Fundamental
duties vs. Fundamental rights
'Part III – Fundamental Rights' is a charter of rights contained in the
Constitution of India. It guarantees civil liberties such that all Indians can
lead their lives in peace and harmony as citizens of India. These include
individual rights common to most liberal democracies, such as equality before
law, freedom of speech and expression, and peaceful assembly, freedom to
practice religion, and the right to constitutional remedies for the protection
of civil rights by means of writs such as habeas corpus. Violation of these
rights result in punishments as prescribed in the Indian Penal Code, subject to
discretion of the judiciary. The Fundamental Rights are defined as basic human
freedoms, which every Indian citizen has the right to enjoy for a proper and harmonious
development of personality. These rights universally apply to all citizens,
irrespective of race, place of birth, religion, caste, creed, color or gender.
Aliens (persons who are not citizens) are also considered in matters like
equality before law. They are enforceable by the courts, subject to certain
restrictions. The Rights have their origins in many sources, including
England's Bill of Rights, the United States Bill of Rights and France's
Declaration of the Rights of Man.
The
six fundamental rights recognised by the constitution are:[1]
· Right to
equality, including equality before law, prohibition of discrimination on
grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth, and equality of
opportunity in matters of employment, abolition of untouchability and abolition
of titles.
· Right to
freedom which includes speech and expression, assembly, association or union or
cooperatives, movement, residence, and right to practice any profession or
occupation (some of these rights are subject to security of the State, friendly
relations with foreign countries, public order, decency or morality), right to
life and liberty, right to education, protection in respect to conviction in
offences and protection against arrest and detention in certain cases.
· Right against
exploitation, prohibiting all forms of forced labour, child labour and traffic
in human beings;
· Right to
freedom of religion, including freedom of conscience and free profession,
practice, and propagation of religion, freedom to manage religious affairs,
freedom from certain taxes and freedom from religious instructions in certain
educational institutes.
· Cultural and
Educational rights preserving Right of any section of citizens to conserve
their culture, language or script, and right of minorities to establish and
administer educational institutions of their choice.
· Right to
constitutional remedies for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
Right to property was originally a fundamental right, but is now a legal
right.
Fundamental rights for Indians have also been aimed at overturning the
inequalities of pre-independence social practices. Specifically, they have also
been used to abolish untouchability and hence prohibit discrimination on the
grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. They also forbid
trafficking of human beings and forced labour. They also protect cultural and
educational rights of ethnic and religious minorities by allowing them to
preserve their languages and also establish and administer their own education
institutions.
The development of constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human rights
in India was inspired by historical examples such as England's Bill of Rights
(1689), the United States Bill of Rights (approved on 17 September 1787, final
ratification on 15 December 1791) and France's Declaration of the Rights of Man
(created during the revolution of 1789, and ratified on 26 August 1789).[2] Under the educational system of
British Raj, students were exposed to ideas of democracy, human rights and
European political history. The Indian student community in England was further
inspired by the workings of parliamentary democracy and Britishers political
parties.[3]
In 1919, the Rowlatt Act gave extensive powers to the British government
and police, and allowed indefinite arrest and detention of individuals,
warrant-less searches and seizures, restrictions on public gatherings, and
intensive censorship of media and publications. The public opposition to this
act eventually led to mass campaigns of non-violent civil disobedience
throughout the country demanding guaranteed civil freedoms, and limitations on
government power. Indians, who were seeking independence and their own
government, were particularly influenced by the independence of Ireland and the
development of the Irish constitution. Also, the directive principles of state
policy in Irish constitution were looked upon by the people of India as an
inspiration for the independent India's government to comprehensively tackle
complex social and economic challenges across a vast, diverse nation and
population.
In 1928, the Nehru Commission composing of representatives of Indian
political parties proposed constitutional reforms for India that apart from
calling for dominion status for India and elections under universal suffrage,
would guarantee rights deemed fundamental, representation for religious and
ethnic minorities, and limit the powers of the government. In 1931, the Indian
National Congress (the largest Indian political party of the time) adopted
resolutions committing itself to the defence of fundamental civil rights, as
well as socio-economic rights such as the minimum wage and the abolition of
untouchability and serfdom.[4] Committing themselves to socialism
in 1936, the Congress leaders took examples from the constitution of the
erstwhile USSR, which inspired the fundamental duties of citizens as a means of
collective patriotic responsibility for national interests and challenges.
Task of developing a constitution for the Constituent Assembly of India,
composing of, undertook the nation elected representatives. Constituent
Assembly first met on December 9, 1946 under the presidency of Dr. Sachidanand
later Dr. Rajendra Prasad was made its President. While members of Congress
composed of a large majority, Congress leaders appointed persons from diverse
political backgrounds to responsibilities of developing the constitution and
national laws.[5]Notably, Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar became the
chairperson of the drafting committee, while Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar
Vallabhbhai Patel became chairpersons of committees and sub-committees
responsible for different subjects. A notable development during that period
having significant effect on the Indian constitution took place on 10 December
1948 when the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and called upon all member states to adopt these rights in
their respective constitutions.
The fundamental rights were included in the First Draft Constitution
(February 1948), the Second Draft Constitution (17 October 1948) and final
Third Draft Constitution (26 November 1949) prepared by the Drafting Committee.
The fundamental rights have been revised for many reasons. Political
groups have demanded that the right to work, the right to economic assistance
in case of unemployment, old age, and similar rights be enshrined as
constitutional guarantees to address issues of poverty and economic insecurity,[6] though these provisions have been enshrined
in the Directive Principles of state policy.[7] The right to freedom and personal
liberty has a number of limiting clauses, and thus have been criticised for
failing to check the sanctioning of powers often deemed "excessive".[8] There is also the provision of
preventive detention and suspension of fundamental rights in times of
Emergency. The provisions of acts like the Maintenance of Internal Security Act
(MISA) and the National Security Act (NSA) are a means of countering the
fundamental rights, because they sanction excessive powers with the aim of
fighting internal and cross-border terrorism and political violence, without
safeguards for civil rights.[9] The phrases "security of
State", "public order" and "morality" are of wide
implication. People of alternate sexuality are criminalized in India with
prison term up to 10 years. 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.[10] The freedom to assemble peaceably
and without arms is exercised, but in some cases, the police through the use of
non-fatal methods break up these meetings.
"Freedom of press" has not been included in the right to
freedom, which is necessary for formulating public opinion and to make freedom
of expression more legitimate.[11] Employment of child labour in
hazardous job environments has been reduced, but their employment even in
non-hazardous jobs, including their prevalent employment as domestic help
violates the spirit and ideals of the constitution. More than 16.5 million
children are employed and working in India.[12] India was ranked 88 out of 159 in
2005, according to the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist among
public officials and politicians worldwide.[13] The right to equality in matters
regarding public employment shall not be conferred to overseas citizens of
India, according to the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2003.[14]
The Fundamental Duties of citizens were added to the Constitution by the
42nd Amendment in 1976, upon the recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee
that was constituted by the government earlier that year.[15] [16]Originally ten in number, the Fundamental
Duties were increased to eleven by the 86th Amendment in 2002, which added a
duty on every parent or guardian to ensure that their child or ward was
provided opportunities for education between the ages of six and fourteen
years.[17] The other Fundamental Duties
obligate all citizens to respect the national symbols of India, including the
Constitution, to cherish its heritage, preserve its composite culture and
assist in its defense. They also obligate all Indians to promote the spirit of
common brotherhood, protect the environment and public property, develop
scientific temper, abjure violence, and strive towards excellence in all
spheres of life.[18] Citizens are morally obligated by
the Constitution to perform these duties. However, like the Directive
Principles, these are non-justifiable, without any legal sanction in case of
their violation or non-compliance.[19] [20] There is reference to such duties
in international instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Article 51A
brings the Indian Constitution into conformity with these treaties.[21]
The Directive Principles have been used to uphold the Constitutional
validity of legislations in case of a conflict with the Fundamental Rights.
Article 31C, added by the 25th Amendment in 1971, provided that any law made to
give effect to the Directive Principles in Article 39(b)–(c) would not be
invalid on the grounds that they derogated from the Fundamental Rights
conferred by Articles 14, 19 and 31. The application of this article was sought
to be extended to all the Directive Principles by the 42nd Amendment in 1976,
but the Supreme Court struck down the extension as void on the ground that it
violated the basic structure of the Constitution.[22] The Fundamental Rights and
Directive Principles have also been used together in forming the basis of
legislation for social welfare.[23] The Supreme Court, after the judgment
in the Kesavananda Bharati case, has adopted the view of the Fundamental Rights
and Directive Principles being complementary to each other, each supplementing
the other's role in aiming at the same goal of establishing a welfare state by
means of social revolution.[24] Similarly, the Supreme Court has
used the Fundamental Duties to uphold the Constitutional validity of statutes
which seeks to promote the objects laid out in the Fundamental Duties.[25] These Duties have also been held to
be obligatory for all citizens, subject to the State enforcing the same by means
of a valid law.[26] The Supreme Court has also issued
directions to the State in this regard, with a view towards making the
provisions effective and enabling a citizens to properly perform their duties.[27]
The constitution of India seeks to secure the liberty of thought,
expression, belief and faith of the people of the country and also give
equality of status and of opportunity, and dignity of individual. With this
object fundamental rights are introduced.[28]
The Constitution guarantees elaborate Fundamental Rights to Indian
citizens; these are contained in Part III of the Constitution. The
Fundamental Rights embodied in the Indian constitution acts as a guarantee that
all Indian citizens can and will lead their life’s in peace as long as they
live in Indian democracy. These civil liberties take precedence over any other
law of the land. They include individual rights common to most liberal
democracies, such as equality before the law, freedom of speech and expression,
freedom of association and peaceful assembly, freedom of religion, and the
right to constitutional remedies for the protection of civil rights such as
habeas corpus.
In addition, the Fundamental Rights for Indians are aimed at overturning
the inequities of past social practices. They have also been used to in
successfully abolishing the "untouchability"; prohibit discrimination
on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth; and forbid
trafficking in human beings and also the forced labor. They go beyond
conventional civil liberties in protecting cultural and educational rights of
minorities by ensuring that minorities may preserve their distinctive languages
and establish and administer their own education institutions.
Originally, the constitution provided for seven Fundamental Rights:-
1. Right to
equality (Art. 14- 18)
2. Right to
Freedom (Art. 19-22)
3. Right against
exploitation (Art. 23-24)
4. Right to
freedom of religion (Art. 25-28)
5. Cultural and
educational rights (Art. 29-30)
6. Right to
property (Article 31)
7. Right to
constitutional remedies (Article 32).
But, Right to property was deleted from the list of Fundamental Rights
by the 44th Amendment act, 1978. It is made a legal right under
Article-300A in part XII of the Constitution. So now there is only six Rights
in part III of the Constitution.[29]
Article 14 to 18 of the Constitution deal with equality and its various
facets. The general principle finds expression in article 14. Article 14 says
that “the state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or equal
protection of the laws within the territory of India. The expression ‘equality
before the law’ is a declaration of equality of all persons within the
territory of Indi, implying thereby the absence of any special privilege in
favor of any individual. Every person whatever is his rank is subject to the
jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. The second expression ‘equal protection of
the laws’ based on the last clause of the first section of fourteenth Amendment
of American Constitution that equal protection shall be secured by all the
person of the country.[30]
Both the phrases aim to establish what is called the "equality to
status and of opportunity" as embodied in the Preamble of the
Constitution. While equality before the law is a somewhat negative concept
implying the absence of any special privilege in favour of any individual and
the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law, equal protection of
laws is a more positive concept employing equality of treatment under equal
circumstances.[31]
The right to equality is provided in articles 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18. It
includes equality before law without any discrimination (Art. 14),
establishment of social equality (Art. 15), equality of opportunity in matters
of public employment (Art. 16), abolition of untouchability (Art 17) and
abolition of titles (Art. 18) to reduce disparity between the people.[32]
Interpreting the scope of the Article, the Supreme Court of India held
in Charanjit Lal Choudhury vs. The Union of Indiathat:
a. Equal
protection means equal protection under equal circumstances;
b. The state can
make reasonable classification for purposes of legislation;
c. Presumption of reasonableness
is in favour of legislation;
The Supreme Court in National council for Teacher Education versus Shri
Shyam Shiksha Parshikhshan Sansthan has re-iterated the Concept of 'Right
to Equality' as enshrined in our Constitution. The Supreme Court has
re-iterated that the Constitution doesn't allow class legislation but permits reasonable
classification, based upon an 'intelligible differentia'. The relevant extracts
from the aforesaid judgment are reproduced herein below;
Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable
classification provided that it is founded on an intelligible differentia which
distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are
left out of the group and the differentia has a rational nexus to the object
sought to be achieved by the legislation in question.[34]
In its struggle for social and political freedom mankind has always
tried to move towards the ideal of equality for all. The urge for equality and
liberty has been the motive force of many revolutions. The charter of the
United Nations records the determination of the member nations to reaffirm
their faith in the equal rights of men and women.
Indeed, real and effective democracy cannot be achieved unless equality
in all spheres is realized in a full measure. However, complete equality among
men and women in all spheres of life is a distant ideal to be realized only by
the march of humanity along the long and difficult path of economic, social and
political progress.
The Constitution and laws of a country can at best assure to its
citizens only a limited measure of equality. The framers of the Indian
Constitution were fully conscious of this. This is why while they gave
political and legal equality the status of a fundamental right, economic and
social equality was largely left within the scope of Directive Principles of
State Policy.
The Right to Equality affords protection not only against discriminatory
laws passed by legislatures but also prevents arbitrary discretion being vested
in the executive. In the modern State, the executive is armed with vast powers,
in the matter of enforcing by-laws, rules and regulations as well as in the
performance of a number of other functions.
The equality clause prevents such power being exercised in a
discriminatory manner. For example, the issue of licenses regulating various
trades and business activities cannot be left to the unqualified discretion of
the licensing authority. The law regulating such activities should lay down the
principles under which the licensing authority has to act in the grant of these
licenses.
Article 14 prevents discriminatory practices only by the State and not
by individuals.[35]
Article 19 to 22 of the Constitution deal with the right to Freedom.
This right includes the following six freedom of citizen of the country:
a) Freedom of
speech and expression: It needs not to be mentioned as to how important the
freedom of speech and expression in democracy is. A democratic government
attaches a great importance to this freedom, because without freedom of speech
and expression the basis of democracy cannot be made.
b) Assemble
peaceably and without arms: This is the next right of citizen to assemble
peacefully and without arms. Calling an assembly and putting one’s views before
it is also intermixed with the right to speech and expression discussed above.
c) Form
association or unions: The freedom of association includes freedom to hold
meeting and takeout processions without arms. Right to form association for
unions is also guaranteed so that people are free to have the members entertaining
similar views. This right is also subject to some restriction: Sovereignty and
integrity of India, public order and morality.
d) Move freely,
throughout the territory of India: This right is given under article 19(1)(d).
There is also some restriction fall on this right: interest of the general
public and interest of any Scheduled Tribe.
e) Reside and
settle in any part of the territory of India: This right says that the citizen
of India has the right to reside in any part within the territory of India.
Articles 20, 21 and 22 provide personal liberty to Indian citizens as
well as foreigners residing in the country. Article 20 lays down that no person
can be convicted unless he had violated a law, cannot be
subjected to a penalty greater than that which was prescribed under law and a
convict can be punished for a crime only once and cannot be compelled to be a
witness against himself.
Article 21 lays down protection of life, and, personal liberty. It
includes personal liberty implying protection against physical torture,
confinement and imprisonment. Article 22 talks about protection against arrest
and detention. The person arrested should be informed of the grounds of arrest.
He shall have the right to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner,
to be produced before the nearest magistrate within twenty four hours and no
person should be detained in custody beyond 24 hours without the permission of
Magistrate.[37]
In famous case A.K Gopalan vs. State of Madras in 1950, the
Supreme Court held that protection under Article 21 is available only against
arbitrary executive action and not from arbitrary legislative action.[38]
Prabhu Datt vs Union of India SC AIR 1982: SC held that right to know news and information about the
functioning of the govt. is included in the freedom of press.
Union of India vs Association for Democratic Reforms SC AIR 2002: SC held that people have right to know about the candidate before voting. Thus, the law preventing the Election Commission from asking for a candidate’s wealth, assets, liabilities, education and other such information, is invalid.
Union of India vs Association for Democratic Reforms SC AIR 2002: SC held that people have right to know about the candidate before voting. Thus, the law preventing the Election Commission from asking for a candidate’s wealth, assets, liabilities, education and other such information, is invalid.
Secretary, Ministry of I & B vs. Cricket Association of Bengal SC
AIR 1995: In this historic judgment, SC has held that
one has the right to publicize his expression as well. A game of cricket is an
expression and the organizers have a right to propagate it everywhere in the
world. So Doordarshan must provide its up linking facilities to CAB for
transmitting the signals out of country. Art 19 (2) does not allow restrictions
on 19 (1) (a) on the grounds of creating monopoly of the govt.
Every human desires to do
many things. However, in a civil society such desires must be curbed to certain
extent in respect of similar desires of other human beings. Thus, no right is
an absolute right. Art 19 (2) says that nothing in Art 19 (1) (a) shall
affect the operation of any law or prevent the state from making any law, in so
far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on exercise of the right
conferred by the said clause in the interest of -
·
Sovereignty and
integrity of the country.
·
Security of the
state
·
Friendly
relations with foreign states.
·
Public order
·
Decency and
morality
·
Defamation
·
Contempt of
court
·
Incitement of
an offence.
In the original version of this article several grounds such as public
order, friendly relations with foreign states, incitement of an offences were
not there. After the historic judgment in the case of Romesh Thaper vs
State of Madras SC AIR 1950, these grounds were added. In that case, Madras
Govt. prevented the entry an circulation of the new paper 'Cross Roads'
published by Romesh Thaper, in the state of Madras. It argued that the
circulation of the paper affects public safety. However, SC held that
the public safety falls outside the scope of 19 (2) and thus the govt
action was invalid.
Test of reasonable restriction
1.
It is the
courts and not the legislature that will decide whether a law is reasonable or
not.
2.
Reasonable
means that the law is not arbitrary and the restriction is not beyond what is
required in public interest. The time and duration of the restriction cannot be
unlimited.
3.
There is no
fixed standard for reasonableness. Each case must be decided on its own merits.
4.
The restriction
must be reasonable from substantiate as well as procedural standpoint.
5.
Restrictions
imposed due to implementation of Directive Principles may deemed to be
reasonable.
6.
The test of reasonability
must be objective in the sense that it does not matter what a Judge or Court
thinks what is reasonable but what a normal reasonable person would think.[39]
2.1.3 Right against Exploitation:
Article 23: The details of Prohibition of traffic in human beings
and forced labor are presented in this Article
Article 24: The Article contains Prohibition of employment of
children in factories, etc.
In the landmark case of M.C. Mehta vs. State of Tamil Nadu,
1997 the SC has given certain directions regarding the manner in which the
children working in the hazardous occupation are to be withdrawn from work and
rehabilitated, and the manner in which the working conditions of children
working in non- hazardous occupations are to be regulated and improved. It
envisaged a policy of gradual rescue and withdrawal of children to eradicate
child labor.[40]
With Article 25 begins a group of provisions ensuring equality of all
religions thereby promoting secularism. Article 25 gives the entire person the
following right:
a) Freedom of conscience, and
b) The right freely to profess practice and propagate
religion.
The Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs Dr. Praveen Bhai
Thogadia, (2004) held that secularism means that State should have no
religion of its own and each person must get an assurance from the state that
he has the protection of law to freely profess, practice and propagate his
religion and freedom of conscience. This right not only limited to the citizen
but to all person including aliens and individuals exercising their rights
individually or through Institution.[41]
In Jehovah’s Witness’s case, in 1986, a two judge bench of
SC ruled in Bijoe Emmanuel v State Of Kerala, that Jehovah’s witnesses
constitute a religious denomination. Compelling a student belonging to the
Jehovah’s Witnesses to join in the singing of National Anthem despite his
“genuine, conscientious religious objection”, would contravene the rights
guaranteed by Articles 19(1) (a) and 25(1). The court noted that Jehovah’s
Witnesses wherever they are do not sing the National Anthem, though they show
respect to it whenever it is sung.
Article 25(2)(b) provides for two ideas-
1.
Measures of
social reform are permissible and would not be void on the ground of
interfering with the freedom of religion. Thus the Hindu Marriage Act, which
introduces the principle of monogamy, does not amount to interfering with the
religion and is a law providing for social reform and social welfare.
In Krishna Singh vs. Mathura Ahir, the SC has said that Fundamental
Rights do not touch upon the personal laws of the parties. Art. 25 thus
involves a separation between religious activities, on one hand, secular and
social activities, on other.
Under Art. 25((2), religious freedom is subject to laws for social
reform and social order.
2.
The state can
throw open the Hindu religious institutions of public character to all sections
of society.
Art. 25(b) enables the state to take steps to remove the scourge of
untouchability from the Hindus. The word public here includes any section of
the public. It protects the right to enter into a temple for purposes of
worship.[42]
Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious
denomination or any section thereof shall have the right-
a. to establish
and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes;
b. to manage its
own affairs in matters of religion;
c. to own and
acquire movable and immovable property; and
The accepted definition of a "denomination" is" A
collection of individuals classed together under the same name: a religious
sect or body having a common faith and organization and designated by a common
name". Thus a denomination is a cohesive body cemented by the essentials
of its common creed.[44]
Under Article 26(b) a religious denomination or organisation is free to
manage its own affairs in ‘MATTERS OF RELIGION’. The State cannot interfere in
the exercise of this unless they run counter to public health and morality. The
right is, it is to be noted, confined to “matters of religion”. The term
“matters of religion” includes religious practices, rites and ceremonies
considered essential for the practice of religion.
In Bira Kishore Dev vs. State of Orissa, the Shri
Jagannath temple Act took the management of secular activities from the Raja of
Puri and vested it in committee constituted under the act. The Court held the
act to be valid as it didn’t infringe religious aspect.
In respect of Article 26 (C) and 26 (d), a religious denomination
has the right to acquire and own property and administer such property in
accordance with law. In Rati Lal vs. Stae of Bombay, a law which took away the
right of administration altogether from a religious denomination was considered
to be violative of right guaranteed by art. 26 (D).[45]
Article 27: Freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any
particular religion is stated in the Article.[46]
Article 28: This Article includes freedom as to attendance
at religious instruction or religious worship in certain education
institutions.
Article 30: Right of
minorities to establish and administer educational institutions is scripted
Article 32:- : Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by
this part have been included in the Article; aggrieved party can directly go to
Supreme Court for their violation of the Fundamental Rights.
Fundamental Duties of citizens serve a useful purpose. In particular, no
democratic polity can ever succeed where the citizens are not willing to be active
participants in the process of governance by assuming responsibilities and
discharging citizenship duties and coming forward to give their best to the
country.
The fundamental duties are defined as the moral obligations of all
citizens to help promote a spirit of patriotism and to uphold the unity of
India. These duties set in part IV-A of the Constitution, concern individuals
and the nation. They are not legally enforceable. They are held by the Supreme
Court to be obligatory for all citizens.
The Fundamental Duties of citizens were added to the Constitution by the
42nd Amendment in 1976, upon the recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee
that was constituted by the Government of India earlier that year to study the
question of amending the Constitution. The recommendations were passed in 1976
and came into effect on 3rd January, 1977. Originally ten in number, the
Fundamental Duties were increased to eleven by the 86th Amendment in 2002.
The exact duties of every citizen of India according to the Constitution
are:
1.
to abide by the
Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the
National Anthem;
2.
to cherish and
follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom;
3.
to uphold and
protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India;
4.
to defend the
country and render national service when called upon to do so;
5.
to promote
harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India
transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to
renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women;
6.
to value and
preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture;
7.
to protect and
improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life,
and to have compassion for living creatures;
8.
to develop the
scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform;
9.
to safeguard
public property and to abjure violence;
10. to strive towards excellence in all spheres of
individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to
higher levels of endeavour and achievement;
11. who is a parent or guardian to provide
opportunities for education to his child or, as the case may be, ward
between the age of six and fourteen years[47]
Article 32 of the Constitution of India guarantees the enforceability of
fundamental rights for all the citizens of India. Article 32 of the Indian
Constitution states:-
(1) The right to
move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the
rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme
Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs
in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and
certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the
Fundamental Rights.
(3) Without
prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local
limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme
Court under clause (2).
(4) The right
guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided
for by this Constitution.[48]
The Writ Jurisdiction of
Supreme Court can be invoked under Article 32 of the Constitution for the
violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part – III of the Constitution.
Any provision in any Constitution for Fundamental Rights is meaningless unless
there are adequate safeguards to ensure enforcement of such provisions. Since
the reality of such rights is tested only through the judiciary, the safeguards
assume even more importance. In addition, enforcement also depends upon the
degree of independence of the Judiciary and the availability of relevant
instruments with the executive authority. Indian Constitution, like most of
Western Constitutions, lays down certain provisions to ensure the enforcement
of Fundamental Rights.These are as under:
(a) The Fundamental Rights provided in the Indian Constitution are guaranteed against any executive and legislative actions. Any executive or legislative action, which infringes upon the Fundamental Rights of any person or any group of persons, can be declared as void by the Courts under Article 13 of the Constitution.
(b) In addition, the Judiciary has the power to issue the prerogative writs. These are the extra-ordinary remedies provided to the citizens to get their rights enforced against any authority in the State. These writs are - Habeas corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari and Quo-warranto. Both, High Courts as well as the Supreme Court may issue the writs.
(c) The Fundamental Rights provided to the citizens by the Constitution cannot be suspended by the State, except during the period of emergency, as laid down in Article 359 of the Constitution. A Fundamental Right may also be enforced by way of normal legal procedures including a declaratory suit or by way of defence to legal proceedings.
However, Article 32 is referred to as the "Constitutional Remedy" for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. This provision itself has been included in the Fundamental Rights and hence it cannot be denied to any person. Dr. B.R.Ambedkar described Article 32 as the most important one, without which the Constitution would be reduced to nullity. It is also referred to as the heart and soul of the Constitution. By including Article 32 in the Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court has been made the protector and guarantor of these Rights. An application made under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court, cannot be refused on technical grounds.[49] In addition to the prescribed five types of writs, the Supreme Court may pass any other appropriate order. Moreover, only the questions pertaining to the Fundamental Rights can be determined in proceedings against Article 32. Under Article 32, the Supreme Court may issue a Writ against any person or government within the territory of India. Where the infringement of a Fundamental Right has been established, the Supreme Court cannot refuse relief on the ground that the aggrieved person may have remedy before some other court or under the ordinary law.
The relief can also not be denied on the ground that the disputed facts have to be investigated or some evidence has to be collected. Even if an aggrieved person has not asked for a particular Writ, the Supreme Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, may grant the appropriate Writ and may even modify it to suit the exigencies of the case. Normally, only the aggrieved person is allowed to move the Court.[50] But it has been held by the Supreme Court that in social or public interest matters, any one may move the Court. A Public Interest Litigation can be filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution or before the High Court of a State under Article 226 of the Constitution under their respective Writ Jurisdictions. There are mainly five types of Writs –
(i) Writ of Habeaus Corpus,
(ii) Writ of Mandamus,
(iii) Writ of Quo-Warranto,
(iv) Writ of Prohibition, and
(v) Writ of Certiorari.
(a) The Fundamental Rights provided in the Indian Constitution are guaranteed against any executive and legislative actions. Any executive or legislative action, which infringes upon the Fundamental Rights of any person or any group of persons, can be declared as void by the Courts under Article 13 of the Constitution.
(b) In addition, the Judiciary has the power to issue the prerogative writs. These are the extra-ordinary remedies provided to the citizens to get their rights enforced against any authority in the State. These writs are - Habeas corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari and Quo-warranto. Both, High Courts as well as the Supreme Court may issue the writs.
(c) The Fundamental Rights provided to the citizens by the Constitution cannot be suspended by the State, except during the period of emergency, as laid down in Article 359 of the Constitution. A Fundamental Right may also be enforced by way of normal legal procedures including a declaratory suit or by way of defence to legal proceedings.
However, Article 32 is referred to as the "Constitutional Remedy" for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. This provision itself has been included in the Fundamental Rights and hence it cannot be denied to any person. Dr. B.R.Ambedkar described Article 32 as the most important one, without which the Constitution would be reduced to nullity. It is also referred to as the heart and soul of the Constitution. By including Article 32 in the Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court has been made the protector and guarantor of these Rights. An application made under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court, cannot be refused on technical grounds.[49] In addition to the prescribed five types of writs, the Supreme Court may pass any other appropriate order. Moreover, only the questions pertaining to the Fundamental Rights can be determined in proceedings against Article 32. Under Article 32, the Supreme Court may issue a Writ against any person or government within the territory of India. Where the infringement of a Fundamental Right has been established, the Supreme Court cannot refuse relief on the ground that the aggrieved person may have remedy before some other court or under the ordinary law.
The relief can also not be denied on the ground that the disputed facts have to be investigated or some evidence has to be collected. Even if an aggrieved person has not asked for a particular Writ, the Supreme Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, may grant the appropriate Writ and may even modify it to suit the exigencies of the case. Normally, only the aggrieved person is allowed to move the Court.[50] But it has been held by the Supreme Court that in social or public interest matters, any one may move the Court. A Public Interest Litigation can be filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution or before the High Court of a State under Article 226 of the Constitution under their respective Writ Jurisdictions. There are mainly five types of Writs –
(i) Writ of Habeaus Corpus,
(ii) Writ of Mandamus,
(iii) Writ of Quo-Warranto,
(iv) Writ of Prohibition, and
(v) Writ of Certiorari.
1. Writ of Habeas Corpus:
It is the most valuable writ for personal liberty. Habeas Corpus means, "Let us have the body." A person, when arrested, can move the Court for the issue of Habeas Corpus. It is an order by a Court to the detaining authority to produce the arrested person before it so that it may examine whether the person has been detained lawfully or otherwise. If the Court is convinced that the person is illegally detained, it can issue orders for his release
It is the most valuable writ for personal liberty. Habeas Corpus means, "Let us have the body." A person, when arrested, can move the Court for the issue of Habeas Corpus. It is an order by a Court to the detaining authority to produce the arrested person before it so that it may examine whether the person has been detained lawfully or otherwise. If the Court is convinced that the person is illegally detained, it can issue orders for his release
2. The Writ of Mandamus:
Mandamus is a Latin word, which means "We Command". Mandamus is an order from a superior court to a lower court or tribunal or public authority to perform an act, which falls within its duty. It is issued to secure the performance of public duties and to enforce private rights withheld by the public authorities. Simply, it is a writ issued to a public official to do a thing which is a part of his official duty, but, which, he has failed to do, so far. This writ cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is the discretionary power of a court to issue such writs.
Mandamus is a Latin word, which means "We Command". Mandamus is an order from a superior court to a lower court or tribunal or public authority to perform an act, which falls within its duty. It is issued to secure the performance of public duties and to enforce private rights withheld by the public authorities. Simply, it is a writ issued to a public official to do a thing which is a part of his official duty, but, which, he has failed to do, so far. This writ cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is the discretionary power of a court to issue such writs.
3. The Writ of Quo-Warranto:
The word Quo-Warranto literally means "by what warrants?" It is a writ issued with a view to restraining a person from acting in a public office to which he is not entitled. The Writ of quo-warranto is used to prevent illegal assumption of any public office or usurpation of any public office by anybody. For example, a person of 62 years has been appointed to fill a public office whereas the retirement age is 60 years. Now, the appropriate High Court has a right to issue a Writ of quo-warranto against the person and declare the office vacant.
The word Quo-Warranto literally means "by what warrants?" It is a writ issued with a view to restraining a person from acting in a public office to which he is not entitled. The Writ of quo-warranto is used to prevent illegal assumption of any public office or usurpation of any public office by anybody. For example, a person of 62 years has been appointed to fill a public office whereas the retirement age is 60 years. Now, the appropriate High Court has a right to issue a Writ of quo-warranto against the person and declare the office vacant.
4. The Writ of Prohibition:
Writ of prohibition means to forbid or to stop and it is popularly known as 'Stay Order'. This Writ is issued when a lower court or a body tries to transgress the limits or powers vested in it. It is a Writ issued by a superior court to lower court or a tribunal forbidding it to perform an act outside its jurisdiction. After the issue of this Writ proceedings in the lower court etc. come to a stop. The Writ of prohibition is issued by any High Court or the Supreme Court to any inferior court, prohibiting the latter to continue proceedings in a particular case, where it has no legal jurisdiction of trial. While the Writ of mandamus commands doing of particular thing, the Writ of prohibition is essentially addressed to a subordinate court commanding inactivity. Writ of prohibition is, thus, not available against a public officer not vested with judicial or quasi-judicial powers. The Supreme Court can issue this Writ only where a fundamental right is affected.
Writ of prohibition means to forbid or to stop and it is popularly known as 'Stay Order'. This Writ is issued when a lower court or a body tries to transgress the limits or powers vested in it. It is a Writ issued by a superior court to lower court or a tribunal forbidding it to perform an act outside its jurisdiction. After the issue of this Writ proceedings in the lower court etc. come to a stop. The Writ of prohibition is issued by any High Court or the Supreme Court to any inferior court, prohibiting the latter to continue proceedings in a particular case, where it has no legal jurisdiction of trial. While the Writ of mandamus commands doing of particular thing, the Writ of prohibition is essentially addressed to a subordinate court commanding inactivity. Writ of prohibition is, thus, not available against a public officer not vested with judicial or quasi-judicial powers. The Supreme Court can issue this Writ only where a fundamental right is affected.
5. The Writ of
Certiorari:
Literally, Certiorari means to be certified. The Writ of Certiorari is issued by the Supreme Court to some inferior court or tribunal to transfer the matter to it or to some other superior authority for proper consideration. The Writ of Certiorari can be issued by the Supreme Court or any High Court for quashing the order already passed by an inferior court. In other words, while the prohibition is available at the earlier stage, Certiorari is available on similar grounds at a later stage. It can also be said that the Writ of prohibition is available during the tendency of proceedings before a sub-ordinate court, Certiorari can be resorted to only after the order or decision has been announced. There are several conditions necessary for the issue of Writ of Certiorari, which are as under:
(a) There should be court, tribunal or an officer having legal authority to determine the question of deciding fundamental rights with a duty to act judicially.
(b) Such a court, tribunal or officer must have passed order acting without jurisdiction or in excess of the judicial authority vested by law in such court, tribunal or law. The order could also be against the principle of natural justice or it could contain an error of judgment in appreciating the facts of the case.[51]
Literally, Certiorari means to be certified. The Writ of Certiorari is issued by the Supreme Court to some inferior court or tribunal to transfer the matter to it or to some other superior authority for proper consideration. The Writ of Certiorari can be issued by the Supreme Court or any High Court for quashing the order already passed by an inferior court. In other words, while the prohibition is available at the earlier stage, Certiorari is available on similar grounds at a later stage. It can also be said that the Writ of prohibition is available during the tendency of proceedings before a sub-ordinate court, Certiorari can be resorted to only after the order or decision has been announced. There are several conditions necessary for the issue of Writ of Certiorari, which are as under:
(a) There should be court, tribunal or an officer having legal authority to determine the question of deciding fundamental rights with a duty to act judicially.
(b) Such a court, tribunal or officer must have passed order acting without jurisdiction or in excess of the judicial authority vested by law in such court, tribunal or law. The order could also be against the principle of natural justice or it could contain an error of judgment in appreciating the facts of the case.[51]
The Fundamental Duties are not enforceable in any court of law unlike
the Fundamental Rights which are protected by the judiciary in view of
infringement by executive or governmental action. The Fundamental Duties impose
obligation on the citizen to observe a certain code of conduct which helps in
the progress and development of the society and the nation. The Fundamental
Duties were introduced into the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment
Act, 1976 by the Indira Gandhi government. Their main function was to put
national interests over individual interests. Over the years, several questions
have been raised over the enforceability of the Fundamental Duties. However, it
has been held that Fundamental Duties are not enforceable in India.
These are the Fundamental Duties according to the Constitution of India.
In the recent years, the Supreme Court has suggested the Government to draft a
law to enforce Fundamental Duties. The Government is yet to take up this
suggestion but such a move will surely go a long way in helping India to become
a better nation.[52]
Indian Constitution was written after a though analysis of existing
constitution of the world. The framers of the constitution have incorporated
the good things from all the places. As such it is more fair and consistent
than religious books. It is for the foresight of the framers of the
constitution that the country is integrated and has progressed. While the
framers had thought about a lot of things, the one thing that they probably
missed was the safeguard against the degrading morality of politicians.[53]
Fundamental Rights are those rights and freedoms of the people of India,
which enjoy constitutional recognition and guarantee. The Supreme Court of
India and State High Courts have the power to enforce Fundamental Rights.
Supreme court is the guardian protector of fundamental rights.
Technically speaking, the rights specified in Part III (Art 12 to 35) of
the constitution are the fundamental rights available to the citizens of India.
In the case of Menaka Gandhi vs Union of India AIR 1978, J. Bhagvati has said
that these rights represent the values that are cherished by the people of this
country since the vedic ages and are calculated to protect the dignity of
individual and to create conditions in which every human being is able to
develop his personality to the fullest. These rights are necessary for a human
being for attaining full social, intellectual, and spiritual status.[54]
SC in A K Gopalan vs State of Madras AIR 1950 had held that the various
rights given under part III talk about different things and are not be
interlinked. The SC in Menaka Gandhi vs. Union of India AIR 1978 case, however,
has rightly rejected this view. In this case, J Bhagvati said that the role of
SC should be to interpret these rights in the widest possible manner and it
should not attenuate these rights by being confined to their narrow definition.
All these rights are not mutually exclusive and form an integrated theme of the
constitution. J Beg said that their waters must mix to form a grand
flow of unimpeded and impartial justice. Thus, any law that takes
away the life or liberty of a person must also satisfy the test of
reasonableness under art. 14.
Article 32 of the Constitution provides a guaranteed remedy for the
enforcement of Fundamental Rights. The remedy is in the form of specific writs
mentioned in the Article or any other appropriate order by the Supreme Court. A
writ is a written court order by which one is summoned or required to do
something. The writs mentioned in the Constitution have a long history in
British constitution [55]law and are, therefore, understood with
precise meaning and importance.
The writs mentioned in the Constitution are the following:
(1) Writ of Habeas
Corpus,
(2) Writ of
Mandamus,
(3) Writ of
Certiorari,
(4) Writ of
Prohibition, and
(5) Writ of Quo
Warranto.
Fundamental duties in India are guaranteed by the Indian Constitution in
Part 4 A in Article 51 A. These fundamental duties are recognized as the moral
obligations that actually help in upholding the spirit of nationalism as well
as to support the harmony of the nation, as well as of the citizens. These
duties are designed concerning the individuals and the nation. However, these
fundamental duties are not legally enforceable. Furthermore, the citizens are
morally obligated by the Constition to perform these duties. Fundamental Duties
were added by the 42nd Amendment Act in 1976.[56]
Fundamental rights are those rights which are essential for the well
being of a person. Part III of the Indian Constitution contains the list of
Fundamental Rights; that guarantees civil liberties to all the citizens of
India to live in peace and harmony without the fear of being suppressed by
others. The Indian Judiciary has the discretion to punish those violating these
fundamental rights under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. No person can
be deprived these rights pertaining to basic liberty in the form of human
freedoms. It is the judiciary that safeguards these rights of the citizens. In
some exceptional cases, i.e. during emergencies the State can impose
restrictions on the enjoyment of these fundamental rights.
The Constitution provides for the enjoyment of 6 Fundamental rights.
They are:
· Right to
Equality (under Article 14 – Article 18)
· Right to
Freedom (under Article 19 – Article 22)
· Right against
exploitation (under Article 23 – Article 24)
· Right to
Freedom of Religion (under Article 25 – Article 28)
· Cultural and
Educational rights (under Article 29 – Article 30)
Article 45 of the DPSP, which corresponds to article 13(1) of the
ICESCR, states, “The State shall endeavour to provide, within a period of ten
years from the commencement of this Constitution, for free and compulsory
education for all children until they complete the age of fourteen years.”
Thus, while the right of a child not to be employed in hazardous industries
was, by virtue of article 24, recognized to be a fundamental right, the child’s
right to education was put into the DPSP in part IV and deferred for a period
of ten years.
The question whether the right to education was a fundamental right and
enforceable as such was answered by the Supreme Court in the affirmative in
Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992) 3 SCC 666.. The correctness of this
decision was examined by a larger bench of five judges in Unnikrishnan J.P. v.
State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) 1 SCC 645.The occasion was the challenge, by private
medical and engineering colleges, to state legislation regulating the charging
of “capitation” fees from students seeking admission. The college management
was seeking enforcement of their right to business. The court expressly denied
this claim and proceeded to examine the nature of the right to education. The
court refused to accept the nonenforceablity of the DPSP. It asked:
It is noteworthy that among the several articles in Part IV, only
Article 45 speaks of a time-limit; no other article does. Is it a mere pious
wish, even after 44 years of the Constitution? Can the State flout the said
direction even after 44 years on the ground that the article merely calls upon
it to endeavour to provide the same and on the further ground that the said
article is not enforceable by virtue of the declaration in Article 37. Does not
the passage of 44 years—more than four times the period stipulated in Article
45 convert the obligation created by the article into an enforceable right. In
this context, we feel constrained to say that allocation of available funds to
different sectors of education in India discloses an inversion of priorities
indicated by the Constitution. The Constitution contemplated a crash programme
being undertaken by the State to achieve the goal set out in Article 45. It is
relevant to notice that Article 45 does not speak of the “limits of its
economic capacity and development” as does Article 41, which inter alia speaks
of right to education. What has actually happened is more money is spent and
more attention is directed to higher education than to—and at the cost
of—primary education. (By primary education, we mean the education which a
normal child receives by the time he completes 14 years of age.) Neglected more
so are the rural sectors, and the weaker sections of the society referred to in
Article 46. We clarify, we are not seeking to lay down the priorities for the
Government—we are only emphasising the constitutional policy as disclosed by
Articles 45, 46 and 41. Surely the wisdom of these constitutional provisions is
beyond question.
The court then proceeded to examine how this right would be enforceable
and to what extent. It clarified the issue thus: The right to education further
means that a citizen has a right to call upon the State to provide educational
facilities to him within the limits of its economic capacity and development.
By saying so, we are not transferring Article 41 from Part IV to Part III—we
are merely relying upon Article 41 to illustrate the content of the right to
education flowing from Article 21. We cannot believe that any State would say
that it need not provide education to its people even within the limits of its
economic capacity and development. It goes without saying that the limits of
economic capacity are, ordinarily speaking, matters within the subjective
satisfaction of the State.[58]
Fundamental Duties are the
ones that are recognized as moral obligations the citizens are expected to
perform. Article 51A under Part IV A of the Constitution of India speaks of the
Fundamental duties. One cannot enforce these fundamental duties legally. It was
through the 42nd Amendment that these duties were introduced in the
Constitution.
There are 10 Fundamental
duties that the citizens are expected to discharge. They are:
1. The citizens of
India are expected to be abide by the Constitution and respect all its ideals.
Likewise, the citizens are expected to respect the National Flag and the
National Anthem.
2. The noble
ideals that inspired our freedom struggle have to be cherished and followed.
3. The sovereignty,
unity and integrity of India needs to be upheld and protected.
4. Citizens should
be ready to defend and render national service towards India.
5. The spirits of
common brotherhood and harmony have to be promoted by all the citizens wherein
they need to transcend all forms of diversities pertaining to religion,
language and region. All the practices that are derogatory to the dignity of
women have to be renounced.
6. India has a
rich, varied and composite culture and one needs to preserve it.
7. Natural
environment including the forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife are expected to
be preserved by the citizens.
8. People of India
are expected to develop within themselves humanism, scientific temperament, and
spirits of inquiry and reform.
9. Public property
is expected to be safeguarded and violence needs to be avoided.
10. People are
expected to strive for the excellence of all the individuals and collective
activities to help in the development of the country.[59]
Fundamental rights and Fundamental duties are two terms that appear to
be one and the same when it comes to their meaning and concept. Strictly
speaking they are not so. They are two different terms that are to be
understood differently.
Fundamental rights are rights and freedoms guaranteed by constitutions
of some countries of the world to their citizens. These rights have a legal
sanction and are enforceable in a court of law. On the other hand fundamental
duty is the basic duty or responsibility bestowed on you as a citizen of the
country. This is the most important difference between fundamental right and
fundamental duty.[60]
A fundamental right exists by virtue of the fact that you are a human
being whereas a fundamental duty too exists as a responsibility on you as a
human being. Hence the primary difference between fundamental right and
fundamental duty is that fundamental right is based on privilege granted to you
whereas fundamental duty is based on accountability.
Any citizen for that matter is expected to carry out fundamental duties
fully well so that the society as a whole will be benefited. On the other hand
any citizen for that matter can make full use of his fundamental rights
pertaining to right to life, freedom of speech and writing, etc. It is
interesting to note that freedom of speech is a fundamental right granted to a
citizen by some of the democratic countries across the globe. Hence it is up to
the individual to make use of the fundamental right granted to him.
Fundamental duties of every citizen include basic education, nurturing
of children, social responsibility, official responsibility, payment of taxes,
adherence to traffic rules and regulations and the like. Evasion of fundamental
duties leads a citizen to problems. Abuse of fundamental right also leads a
citizen to unwanted problems. These are the differences between fundamental
right and fundamental duty.[61]
1. Aron
Silver. Difference Between Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties.
2. Austin,
Granville. The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 1999.
3. Konvitz, Milton
R. Fundamental Rights: History of a Constitutional Doctrine. transaction publishers, 1
Aug 2009.
4. B.B. TAyal
& A. Jacob (2005), Indian History, World Developments and Civics
5. Rajmohan
Gandhi. “Patel: A Life”.
6. UNI. "Sardar
Patel was the real architect of the Constitution".
7. Durga Das Basu
(1993). “Introduction to the Constitution of India (15th ed.).” New
Delhi: Prentice Hall of India.
8. Austin,
Granville (1999). “The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation”.
New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
9. Krishna Paul.
Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution.
10. Bhadouria. Jai.
Fundamental rights in the Indian Constitution.
11. Kumar, Arvind.
Essay on right to Equality under the Indian Constitution.
12. Kathjoo, Riyaz.
Fundamental Rights.
13. M.P. Jain.
Indian Constitutional Law. Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa. Nagpur. 2008.
14. Seervai, H.M.
Religiou Freedom under our Constitution and social reform.
15. Pandey, J.N.
The Constitutional Law of India. Central Law Agency. Allahabad. 2012.
16. Austin,
Granville. The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 1999.
17. Silver,
Aron. Difference Between Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties.
5. http://www.ias.org.in
8. http://www.legalblog.in
9. http://hanumant.com
10. http://www.advocatekhoj.com
12. http://www.timesofindia.com
[5] UNI. "Sardar
Patel was the real architect of the Constitution". Retrieved from http://www.rediff.com/freedom/22patel.html on 2nd april,
2013.
[14] "Citizenship
(Amendment) Bill, 2003". Rajya Sabha. p. 5. Retrieved fromhttp://web.archive.org/web/20060425230738/http://rajyasabha.nic.in/legislative/amendbills/XXXIX_2003.pdf on 2nd april,
2013.
[15] Durga Das Basu
(1993). “Introduction to the Constitution of India (15th ed.).” New Delhi:
Prentice Hall of India.
[16] Durga Das Basu
(2003). “Shorter Constitution of India (13th ed.).” Nagpur: Wadhwa
& Co. p. 1972.
[17]“ THE CONSTITUTION (EIGHTY-SIXTH AMENDMENT) ACT,
2002”. Retrieved fromhttp://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend86.htm on 2nd april,
2013.
[18] Durga Das Basu
(1993). “Introduction to the Constitution of India (15th ed.).” New Delhi:
Prentice Hall of India.
[19] Durga Das Basu
(2003). “Shorter Constitution of India (13th ed.).” Nagpur: Wadhwa
& Co. p. 1972.
[21] Durga Das Basu
(2003). “Shorter Constitution of India (13th ed.).” Nagpur: Wadhwa
& Co. p. 1972.
[22] Durga Das Basu
(1993). “Introduction to the Constitution of India (15th ed.).” New Delhi:
Prentice Hall of India. p. 114-115
[23] Austin,
Granville (1999). “The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation”.
New Delhi: Oxford University Press. p. 114-115
[24] Durga Das Basu
(2003). “Shorter Constitution of India (13th ed.).” Nagpur: Wadhwa
& Co. p. 1972. P.444
[25] Durga Das Basu
(2003). “Shorter Constitution of India (13th ed.).” Nagpur: Wadhwa
& Co. p. 1972. P.466
[26] Durga Das Basu
(1993). “Introduction to the Constitution of India (15th ed.).” New Delhi:
Prentice Hall of India. P.131.
[27] Durga Das Basu
(2003). “Shorter Constitution of India (13th ed.).” Nagpur: Wadhwa
& Co. p. 1972. P.466.
[28] Krishna Paul.
Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution. Retrieved from
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com on 7.04.13 at 5:35 p.m.
[29] Bhadouria. Jai.
Fundamental rights in the Indian Constitution. Retrieved from
http://www.gyancentral.com on 7.04.13 at 5:40 p.m.
[30] PRAFULL, K.
Fundamental Rights to the Indian Constitution. Retrieved from
http://www.ias.org.in on 7.04.13 at 5:30 p.m.
[31] Kumar, Arvind.
Essay on right to Equality under the Indian Constitution. Retrieved from
http://www.preservearticles.com on 7.04.13 at 5:50 p.m.
[32] Kathjoo, Riyaz.
Fundamental Rights. Retrieved from http://www.greenvalleykashmir.com on 7.04.13
at 6:15 p.m.
[34] Legal Blog.
Right to Equality: Reasonable Classification and Supreme Court. Retrieved from
http://www.legalblog.in on7.4.13 at 5:45 p.m.
[39] Deshmukh
Hanumant. Speech and Expression. Retrieved from http://hanumant.com on 7.04.13
at 6:35 p.m.
[43] Constitution of
India, 1949. Retrieved from http://www.advocatekhoj.com on 7.04.13 at 5:35 p.m.
[44] Seervai, H.M.
Religiou Freedom under our Constitution and social reform. Retrieved from
http://www.pucl.org on 7.4.13 at 5:50 p.m.
[54] Retrived from http://www.kish.in/fundamental_rights_of_india/ dated on April
13, 2013, at 6:20 pm
[55] Retrived from http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/position-of-fundamental-rights-during-emergency-589-1.html/ dated on April
13, 2013, at -7: 54 pm
[56] Retrived from http://www.indianetzone.com/40/fundamental_duties.html
/ dated on April 13, 2013, at 06:30 pm
[57] Konvitz, Milton R. Fundamental Rights: History
of a Constitutional Doctrine. transaction publishers, 1 Aug 2009. Print.
[58] S.K., Singh. “Fundamental rights in depth”. Civil service
India.com. 2001. Web. 20 April. 2013.
[59] Austin,
Granville. The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 1999. Print.
[60] M. George. Fundamental
rights and duties in Indian Constitution. Edurite.com. Web. 19 April, 2013.
[61] Silver, Aron. Difference
Between Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties,3 June, 2011. Web. 5 April 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment