Rights in the Indian Constitution (Fundamental Rights) — Practice

Question 1

Identify which Fundamental Right is violated in each scenario and explain why:
(a) The government orders a newspaper to close down because it published articles critical of the ruling party
(b) A factory owner employs 11-year-old children in his factory
(c) A person is arrested by police, kept in custody for 30 days, and not produced before a magistrate
(d) A state government orders that only members of one religion can apply for a particular government job

Accepted Answer

(a) **Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression (Art 19(1)(a)) violated**: The government cannot shut down a newspaper for critical coverage. Freedom of press is part of Art 19(1)(a). Exceptions: publication can be restricted for national security, public order, defamation — but disagreement with government policy is NOT a valid ground. The government must go to court to prove the publication created a real and present danger, not just criticism.

(b) **Right against Exploitation (Art 24) violated**: Art 24 prohibits employment of children below 14 years in factories, mines, or hazardous employment. Employment of 11-year-old in a factory is a direct constitutional violation. The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act implements this right.

(c) **Right to Freedom (Art 22) violated**: Art 22 guarantees that any person arrested must be: (i) informed of the grounds of arrest immediately; (ii) allowed to consult a lawyer of their choice; (iii) produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 HOURS of arrest (excluding travel time). 30 days without production before magistrate is a gross violation. The writ of Habeas Corpus (Art 32 or 226) is the remedy.

(d) **Right to Equality (Art 15 + Art 16) violated**: Art 15 prohibits discrimination by the state on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Art 16 specifically guarantees equality of opportunity in public employment and prohibits discrimination on the same grounds. Reserving a government job exclusively for members of one religion violates both Articles.

Question 2

Why are Directive Principles of State Policy not legally enforceable like Fundamental Rights? Despite this, explain FOUR ways in which DPSPs have been effective in shaping Indian law and governance.

Accepted Answer

**Why DPSPs are not enforceable**:
The Constitution makers were aware that many DPSPs (right to work, equal pay, free legal aid) could not be immediately fulfilled given India's poverty at independence. Making them justiciable would either create hundreds of unfulfillable court orders or force governments to declare them impossible and repeal the provisions. The Constituent Assembly's solution: make DPSPs aspirational — government MUST keep them in view, but citizens cannot sue the government for not implementing them. This balance between aspiration and pragmatism was borrowed from Ireland's 1937 Constitution.

**Four ways DPSPs have been effective**:

1. **Legislative inspiration**: MGNREGA (100 days employment guarantee) implements Art 41 (right to work). Minimum Wages Act implements Art 39 (equal pay, living wage). Mid-Day Meal Scheme implements Art 45 (free education for children). RTE Act 2009 implemented Art 45 and Art 21A together. DPSPs became the policy agenda for welfare legislation.

2. **Constitutional interpretation**: Courts use DPSPs to interpret Fundamental Rights broadly. Art 21 (right to life) was interpreted to include 'right to livelihood' (Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985) using Art 41 (right to work, DPSP) to justify the expansion. DPSPs guide what Art 21 means.

3. **Justification for reasonable restrictions on FRs**: Art 31C allows laws implementing Art 39(b) (distribution of material resources for common good) and Art 39(c) (preventing concentration of wealth) to override Arts 14 and 19. Land reform laws that restrict property rights use this provision — allowing redistribution to implement social justice.

4. **Political accountability**: Even if courts cannot enforce DPSPs, VOTERS can. The Congress party's defeat in 1977 was partly because Emergency-era governance failed to implement DPSPs (rural poverty, unemployment). DPSP implementation is an election issue — 'roti, kapda, makaan' campaigns are DPSP-based political commitments.

Question 3

The relationship between Fundamental Rights (justiciable) and Directive Principles of State Policy (non-justiciable) has been one of the most contested constitutional questions in India. Trace the evolution of this relationship through key cases and constitutional amendments.

Accepted Answer

**The Central Tension**:
Fundamental Rights protect individual/group rights; DPSPs represent the state's obligation to achieve social and economic justice. Land reform laws (taking property from landlords to give to peasants) implement DPSPs but restrict Fundamental Rights (property right, before its removal). Who wins?

**Phase 1 — FR Primacy (1950s–1960s)**:
- Early cases: Champakam Dorairajan (1951) — state government's reservation in education violated Art 15 (fundamental right to non-discrimination). SC held FRs prevail over DPSPs.
- Parliamentary response: 1st Amendment (1951) added Art 15(4) to allow educational reservation. 4th Amendment (1955) restricted property right compensation.
- Pattern: SC strikes down law; Parliament amends Constitution. Recurring conflict.

**Phase 2 — Golak Nath (1967) — Supreme Court Asserts FR Supremacy**:
- SC held (6:5): Parliament CANNOT amend Fundamental Rights using Art 368 at all. FRs are 'transcendental' — beyond Parliament's reach. This was the most extreme FR-primacy position.
- Parliament responded: 24th Amendment (1971) explicitly gave Parliament power to amend FRs under Art 368.

**Phase 3 — 25th and 42nd Amendments — DPSP Supremacy Attempt**:
- 25th Amendment (1971): Added Art 31C — laws implementing DPSPs on material resources distribution (Art 39(b) and (c)) CANNOT be challenged on grounds of Art 14 or 19 violations.
- 42nd Amendment (1976, Emergency era): Expanded Art 31C to cover ALL DPSPs — any law implementing ANY DPSP could override ALL Fundamental Rights. This was the most extreme DPSP-primacy position.

**Phase 4 — Kesavananda Bharati (1973) — The Compromise**:
- 13-judge bench (7:6): Parliament can amend FRs BUT cannot destroy 'basic structure' of Constitution. FRs are part of basic structure — they cannot be abrogated.
- Art 31C as amended in 25th Amendment (protecting ONLY Arts 39(b) and (c) laws from Art 14/19 challenges) was valid.
- But the 42nd Amendment's expansion of Art 31C to ALL DPSPs was invalid — it would allow Parliament to destroy ALL FRs by citing any DPSP.

**Phase 5 — Minerva Mills (1980) — Harmonisation**:
- SC struck down the 42nd Amendment's expanded Art 31C.
- Held: The Indian Constitution is a 'document of balance' — neither FRs nor DPSPs can completely override the other. They must be READ TOGETHER harmoniously.
- Parliament has limited amending power to promote HARMONY between FRs and DPSPs, not to subordinate one to the other.

**Current Position**:
FRs and DPSPs must be HARMONISED. Where a DPSP requires restriction of FRs: (i) the restriction must be reasonable; (ii) the core of the FR must be preserved; (iii) the DPSP must be implemented in a way that minimises FR restriction. Land reform, minimum wages, and affirmative action are upheld under this framework because they restrict but do not destroy FRs.

**Significance**: This evolution shows India's Constitution is not static — it has been shaped by a dialogue between Parliament (wanting policy flexibility) and the Supreme Court (protecting individual rights). The Kesavananda/Minerva Mills settlement — balance and harmony — is the mature constitutional principle that India lives by today.

Practice — Rights in the Indian Constitution (Fundamental Rights)

Sign in to save attempts to your dashboard and track your accuracy over time

Find a verified tutor

Join a live course

Browse coaching centres

About

Categories

Support

Documentation

Get Study Tips & Updates

Download Our App

Download for iOS

Download for Android

Popular Cities