Thematic Notes

(Part of Prelims Complete)

Polity
Theme 2: Rights, Duties & DPSPs

Date of Delivery
1st Reading
1st Revision
2nd Revision

Pages to Revisit: _____________________

Score in Test: ___________
 Citizenship
Citizenship is the legal status of a person recognized under the law as being a member of a sovereign state,
entitling them to full civil and political rights, and obligating them to perform certain duties. Citizenship
means belonging to a country legally — it gives a person rights like voting, protection by the state, and
participation in public life, while also binding them to duties like loyalty, paying taxes, and obeying laws.

"Citizenship is the right to have rights"

Key Features of Citizenship

1. Full Membership: A citizen is a full legal member of the state, unlike non-citizens or foreigners.
2. Rights & Privileges: Includes Fundamental Rights, right to vote, and eligibility for public offices.
3. Duties: Citizens owe allegiance to the state, pay taxes, and follow laws.
4. Single Citizenship in India: One citizenship for the entire country, unlike the USA where there’s
dual (national + state) citizenship.
5. Defined by Law: In India, citizenship is governed by Articles 5–11 of the Constitution and the
Citizenship Act, 1955.

Single Citizenship in India: India subscribes to single citizenship: every citizen holds only one
citizenship—that of India (Articles 5–11; Preamble “We, the People of India…”). Unlike countries with
dual citizenship (e.g. U.S.—national + state), there is no separate “state citizenship” in India.

Features of Single Citizenship in India:

1. Uniform Rights & Obligations: All citizens, wherever born or resident, enjoy the same
fundamental rights (e.g. Articles 14, 15, 19–22) and bear the same duties. They may move to, reside
in, or practice professions in any state without discrimination.
2. Mobile Electorate & Single Franchise: Every citizen 18 years+ votes under a single electoral roll,
free to contest any Assembly or Lok Sabha seat.
3. Common Public Services: Recruitment to All India Services and Central posts is open to all,
fostering a pan-Indian career.

Exceptions

1. Local Residency for Certain Posts (Article 16(3))

o Parliament may require a minimum period of local residence for appointments to state
or municipal posts.
o Example: Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957—5-year residency
for non-gazetted posts in Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura (expired
1974).
o Telangana (2014): AP Reorganisation Act inserted Article 371D—Mandates local
residence for certain jobs in Telangana.
2. Protection of Tribal Areas
o Movement into Scheduled and Tribal Areas may be restricted by law to safeguard local
customs, land rights, and culture (Art 19(5) read with Fifth/Sixth Schedule).
3. Jammu & Kashmir (Pre-2019)
o Article 35A (via Art 370) empowered J&K legislature to define “permanent residents” and
grant them exclusive rights (employment, property, scholarships).
o Abolished in 2019—restoring uniform citizenship rights under the Indian Constitution.

Page- A1
 Who Became Citizens on 26 January 1950?

Note: These are very trivial details but can be understood if studied systematically; Basic idea of Articles
5-8 is to decide on who should become Indian Citizens on the day it became Democratic Republic (i.e. 26
January 1950). These articles (5-8) have no relevance now.

Article 5: Deals with Domicile Indians:

• Domicile is a person’s permanent legal “home”, where they intend to reside indefinitely. It differs from
mere residence (which can be temporary or for a fixed term).

Category Conditions

1. Domicile in India on 26 Jan 1950 AND

Domicile
2. Ever fulfilled one:
Indians
• Born in India OR
• Parent born in India OR
(Article 5)
• 5 years’ ordinary residence immediately before 26 Jan 1950

Article 6: Deals with Early Pakistan Migrants (who migrated from Pakistan to India before 19 July 1948):

Category Conditions

Early Pakistani 1. He/She OR either of his/her parents or grandparents was born in undivided India. AND
Migrants 2. One of:
• Migrated ≤ 19 Jul 1948 and has been an ordinary resident in India since migration;
(Article 6) • 2. Migrated > 19 Jul 1948 and was registered as an Indian citizen.

Article 7: Migrants Who Went to Pakistan (1 Mar 1947–26 Jan 1950) but Returned

Category Conditions

Later Pakistani
1. Migrated to Pakistan after 1 Mar 1947 and returned before 26 Jan 1950. AND
Migrants
2. Has been an ordinary resident in India for 6 months immediately preceding the date of
application for registration.
(Article 7)

Simple Difference Between Articles 6 & 7

• Article 6 covers those who came into India from Pakistan before or on 19 July 1948: they became
citizens if they (or a parent/grandparent) were born in undivided India and they have lived continuously
in India since migration (or, if they came after 19 July 1948, they registered).
• Article 7 covers those who went to Pakistan between 1 March 1947 and 26 January 1950 but then
returned to India before 26 January 1950: they became citizens only if, after coming back, they lived
in India for at least six months before applying for registration.

Page- A2
 Article 8: Citizenship of Persons of Indian Origin Abroad

Category Conditions

Overseas 1. He/She OR either of his/her parents or grandparents was born in undivided India (i.e.
Indians pre-Partition territory). AND
(Residents 2. He/She is ordinarily residing in a foreign country, outside the territory of India. AND
Outside India) 3. He/She has been registered as a citizen of India by an Indian diplomatic or consular
representative in the country of residence, before or after 26 January 1950.
(Article 8)

Concept of Jus Soli & Jus Sanguinis

• Jus soli (“right of soil”) means you become a citizen by being born on a country’s territory,
regardless of your parents’ nationality. (Like in the USA).
• Jus sanguinis (“right of blood”) means you become a citizen through your bloodline—if one or both
of your parents are citizens, you inherit their nationality, even if you’re born abroad. (India)

Example:
• A child born in the USA to non-American parents is automatically American under jus soli.
• A child born in India to at least one Indian parent becomes Indian under jus sanguinis, because
India does not follow jus soli.

Article 9: “No person shall be a citizen of India if he has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of any foreign
State.” This is basically a reiteration of the single citizenship principle.

1. Core Principle
• Voluntary foreign citizenship ⇒ automatic loss of Indian citizenship.
• Dual nationality by personal choice is not permitted.

Note: Children automatically acquiring a parent’s new nationality do not lose Indian citizenship
under this article. Voluntary means it must be an active step (e.g., application, oath).

2. Effect: Loss is automatic upon grant of foreign citizenship; no further proceedings required under
the Constitution itself. Ex: An Indian who applies for and swears in as a U.S. citizen ceases to be an
Indian citizen on that date.

3. Legislative Back-Up: Citizenship Act, 1955 (Sections 8–11) provides the procedural framework
for renunciation and deprivation. (Dealt later)

CITIZENSHIP ACT, 1955:

The constitution leaves for the parliament to decide on the provisions of citizenship after 1950, hence
citizenship act was enacted.

Page- A3
 Important Exclusions /
Mode Key Conditions / Time-lines
Notes
Born in India in

• 26 Jan 1950 – 30 Jun 1987 → Citizen irrespective of Children of foreign

parents’ nationality. diplomats & enemy aliens
1. By Birth • 1 Jul 1987 – 2 Dec 2004 → Citizen if either parent born in India cannot
is Indian at birth. acquire citizenship by
• On/after 3 Dec 2004 → Citizen only if (i) both parents birth.
are Indian or (ii) one parent is Indian and the other is
not an illegal migrant.
Born outside India
If child also acquires
•
26 Jan 1950 – 9 Dec 1992 → Citizen if father is
foreign citizenship, must
Indian.
renounce that nationality
2. By Descent • On/after 10 Dec 1992 → Citizen if either parent is
within 6 months of
Indian.
attaining majority or loses
• From 3 Dec 2004 → Also requires registration at
Indian citizenship.
Indian consulate within 1 year of birth (or with
Central Govt permission later).
Central Govt may register a person (not an illegal
migrant) who is:

a) PIO ordinarily resident in India 7 yrs.

b) PIO ordinarily resident abroad.
3. By c) Spouse of an Indian citizen, ordinarily resident in All applicants must take
Registration India 7 yrs. oath of allegiance before
(Sec 5) d) Minor child of Indian citizens. registration.
e) Adult whose parents are Indian citizens.
f) Adult whose parent was an Indian citizen & who is
resident in India 12 months.
g) OCI card-holder, registered 5 yrs & resident in
India 12 months.
Central Govt may grant certificate if person (not an
illegal migrant):

a) Is not a citizen of a country restricting Indians.

b) Will renounce previous citizenship on acceptance.
c) Resident in India or Govt service 12 months Govt may waive any
immediately before application. condition for
4. By d) During previous 14 yrs, resided/ served in India 11 distinguished service in
Naturalisation yrs (reduced to 5 yrs for Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, science, art, philosophy,
(Sec 6) Jains, Parsis, Christians from Afghanistan, literature, world peace,
Bangladesh, Pakistan by 2019 Amendment). human progress.• Must
e) Of good character. swear oath of allegiance.
f) Adequate knowledge of an Eighth-Schedule
language.
g) Intends to reside or serve in India or an
international body of which India is a member.

Page- A4
 5. By
When foreign territory becomes part of India, Govt
Incorporation Example: Puducherry
specifies persons who will be citizens from the notified
of Territory (Citizenship Order 1962).
date.
(Sec 7)

Special Provisions:

1. Assam Accord (Citizenship Amendment Act, 1985):

Category Who is deemed citizen?

(a) Arrived ≤ 1 Jan 1966 from
Citizen from 1 Jan 1966.
Bangladesh & ordinarily resident
(b) Arrived 1 Jan 1966 – 24 Mar Must register; becomes citizen 10 yrs after detection, enjoys
1971 & detected as foreigner full rights except vote during the 10-year period.

2. CAA 2019 (Migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan)

• Applies to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, Christian migrants who entered India on/before 31
Dec 2014 and were exempted from Passport Act / Foreigners Act penalties.
• They may receive registration or naturalisation; residence requirement relaxed to 5 yrs (from 11).
• Not applicable to tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Tripura under Sixth Schedule or to
areas under “Inner Line Permit”.

Loss of Citizenship (three modes in the Act):

Mode Who can lose? Essentials

• Written declaration (full age & capacity) recorded
by GoI → citizenship ceases.
Any citizen by birth / • Minor children also cease but may resume within
Renunciation descent / registration / one year of attaining 18.
naturalisation
If declaration is made while India is at war, Govt may
withhold registration.
• Indian citizenship automatically ends; not applicable
Any citizen voluntarily during war in which India is engaged.
Termination acquiring foreign
nationality If declaration is made while India is at war, Govt may
withhold registration.
Grounds:
(a) Citizenship obtained by fraud.
(b) Disloyalty to Constitution.
Compulsory by Central
(c) Unlawful trade/communication with enemy during
Govt (for citizens by
Deprivation war.
registration/naturalisation
(d) Imprisonment ≥ 2 years in any country within 5 years
only)
of registration/naturalisation.
(e) Absence from India ≥ 7 years continuously.

Page- A5
 Exceptions for (e): Must give person notice & opportunity
to be heard. Not applicable if: (i) student abroad; (ii)
serving GoI/Int’l org; (iii) yearly declaration at Indian
consulate of intention to retain citizenship.

OCI, NRI, PIO (Will be dealt in Class)

Page- A6
Page- A7
 Fundamental Rights
Fundamental Rights are a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution, enshrined in Part III (Articles 12 to 35),
guaranteeing essential civil liberties to all individuals to ensure their holistic development and to protect them
against arbitrary actions of the State. Inspired by global charters like the American Bill of Rights and Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, these rights are justiciable—meaning they are legally enforceable by courts.
They embody the ideals of liberty, equality, and dignity, forming the bedrock of India’s democratic
framework. While these rights are not absolute and subject to reasonable restrictions, they are regarded as
“inalienable and inviolable”, and form part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution, immune even from
constitutional amendments under Article 368.

Key Features of India’s Fundamental Rights (FRs)

• Guaranteed to all citizens without discrimination; several rights (Arts 14, 20–22, 23) also extend to
foreigners (enemy aliens excepted).
• Justiciable & enforceable – an aggrieved person may move:
o Supreme Court (Art 32) – original, non-discretionary jurisdiction for FR enforcement.
o High Courts (Art 226) – wider, discretionary writ power for FRs + legal rights.
• Primarily vertical – claim lies against the State (Art 12); certain rights (Art 17 & 23) are enforceable
against private individuals too.
• Not absolute, but qualified – each right may be curtailed by reasonable restrictions (e.g., Art 19
clauses 2-6: sovereignty, public order, morality, etc.).
• Constitutional status – can be changed only by a constitutional amendment; ordinary legislation
insufficient.
• Suspension during National Emergency (Art 359) – Parliament/President may suspend most FRs;
Arts 20 & 21 stay intact (44ᵗʰ CAA).
• Amendable, not destroyable – Parliament may amend FRs, but their core cannot be abrogated
(Basic-Structure doctrine, Kesavananda, 1973).
• Negative rights (State must not interfere/limits state authority) – e.g., Arts 14, 15, 16, while Positive
rights (state to take positive action to ensure certain entitlements for citizens) – e.g., Arts 20, 21, 21-
A (education).
• Protection of vulnerable sections – special dispensations to advance equity:
o Art 15(4) & (5) – social & educational uplift of SCs, STs, OBCs;
o Art 16(4) – reservation in public employment.
• Citizens-only rights – Arts 15, 16, 19, 29(1 & 2), 30; others apply to all persons.
• Foreigners’ rights (except enemy aliens) – Arts 14, 20-22, 23.
• Borrowed sources – Nehru Report (1928), US Bill of Rights, English Bill of Rights (1689), French
Declaration of Rights of Man (1789).
• Limited by Directive Principles through specific shields: Art 31-A, 31-B (Ninth Schedule), 31-C
(laws for Arts 39 (b)–(c)).

Article 12
Definition of “State” for Part III (Fundamental Rights)
“State” includes—

1. Government & Parliament of India – Union executive and legislature.

2. Government & Legislature of each State.
3. Local authorities – panchayats, municipalities, district boards, cantonment boards, improvement
trusts, etc.
4. “Other authorities” within India or under the control of the Government of India.

Page - B1
 What comprises state?

Category Examples Leading SC tests / cases

Rajasthan SEB v Mohan Lal (1967) – bodies
Statutory corporations LIC, ONGC, FCI, Air India
created by statute, exercising public power.
Government companies / International Airport Authority (1979); Ajay
PSUs (even if registered SAIL, NTPC Hasia (1981) – instrumentality or agency
under the Companies Act) test.
Universities & research DU, BHU, IITs, ISRO Heavy financial aid + deep govt control =
bodies centres “other authority”.
Private school receiving 100
Private bodies performing If functional, financial, administrative
% aid; on-contract corporate
public duties control of State is pervasive → Article 12.
managing a public utility
Authorities operating
Indian embassies, external
abroad but controlled by “Under the control of GoI” clause covers them.
PSUs
GoI

Ajay Hasia criteria (any one strong / mix suffices):

1. State funding (whole or dominant), 4. Statutory monopoly,
2. Deep & pervasive control, 5. Transfer of a government
3. Public-service character, department.

Bodies NOT “State”

• Purely private corporations / NGOs with no pervasive State control.
• Co-operative societies or clubs formed under general law without substantial governmental
domination (Zee Telefilms v. Union, 2005).
• Judiciary: Courts are not State when acting judicially (they are when performing administrative
functions).

Article 13
Judicial Review of Laws vis-à-vis Fundamental Rights

• Core mandate: “All laws inconsistent with, or in derogation of, any Fundamental Right (FR) are void
to the extent of the inconsistency.”
• Who exercises the power?
o Supreme Court under Article 32.
o High Courts under Article 226 → Together, they form the constitutional power of judicial
review.
• What counts as “law” for Article 13?
o Acts of Parliament or State Legislatures.
o Ordinances of the President or Governors.
o Sub-ordinate legislation: rules, regulations, bye-laws, notifications.
o Custom or usage having the force of law.
• Pre-constitutional vs. post-constitutional:
o Art 13(1) — voids pre-Constitution laws infringing FRs (doctrine of eclipse; law remains
eclipsed until amendment or repeal).
o Art 13(2) — bars the State from making any future law contravening FRs; such a provision is
straightaway void (severability applies).
• Constitutional Amendments?

Page - B2
 o Text of Art 13 omits them, but Kesavananda Bharati (1973) held that an amendment is open
to challenge if it damages the Basic Structure, which includes Fundamental Rights.
• Doctrines evolved under Art 13:

1. Doctrine of Eclipse – inconsistent pre-1950 law is dormant, not dead; becomes operative if
FR is later amended.
2. Doctrine of Severability – only the offending part of a law is struck down, the rest survives if
workable.
3. Doctrine of Waiver rejected – an individual cannot waive FRs (Basheshar Nath, 1959).

• Judicial Review as Basic Structure: Even though the phrase “judicial review” is absent from the text,
Articles 13, 32 and 226 together enshrine it; SC has declared judicial review itself a basic-structure
feature (e.g., L. Chandra Kumar, 1997).

Essence: Article 13 is the constitutional “safety-valve,” empowering courts to keep every form of law—
past, present or delegated—within the bounds of Fundamental Rights, thereby preserving the supremacy of
the Constitution.

Article 14
“The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws
within the territory of India.”

Two limbs of Article 14:

Concept Core Idea Tag Simple Example
Minister & driver pay the
Equality before No special privilege; same ordinary Negative concept –
same ₹500 challan for
law (British) courts for all; law above everyone. stops special favours.
jumping a signal.
Persons in similar circumstances Positive concept – Separate juvenile courts
Equal
must be treated alike; different classes permits reasonable for under-18 offenders;
protection of
can be treated differently if the classification. reservation for
laws (American)
distinction is rational. SC/ST/EWS.

“Any person” = citizens and foreigners; corporations included.

Reasonable Classification Test: A law can classify if
both conditions met:
Arbitrariness Doctrine 1. Intelligible Differentia – the group chosen is
rationally distinct.
2. Rational Nexus – that distinction relates directly to
• Starting from E.P. Royappa (1974) and crystal-clear in the object of the law.
Maneka Gandhi (1978): “Arbitrariness is antithetical to If either link fails, the classification = “class legislation” and
is void.
equality.”
• Any state action that is whimsical, without reason or fair
procedure, violates Article 14 – even without explicit discrimination.

Exceptions:

Provision Immunity Granted

President/Governor not answerable in court for official acts; no criminal proceedings,
Art 361 arrests or imprisonment during term.

Page - B3
 Provision Immunity Granted
No civil proceedings against President/Governor during his term of office in any court in
respect of any act done by him in his personal capacity, whether before or after he entered
upon his office, until the expiration of 2 months next after notice has been delivered to him.
Art 361-A Media protected from court action for truthful reports of Parliament/State legislatures.
Art 105 & 194 MPs/MLAs immune for anything said/voted inside House.
If a law gives effect to Directive Principles in Art 39(b) or (c), it can’t be struck down as
Art 31-C
violating Art 14. (“Where 31-C comes in, 14 goes out.”)
Foreign envoys
Diplomatic immunity from Indian jurisdiction (Vienna Convention / UN Act).
& UN agencies

Article 15

Prohibition of Discrimination

1. 15(1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex
or place of birth.
2. 15(2) No citizen shall, on those same grounds, be denied access to shops, restaurants, hotels, public
entertainment, wells, tanks, roads, or public places—even private owners cannot discriminate.
3. 15(3) The State may make special provisions for women and children.
4. 15(4) The State may make special provisions for socially & educationally backward classes
(SEBCs) or for SCs/STs (added by the 1st CAA 1951 after Champakam case).
5. 15(5) (93rd CAA 2005) – State may reserve seats for SEBC / SC / ST in educational institutions
(including private aided/unaided) except Minority Educational Institutions.
6. 15(6) (103rd CAA 2019) – State may give up to 10 % EWS quota (Economically Weaker Sections)
in educational institutions including private (again, minority institutions exempt).

• Article 15 forbids negative discrimination and empowers positive discrimination to correct historical
or economic disadvantages.
• Its ground-breaking amendments (1st, 93rd, 103rd) show Parliament’s flexibility to widen social justice
while the Supreme Court polices reasonableness (Art 14 test) and creamy-layer/economic criteria.

Key Pronouncements of Article 15:

Case Key Pronouncement
State of Madras v. Champakam Communal (religion-caste) college quotas struck down ⇒ led to 1st
Dorairajan (1951) CAA 1951 inserting Art 15(4).
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India Upheld 27 % OBC reservation; introduced creamy-layer test; total
(1992) reservations ≤ 50 %.
Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union Upheld 27 % OBC quota in central educational institutions under Art
of India (2008) 15(5); creamy layer exclusion reaffirmed.
Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India Supreme Court (5-judge) upheld 10 % EWS quota (Art 15(6)),
(2022) saying it doesn’t violate basic structure.
Indian Young Lawyers’ Assn. Temple entry bar on women 10-50 yrs struck as discriminatory under
(Sabarimala) (2018) Arts 14-15.

Page - B4
 Positive Discrimination & Reservations under Art 15

Provision Target Group Typical Schemes / Quota

15(3) Women & Children Free girls’ education, maternity benefits, ladies’ compartment in metro.
15(4) SC / ST / SEBC (OBC) 15 % SC + 7.5 % ST + 27 % OBC seats in central institutes.
Same groups but Central Educational Institutions Act 2006 → applies quota to IITs,
15(5)
specifically admission AIIMS etc.
EWS (general 10 % seats in govt (aided/unaided) & private colleges (excl. minority
15(6)
category poor) institutions).
Creamy Layer (OBC) – who is excluded?
• Children of constitutional post-holders, Group A/Group B officers, high-income business families,
colonel-rank & above, etc.
• Current income cut-off ≈ ₹8 lakh family annual income.

EWS Eligibility
• Family income < ₹8 lakh and no high-value assets (≥ 5 acre land, 1000 sq ft flat, etc.).

Article 16
Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment

1. 16(1) There shall be equal opportunity for all citizens in matters of public employment or
appointment to any office under the State.
2. 16(2) No citizen shall be discriminated against on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex,
descent, place of birth, residence or any of them.
3. 16(3) Parliament may prescribe residence within a State/UT as a condition for certain posts.
4. 16(4) The State may make reservation of posts for any backward class which, in its opinion, is
not adequately represented in services.
5. 16(4-A) (77ᵗʰ CAA 1995) – Allows reservation in promotion for SC/STs.
6. 16(4-B) (81ˢᵗ CAA 2000) – Permits carry-forward of unfilled SC/ST quota beyond 50 % ceiling.
7. 16(5) Religious/denominational offices may require the holder to belong to that religion.
8. 16(6) (103ʳᵈ CAA 2019) – Up to 10 % EWS quota in public jobs in addition to existing
reservations.

Consequential Seniority
1. Normal rule of seniority: When two officers enter the same higher cadre on different dates,
seniority follows date-of-promotion; the one promoted earlier ranks senior.

2. Problem with reservation in promotion

o Suppose an SC/ST officer is promoted earlier under the reservation roster, while a senior
General-category officer is promoted later on merit.
o If seniority follows date of promotion, the reserved-category officer will jump ahead of the
older general officer.
o Many States at first ignored this jump by giving the SC/ST officer the post but not the
seniority—undoing the benefit of early promotion.
3. Solution: “Consequential Seniority”
o 85ᵗʰ Constitutional Amendment (2001) added the phrase “with consequential seniority” to
Article 16(4-A).

Page - B5
 o This means: when an SC or ST employee is promoted under the reservation quota, the
seniority he/she gains is preserved automatically, even if it places them ahead of previously
senior general candidates.

Key Pronouncements of Article 15:

Case Year Key Holding for Art 16

State of Mysore v. P.
1963 Total reservation should not exceed 50 % (later refined).
Balaji
Indra Sawhney v. Union 27 % OBC quota valid; no reservation in promotion (overruled later for
1992
of India (Mandal) SC/ST); introduced creamy-layer exclusion; 50 % ceiling reiterated.
M. Nagaraj v. Union of Upheld 16(4-A) & 16(4-B); for promotion quota State must show
2006
India backwardness, inadequacy, impact on efficiency.
Jarnail Singh v. L&S Removed need to prove backwardness for SC/ST promotion quota but
2018
Govt kept data on inadequacy.
Janhit Abhiyan v. Union EWS 10 % quota (16(6)) constitutional; economic-only reservation not
2022
of India violative of basic structure.

Remember:
1. Citizens-only Right: Unlike Art 14 & 15, Article 16 applies only to citizens.
2. Public Employment Only: Covers State jobs & offices; not private-sector hiring.
3. Efficiency Clause (Art 335): Claims of SC/ST must be balanced with administrative efficiency.
4. 50 % Ceiling: Still good law (Indra Sawhney); may be breached only in extraordinary situations (e.g.,
Tamil Nadu Act under Ninth Schedule).
5. Reservation ≠ Fundamental Right: No individual can demand quota; it is an enabling power of the
State (Dr Chandru v. State of T.N., 2022).
6. Residence Rule Rare Today: After 1974 expiry, only Telangana (Art 371D) and some NE states
retain constitutional local-candidate rules.

Article 17
“ ‘Untouchability’ is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of any
disability arising out of ‘Untouchability’ shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.”

What point does Article 17 make?

Point Simple Explanation

Abolished Untouchability no longer exists in the eyes of law.
Any form Whether social, religious, economic or customary—all manifestations are banned.
Anyone who imposes or even justifies untouchability commits a crime, not merely a
Offence
civil wrong.
Applies against You can sue or prosecute an individual shop-owner, priest, landlord, club etc.—not
private persons too only the State.
Article 17 is an absolute fundamental right; Parliament cannot dilute it, courts
No exceptions
cannot allow “reasonable restrictions.”

Page - B6
 Supporting Legislation (though FR do not need laws for enforcement, some of the laws can be traced
to implementation if Article 17)

Law Core Provisions Punishment

Criminalises enforcing any disability on grounds of
Protection of Jail up to 6 months or fine up to
untouchability. Typical offences: • Denying entry to
Civil Rights ₹500 (can be enhanced for repeat
temples, shops, hotels, entertainment • Refusing access to
Act, 1955 offences); conviction
wells, roads, public facilities • Justifying untouchability
(originally disqualifies the offender from
in speeches • Insulting an SC person on untouchability
Untouchability election to Parliament/State
grounds • Refusing goods/services, school or hospital
(Offences) Act) legislature.
admission
SC & ST Treats acts motivated by caste hatred (forcible occupation
Harsher sentences—up to life
(Prevention of of land, humiliation, social boycott, etc.) as atrocities;
imprisonment depending on
Atrocities) Act, establishes Special Courts; provides relief &
offence.
1989 rehabilitation.

Key Pronouncements of Article 17:

Case & Year Take-away

State of Karnataka v. Appa Upheld conviction for barring Dalits from village wells; reaffirmed Art 17
Balu Ingale (1995) as living reality.
People’s Union for
Bonded-labour based on caste = violation of Art 17 and 23; court ordered
Democratic Rights v. UOI
prosecution.
(1982)
Though decided primarily on Arts 14 & 25, court cited Art 17 to stress
Indian Young Lawyers Assn.
that exclusion in a temple on biological grounds resembles
(Sabarimala) (2018)
untouchability.

Remember:

• Term not defined in Constitution or law → Courts interpret it as any caste-based social disability
(exclusion from public places, services, worship, etc.).
• Does not cover a personal boycott unrelated to caste.
• Part of the Basic Structure (cannot be removed).
• Positive obligation on State: Government must take steps—laws, policing, education—to eradicate
the practice.

Article 18
Abolition of Titles

1. 18(1) State shall not confer any title on any person except military or academic distinctions.
Ex: You cannot be awarded “Sir” or “Lord” by Govt of India.

2. 18(2) Indian citizens shall not accept any title from any foreign State.
Ex: An Indian cricketer may not accept “Baron” from UK Crown.

3. 18(3) Indian State-employees (office of profit or trust) shall not accept any foreign title without the
President’s consent.
Ex: IFS officer offered “Order of the Rising Sun” by Japan must seek approval.

Page - B7
 4. 18(4) No person holding an office of profit/trust under the State shall accept any present, emolument
or office from any foreign State without the President’s consent. (routed through the Ministry of
External Affairs + Home Affairs)
Ex: DRDO scientist cannot take a paid UN post without clearance.

Allowed (Not ‘titles’ under Art 18) Banned

Hereditary nobility names – Malik, Rai
• Military ranks – Captain, Major, Marshal.
Bahadur, Nawab.
• Academic degrees – Ph.D., D.Litt., Professor. Foreign knighthoods without consent.
• National honours (Bharat Ratna, Padma awards, Gallantry Use of Padma awards as prefixes (e.g.
medals) – they are decorations, not titles & hence don’t fall “Padma Shri X” on visiting card) –
under 18(1). discouraged by SC.

Key Pronouncements of Article 18:

Case Year What SC Held

National awards (Padma series, Bharat Ratna) constitutional; not violative of
Balaji Raghavan
1996 Art 18 because they are non-hereditary, revocable honours for merit. Court
v. Union of India
warned against their misuse as titular prefixes.

Remember:

1. Govt’s 1961 & 1995 Gazette notifications warn that using Padma/Bharat Ratna as a “title” can lead to
forfeiture of the award.
2. Govt servants require permission even for a non-emolumentary foreign decoration; if it carries any
pension, stipend or feudal style, permission is usually refused.
3. President’s consent letters are routed through the Ministry of External Affairs + Home Affairs; absence
of consent may entail dismissal for “breach of oath”.
4. Printing “Sir” on visiting cards after a UK knighthood (without renouncing Indian citizenship) →
Passport Act can refuse reissue; MEA may direct deletion.
5. USA Constitution’s “Titles of Nobility” clause (Art I, §9) is similar to Art 18 but only bars the federal
government; India extends the bar to States and private acceptance.

Article 19
Six Fundamental Freedoms for Citizens

Freedom / Reasonable Restrictions – Grounds in

What it Includes
Right Constitution
• Right to Propagate one’s views as well as
views of others.
• Freedom of Press • Sovereignty and Integrity of India
• Right Against Tapping of Telephonic • Security of State
conversation • Friendly relations with Foreign
(a) Speech & • Right Against Bandh called by Political • States
Expression Party • Public order
• Freedom of Silence • Decency or Morality
• Right Against Imposition of Pre- Censorship • Contempt of Court
on a Newspaper • Defamation and Incitement to a offence.
• Right to Demonstration or Picketing but Not
Right to Strike

Page - B8
 Freedom / Reasonable Restrictions – Grounds in
What it Includes
Right Constitution
• Sovereignty and Integrity of India
• Right to hold public meetings, • Public order
• demonstrations and take out • Section 144 of CrPC: Magistrate can restrain
• processions. an assembly, meeting or procession if there is
(b) Peaceful risk of obstruction to human life, health or
• Can be exercised only on public land
Assembly safety or a disturbance of public tranquility.
• Assembly must be peaceful and
• Section 141 of IPC: Assembly of five or
• Unarmed
more persons becomes unlawful if object is to
• It does NOT include Right To Strike resist execution of any law or legal process;
forcibly occupy the property of some person.
• Right to form Political Parties, Companies,
• Sovereignty and Integrity of India
(c) Form Partnership firms, Societies, Clubs,
• Public order
Organisations, Trade unions or anybody of
Associations • Morality: Right to obtain recognition of
persons.
/ Unions / association is not a fundamental right.
• Covers the negative right of not to form or join
Co- an association or union.
Supreme Court – Trade unions have no
operatives guaranteed right to effective bargaining or right to
• The provision for “co-operative societies
strike or right to declare a lock-out.
made by 97th CAA, 2011.
• Interests of General Public
• Protecting Interests of Any Schedule Tribe
• Right to every citizen to move freely
o To protect distinctive culture,
(d) Move throughout territory of the country.
o language, customs and manners of
• He can move freely from one state to
Freely o STs and safeguard their traditional
another or from one place to another
throughout o vocation and properties against
within a state.
India o exploitation.
Underline idea - India is one unit so far as
Supreme Court - Freedom of movement of
citizens are concern and promoting Nationalism.
prostitutes can be restricted on ground of public
health and public morals.
• Interests of General Public
• Protecting Interests of Any Schedule Tribe
• Right to reside in any part of country, o To protect distinctive culture, language,
(e) Reside & i.e., to stay at any place temporarily. customs and manners of STs and
Settle in any • Right to settle in any part of country, safeguard their traditional vocation and
part i.e., to set up a home or domicile at any properties against exploitation.
place permanently. Supreme Court - Certain areas can be banned for
certain kinds of persons like prostitutes and habitual
offenders.
• Interests of General Public
• State is empowered to:
o Prescribe professional or technical
qualifications necessary for practising
any profession or carrying on any
(f) Practise occupation, trade or business
o Right to practise any profession or to
Any o Carry on by itself any trade, business,
carry on any occupation, trade or
Profession, business; provided trade or occupation is industry or service whether to exclusion
Trade or not illegal or immoral. (complete or partial) of citizens or
Business otherwise.
No objection can be made when State carries on a
trade, business, industry or service either as a
monopoly to exclusion of citizens or in competition
with anycitizen. State is not required to justify its
monopoly

Page - B9
 Right to Property

• Was a Fundamental Right: originally in Article 19(1)(f) (freedom to acquire, hold and dispose
property) + Article 31 (compulsory acquisition only with compensation).
• Removed by 44th Amendment (1978): both clauses deleted from Part III; new Article 300-A added
in Part XII – “No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.”
• Now a legal/constitutional right, not fundamental: you can still sue if property is taken without a
valid law, but you cannot file a writ for violation of a fundamental right under Article 32.

Article 20
Protection in Respect of Conviction for Offences

What the Constitution Illustrative Example /

Key Points to Remember
Says (plain text) Leading Case
• Applies only to criminal laws,
You cannot be convicted not to civil liabilities or tax laws.
for an act that was not an • Does not stop government from
20(1)No ex- • Parliament cannot make a
offence when you did it, making a lighter punishment apply
post-facto 2025 Act saying “tweeting in
nor given a harsher retrospectively (benefit can go
law 2024 is sedition” and jail you.
penalty than the one in back).
force at that time. • Bars only conviction or sentence,
not the mere trial.
• Two facets—autrefois convict
(already convicted) & autrefois
acquit (already acquitted). • If a driver is fined by a
“No person shall be
20(2)No • Works only when the first magistrate for rash driving,
prosecuted and punished
double proceeding was before a court/ police cannot file another
for the same offence more
jeopardy judicial tribunal; departmental or criminal case for the same
than once.”
customs confiscation ≠ bar incident under same section.
(Maqbool Hussain v. State of
Bombay, 1953).
• Protection begins once a person
is “accused”.
• Covers oral testimony and
written statements compelled by
police or court. • Police cannot force an
An accused cannot be • Does NOT protect giving accused to answer
20(3)No self-
forced to testify against fingerprints, handwriting, blood incriminating questions or
incrimination
himself. samples (Selvi v. Karnataka, 2010 sign a confession; but can
only banned narco, polygraph, take his fingerprints.
BEAP tests).
• Also a right to silence during
interrogation (Nandini Satpathy,
1978).

Remember:
• Applies to citizens, foreigners and even companies (legal persons).
• Offers shield only against the State; private coercion is dealt with under special laws.
• Not available for preventive detention or security-bond proceedings (only punitive criminal laws).
• Article 20 rights are absolute during Emergency—they cannot be suspended under Art 359.

Page - B10
 Article 21 ( Will be Discussed in Class)

Page - B11
 Article 22
Protection Against Arrest & Detention

Two Types of Detention:

• Punitive Detention: After trial & conviction for a past offence → punishment.
• Preventive Detention: Without trial or conviction; objective is to prevent a future act prejudicial
to security/public order. Purely precautionary, based on suspicion.

Rights under Ordinary Law (Punitive) Rights under Preventive-Detention Law

• Detention cannot exceed 3 months unless an
• Be informed of grounds of arrest immediately. Advisory Board (HC judges) finds sufficient cause
for extension.
• Grounds of detention must be communicated
• Right to consult & be defended by a lawyer
“as soon as may be”; facts against public interest
of choice.
may be withheld.
• Produced before magistrate within 24 hours • Detenu must get an opportunity to make a
(travel time excluded). representation against the order.

Page - B12
 Rights under Ordinary Law (Punitive) Rights under Preventive-Detention Law
• Parliament may fix classes of cases, maximum
• Release after 24 hours unless magistrate
period & Advisory-Board procedure for detention
authorises further custody.
beyond 3 months.

Statutes under which Preventive Detention can be made:

Act Purpose Max Detention Review

National Security Defence of India, public Advisory Board within 3
12 months
Act 1980 order weeks
Anti-smuggling / foreign- Advisory Board within 5
COFEPOSA 1974 1 year (can extend)
exchange violations weeks
J&K Public Safety State security & public 6–24 months Advisory Board within 4
Act 1978 order (depending clause) weeks

Remember:

• Ordinary laws are not available to an enemy alien or a person already under a preventive-
detention order.
• Ordinary-law rights apply only to criminal or quasi-criminal arrests—not to civil-contempt, tax-
arrears, deportation, etc.
• Preventive-detention safeguards do not bar simultaneous criminal trial (Haradhan Saha 1975)
• Parliament can make laws of preventive detention exclusively on subjects of Defence, foreign
affairs, security of India.
• Parliament + States can make on State security, public order, maintenance of supplies & essential
services.

Article 23
Prohibition of Traffic in Human-Beings, Begar and Other Similar Forms of Forced Labour

• 23 (1) Traffic in human-beings, begar and other similar forms of forced labour are forbidden; any
contravention is an offence punishable by law.
• 23 (2) The State may impose compulsory service for public purposes, but without
discrimination solely on religion, race, caste or class.

• Applies to citizens and foreigners.

• Binds State and private persons (horizontal application).
• Non-suspendable even during Emergency (Art 359 bar does not extend).

• Forced labour – compelling a person to

What the Prohibited Terms Mean work against will; includes economic
compulsion (work for less than statutory
• Traffic in human-beings – buying, selling, minimum wage).
hiring or transporting persons for
exploitation (includes prostitution, bonded Exception (23 (2)): Compulsory public
migration, slavery, Devadasi system). service such as conscription for defence, jury
• Begar – compulsory work without any duty, disaster relief—allowed if applied on
payment (classic colonial practice of forced non-discriminatory basis and usually with
village labour). nominal remuneration.

Page - B13
 Landmark Judgements: quarries; Court issued continuing
mandamus to free & rehabilitate; Art 23
• People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. imposes positive obligation on State.
UOI (Asiad, 1982) – Paying labourers • Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan (1983) –
below minimum wage = forced labour Workers on famine-relief must get
under Art 23; State duty to ensure statutory minimum wage; otherwise violates Art 23.
wages. • Vishal Jeet v. UOI (1990) & Gaurav Jain
• Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. UOI (1984) – v. UOI (1997) – Directed police & welfare
Bonded-labourers identified in stone- measures against trafficking of
women/children for prostitution.

Remember:

• “Compulsion” includes economic necessity; inability to bargain is enough (PUCL case).

• Victims can directly approach SC under Art 32; writs often lead to rescue & rehabilitation orders.
• Liability is criminal; Parliament free to prescribe penalties—many offences now non-bailable &
cognisable (IPC 370 inserted 2013).
• State cannot outsource a job to private contractor and escape responsibility; fundamental right is
violated even if coercion is by private agency.

Article 24
“No child below fourteen years shall be employed in any factory or mine or in any other hazardous
employment.”

• Any child under 14 — citizen or foreigner.

• Absolute ban on factories, mines, explosive & other hazardous processes.
• Does not bar light, family-based or non-hazardous work (these are regulated separately).

Key Legislation:

➢ Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act 1986 – prohibited specified dangerous occupations,
regulated hours/conditions elsewhere.
➢ Ban of child domestic workers (2006) – Ministry of Labour notification extended “hazardous” list to
hotels, dhabas, spas, etc.
➢ M. C. Mehta v. State of T.N. (1996) – Supreme Court: no child in hazardous units; ordered survey,
rehab fund (₹20k per child from employer + matching govt grant).
➢ Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Amendment Act 2016 –
• Total ban on employment of children (< 14) in all occupations/processes except family
enterprise after school hours + entertainment industry with safeguards.
• Prohibits adolescents (14–18) in 3+ designated hazardous processes (e.g., mining, explosives).

Remember:

➢ India is a signatory under ILO Convention 182 (Worst Forms of Child Labour) and UN-CRC.
➢ Penalties for Offenses:
• First offence: up to ₹50,000 fine or 6 months–2 years jail.
• Repeat offence: 1–3 years imprisonment (non-bailable).

Page - B14
 Article 25
Freedom of Conscience and Free Profession, Practice & Propagation of Religion: “All persons are
equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion,
subject to public order, morality, health and the other provisions of this Part.”

(Clauses (2)(a)-(b) then authorise the State to regulate secular activities and to enact social-welfare or
reform laws, including throwing open Hindu temples to all sections.)

What the Four Freedoms Mean:

Plain meaning Typical illustration

Inner freedom to
Conscience hold any belief or Choosing to be atheist or agnostic.
none.
Openly declare one’s
Profess Wearing a crucifix, putting a mezuzah, announcing oneself as Sikh.
faith.
Perform worship,
Practise Offering namaz, celebrating Christmas, taking part in Nagar kirtan.
rituals, ceremonies.
Distributing the Bhagavad Gita or hosting a church meeting. → does
Explain and spread
not include a fundamental right to convert another person;
Propagate one’s religion to
conversion is subject to state anti-conversion laws (Rev Stanislaus v.
others.
M.P., 1977).

Powers Given to the State under Clause (2)

1. Regulate or restrict economic, financial, political or other secular activities linked to religion.
Example: laws on temple property, auditing of waqf funds (Shirur Mutt, 1954 – economic matters are
regulatable).
2. Make laws for social welfare & reform
Example: Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (abolished bigamy), entry of all castes to temples (Madras Temple
Entry, supported in Sri Venkataramana Devaru, 1958).
3. Open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all Hindus (Hindu here statutorily
includes Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists).

Key Pronouncements:

Case Holding relevant to Article 25

Commissioner, HRE v. Laid down “essential-religious-practice” test; State can regulate secular
Shirur Mutt (1954) activities but not core beliefs/rituals.
Rev. Stanislaus v. State of
Propagation ≠ right to convert; anti-conversion laws valid.
M.P. (1977)
Students excused from singing national anthem on conscience grounds; no
Bijoe Emmanuel (1986)
public-order breach.
Indian Young Lawyers Exclusion of women 10-50 yrs not an essential Hindu practice; violated
Assn. (Sabarimala) (2018) equality and dignity.
Farhana v. U.P. (2021, Right to choose partner and convert for marriage protected; adult free will
Allahabad HC) respected unless coercion/profit.

Page - B15
 Remember:

• Horizontal application? – Protection is primarily vertical (against State), but courts have struck down
discriminatory rules by temple trusts because they perform a public function.
• Essential-religious-practice (ERP) test – Courts decide whether a challenged act is integral to
religion; only then gets strong protection.
• State can intervene for reform even of ERP when other fundamental rights (equality, dignity) are at
stake, as held in Sabarimala and Triple-Talaq cases.
• Religious propagation by foreigners – Article 25 is for “all persons,” yet visa conditions can restrict
evangelism by non-citizens (Centre for Inquiry, 2021).

Article 26
Freedom of a Religious Denomination to Manage its Own Affairs

Clause & Right Plain meaning Important limits / cases

26(a) Establish & A denomination (e.g., Ramakrishna
State may require registration /
maintain institutions for Mission, Ananda Marga) can open
accounting ( Shirur Mutt, 1954) because
religious or charitable temples, maths, dharmashalas, schools,
these are secular activities.
purposes hospitals.
26(b) Manage its own
Autonomy in essential religious ERP test laid down in Shirur Mutt; court
affairs in matters of
practices – rituals, ceremonies, rites. decides what is essential.
religion
26(c) Own & acquire Denomination may lawfully buy or Ownership subject to ordinary land-
movable / immovable receive land, securities, jewellery for its acquisition (Ismail Faruqui, 1994) &
property religious work. anti-benami, rent, ceiling laws.
Internal administration (priest Temple-administration Acts,
26(d) Administer such
appointment, usage of funds) belongs to Endowments Acts upheld; State cannot
property in accordance
denomination, but State can regulate take over permanently (Sabrimala
with law
secular aspects for transparency. Devaswom Board v. Union, 2009).

Who enjoys Article 26?

A body must satisfy three Supreme-Court markers ( Shirur Mutt test):

1. Distinct set of doctrines / beliefs;
2. Common organisation;
3. Distinctive name.
• Applies to citizens and non-citizens alike.

Examples: Ramakrishna Mission, Ananda Marga, Lingayats, Shia Muslims, Roman Catholics.

Reasonable Restrictions: Only three grounds in the article: public order, morality, health.
(Unlike Art 25, no “other FR provisions” clause here, but Art 26 still yields to Art 25(2)(b) when the State
opens a Hindu public temple to all sections.)

Key Pronouncements of Article 26:

Page - B16
 Case Principle relevant to Art 26
Commissioner, H.R.E. vs Shirur First detailed exposition; drew the line between religious and secular
Mutt (1954) affairs; coined essential-practice test.
Though about Art 25, affirmed denominations’ autonomy but no
Rev. Stanislaus vs M.P. (1977)
fundamental right to convert.
State can acquire religious property for larger public purpose; only
Ismail Faruqui vs Union (1994)
essential places integral to faith get absolute protection.
S.P. Mittal vs Union (Auroville,
Auroville not a religious denomination—failed the three-criteria test.
1983)
Church of God (Full Gospel) vs Use of loudspeakers at odd hours can be curtailed—public-order /
K.K.R. Colony (2000) health override Art 26.

• Article 25 → individual religious freedom & Article 26 → collective freedom of an organised

denomination to run its religious world.

Article 27
Freedom from Taxation for Promotion of a Religion
“No person shall be compelled to pay any taxes the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated for
the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination.”

• Government cannot earmark a tax for building or running one religion’s temples, churches, mosques,
monasteries, etc.
• Citizens and non-citizens alike are protected.

Exceptions:

• Fees (not taxes) for secular administration of religious institutions (e.g., audit, police security, pilgrim
amenities).
• General taxes that are spent on all religions or for a secular welfare head (e.g., grants to all recognised
pilgrimage centres for water supply).

Note: Tax = compulsory exaction for general public purposes; proceeds go to Consolidated Fund; Fee
= payment for a specific service rendered; can be levied on a denomination if service is for it.

Key Pronouncements of Article 27:

Case Principle relevant to Art 27

Raja Ramanarayana v. “Religious Endowments tax” on Hindu temples valid: money used for secular
State of A.P. (1954) regulation, therefore not hit by Art 27.
reiterated distinction between tax (barred if for promotion) and fee (allowed
Shirur Mutt (1954)
for regulation).
Haj subsidy not violative of Art 27; subsidy came from general revenues and
Prafull Goradia v. Union
served a secular public purpose (international cultural exchange/foreign
(2011)
affairs).

• Complements Art 25-26 (religious freedom) and Art 28 (no religious instruction in State institutions
unless conditions met).
• Does not prevent State ownership/management of temple properties (Art 26-A & D allow regulation).

Page - B17
 • Article 27 stops the State from forcing taxpayers to bankroll the propagation of a single religion,
yet lets it levy regulatory fees or spend general revenues on secular aspects or on all religions even-
handedly.
• Budget grant that allocates equal amounts for Kumbh Mela crowd‐management, Haj embarkation
facilities, and Buddha Purnima security → permissible

Article 28
Freedom from Compulsory Religious Instruction in Educational Institutions

Provision /
Rule in Simple Words Who / What it Applies To
Clause
Fully government-run schools,
No religious instruction at all in an educational institution
28 (1) Sainik Schools, government
wholly maintained by State funds.
colleges.
Exception: Ban does not apply where the institution, though Example – Sanskrit colleges
28 (2) administered by the State, was established under a founded under a Hindu trust but
trust/endowment that requires religious teaching. later taken over by the State.
In any institution recognised by the State or receiving
Aided minority schools, private
State aid, attendance at religious instruction or worship
colleges that get UGC grant,
28 (3) is strictly voluntary; no person (student or staff) can be
Kendriya Vidyalayas run on
compelled. If the person is a minor, guardian’s consent is
voluntary morning prayer.
required.

Classification of Educational Institutions under Article 28

Category Religious Instruction? Illustration

(A) Wholly maintained out of State funds Not permitted at all. Govt primary school, IIT, AIIMS.
(B) Administered by State but set up Permitted (trust may Govt-managed Vedic Pathshala
under a religious trust/endowment require it). created by a Hindu endowment.
Permitted only on a Private CBSE-recognised convent
(C) Recognised by the State (no direct aid)
voluntary basis. school.
Permitted only on a Aided madrasa or Catholic college
(D) Receiving State aid (financial grant)
voluntary basis. getting salary grants.

Remember:

• “Religious instruction” = structured teaching of doctrines; a secular study about religions

(comparative religion, history) is not barred.
• Morning prayer / hymn in a govt school = religious instruction only if it is doctrinal and compulsory
(Aruna Roy v. Union, 2002 upheld non-denominational prayer).
• Minority institutions aided by the State must also keep instruction voluntary for unwilling students.
• Article 28 protects citizens and foreigners alike.
• Right can be enforced by writ if a pupil is forced to attend religious classes/worship.

Page - B18
 Article 29
Protection of Interests of Minorities

Clause Constitutional Wording Meaning & Scope (in plain words)

• Group (collective) right: keep your own language,
“Any section of citizens … having a distinct script, customs, festivals, architecture, etc. • Applies
29 (1) language, script or culture of its own shall to religious or linguistic groups – minority or
have the right to conserve the same.” majority – as long as they are a “section” with a
distinct identity (SC in T. M. Pai, 2002).
“No citizen shall be denied admission into • Individual right: protects every citizen from
any educational institution maintained by the discrimination in State/State-aided schools &
29 (2) State or receiving aid out of State funds on colleges. • Grounds barred = religion, race, caste,
grounds only of religion, race, caste, language (note: sex & place of birth not included
language or any of them.” here).

Key Pronouncements of Article 29:

Case Take-away for Article 29

State of Madras v.
Communal (religion/caste-based) college quotas violated 29(2) – led to
Champakam Dorairajan
1st Constitutional Amendment inserting Art 15(4).
(1951)
St. Stephen’s College v. Aided minority college can reserve up to 50 % seats for its community,
University of Delhi (1992) but must admit the rest on merit → 29(2) prevents total exclusion.
T. M. Pai Foundation v. State Clarified that “section of citizens” can include majority sections; Art
of Karnataka (2002) 29(1) and Art 30(1) must be read harmoniously.
Pramati Educational Trust v. RTE Act partially inapplicable to unaided minority schools, recognising
Union (2014) cultural + admin autonomy.

Remember:

1. “Section of citizens” – phrase deliberately broad; can cover Bengalis in Delhi (linguistic minority) or
Gujaratis in Gujarat (majority statewide but a cultural section).
2. No definition of “minority” in the Constitution; for Article 29(1) it doesn’t matter – focus is on
distinct language/script/culture.
3. Art 29 vs. Art 30:
o 29(1) is a right to conserve culture; 30(1) is a right to establish & administer educational
institutions (available only to minorities).
o 29(2) limits even minority institutions aided by the State; they cannot refuse admission solely
on listed grounds (St. Stephen’s College v. Delhi Univ., 1992 – 50 % preference permissible
but not total exclusion).
4. Reasonable regulation by State (e.g., syllabus, sanitation) is allowed so long as it doesn’t destroy the
group’s core cultural rights.

Article 30
Rights of Religious & Linguistic Minorities to Establish and Administer Educational
Institutions

Page - B19
 Clause /
Plain meaning Key judicial clarifications
Sub-right
• Applies to religious OR linguistic
minorities, decided State-wise ( St
“All minorities, whether based on religion Xavier’s 1974; T.M. Pai 2002).
or language, shall have the right to establish • Covers starting the institution, deciding
30 (1)
and administer educational institutions of management, staff, syllabus* (subject to
their choice.” standards), admission mix, fee structure
(reasonable).

If government compulsorily acquires

30 (1-A)
property of a minority institution, Bishop of Trivandrum 1991 – compensation
(44ᵗʰ CAA
compensation must be such that the right must be “adequate and just”, not illusory.
1987)
is not diluted.
State shall not discriminate in granting aid Minority institution may choose “aid +
30 (2) on the ground that the management is by a regulation” or “no aid + greater autonomy”
minority. ( P.A. Inamdar 2005).

Reasonable Regulation v. Core Autonomy

• Permissible regulation – teacher qualifications, fire safety, minimum days, anti-ragging law.
• Impermissible interference – forcing a minority body to change its religious ethos, merge with
another board, or cede majority management (St Xavier’s).

Three Practical Categories of Minority Educational Institutions

Category State’s regulatory power Example
Aided & Can impose reasonable regulations on admissions (observe 50 St. Stephen’s College,
Recognised % community cap), service conditions, academic standards. Delhi
Many Christian schools,
Unaided but Must meet syllabus, safety, examination norms; no quota cap
Gujarati-medium
Recognised on minority seats.
colleges in Maharashtra
Unaided & Informal madrasa
Virtually free from State norms (except public order / health).
Unrecognised teaching only theology

Key Pronouncements of Article 30:

Case Holding
Kerala Education Minority right not absolute; State may prescribe fair regulations for academic
Bill, 1958 (Advisory) excellence.
St Xavier’s College Minority can choose governing body & principal; blanket state approval of
v. Gujarat (1974) appointments invalid.
T.M. Pai Foundation Defined “minority” by State population; laid framework for admissions & fee
(2002) regulation.
Islamic Academy
Directed State-level committees to fix reasonable fees for professional colleges.
(2003)
Unaided minority colleges free to fix admissions/fees; aided institutions subject to 50
P.A. Inamdar (2005)
% rule.

Page - B20
 Case Holding
Pramati Educational
RTE Act does not bind unaided minority schools; would erode Art 30 autonomy.
Trust (2014)

Remember:

• Both citizens & foreigners may establish minority institutions if the managing body represents the
minority.
• Protection extends from kindergarten to university (T.M. Pai).
• Article 29 (2) still applies: a qualified non-minority applicant cannot be refused only on religion,
race, caste, language in aided institutions.
• Minority includes religious minorities (Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsis) and
linguistic minorities (Marathis in Karnataka, Telugus in Tamil Nadu, etc.).

Article 31 ( Now Repealed)

Right to Property

Period Status Description

Art 31 gave a Fundamental Right: property
Protected by clauses (1) & (2); spawned much
1950 – 1978 could be taken only for a public purpose and
litigation on “adequate compensation.”
with compensation.
• Still needs “authority of law,” but no direct
44th Art 31 repealed; Right to Property shifted writ under Art 32.
Amendment to Art 300-A (legal/constitutional right, not
Act, 1978 fundamental). • Parliament/States free to regulate property
via ordinary law.

Practical effect / present

Article What it does
position
• Law must be President-
Protects 5 categories of laws—mainly agrarian
reserved if passed by State
reforms & economic nationalisation—from
legislature.
challenge on Art 14 (equality) or Art 19 (freedoms).
Categories: 1) Estate acquisition/land reforms, 2)
31-A (1951) • If land under personal
Taking over management of property, 3)
cultivation within ceiling is
Amalgamation of corporations, 4)
acquired, market-value
Extinguishing/modifying director/shareholder rights,
compensation is still
5) Extinguishing/modifying mining leases.
mandatory.
• I.R. Coelho (2007): this
immunity is not absolute.
Post-24 Apr 1973 insertions
31-B (1st Immunises any Act placed in the Ninth Schedule
can be struck down if they
Amendment, 1951) from Fundamental-Rights attack.
damage the Basic Structure
(equality, judicial review,
etc.).
Says a law made to implement DPSPs in Art 39(b) & • A declaration by legislature
31-C (25th
39(c) (equal distribution of resources, prevention of is not conclusive; Courts
Amendment, 1971;
wealth concentration) cannot be void for violating may test genuine nexus.
modified by 42nd &
Arts 14 or 19.

Page - B21
 Practical effect / present
Article What it does
position
struck in • Wider 42nd-Amendment
Kesavananda 1973) extension to all DPSPs was
struck down; only 39(b)(c)
laws enjoy shield.

Article 32
Right to Constitutional Remedies

Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

a) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights
conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
b) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the
nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrant and certiorari, whichever may be
appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
c) 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 ill or any
of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
d) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this
Constitution.

• Right to remedies for enforcement of FRs of an aggrieved citizen, i.e., right to get FRs protected is
in itself a FR + Soul and Heart of Constitution
• It is Basic Feature of Constitution, i.e., it can’t be abridged or taken away even by way of an
amendment to Constitution.
• 4 Provisions:
o Right to move SC for enforcement of FRs
o SC can issue directions/orders/writs to enforce FRs
o Parliament can empower other courts to issue directions, order and writs of all kinds (it
doesn’t apply to HCs, as they already got this powers under Art 226)
o Right to move to SC shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by
Constitution + President can suspend it during a national emergency.
• SC given position of defender and guarantor of the FRs of citizens.
• Exception: It can only enforce FRs guaranteed by Constitution, and not any other rights.
• To enforce FRs, jurisdiction of SC is original but not exclusive, HCs can also enforce FRs.

Supreme Court (Art 32) vs High Court (Art 226) – Comparison

Supreme Court (Art 32) High Court (Art 226)

Enforcement of FRs + other legal / statutory
Purpose Enforcement of Fundamental Rights only
rights
Nature of Constitutional, not fundamental (Ar 226 is
Fundamental Right itself
right not a Fundamental Right0
Only within HC’s jurisdiction (can act
Territorial
Whole of India extraterritorially if cause of action partly
reach
inside)

Page - B22
 Supreme Court (Art 32) High Court (Art 226)
If FR breach proved, Court must issue Discretionary – HC may refuse writ on
Discretion
relief equitable grounds
Appeal No appeal; only review/curative in SC SC appeal lies under Art 136

Types of Writs:

Literal Purpose / When Who Can File / Where NOT Illustrative

Writ
Meaning Issued Against Whom Applicable Example
Police pick
• Detainee or anyone
someone
Order to release a on their behalf.
If detention is by a without charges
person unlawfully
competent court, or & keep >24 h
Habeas “Produce detained or to bring • Directed to State
under valid without
Corpus the body” the detainee before authorities; can also
legislative authority, magistrate –
court for lie against private
or for contempt. writ compels
justification. individuals who
production &
illegally detain.
release.
University
Not against private
refuses degree
Compels a public Any aggrieved individuals,
despite student
“We authority to perform person vs. govt dept, President,
Mandamus meeting all
command” a legal duty it has statutory body, Governors, or
conditions –
failed / refused to do. tribunal, corporation. judges acting
Mandamus
judicially.
forces issuance.
Issued by a higher Consumer
court to a lower forum about to
Higher constitutional Not against
court/tribunal before hear matter
“To court vs. judicial / administrative
Prohibition it gives order, beyond its
forbid” quasi-judicial bodies, legislatures,
stopping action powers – HC
bodies. private entities.
outside its issues
jurisdiction. Prohibition.
Quashes an order of
a lower court/tribunal
that
Affected party vs. Tax tribunal
1. lacked
judicial or quasi- Cannot lie against decides case
jurisdiction,
“To be judicial authority legislatures, purely without hearing
Certiorari 2. exceeded
informed” (some admin bodies administrative acts, assessee – SC
jurisdiction, or
if decision affects private bodies. quashes order
3. violated natural
rights). via Certiorari.
justice; issued
after order is
passed.

Challenges legality Can be sought by Cannot test Citizen

Quo- “By what of a person’s claim any interested appointments to questions
Warranto authority” to a public office of person; not limited ministerial/private appointment of
substantive character. to aggrieved party. posts. VC made

Page - B23
 Literal Purpose / When Who Can File / Where NOT Illustrative
Writ
Meaning Issued Against Whom Applicable Example
without
statutory
qualifications –
court may void
the
appointment.

Article 33
Parliament’s Power to Modify Fundamental Rights for Armed Forces & Allied Services

Applies to:

• Members of the Armed Forces (Army, Navy, Air Force).

• Para-military forces (BSF, CRPF, ITBP, Assam Rifles).
• Police forces, intelligence agencies, and any other force charged with maintenance of public order.
• May extend to non-combatant staff (cooks, barbers, clerks) if so declared by the Act.

Features:

o Parliament may restrict or even abrogate the application of any Fundamental Right insofar as it
affects:
1. Discipline
2. Proper discharge of duty
3. Maintenance of public order

o Only Parliament (not State legislatures) can enact such curtailments.

o A law made under Art 33 cannot be struck down merely because it violates a Fundamental Right;
courts examine only whether the law is within the four corners of Art 33’s purpose (discipline, duty,
order).
o Many of these Acts exclude or limit High-Court/Supreme-Court writs against court-martial verdicts;
service members usually appeal through the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) or prescribed military
channels.
o SC upholds wide Parliamentary latitude so long as the restriction has a direct nexus with
discipline/duty (e.g., R. Viswan v. Union of India, 1983 – ban on policemen joining political
associations upheld).

Article 34
Martial Law and Fundamental Rights

• When martial law is declared in any part of India, Parliament may

1. Restrict or suspend Fundamental Rights (FRs) in that area, and
2. Pass an Indemnity Act that validates or shields any act, sentence or forfeiture ordered by
military authorities while martial law was in force.
• An Indemnity Act made under Art 34 cannot be challenged in court for violating FRs.

Page - B24
 Martial Law

• Not defined in the Constitution; it means temporary military rule when civilian administration breaks
down.
• Usual triggers → war, invasion, armed rebellion, large-scale riot or insurrection in a locality.
• Effects:
o Ordinary courts may be suspended, replaced by military tribunals.
o Military can impose curfews, censorship, seize property, even award death sentences to
civilians under special regulations.

Supreme Court: Proclamation of martial law does not, by itself, suspend habeas-corpus jurisdiction; courts decide
case-by-case whether they can examine detention legality.

What can be indemnified?

o Acts of government servants or any other person done in good faith to restore order.
o Sentences or forfeitures ordered by military courts.

Martial Law (Art 34) National Emergency (Art 352)

Alters FRs and Centre-State relations,
Scope Only Fundamental Rights affected.
legislative & financial powers.
Area Always localised (specific district/region). Whole country or any part thereof.
Military temporarily replaces civilian Civilian government continues; ordinary
Authority
govt & courts. courts function.
Breakdown of law & order for any Limited to war, external aggression, armed
Grounds
reason. rebellion.
Constitutional Detailed procedure in Part XVIII (Articles
Only Art 34 (no detailed procedure).
provision 352-359).

Remember:

• Art 34 is a safety-valve for extreme internal disorder, letting Parliament legitimise harsh measures
without endless litigation.
• Power is parliamentary, not executive; President/Governors cannot grant indemnity on their own.
• Courts still retain a narrow window of review on basic-structure grounds (e.g., colourable legislation,
mala fide martial-law proclamation).
• India has never formally invoked Article 34 since Independence; internal emergencies have been
handled via ordinary or special laws (AFSPA, Disturbed-Areas Acts, etc.).

Article 35
Parliament’s Exclusive Power to Give Effect to Specific Fundamental-Rights Provisions

• Article 35 lays down that power to make laws, to give effect to certain specified FRs, shall vest only
in Parliament and not in State legislatures (to ensure uniformity)
• Parliament’s power to make laws wrt following matters:
o Art 16: Prescribing residence as a condition for certain employments or appointments in a state
or UT or Local authority or other authority.
o Art 32: Empowering courts other than SC and HCs to issue directions, orders and writes of all
kinds for the enforcement of FRs.

Page - B25
 o Art 33: Restricting or abrogating application of FRs to members of armed forces, police forces,
etc.
o Art 34: Indemnifying any government servant or any other person for any act done during
operation of martial Law in any area.
• Only Parliament, and not state legislatures, can prescribe punishments for acts that are declared as
offences under FRs (it’s an obligation on Parliament to enact Laws on these FRs):
o Art 17: Untouchability
o Art 23: Traffic in human beings and forced labour

Rights Outside Part III (Legal / Constitutional Rights)

Article Provision Nature Key Details

Article No tax shall be levied or
Prevents arbitrary taxation; ensures taxes are only
265 (Part collected except by Legal Right
imposed through duly enacted legislation
XII) authority of law
Constitutional
Article No person shall be Added by 44th CAA, 1978 after deleting Article 31;
Right (NOT a
300A deprived of his property Right to Property is now a constitutional/legal right
Fundamental
(Part XII) save by authority of law enforceable via ordinary legal remedies
Right)
Trade, commerce, and
Article
intercourse throughout the Constitutional Subject to reasonable restrictions under Articles
301 (Part
territory of India shall be Right 302–305; ensures economic unity of India
XIII)
free
Provides for universal Though not expressly worded as “Right to Vote”,
Article
adult suffrage in elections Constitutional courts have recognized voting as a constitutional
326 (Part
to the House of the People Right right governed by statutory law (Representation of
XV)
and State Assemblies the People Act, 1951)

Remember:

• These rights are not part of Part III, hence they are not Fundamental Rights.
• No remedy under Article 32 (SC writ jurisdiction) for these.
• However, violation of these rights can be challenged before the High Court under:
o Ordinary civil suit (for 300A or 265),
o Or under Article 226 (writ jurisdiction of HCs).

Page - B26
 Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP)
• Borrowed from: Irish Constitution (1937); resemble the Instrument of Instructions (GOI Act 1935).
• Constitutional status: “Fundamental in the governance of the country” (Art 37) but non-
justiciable—no direct court enforcement.
• Ambedkar & Austin: FRs + DPSPs are the “soul, conscience & philosophy” of the Constitution;
FRs → political democracy, DPSPs → socio-economic democracy.

Features:

Feature Quick Explanation / Note

Lay down policy directives for Union, States, local bodies, statutory
Constitutional Guidelines
authorities (Art 36 defines “State”).
Not enforceable in court, yet courts invoke them to interpret laws & test
Non-Justiciable reasonableness (e.g., affordable housing schemes upheld by reference to
Art 38, 47).
Aim to transform India into a socialist, secular, welfare state → promote
Welfare-State Mandate
social & economic democracy.
FRs restrict State power; DPSPs guide positive action. After Kesavananda
Complement to FRs
(1973), harmony & balance doctrine governs conflicts.
Subject to Judicial Review Though unenforceable, their importance is recognised as part of Basic
(basic-structure lens) Structure; Parliament cannot abrogate the principles themselves.
They create moral–political obligations; implementation depends on
Directive, not mandatory
resources & legislative wisdom.
Many landmark Acts/Schemes flow from DPSPs—MGNREGA (Art 41,
Legislative Inspiration
43), RTE Act 2009 (Art 45), National Food Security Act 2013 (Art 47).

• Art 37: These principles are fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of
the State to apply these principles in making laws.
• Art 36: Term ‘State’ in Part IV has the same meaning as in Part III dealing with FRs + includes the
legislative and executive organs of the central and state governments, all local authorities and all other
public authorities in the country

Classification of DPSPs:
Note: Constitution does not contain any classification of Directive Principles; Based on their content and
direction, DPSP classified into 3 categories - Socialist, Gandhian, and Liberal-intellectual

1. Socialist Principles:
• Emphasis on distributive justice: securing fair share of resources, income and opportunities.
• Positive obligations: require active State intervention—legislation, executive schemes, fiscal
measures.

Page- C1
 Article Socialist Directive Principle – Essence
Promote a social order based on justice – social, economic, political – and minimise inequalities
38
in income, status, facilities and opportunities (“inequalities” clause added by 44ᵗʰ CAA 1978).
Secure:

1. Adequate means of livelihood for all citizens

2. Equitable distribution of community resources
39 3. Prevention of wealth concentration
4. Equal pay for equal work (men & women)
5. Health & strength of workers/children; protect against abuse
6. Opportunities for healthy development of children (clauses (e) & (f) added by 42ᵈ CAA
1976).
Provide equal justice & free legal aid to the poor to ensure access to justice (added by 42ᵈ CAA
39-A
1976).
Right to work, education and public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and
41
disablement.
42 Provision for just and humane conditions of work & maternity relief.
43 Secure a living wage, decent standard of life and social & cultural opportunities for all workers.
43-A Ensure workers’ participation in management of industries (added by 42ᵈ CAA 1976).
Raise the level of nutrition and public health of the people; duty of State to improve public health
47
and strive for prohibition of intoxicating drinks injurious to health.

2. Gandhian Principles: Gandhian DPSPs aim to recreate Gandhi’s vision of gram-swaraj (village
autonomy), self-sufficient rural economy, uplift of the disadvantaged, prohibition, and cow protection,
thereby infusing India’s welfare state with indigenous, rural-centric values.

Article Gandhian Principle – Core Mandate

Organise Village Panchayats and endow them with authority to function as units of self-
40
government.
43 B(97ᵗʰ Promote co-operative societies on the basis of voluntary formation, democratic control &
CAA 2011) professional management.
Promote educational & economic interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
46
other weaker sections; protect them from social injustice & exploitation.
Endeavour to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve
47 (first limb)
public health.
47 (second Endeavour to bring about prohibition of intoxicating drinks and drugs injurious to
limb) health.
Organise animal husbandry on modern lines and prohibit the slaughter of cows, calves
48
and other milch / draught cattle.
Secure a living wage and a decent standard of life for all workers; promote cottage &
43
village industries on an individual or co-operative basis.

Page- C2
 3. Liberal-Intellectual Principles: DPSPs reflect modern, progressive ideals—uniform personal laws, early
childhood education, environmental stewardship, heritage preservation, judicial independence, and a
principled foreign policy—complementing the social-economic and Gandhian directives in guiding the Indian
State’s development.

Article Principle – Liberal / Intellectual Orientation

The State shall endeavour to secure for citizens a Uniform Civil Code (UCC)
44
throughout the territory of India.
45 (86ᵗʰ CAA
Provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age
re-worded in
of 6 years.
2002)
48-A (42ᵈ CAA Protect and improve the environment and safeguard the forests and wildlife of the
1976) country.
Protect monuments, places and objects of national importance from spoliation,
49
disfigurement, destruction or removal.
Take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the
50
State (judicial independence at district level).
Promote international peace and security, maintain just and honourable relations
51 between nations, foster respect for international law and treaty obligations, and
encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration.

New DPSPs (Those added via amendments after enactment of Constitution):

Amendment Article Directive Principle introduced

42ᵈ CAA (1976)
Secure opportunities for healthy development of children and protect children
“Mini- 39(f)
against exploitation.
Constitution”
Provide equal justice & free legal aid to ensure that justice is not denied for
39-A
economic or other disabilities.
43-A Take steps for workers’ participation in management of industries.
48-A Protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests & wildlife.
It inserted Section-2 to Article 38 which declares that; “The State in particular
shall strive to minimise economic inequalities in income and eliminate
inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities not amongst individuals but
44ᵗʰ CAA (1978) 38(2)
also amongst groups”.

It also eliminated the Right to Property from the list of Fundamental Rights.
State to provide early childhood care & education to all children below six
45 (re-
86ᵗʰ CAA (2002) years of age (earlier Art 45 spoke of free education up to 14 yrs). (Right to
worded)
education for 6-14 yrs shifted to new Art 21-A FR)
Promote co-operative societies on the basis of voluntary formation, democratic
97ᵗʰ CAA (2011) 43-B
member control, autonomous functioning & professional management.

Page- C3
 Fundamental Rights Vs. DPSP:

Event Judicial / Constitutional Position

Champakam Dorairajan v. FRs prevail over DPSPs; Parliament may amend the Constitution to
State of Madras (1951) implement DPSPs but cannot infringe existing FRs via ordinary law.
Golaknath v. State of Punjab
FRs placed beyond the scope of amendment (over-ruled later).
(1967)
24ᵗʰ CAA (1971) Restored Parliament’s power to amend any part, including FRs.
25ᵗʰ CAA (1971) → Art 31-C If a law implements Art 39(b) & (c), it is immune from Arts 14, 19. (2nd
(1st limb) limb—blanket declaration clause—struck in Kesavananda.)
Tried to extend Art 31-C immunity to all DPSPs; declared
42ⁿᵈ CAA (1976)
unconstitutional in Minerva Mills (1980).
Kesavananda Bharati v. State Parliament can amend even FRs but not destroy the Basic Structure;
of Kerala (1973) harmony between FRs & DPSPs is part of this structure.
Balance between FRs & DPSPs itself is Basic Structure. Neither is
Minerva Mills v. Union (1980)
superior; they must be harmonised.

Present position: FRs enjoy supremacy over DPSPs, yet Parliament may amend FRs to implement a DPSP
so long as the amendment does not damage the Basic Structure.

Fundamental Rights Directive Principles

Nature Justiciable – enforceable by courts Non-justiciable – moral & political obligations
Scope Negative duties – restrain State action Positive duties – require affirmative State action
Aim Establish political democracy Build social & economic democracy
Legal status Legally enforceable constitutional rights Morally and politically binding principles
Enforcement Directly through Arts 32 & 226 writs Via legislation, policy & executive action
Focus Individual liberty & dignity Community welfare & justice
May be amended but not beyond Basic Can be amended by CAA; Parliament often
Amendability
Structure amplifies scope
Interpreter, not enforcer – courts may treat
Judiciary’s Guardian & interpreter – can strike
DPSP-based law as “reasonable” when
role down laws violating FRs
reviewing FR restrictions

DPSPs Outside Part-4

Article (Part) Directive / Obligation

Art 335 – Part In making appointments to the Union or State services, claims of Scheduled-
XVI“Claims of SCs & Castes and Scheduled-Tribes must be taken into account, consistent with
STs to services and administrative efficiency. (Basis for reservations & roster policies in public
posts” employment.)

Page- C4
 Article (Part) Directive / Obligation
Art 350-A – Part Every State and local authority shall endeavour to provide primary education
XVII“Instruction in in the child’s mother tongue for children belonging to linguistic minority
mother tongue at the groups. (Drives schemes for vernacular textbooks, multilingual teachers,
primary stage” Ekalavya schools, etc.)
The Union shall promote the spread of Hindi as a medium of expression for all
Art 351 – Part
elements of India’s composite culture, drawing vocabulary from Sanskrit and
XVII“Development of
other Indian languages to enrich it. (Guides policies of the Department of Official
the Hindi language”
Language, Kendriya Hindi Sansthan, Hindi promotion grants, etc.)

Page- C5
 Fundamental Duties

• Inserted by 42nd Amendment (1976) on Swaran Singh Committee’s recommendation.( recommended

8 FDs, and Originally 10 FDs were added by 42nd CAA)
• Added a new Part IV-A (Art 51-A) to the Constitution.
• Initially 10 duties → 11th duty added by 86th Amendment (2002).
• Citizens-only obligations, unlike many FRs that extend to all persons.

Purpose & Philosophy

• Balance of “Rights ↔ Duties”: remind citizens that enjoyment of Fundamental Rights entails
reciprocal obligations toward the nation, society and environment.
• Nation-building & civic discipline: inculcate patriotism, social harmony, scientific outlook and
environmental stewardship.
• Constitutional morality: serve as touch-stone for legislation, public policy and judicial interpretation
(e.g., “reasonableness” under Arts 14 & 19).

Key Features

• Non-justiciable – not directly enforceable by courts; Parliament may enact laws to give them legal
teeth.
• Moral & civic obligations for every citizen only (apply neither to foreigners nor legal persons).
• Promote active citizenship and nurture democratic spirit.
• Possible legal sanction – e.g., Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act 1971 enforces duty to
respect the Flag & Anthem.
• Aid to courts – judges may use duties to interpret statutes & test “reasonableness” (Art 14/19).
• Instrument of social transformation – discipline, environment, scientific temper, gender dignity,
national integration.
• Reflects Indian cultural ethos and values of the freedom movement.

List of the 11 Fundamental Duties

1. Abide by the Constitution, respect its ideals, institutions, National Flag & Anthem.
2. Cherish & follow the noble ideals that inspired the freedom struggle.
3. Uphold & protect the sovereignty, unity & integrity of India.
4. Defend the country & render national service when called upon.
5. Promote harmony & common brotherhood; renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of
women.
6. Value & preserve India’s rich composite heritage.
7. Protect & improve the natural environment (forests, lakes, rivers, wildlife) & have compassion for
living creatures.
8. Develop scientific temper, humanism & spirit of inquiry and reform.
9. Safeguard public property & abjure violence.
10. Strive for excellence in all spheres to raise national prestige & achievement.
11. Provide opportunities for education to child/ward between 6 & 14 years (added by 86th CAA, 2002).

Page - D1
 Legal Character & Enforcement Mechanisms
Explanation
Non-justiciable
No direct writ under Art 32/226 for breach of a Duty.
per se
Legislative
Parliament/States may convert a duty into an offence or statutory obligation.
sanction possible
Courts cite Duties to:
1. uphold validity of laws,
Judicial use
2. interpret ambiguous statutes,
3. read duties into Fundamental Rights (e.g., right to clean environment).
• Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act 1971 (Duty #1)
• Environment (Protection) Act 1986, Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 (Duty
Example
#7)
statutes
enforcing duties • Disaster Management Act 2005 – civic responsibility (Duties #3, #9)
• RTE Act 2009 (citizen Duty #11 paired with State duty under Art 21-A).

Comparison:

Fundamental Rights DPSPs Fundamental Duties

Nature Justiciable Non-justiciable Non-justiciable
Focus Individual liberties State obligations Citizen obligations
Source US/Universal charters Irish & Indian ethos Soviet/Indian ethos
Enforcement Art 32/226 writs Via legislation & policy Via moral force; can be backed by statute

Page - D2
 Basic Structure

• The Basic Structure Doctrine is a principle In Simpler Language: Think of the

developed by the Supreme Court to protect the Constitution like a house — you can renovate it,
core values of the Constitution. paint the walls, or change the furniture (that’s
• It says that while Parliament can amend the like amending the Constitution), but you can’t
Constitution, it cannot change its fundamental break the main pillars holding it up. Those pillars
features. This ensures that the Constitution’s are things like democracy, rule of law, and
identity remains intact. independence of the courts. The Supreme Court
• The doctrine was established in the landmark came up with this idea in 1973 to make sure that
case Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala no government, even with a big majority, can
(1973). In this case, the Supreme Court ruled by destroy the soul of the Constitution. It’s not
a narrow majority (7:6) that Parliament’s power written anywhere in the Constitution, but the
to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is Court uses it to stop dangerous changes that
not unlimited. could harm the country’s democratic foundation.
• This judgment introduced the idea that there are
certain basic features of the Constitution that
cannot be amended or destroyed.

Evolution of Basic Structure:

Sl. Case Year Key Ruling Contribution to Basic Favoured
No. Structure Doctrine
1 Shankari Prasad v. 1951 Parliament can amend No mention of basic structure;
Government
Union of India any part of the full amending power upheld
Constitution, including
Fundamental Rights
Background: After Independence, the government wanted to introduce land reform laws to redistribute
land from zamindars to landless farmers. These laws were challenged as violating the Right to Property
(then a Fundamental Right). To protect such laws, Parliament passed the 1st Amendment. This case tested
whether Parliament could amend Fundamental Rights.
2 Sajjan Singh v. State 1965 Reaffirmed Shankari Justice Mudholkar hinted Government
of Rajasthan Prasad; Parliament’s at “essential features”
power to amend concept
Fundamental Rights
upheld
Background: The government passed the 17th Amendment to further protect land reform laws under the
9th Schedule. Again, the amendment was challenged for violating Fundamental Rights. The Court upheld
Parliament’s power, but for the first time, a judge (Justice Mudholkar) questioned if there are limits to this
power — hinting at the idea of a “basic structure”.
3 Golaknath v. State of 1967 Parliament cannot Restricted amending Citizens
Punjab amend Fundamental power; protected citizens’
Rights rights
Background: Parliament had passed several amendments placing land reform laws beyond judicial
review. The Supreme Court now took a stricter stance and ruled that Parliament cannot amend
Fundamental Rights at all. This caused a huge setback to the government’s reform agenda and led to
political friction between the judiciary and legislature.

Page- F1
 4 Kesavananda Bharati 1973 Parliament can amend Landmark judgment; Citizens
v. State of Kerala the Constitution but introduced Basic (partially)
not its “basic Structure Doctrine
structure”
Background: The Kerala government passed laws to take over the land of a religious institution. Swami
Kesavananda Bharati, the head of the institution, filed a petition. This case escalated to a 13-judge bench
to decide if Parliament’s amending power had any limits. It came amidst growing government frustration
with judicial checks and marked a historic turning point.
5 Indira Nehru Gandhi 1975 Struck down 39th Upheld judicial review Citizens
v. Raj Narain Amendment that and electoral fairness
barred court review of
PM’s election
Background: Indira Gandhi’s election was invalidated by the Allahabad High Court due to electoral
malpractices. During the Emergency, Parliament passed the 39th Amendment to bar courts from reviewing
the PM’s election. The Supreme Court struck it down using the Basic Structure Doctrine, saying judicial
review and fair elections are part of the basic structure.
6 Minerva Mills v. 1980 Struck down parts of Reinforced limits on Citizens
Union of India 42nd Amendment amending power;
granting Parliament preserved balance
unlimited power between rights and duties
Background: During the Emergency, the 42nd Amendment had given Parliament absolute power to
amend the Constitution and placed Directive Principles above Fundamental Rights. After the Emergency
ended, this amendment was challenged. The Supreme Court struck down parts of it and protected the
balance between rights and duties under the basic structure.
7 Waman Rao v. Union 1981 9th Schedule laws Extended protection Citizens
of India after April 1973 can be against arbitrary law
reviewed for violating immunization
basic structure
Background: Parliament was continuing to place laws in the 9th Schedule to shield them from judicial
review. The Court, in this case, created a cut-off date — laws added after Kesavananda Bharati (April 24,
1973) could be reviewed for violating the basic structure. It marked the Court’s effort to control misuse of
the 9th Schedule.
8 S.R. Bommai v. Union 1994 Limited misuse of Basic structure applied to Citizens
of India President’s Rule; Centre-State relations and
upheld federalism and communal politics
secularism
Background: There had been misuse of Article 356, where state governments were dismissed by the
Centre on political grounds. The case also came in the wake of the Babri Masjid demolition. The Court
declared secularism as part of the basic structure and laid down strict rules to prevent misuse of President’s
Rule.
9 I.R. Coelho v. State of 2007 Laws in 9th Schedule Prevented Fundamental Citizens
Tamil Nadu post-1973 must follow Rights from being
basic structure bypassed through 9th
Schedule
Background: The Tamil Nadu government placed a law in the 9th Schedule that dealt with land reforms.
This was challenged. The Court had to decide whether post-1973 laws in the 9th Schedule could still be
tested. It ruled yes, reaffirming that even laws in the 9th Schedule must follow the basic structure.

What Elements have been recognized as part of Basic Structure so far:

Page- F2
 Element Meaning / Essence Case where recognized
Supremacy of the Constitution is the highest law of the land Kesavananda Bharati (1973)
Constitution
Sovereign, Democratic, Core political identity of India Kesavananda Bharati (1973)
Republic
Secularism Equal respect to all religions; state has no S.R. Bommai (1994)
religion
Federalism Division of powers between Centre and Kesavananda Bharati
States (1973); S.R. Bommai (1994)
Judicial Review Courts can strike down unconstitutional Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain
laws/amendments (1975)
Rule of Law No one is above the law; law governs all Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain
(1975); Minerva Mills
(1980)
Separation of Powers Functions of Legislature, Executive, and Kesavananda Bharati (1973)
Judiciary are separate
Independence of the Judges must be free from political Kesavananda Bharati (1973)
Judiciary pressure and influence
Unity and Integrity of the India must remain united territorially and Kesavananda Bharati (1973)
Nation culturally
Parliamentary System of Executive is accountable to the Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain
Government legislature (1975)
Free and Fair Elections Elections must be transparent, fair, and Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain
democratic (1975)
Harmony between Both sets of principles must be balanced Minerva Mills (1980)
Fundamental Rights and
DPSPs
Limited Power of Parliament cannot destroy core values Minerva Mills (1980)
Parliament to Amend through amendment
Welfare State (Social and Aim to build a just society, not just Kesavananda Bharati (1973)
Economic Justice) procedural democracy
Preamble’s Values Ideals of the Preamble guide and form Kesavananda Bharati
(Liberty, Equality, etc.) part of the Constitution’s spirit (1973); reaffirmed in later
cases
Independence of Institutions like Election Commission Implied from Kesavananda
Constitutional Bodies must remain neutral and strong Bharati and SR Bommai

Page- F3