Fundamental Rights are enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution (Articles 12 to 35). They are regarded as the "conscience of the Constitution" (Granville Austin) and are essential for the overall development of individuals.
- Source: Fundamental Rights are inspired by the Bill of Rights of the USA, especially the first ten amendments.
- Purpose: They aim to establish the Rule of Law and prevent arbitrary exercise of power by the State. They ensure a government of law and not of men.
-
Justiciability: Fundamental Rights are enforceable by courts. Citizens can directly approach:
- Supreme Court under Article 32
- High Courts under Article 226
Key Point: Fundamental Rights are not absolute. The State can impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, morality, sovereignty, and security of the State.
Understanding the nature and scope of Fundamental Rights is essential for both Prelims and Mains examinations.
| Aspect of Nature | Explanation |
|---|---|
| 1. Not Absolute | Fundamental Rights are subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the State in the interest of public order, morality, security, and general welfare. |
| 2. Justiciable | Individuals can approach the Supreme Court (Article 32) or High Courts (Article 226) if their Fundamental Rights are violated. |
| 3. Negative Obligations | Most Fundamental Rights act as restrictions on the State, prohibiting it from violating individual freedoms (e.g., Article 14). |
| 4. Not Sacrosanct | Fundamental Rights can be amended by Parliament, provided the amendment does not violate the Basic Structure Doctrine. |
| 5. Suspension During Emergency | During a National Emergency, Fundamental Rights can be suspended except Articles 20 and 21. |
| 6. Available Against State | Fundamental Rights are primarily enforceable against the State (Article 12), but in certain cases also apply to private individuals. |
| 7. Not Uniformly Available | Some rights are available only to citizens (e.g., Article 19), while others are available to all persons (e.g., Articles 14 and 21). |
To enforce Fundamental Rights, it must be shown that the violation was committed by the 'State'. Article 12 defines the term "State" for the purpose of Part III of the Constitution.
A. Text of Article 12
"In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, 'the State' includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India."
B. Components of 'State'
| Component | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Government of India | All executive actions of the Central Government. |
| Parliament of India | Legislative wing at the Centre (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha). |
| State Government | All executive actions of State Governments. |
| State Legislature | Legislative bodies in States (Assembly and Council). |
| Local Authorities | Municipalities, Panchayats, District Boards, etc. |
| Other Authorities | Bodies under government control performing public functions. |
C. Judicial Interpretation of 'Other Authorities'
| Case | Year | Verdict / Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| University of Madras v. Santa Bai | 1954 | Narrow interpretation: only statutory authorities included. |
| Rajasthan SEB v. Mohan Lal | 1967 | Expanded interpretation: includes statutory authorities with rule-making powers. |
| Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram | 1975 | ONGC, LIC, IFC held as State due to public functions. |
| R.D. Shetty v. Airport Authority | 1979 | Laid down test for instrumentality of State. |
| Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib | 1981 | Societies controlled by government can be State. |
| Pradeep Kumar Biswas Case | 2002 | Introduced test of pervasive government control. |
| Zee Telefilms Case | 2005 | BCCI not State due to lack of deep government control. |
| K.K. Saksena Case | 2023 | Autonomous society without government control not State. |
D. Tests to Determine 'Other Authorities' (Ajay Hasia Case)
- Financial Assistance by Government
- Deep and Pervasive Government Control
- State-conferred Monopoly
- Performance of Public Functions
- Functioning as Government Department
Key Point: A body is considered 'State' if it functions as an instrumentality or agency of the government, especially where there is deep and pervasive government control.
Article 13 establishes the doctrine of Judicial Review. It declares that any law inconsistent with or violating Fundamental Rights shall be void to the extent of inconsistency.
A. Text of Article 13 (Simplified)
- Clause (1): Pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights shall be void to the extent of inconsistency.
- Clause (2): The State shall not make any law violating Fundamental Rights. Any such law shall be void.
- Clause (3): Defines "law" to include Ordinances, orders, rules, regulations, customs, and usages having legal force.
- Clause (4): Constitutional Amendments under Article 368 are exempt from Article 13.
B. Important Doctrines Related to Article 13
| Doctrine | Explanation | Case Law |
|---|---|---|
| Doctrine of Severability | Only the unconstitutional part of a law is declared void, if it can be separated from the valid portion. | A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) |
| Doctrine of Eclipse | Pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights become dormant, not dead. They revive if inconsistency is removed. | Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of M.P. (1955) |
| Doctrine of Waiver | Fundamental Rights cannot be waived by individuals as they serve public interest. | Basheshar Nath v. CIT (1959) |
C. Is Constitutional Amendment a 'Law' under Article 13?
| Case | Verdict |
|---|---|
| Shankari Prasad Case (1951) | Constitutional Amendment is not a law under Article 13. |
| Golak Nath Case (1967) | Held Constitutional Amendment is law under Article 13. |
| Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973) | Amendment is not law under Article 13, but can be challenged if it violates Basic Structure. |
Key Point: Article 13 forms the foundation of Judicial Review and protects Fundamental Rights from unconstitutional laws.
A. Against the State (Vertical Application)
The primary function of Fundamental Rights is to protect individuals from arbitrary actions of the State. As defined under Article 12, any violation by the State or its agencies can be challenged before the courts.
B. Against Private Individuals (Horizontal Application)
Traditionally, Fundamental Rights were enforceable only against the State. However, the Supreme Court has expanded their scope to include private individuals and organizations when their actions affect public functions or violate individual dignity and equality.
| Case | Context | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar (1962) | Private individuals acting under State direction. | Extended Fundamental Rights obligations to private actors acting as agents of the State. |
| PUDR v. Police Commissioner, Delhi (1983) | Labour rights violated by private contractors with State involvement. | State must protect individuals from rights violations by private actors. |
| Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) | Sexual harassment at workplace by private employers. | Established guidelines protecting dignity and gender equality. |
| Zee Telefilms v. Union of India (2005) | BCCI not State under Article 12. | Private bodies performing public functions can still be subject to writ jurisdiction. |
Key Point: The distinction between State and private action is narrowing. Courts increasingly hold private bodies accountable when they perform public functions or violate Fundamental Rights related to dignity, equality, and liberty.
| Component | Includes | Does Not Include (Generally) |
|---|---|---|
| Executive | Central Government and State Governments | Private companies (unless they are government instrumentalities) |
| Legislature | Parliament and State Legislatures | Individual MPs or MLAs acting in personal capacity |
| Local Authorities | Municipalities, Panchayats, Zilla Parishads | Private societies and organizations |
| Other Authorities | Statutory bodies, government companies under pervasive control, bodies performing public functions | Judiciary while performing judicial functions, purely private bodies |