Fundamental Rights

Articles 12 to 35 of part III of the Indian Constitution are Fundamental Rights that bolster the notion of political democracy. The framers of the constitution took inspiration from the Bill of rights of the USA. The rules specified in Fundamental Rights are designed to protect people’s liberties and freedoms from authoritarian regimes and state incursion. All persons are guaranteed fundamental rights without any discrimination by the constitution.

Features of the Fundamental Rights

Some features of the Fundamental rights are:

  • Some are solely available to Indian nationals, while others cover all people, including citizens, foreigners, and legal entities such as organisations and enterprises
  • They are qualified rather than absolute
  • They are justiciable, which means that if they are infringed, an individual can go to court to have them enforced (subject to some restrictions)
  • They aren’t sacred or indestructible
  • Except for the rights provided by Articles 20 and 21, they cannot be withdrawn in the event of a national emergency
  • In places where martial law or military control has been installed, their fundamental rights may be restricted or suspended

Fundamental Rights in India

  • Right to equality (Article 14-18)
  • Right to Freedom (Article 19-22)
  • Right against exploitation (Article 23- 24)
  • Right to freedom of religion (Article 25-28)
  • Cultural and educational rights (Article 29-30)
  • Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32)
  • The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978 abolished the right to property from the fundamental rights in the Indian Constitution
  • Now Article 300-A of Part 12 of the Constitution confers it as a legal right

Amendment in the Fundamental Rights

In Golaknath vs the state of Punjab case, the Supreme Court’s verdict (1967) (7th Constitutional Amendment Act, to which certain acts in the ninth schedule were added) is as follows: 

Fundamental Rights have an impalpable status in the Constitution. Therefore no authority, including parliament, can amend them.

The Supreme Court declared in Kesavananda Bharati versus the state of Kerala, 1973, that parliament can change any section of the Constitution, including Part III, but that this power is confined to not damaging the “basic structure of the Constitution.”

Difference between Fundamental and Legal Rights

  1. The written Constitution protects and guarantees fundamental rights, whereas ordinary law passed by the Parliament and Legislative Assemblies protects and imposes legal rights.
  2. A lawsuit can be filed in a lower court, or a writ application can be submitted in a higher court in the case of a breach of legal rights (i.e. following the hierarchical judicial procedure). However, the violation of fundamental rights in the Indian Constitution can be brought immediately before the Supreme Court.
  3. Legal rights may be changed through a simple legislative process, on the other hand, fundamental rights in the Indian Constitution cannot be changed without amending the Constitution (i.e., a special majority).

Exceptions to Fundamental Rights

  1. Article 31 A gives protection to five kinds of laws that cannot be challenged in the court of law on the ground of contravention of articles 14 and 19 which are agricultural land reforms, industry, and commerce.
  2. Article 31 B provided a shield to the regulations and acts which are included in the ninth schedule of the constitution from being challenged in the courts on the ground of contravention of fundamental rights. Article 31 B has a wider scope as compared to article 31 A because it provides protection to any law which falls under the ninth schedule whether or not it falls under the laws specified in article 31 A.

Criticism Of Fundamental Rights

  1. The experts of the constitution believe that the constitution gives Fundamental rights from one hand and takes them back from the other because there are several exceptions, restrictions, and explanations for them.
  2. Fundamental rights in India are mainly political rights and there are no provisions for social and economic rights like the right to work, social security, employment, etc.
  3. The various words and phrases used in the Fundamental rights are defined in a vague and indefinite manner. Terms like public order, minorities, reasonable restrictions, and public interest are not properly defined. The language used in it is very complicated and cannot be understood by the common man.
  4. These rights are not permanent in nature as they can be abolished by the parliament for example the right to property was abolished in 1978. Though the Judiciary imposes the doctrine of the basic structure that is the only limitation on the authority of the Parliament.
  5. The fundamental rights can be suspended when National Emergency is in operation (except articles 20 and 21) and this is the major question on the efficacy of these rights. According to the experts, these rights should be available to the citizens under any circumstances.
  6. The fundamental rights can be defended in the courts but the judicial process is very slow and expensive that a common man cannot afford.
  7. Article 22 talks about preventive detention which itself is against the spirit of fundamental rights.

Conclusion

India has one of the most robust and largest democracies in the world. The fundamental rights in the constitution help citizens of India to live a free and respectful life in any part of the country. It ensures equality and opportunity for people from all quarters of society. All the rights are protected by the constitution and the judiciary has the power to protect and reinforce them.

However these rights are not absolute in nature and have several exceptions like they are not defined and explained in simple language, they can be abolished by the parliament and suspended during the National Emergency.