain silent during legal proceedings. The landmark case of Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978) serves as a powerful illustration of this principle. The Supreme Court's judgment in this case, involving corruption charges against former Chief Minister Satpathy, reaffirmed the privilege against self-incrimination, emphasizing the right to silence during interrogation. Furthermore, Clause 1 of Article 20 protects individuals from the arbitrary application of laws. It ensures that no person can be convicted for acts that2.8. were not considered offenses at the time they were committed. This principle of legality finds reinforcement in the landmark case of M.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950). The court's verdict in this case, where M.K. Gopalan challenged his arrest for protest participation, safeguards individuals from ex- post facto application of laws. Beyond the specific provisions of Article 20, it also contributes to the broader concept of natural justice by ensuring fair and just procedures during investigations and trials. The landmark case of Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1960) exemplifies this connection. The Supreme Court's emphasis en the right to a speedy trial in this case highlights the intricate link between Article 20's fair trial protections and the broader concept of natural justice, guaranteeing a fair and expeditious legal process. Article 20 serves as a formidable bulwark against potential injustices within the legal system. It safeguards the rights of accused persons and ensures that justice is delivered in a fair, transparent, and constitutionally saund manner. The interpretations provided by landmark cases have further strengthened the constitutional guarantees enshrined in Article 20, playing a crucial role in protecting individual liberties within the Indian criminal justice system. Right to Life and Personal Liberty, including landmark cases (Article 21) The right to life and personal liberty, enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, occupies a paramount position in the edifice of individual freedoms and dignity. This fundamental right has undergone a remarkable transformation through judicial interpretation, encompassing a far broader spectrum of rights than mere survival. This essay explores the multifaceted dimensions of Article 21, tracing its historical development, landmark cases, and its unique status as a non-derogable right even during emergencies.Originally, Article 21 offered protection only against arbitrary actions of the executive branch. However, through progressive judicial interpretations, the Supreme Court has breathed new life into it, imbuing it with a broader and more substantive meaning. This metamarphosis, from a shield against executive overreach to a repository of diverse rights, reflects the judiciary's unwavering commitment to safeguarding the core principles of justice, liberty, and dignity. A landmark case, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), exemplifies this transformative shift. It marked a departure fram a narrow interpretation, emphasizing that the right to life is not simply about biological existence, but encompasses the right to live with human dignity. The court recognized that the right to life forms the bedrock upon which all other rights and liberties are built. In recent years, the right to life under Article 21 has been interpreted to encompass the right to privacy. The seminal judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) unequivocally declared privacy a fundamental right, essential for safequarding life and personal liberty. This expansion reflects the court's sensitivity to the evolving contours of individual autonomy in the digital age. Article 21 also serves as a bulwark against custodial violence, protecting individuals from excessive force or brutality at the hands of authorities. The case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) laid down crucial guidelines to prevent such violence and ensure the protection of personal liberty. The court made it abundantly clear that even in the most vulnerable situations, the right to life and personal liberty remain inviolable. The right to life extends beyond its traditional understanding and encompasses the right to die with dignity. In Comman Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court recognized the right of individuals to make informed choices concerning their own lives, including the right to adignified death. This decision represents a nuanced interpretation of Article 21, acknowledging the evolving societal values surrounding death and dying. Article 21 also acts as a safeguard against arbitrary detention, underlining the importance of personal liberty. The landmark case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) laid the groundwork by establishing that the right to life includes the right to be free from arbitrary detention. The court held that any law providing for preventive detention must adhere to principles of justice, fairness, and reasonableness. Furthermore, ensuring a speedy trial is integral to the right to life and personal liberty. The case of Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980) highlighted that delayed justice is tantamount to justice denied. The court emphasized the critical link between the right to life and the right to a fair and expeditious trial. The canvas of Article 21 has been further broadened to encompass environmental rights. In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991), the court recognized that the right to life includes the right to a clean and healthy environment. This decision reflects a holistic understanding of personal liberty, acknowledging the undeniable impact of environmental conditions on an individual's well-being. One of the most distinctive characteristics of Article 21 is its resilience even during emergencies. Unlike certain other fundamental rights that can be suspended during a state of emergency, Article 21 remains inviolable. This principle was established in the historic case of A.O.M. Jabalpur vy. Shiv Kant Shukla (1976), where the court, albeit controversially, held that the right to life could be suspended during emergencies. However, subsequent developments, especially the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978, have firmly established that the right to life and personal liberty is non- deragable even in times af emergency. Article 21, with its dynamic and expansive interpretation, stands as a shining example of the Constitution's commitment to protecting the essence of lifeand personal liberty. Its remarkable journey fram a shield against executive overreach to a repository of diverse rights reflects the judiciary's unwavering endeavor to keep pace with the evolving needs of society. The right to life and personal liberty, impervious to suspension during emergencies, remains a testament to the enduring strength of the Indian Constitution. 2.8 Constitutional Remedies and Directive Principles (Article 32, 36-51) Article 32 stands as the cornerstone of the Indian Constitution, empowering citizens with the fundamental right to knock on the Supreme Court's door for the protection of their fundamental rights. This provision, often hailed as the “heart and soul" of the Constitution, acts as a crucial safeguard against excesses by the government. While its application during the Emergency A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla (1976) remains a contentious issue, subsequent judgments have reaffirmed Article 32's critical role in upholding constitutional values. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a powerful tool emerging from Article 32 that has democratized access to justice. This mechanism empowers any citizen to bring matters of public interest to the court's attention, even on behalf of those who cannot fight for themselves. The landmark S.P, Gupta v. Union of India (1981) case, also known as the Judges Transfer Case, exemplifies this shift by allowing individuals to raise public interest issues. Inherent in Article 32 is the power of judicial review. This empowers the judiciary to scrutinize the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions. The landmark Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case solidified this power by introducing the "basic structure" doctrine, which limits Parliament's amending power. This decision underscored Article 32's role in preserving the Constitution's core principles. Articles 36 to 51 encompass the Directive Principles of State Policy, serving as @ socio-economic roadmap for the state to establish a just and egalitarian SSsociety. While not legally enforceable, these principles are integral to governance and expected to inform legislation and policymaking. The Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) case highlighted the delicate balance between fundamental rights and directive principles. It emphasized that no provision should undermine the Constitution's basic structure. One such directive principle is Article 44, which envisions a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) to ensure a common set of laws for all citizens. The Sarla Mudgal v. Union af India (1995) case addressed the UCC's implementation, emphasizing the constitutional imperative of gender justice and equality. The court called for legislative action to establish a uniform cade, Another crucial directive principle is Article 48A, introduced through the 42nd Amendment. It mandates the protection and improvement of the environment. The M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) case exemplifies the judiciary's proactive role in enforcing environmental protection through the directive principles. Here, the court set guidelines for industries to prevent environmental degradation. Finally, Article 51A outlines fundamental duties for citizens, emphasizing their responsibility towards the nation. Though not legally enforceable, the Vishaka v, State of Rajasthan (1997) case invoked these duties in the context of sexual harassment at the workplace. The court relied on the principles of gender justice and the duty to renounce practices derogatory to women In conclusion, Article 32, with its robust provisions for constitutional remedies, safeguards fundamental rights and ensures their effective enforcement, The interplay between Article 32 and the Directive Principles illustrates the Constitution's attempt to balance individual liberties with larger societal goals. Through landmark judgments, the judiciary has reinforced the pivatal role of these constitutional prowisions in shaping a just and equitable society. 2.9 Constitutional Remedies (Writs) and their significance (article 32)Article 32 of the Indian Constitution equips the Supreme Court with a powerful arsenal of writs to safeguard fundamental rights. These writs serve as crucial instruments for citizens to seek justice and hold authorities accountable for violating their rights One such writ is Mandamus, which acts as a command directed towards public authorities, compelling them to fulfill their legal duties. In the landmark case of Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals (1955), the Supreme Court employed Mandamus to force the Assam government to reopen a case involving the compulsory acquisition of land. Certiorari, another crucial writ, functions as a corrective measure. It empowers the Supreme Court to rectify errors of jurisdiction made by lower courts or tribunals. The English case of R. v. Electi ‘ity Commissioner (1924) laid the foundation for Certiorari's inclusion in the Indian Constitution. This case clarified that the writ's scope extends beyond jurisdictional errors, encompassing errors of law as well. Prohibition, unlike Certiorari, acts as a preventive measure, This writ prohibits lower courts or tribunals from exceeding their jurisdictional limits. The case of Puranial Lakhanpal v. President of India (1961) exemplifies this preventive nature. Here, the Supreme Court used Prohibition to prevent the President from further considering a mercy petition. Quo Warranto serves a distinct purpose - challenging the legality of appointments to public office. Its influence stems from the English case of Barkley v. Lees (1947), This writ aims to prevent the unauthorized occupation of public offices, ensuring appointments are made lawfully. Finally, Habeas Corpus stands as a shield against unlawful detention. This writ empowers courts to order the immediate release of individuals who are being held illegally. The landmark case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) underscored the significance of Habeas Corpus in safequarding personal liberty. The court emphasized its effectiveness in both preventing illegal detention and securing the release of those already unlawfully confined.In conclusion, the writs available under Article 32 empower the Supreme Court to act as an ultimate guardian of fundamental rights. These writs, encompassing Mandamus, Certiorari, Prohibition, Quo Warranto, and Habeas Corpus, provide citizens with vital legal tools ta challenge violations and ensure accountability within the Indian legal system. 2.10.1 Landmark Cases on Article 32 Remedies: A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla (1976): In this infamous case during the Emergency, the court ruled that during an Emergency, the right to move the court for the enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 32 stands suspended. The judgment was widely criticized, emphasizing the importance of unfettered access ta constitutional remedies. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): This landmark case expanded the scape of personal liberty under Article 21 and affirmed that the procedure established by law must be fair and reasonable. The judgment marked a departure from the narrow interpretation of Article 21 in Gapalan. A.K, Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950): While not directly a case on Article 32 remedies, Gopalan laid the foundation for interpreting personal liberty narrowly. Subsequent cases, including Maneka Gandhi, critiqued and expanded upon Gopalan's interpretation. Article 32, with its array of constitutional remedies, acts as the guardian of individual liberties. The writs issued under this article, rooted in principles of Justice and fairness, play a vital role in preserving the constitutional fabric and ensuring that citizens can seek redress for infringements of their fundamental rights. The judiciary's consistent interpretation and application of these remedies contribute significantly to upholding the rule of law in the Indian constitutional framework. 2.10Directive Principles of State Policy, understanding the socio-economic objectives (Articles 36-51) The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), enshrined in Articles 36-51 ofthe Indian Constitution, provide a framework guiding the government in the pursuit of socio-economic justice. While not legally enforceable, these principles play a crucial role in shaping legislation and policymaking, aiming for the establishment of a fair and egalitarian society. Article 39: The Core of Socio-Economic Justice: Article 39 lies at the core of s0cio-economic justice, directing the State to ensure the equitable distribution of resources, prevent wealth concentration, and ensure economic activities contribute to the common good, In the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court emphasized the pivotal rale of Article 39 within the Basic Structure Doctrine, recognizing it as integral to the Constitution's fundamental framework. Right to Education (Article 45); Article 45 mandates the State to provide free and compulsory education for children. This principle gained constitutional significance with the incorporation of Article 21A through the 86th Amendment (2002), establishing education as a fundamental right for children aged 6 to 14. The amendment responded to the need for inclusivity and equal educational opportunities for all children. Living Wage and Conditions of Work (Article 43): Article 43 focuses on ensuring a living wage and decent working conditions for workers. In the significant case of People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982), the Supreme Court affirmed the right to livelihood as intrinsic to the right to life under Article 21, aligning with the spirit of Article 43, The case highlighted the importance of fair wages and humane working conditions, Participation of Workers in Management (Article 434): Article 434 encourages the participation of workers in management decisions. While not a direct subject of litigation, it has influenced labor laws and policies, promoting a more collaborative approach to industrial relations. The principle aligns with the broader goal of ensuring the welfare of workers. Promotion of Cottage Industries (Article 438): Article 43B underscores the promotion of cottage industries. While not frequently litigated, it aligns withbroader economic polities promoting decentralized and sustainable development. The principle reflects a commitment to fostering local industries and empowering small-scale entrepreneurs. Article 48; Agriculture and Animal Husbandry: Article 48 emphasizes the organization of agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines. While not a frequent point of litigation, it guides agricultural policies and practices to ensure sustainability and rural development. The article recognizes the importance of modernizing agricultural practices for economic development. Legal Aid and Equal Justice (Article 39A): Article 39A, introduced by the 42nd Amendment (1976), focuses on providing free legal aid and ensuring equal justice. In the case of Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), the Supreme Court expanded the right to legal aid, affirming its essential role in ensuring a fair trial. The case underscored the importance of access to justice for all citizens. Environmental Protection (Article 484): Article 484, added by the 42nd Amendment (1976), underscores the protection and improvement of the environment. In the case of Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court showcased its role in enforcing environmental protection policies. The case highlighted the judiciary's commitment to safeguarding the environment and public health, The Directive Principles of State Policy, while not enforceable in courts, significantly influence governance and policy decisions. The dynamic interaction between these principles and fundamental rights ensures a balanced approach to governance, working towards the welfare of the people and the establishment of a just society. 11The relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. The Indian Constitution, in its comprehensive vision, not only safequardsfundamental rights but also embraces directive principles, illustrating a commitment to balancing individual liberties with socio-economic justice. The interplay between fundamental rights (Part ITI) and directive principles (Part IV) seeks to harmonize individual freedoms with the collective welfare of society. Balancing Individual Rights with Collective Welfare: The judiciary assumes a pivotal role in reconciling potential conflicts between fundamental rights and directive principles. While fundamental rights are justiciable and enforceable in courts, directive principles are non-justiciable, serving as guidelines for policymaking. The imperative to strike a balance between individual rights and societal welfare becomes apparent in various legal interpretations. Harmonizing Through Judicial Interpretation: In the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court introduced the "harmonious construction" doctrine. It emphasized that while directive principles are not enforceable, courts should interpret laws in a manner that reconciles them with fundamental rights unless such an interpretation is impossible. This approach ensures that both rights and principles receive due consideration Equality and Social Justice: Article 38(2) directs the State to minimize inequalities in income and endeavor to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities, and opportunities, In the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), popularly known as the Mandal Case, the Supreme Court upheld the reservation of seats for socially and educationally backward classes, aligning with the directive principle of promoting social justice while balancing the right to equality Right to Education and Directive Principles: The right to education, enshrined in Article 214, emerged partly due to the influence of directive principles. The 86th Amendment (2002) introduced Article 214, making education a fundamental right for children aged 6 to 14. This amendment was guided by the directive principle in Article 45, urging the State to provide free andcompulsory education for children. Environmental Protection and Public Interest Litigation: Article 48A, a directive principle, emphasizes environmental protection. The judiciary, recognizing the importance of this principle, expanded the scope of public interest litigation (PIL) in cases like M.C. Mehta vy. Union of India (1987). The courts, relying on directive principles, issued orders to protect the environment, showcasing the interplay between principles and fundamental rights. The relationship between fundamental rights and directive principles reflects the framers' intent to create a balanced and just society. Judicial interpretations and decisions have played a crucial role in ensuring that individual liberties are upheld while also considering the broader welfare of society outlined in directive principles. This intricate relationship underscores the dynamic nature of constitutional governance in India. 2.12Fundamental Duties (Article 51A) and Landmark Cases Fundamental Duties, enshrined in Article 514 of the Indian Constitution, mark a significant shift in the concept of citizenship. Introduced through the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976, these duties go beyond the traditional focus on rights, emphasizing the responsibilities citizens hold towards the nation and their communities. They serve as guiding principles for fostering civic morality and a sense of collective well-being. Landmark cases have played a crucial rele in elucidating the practical implications of these fundamental duties. For instance, in the Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) case, the Supreme Court invoked Article 51A(e), which emphasizes promoting harmony and brotherhood, to address the issue of sexual harassment at the workplace. The court's verdict, drawing upon the duty to ensure gender equality, established guidelines for preventing sexual harassment. This case exemplifies how fundamental duties can be interpreted and applied in real-world scenarios. They serve as a catalyst for positive social change,Prompting individuals to consider their obligations alongside their rights. The comprehensive list of duties outlined in Article 514 provides a framework for responsible citizenship, encompassing aspects like respecting the Constitution (S51A(a)), cherishing the ideals of the freedom struggle (51A(b)), and protecting the environment (51A(g)). Fundamental Duties are more than just a list of obligations; they represent a call to action for building a stronger and more cohesive India. Through landmark cases and individual initiatives, these duties can be translated into meaningful practices, fostering a society where rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. Landmark cases have played a vital role in interpreting and applying the abstract principles enshrined in Fundamental Duties (Article 51A) to real-life situations. These cases illuminate the dynamic interplay between these duties and individual rights. Consider the case of Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992). Here, the court balanced the individual rights of educational institutions with the collective duty of ensuring educational opportunities (Article 51A(k)). The judgment endorsed regulations promoting equitable access to education, highlighting the shared responsibility between the state and parents in fulfilling this duty. Similarly, the Union of India v. Naveen Jindal (2004) case examined the ramifications of damaging public property during protests. The court upheld the citizen's duty to protect public property (Article 51A(i)), emphasizing the impact of such actions on public order. The judgment endorsed penalties for violators and underscored the importance of collective responsibility in maintaining public infrastructure. Furthermore, Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission (2007) explored the practical implications of striving for excellence (Article S1A{j)) in the context of public service. The court, moving beyond mere aspiration, stressed the active pursuit of excellence by citizens. This judgment highlights how fundamental duties translate into tangible actions that benefit society.In Re: Special Reference No. 1 of 2002 (2002) addressed the duty to abide by the Constitution (Article 51A(a)}. The court emphasized that this duty extends beyond mere awareness, urging citizens to actively strive towards fulfilling the Constitution's ideals. This case reinforces the crucial role citizens play in upholding constitutional values. Despite their positive contributions, Fundamental Duties are not without challenges. Concerns regarding their enforceability and potential conflict with individual rights remain topics of debate. Judicial interpretations, as seen in the landmark cases above, consistently strive to strike a harmonious balance within the framework of the Constitution, Landmark cases interpreting Fundamental Duties provide practical insights inte the evolving understanding of civic responsibilities. These judgments guide citizens on the practical implications of their duties, contributing to the vision of a responsible and conscientious citizenry. The interplay between fundamental rights, duties, and directive principles underscores the holistic approach envisaged by the framers for a just and harmonious society, 2.13 Self-Assessment Questions Q1. Explain the evolution of Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution and their significance in safeguarding individual liberties. (4 marks) Q2. Discuss the implications of Article 300A and the transformation of the right to property from a Fundamental Right to a Constitutional Right. (4 marks) Q3. Buring a state of emergency, which Fundamental Rights are suspended, and which ones continue to remain enforceable? Provide examples and discuss the rationale behind these provisions. (4 marks) Q4. Analyze the rale of Fundamental Duties in promoting civic responsibilities and contributing to the overall development of a democratic society. (4 marks) 5. Explore the significance of Article 32 in the Indian Constitution and its rolein providing constitutional remedies. Provide examples of landmark cases where Article 32 was invoked. (4 marks) Q6. Critically examine the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, highlighting their complementary nature in shaping governance in India. (4 marks) Q7. Provide a detailed analysis of Fundamental Rights under Articles 12-21, emphasizing the concepts of equality, freedom, and protection against discrimination. Include relevant case laws and their impact on shaping these rights. (8 marks) Q8. Discuss the constitutional remedies available under Article 32, commonly known as writs, and their significance in ensuring justice and protecting citizens’ rights. Illustrate with examples from key cases. (8 marks) Q9. Examine the socio-economic objectives outlined in Directive Principles (Articles 36-51) and their role in guiding state policies for the welfare of citizens. Discuss notable cases where Directive Principles influenced judicial decisions. (8 marks) Q10. Explore the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, citing examples of cases where conflicts arose and how the judiciary resolved these conflicts to maintain a balance, (8 marks) 111. Evaluate the role of Fundamental Duties as enshrined in Article 51, and discuss landmark cases where these duties were emphasized or enforced. (8 marks) Q12. Provide a comprehensive overview of the constitutional provisions and legal interpretations related to the suspension of Fundamental Rights during emergencies. Discuss the checks and balances in place to prevent misuse of powers. (8 marks) 2.14Multiple-Choice Questions 1, What part of the Indian Constitution enshrines Fundamental Rights? a) Part Ib) Part IIT c) Part Iv d) Part V 2. Which article of the Indian Constitution guarantees equality before the law? a) Article 12 b) Article 14 c) Article 16 d) Article 19 3. Which of the following categories of Fundamental Rights encompasses freedom of speech, expressian, movement, and profession? a) Right to Equality b) Right ta Freedom ¢) Right against Exploitation d) Right to Freedom of Religion 4. which landmark case expanded the interpretation of the Right to Life, emphasizing personal autonomy? a) Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala b) Maneka Gandhi v, Union of India c) Golaknath v. State of Punjab d) Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India 5. Which article of the Indian Constitution empowers citizens to seek legal remedies directly from the Supreme Court? a) Article 21 b) Article 32 ¢) Article 19 d) Article 300 6. During a state of emergency, which fundamental right cannot be suspended? a) Right ta Equalityb) Right to Freedom c) Right to Life and Personal Liberty d) Right against Exploitation 7, Which of the following statements about the Right to Property is true? a) It is no longer a fundamental right. b) It is guaranteed under Article 32. ¢) It is enshrined in Part II of the Constitution. d) It can be suspended during a state of emergency. 8. Which category of Fundamental Rights guards against discrimination? a) Right to Freedom b) Right to Religion ¢) Right to Equality d} Right to Constitutional Remedies 9, which article of the Indian Constitution guarantees protection against exploitation like forced labor? a) Article 19 b) Article 21 c) Article 23 d) Article 25 10. What did Jawaharlal Nehru emphasize as essential for the existence of political liberties in a democratic society? a) Economic security and equality b) Cultural and educational rights ¢) Freedom of speech and expression d) Right to property 11. Where are Fundamental Duties entrenched in the Indian Constitution? a) Part IIL b) Part IV-A c) Part IX d) Part XI12. Which of the following statements about Fundamental Duties is true? a) They are legally enforceable. b) They are guaranteed under Article 19. €) They are mentioned in Part III of the Constitution. d) They serve as guiding principles but are not legally enforceable. 13. In which case did the judiciary reaffirm the duty to respect the ‘Constitution's basic structure? a) Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala b) Bijoe Emmanuel v, State of Kerala ¢) M.C. Mehta v. Union of India d) Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka 14. Which duty is exemplified in the case where students were allowed not to sing the national anthem on religious grounds? a) Respect for the Constitution b) Brotherhood and Unity ¢) Safeguarding Public Property d) Preserving the Environment 15. What duty finds resonance in legal actions against vandalism during protests? a) Respect for the Constitution b) Brotherhood and Unity ¢) Safeguarding Public Property d) Preserving the Environment 16. In which case did the judiciary emphasize the duty to protect the environment? a) Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala b) Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala ¢) M.C. Mehta v. Union of India d) Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka 17. How do Fundamental Duties complement Fundamental Rights?a) By restricting Fundamental Rights b) By channelizing empowerment toward responsible actions c) By abolishing Fundamental Rights d) By replacing Fundamental Rights 18. Which case recognized the duty to preserve public property while emphasizing the right to livelihood? a) Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala b) Bi c) M.C. Mehta v. Union of India d) Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation Emmanuel v. State of Kerala 19. How do Fundamental Duties contribute to fostering a conscientious and responsible citizenry? a) By imposing strict penalties for non-compliance b) By serving as legally enforceable obligations ¢) By instilling commitment and accountability among citizens d) By restricting individual freedoms 20, Which part of the Constitution ensures a delicate balance between individual rights and collective progress through Fundamental Duties? a) Part IT b) Part IV-A c) Part IX d) Part XI 21. Which articles of the Indian Constitution encompass the Right to Equality? a) Articles 14-18 b) Articles 19-22 c) Articles 23-24 d) Articles 25-28 22, What is the significance of the case State of Punjab v. Hiralal Jitmal Sodhi (AIR 1961 SC 1602) in relation to fundamental rights?a) It expanded the Right to Freedom. b) It clarified the protection of essential religious practices. c) It exemplified the judiciary's commitment to uphalding equality. d) Tt highlighted cases of human trafficking 23. Which articles of the Indian Constitution protect the Right to Freedom of Religion? a) Articles 14-18 b) Articles 19-22 c) Articles 23-24 d) Articles 25-28 24, The case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (AIR 2003 SC 355) affirmed the autonomy of minority educational institutions under which articles? a) Articles 14-18 b) Articles 19-22 c) Articles 23-24 d) Articles 29-30 25. What does Article 32 of the Indian Constitution bestow upon citizens? a) Right against Exploitation b) Right to Freedom ¢) Right to Constitutional Remedies d) Right to Equality 26, Which case underscored the significance of Article 32 during emergencies? a) State of Punjab v. Hiralal Jitmal Sodhi (AIR 1961 SC 1602) b) A.D.M, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla (1976) c) T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (AIR 2003 SC 355) d) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597) 27. Which articles of the Indian Constitution prohibit human trafficking and forced labor?a) Articles 14-18 b) Articles 19-22 c) Articles 23-24 d) Articles 25-28 28. Whatis the significance of the Shirur Mutt Case (1954 SCR 1005)? a) It expanded the Right te Equality. b) It clarified the protection of essential religious practices. c) It exemplified the judiciary’s commitment to upholding equality. d) It highlighted cases of human trafficking. 29. which articles of the Indian Constitution encompass the Right to Freedom? a) Articles 14-18 b) Articles 19-22 ¢) Articles 23-24 d) Articles 25-28 30. In essence, what do Articles 12 to 32 of the Indian Constitution establish? a) The foundation for a just and egalitarian society b) The protection of cultural and educational rights c) The right to establish and administer educational institutions d) The right to seek enforcement of fundamental rights directly from the Supreme Court 31, According to Article 12 of the Indian Constitution, which entities are included in the definition of the "State" for the purpose of Part IIT dealing with Fundamental Rights? a) Only the Government of India b) Only the Parliament of India c) The Government of India, the Parliament of India, the Government of each State, and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the contral of the Indian Governmentd) Only local authorities within the territory of India 32. Which judicial decision emphasized that bodies performing public functions fall within the ambit of the State as defined by Article 12? a) R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India b) ALR. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak ¢) Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India d) Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. State of Punjab 33. According to Article 12, which organ of the Indian Constitution is integral to the definition of the State? a) The Judiciary b) The Executive ¢) The Parliament d) The President 34. The case of A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak clarified that parliamentary Actions are subject to: a) Judicial review b) Executive review ¢) Public review d) Media review 35. Which judicial decision affirmed the applicability of fundamental rights against state governments? a) R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India b) A.R. Antulay v, R.S, Nayak ¢) Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India d) Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. State of Punjab 36. According to Article 12, which entities fall under the term "local authorities"? a) Only municipal bodies b) Only panchayats c) Only the central government's local officesd) Entities at the grassroots level with governmental functions 37. In University of Rajasthan v. Ishwar Singh, the court held that university authorities could be treated as State agencies if they: a) Received funding from the State government b) Performed public functions ¢) Were established by the State government d) Had political affiliations 38. Which principle, highlighted in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, underscores that the nature of functions performed is crucial in determining whether certain bodies fall within the definition of the State? a) Principle of territorial nexus b) Principle of functional nexus ¢) Principle of political nexus d) Principle of administrative nexus 39. According to Article 12, which entities are considered part of the State? a) Only the central government b) Only state governments c) Both the central government and state governments d) Only local authorities 40. The evolving interpretations by the judiciary regarding Article 12 reaffirm the commitment to: @) Limit the scope of fundamental rights b) Protect citizens’ rights from the actions of state and state-like entities c) Expand the powers of the executive d) Abolish the concept of the State 41. What does Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution stipulate regarding laws inconsistent with fundamental rights? a) They are void to the extent of such contravention.b) They are temporarily suspended. c) They are subject to executive review. d) They are automatically amended. 42. According to Article 13, what is the comprehensive scope of the term ‘law’? a) Only statutes passed by the legislature b) Only ordinances issued by the executive c) Statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, and executive orders d) Only judicial precedents 43. Which of the following is NOT a significance of judicial review as mentioned in the prompt? a) Protector of Fundamental Rights b) Upholding Parliamentary Supremacy ¢) Uphalding Constitutional Supremacy d) Safeguard against legislative or executive excesses 44. In which landmark case did the Supreme Court assert that the Constitution is the supreme law, and any law inconsistent with its provisions is liable to be struck down? a) Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) b) Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) ¢) Minerva Mills Ltd. v, Union of India (1980) d) R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India 45, Golaknath v, State of Punjab (1967) revolved around the constitutional walidity of which Amendment Act? a) 14th Amendment Act b) 17th Amendment Act c) 42nd Amendment Act d) 73rd Amendment Act 46. What principle was introduced in Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) regarding the basic structure of the Constitution?a) Doctrine of Separation of Powers b) Doctrine of Judicial Review c) Doctrine of Basic Structure d) Doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy 47. Which case centered around the constitutional validity of the 42nd Amendment Act, emphasizing the importance of judicial review in protecting constitutional principles? a) Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) b) Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) c) Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) d) R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India 48. According to Article 13(2), which state action is exempt from the purview of judicial review? a) Actions related to fundamental rights b) Actions for implementing laws providing for the acquisition of estates or goods ¢) Actions of the judiciary d) Actions of local authorities 49, What does Article 13 stand as, according to the prompt? a) A protector of executive powers b) A bulwark against potential infringements on fundamental rights c) A tool for legislative dominance d) A mechanism for bypassing the Constitution 50, What role does judicial review play in the Indian constitutional framework, as highlighted in the prompt? a) Limiting the authority of the judiciary b) Upholding legislative supremacy c) Uphalding the foundational values of the Constitution d) Expanding executive powers 51. What concept does Article 14 of the Indian Constitution quarantee?a) Equality before the law b) Special privileges for certain groups c) Discrimination based on caste d) Arbitrary state actions 52. Which landmark case expanded the scope of Article 14 by emphasizing the importance of fair and reasonable procedures for depriving personal liberty? a) M. R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963) b) Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) c) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) d) State of Kerala v. N. M. Thomas (1976) 53. Article 15 of the Indian Constitution prohibits discrimination on the grounds of: a) Religion, race, and gender b) Religion, caste, and place of birth ¢) Gender, education, and occupation d) Socioeconomic status, language, and religion 54, Which case upheld the validity of reservation policies for socially and educationally backward classes, affirming the importance of affirmative action? a) Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950) b) Balaji Raghavan S. P. v. Union of India (1996) c) M. R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963) d) Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) 5S, Article 17 of the Indian Constitution abolishes: a) The practice of untouchability b) Titles of nobility c) The caste system d) The reservation system 56. Article 18 prohibits the conferment of titles except for: