CONFLICT BETWEEN RIGHTS:
A CONSTITUTIONAL
APPROACH TO BALANCE AND
HARMONIZATION
Name – Falguni Mahapatra
P.G Final Year Student
Dept. of Political Science
Rajendra University (Prajna Vihar), Balangir, 767002
INTRODUCTION :-
• Overview: Understanding the importance of balancing conflicting rights in
a democratic society. In a diverse and democratic society like India,
conflicts between fundamental rights are inevitable. The Indian
Constitution, with its profound vision, provides a framework to balance and
harmonize these rights to ensure justice and equality. This presentation
explores how conflicts between rights arise and the constitutional
mechanisms used to address and harmonize these conflicts.
• Objective: To explore how the Indian Constitution addresses conflicts
between rights and ensures harmony.
CONFLICT BETWEEN RIGHTS :-
1. Right to Life and Personal liberty (Art-21) vs Right to
Freedom of Assemble/Peaceful protest Art-19(1)(a)
- Ramlila Maidan case vs Home secretary union of India
(2011)
-The "Ramlila Maidan case" refers to a landmark Indian
Supreme Court case where the primary conflict of rights was
between the government's power to maintain public order
(through Section 144 of the CrPC) and citizens' fundamental
right to peaceful assembly and protest, particularly highlighting
the "right to sleep" as part of personal liberty under Article 21
of the Constitution; this arose from an incident where police
forcefully dispersed a sleeping crowd of protesters led by Baba
Ramdev at Ramlila Maidan, Delhi, raising questions about the
limits of state intervention during peaceful demonstrations
2. Right to Freedom of Religion (Art-25 to 28) vs Right to Uniformity
(Art-44/UCC)
- The major issue regarding created wearing a burkha in college took place
in 2022 in the Indian state of Karnataka when several muslin female
students were denied entry to their college for wearing hijabs, which is
often associated with the burkha, due to a school Uniform policy that
prohibited it; this sparked significant controversy and legal challenges
regarding religious freedom and dress code in educational institutions.
- Is the Government Order Purportedly Banning the Hijab Valid?
The Court upheld the validity of the order issued on February 5th by the
State government. It held that the order was issued in furtherance of the
Karnataka Education Act, 1983. The Government had the power to prescribe
a dress code under the Section 133(2) of the Act, which empowers the
Government to give effect to the purposes of the Act by issuing Orders and
forming bodies such as the College Development Committees.
3. Right to Health (Art-21) vs Right to Freedom
of Religion (Art-25 to 28)
- Right to Health is a part and parcel of Right to Life
and therefore right to health is a fundamental right
guaranteed to every citizen of India under Article
21 of the Constitution of India.
- The right to freedom of religion means that every
individual has the right to practice and follow the
religion of their choice. This right is enshrined in
articles 25-28 of the Indian constitution.
- Example: During the Covid-19 Pandemic and
Lockdown.
BALANCING AND HARMONIZATION
OF RIGHTS: BY THE INDIAN
SUPREM COURT :-
• The Supreme Court of India has characterized its duty as that of a “balancing
wheel between the rights”. Such rights are –
1. Right of speech(Art 19-1-a) vs Right to live peacefully (Art 19-2)
- Shoma Kanti Sen vs. The State of Maharashtra (2024)
• Issue: Bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
• Balancing: The court balanced the need for stringent anti-terrorism laws with
the fundamental right to bail under Article 21.
• Outcome: Bail granted with stringent conditions, emphasizing the necessity of
prima facie evidence.
• Articles Involved: Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), UAPA.
2. DPSP/ Material resource of the community (Art 39-b) vs Right
to Equality (Art-14)/ Freedom (Art-19)
- Property Owners' Association vs. State of Maharashtra (2024)
• Issue: Acquisition of private property under Article 39(b) of the
Constitution.
• Balancing: The court balanced the Directive Principles of State
Policy with the fundamental rights to equality and freedom.
• Outcome: Restricted the state's power to acquire private property
without considering its communal value.
• Articles Involved: Article 39(b) (Distribution of Material Resources),
Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 19 (Right to Freedom).
3. Freedom of Speech and Expression (Art 19(1)(a) vs Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Act (RPwD Act) 2016
- Nipun Malhotra vs. Sony Pictures Films India Private Limited (2024)
• Issue: Balancing freedom of speech and expression
with the rights of persons with disabilities.
• Balancing: The court balanced the right to freedom of
speech with the need to protect the dignity and rights
of marginalized groups.
• Outcomes: The film's certification was upheld,
emphasizing that freedom of speech does not extend
to speech that perpetuates stereotypes and
marginalizes disenfranchised communities.
• Articles involved: Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech
and Expression), Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act (RPwD Act) 2016
CONCLUSION :-
• Balancing Rights: The Indian Constitution and
judiciary play a crucial role in balancing
conflicting rights through principles like
proportionality, reasonable restrictions, and
judicial interpretation.
• Key Mechanism: Tools such as the Doctrine of
Harmonious Construction, affirmative action
policies, and public interest litigation are
instrumental in resolving rights conflicts.
THANK YOU !!
For your attention and
participation
