Fundamental rights in India
[4] Committing themselves to socialism in 1936, the Congress leaders took examples from the Constitution of the Soviet Union, which inspired the fundamental duties of citizens as a means of collective patriotic responsibility for national interests and challenges.
The fundamental rights were included in the constitution because they were considered essential for the development of the personality of every individual and to preserve human dignity.
The writers of the constitution regarded democracy of no avail if civil liberties, like freedom of speech and religion, were not recognised and protected by the State.
Since the fundamental rights can be altered only by a constitutional amendment, their inclusion is a check not only on the executive branch but also on the Parliament and state legislatures.
It creates exceptions for the implementation of measures of affirmative action for the benefit of any backward class of citizens to ensure adequate representation in public service, as well as reservation of an office of any religious institution for a person professing that particular religion.
The awards of Bharat Ratna and Padma Vibhushan can be used by the recipient as a title and do not, accordingly, come within the constitutional prohibition".
It was argued, especially by Benegal Narsing Rau, that the incorporation of such a clause would hamper social legislation and cause procedural difficulties in maintaining order, and therefore it ought to be excluded from the Constitution altogether.
[28] As a result, Article 21, which prevents the encroachment of life or personal liberty by the State except in accordance with the procedure established by law, was, until 1978, construed narrowly as being restricted to executive action.
[37] Article 20 provides protection from conviction for offences in certain respects, including the rights against ex post facto laws, double jeopardy and freedom from self-incrimination.
[39] The Constitution also authorizes the State to make laws providing for preventive detention, subject to certain other safeguards present in Article 22.
[40] The provisions pertaining to preventive detention were discussed with scepticism and misgivings by the Constituent Assembly, and were reluctantly approved after a few amendments in 1949.
Article 19 (1) provides every person with freedom of speech and expression, as well as the right to know how the government works, what roles it plays, and what its functions are, among other things.
[65] The Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to enforce the Fundamental Rights even against private bodies, and in case of any violation, award compensation as well to the affected individual.
[66][67] Article 34 of the Constitution grants authority to the Parliament to provide indemnification for government servants or individuals who may have taken actions in relation to the maintenance or restoration of order within regions where martial law had been enforced.
This constitutional provision essentially empowers the Parliament to absolve these individuals from any legal liability or consequences arising from their actions undertaken in the context of martial law implementation.
In essence, it allows for the legal protection and exoneration of those involved in maintaining or restoring order during periods when martial law was in effect.
It also states that any law that was in force before the Constitution came into effect on these matters will continue to be valid until amended or repealed by the Parliament.
Article 35 was added to the Constitution by the Constituent Assembly to ensure that there is uniformity and consistency in the laws relating to the fundamental rights across the country.
Dr B. R. Ambedkar wanted a specific guarantee of fundamental rights expressly incorporated in the constitution so that it could be easily enforced.
[85] The right to freedom and personal liberty has a number of limiting clauses, and thus has been criticised for failing to check the sanctioning of powers often deemed "excessive".
The meaning of phrases like "reasonable restrictions" and "the interest of public order" have not been explicitly stated in the Constitution, and this ambiguity leads to unnecessary litigation.
[89][90] The right to equality in matters regarding public employment is not conferred upon overseas citizens of India, according to the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2003.
[10] As per Article 19 of Part III of the Constitution, the fundamental rights of people such as freedom of speech and expression, gathering peaceably without arms and forming associations or unions shall not effect the interests of the sovereignty[91] unity and integrity of India.
The words sovereignty and integrity are the qualities to be cultivated/emulated by Indian people as urged by the Constitution but not used related to the territory of India.
[93] Changes to the fundamental rights require a constitutional amendment, which has to be passed by a special majority of both houses of Parliament.
While deciding the Golaknath case in February 1967, the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament had no power to curtail the fundamental rights.
Thus fundamental rights given in Part III are not equally applicable in each state /region and can be made different by making additions/deletions to Ninth Schedule by constitutional amendments.
In Minerva Mills v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment to Article 31C was not valid and ultra vires.
Thus, if a legislator made a law depriving a person of his property, there would be no obligation on the part of the State to pay anything as compensation.
On 2 April 2010, India joined a group of few countries in the world, with a historical law making education a fundamental right of every child coming into force.
