1. What are the salient features of the Indian Constitution?

The Indian Constitution, adopted on November 26, 1949, and enacted on

January 26, 1950, is a dynamic and comprehensive document that serves as
the supreme law of India. As of May 2025, it has undergone 106
amendments, with the 106th Amendment (2023) being the most recent,
reflecting its adaptability to changing socio-political needs. Below are its
salient features, elaborated with historical context and recent updates:

 Written and Lengthy Constitution:

The Constitution is one of the longest written constitutions globally,
originally comprising 395 articles, 8 schedules, and 22 parts. As of
2025, it includes 12 schedules and over 470 articles due to
amendments. Its length ensures detailed provisions for governance,
rights, and duties, accommodating India’s diverse population. The
106th Amendment (2023) added provisions for women’s reservation
in legislatures, further expanding its scope.

 Rigid and Flexible Framework:

The Constitution balances rigidity and flexibility. Article 368 requires a
special majority (two-thirds of members present and voting, plus state
ratification for federal provisions) for amendments, ensuring stability.
However, certain provisions (e.g., the creation of states) can be
amended by a simple majority, allowing adaptability. This dual nature
has facilitated 106 amendments, including the 42nd Amendment
(1976), which added “Socialist” and “Secular” to the Preamble, and
the recent 106th Amendment.

 Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic:

The Preamble declares India a sovereign nation, free from external
control, with a socialist commitment to welfare (42nd Amendment),
secular neutrality in religious matters, a democratic system vesting
power in the people, and a republican structure with an elected head.
These ideals guide governance and judicial interpretation, as seen in
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), which upheld secularism as
a basic feature.

 Federal Structure with Unitary Bias:

India’s federalism divides powers between the Union and States via the
Seventh Schedule (Union, State, and Concurrent Lists). However,
features like single citizenship, a strong Centre during emergencies
(Articles 356, 360), and Union-controlled residuary powers reflect a
 unitary bias. The 129th Amendment Bill (2024, pending) for
simultaneous elections may impact federal dynamics, pending
ratification.

 Fundamental Rights and Duties:

Part III (Articles 12–35) guarantees justiciable rights (e.g., equality,
freedom), while Part IV-A (Article 51A) lists 11 non-justiciable duties,
added by the 42nd and 86th Amendments. These ensure a balance
between individual liberties and civic responsibilities, a cornerstone of
Indian democracy.

 Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP):

Part IV (Articles 36–51) provides non-justiciable guidelines for a
welfare state, promoting social and economic justice. The 106th
Amendment (2023) aligns with DPSPs by advancing gender equality
through legislative reservations.

 Parliamentary Democracy:
India adopts a parliamentary system where the executive (Council of
Ministers) is accountable to the legislature (Lok Sabha). This ensures
democratic governance, with the Prime Minister as the real executive,
unlike presidential systems.

 Judicial Review and Independence:

The judiciary, led by the Supreme Court, reviews laws and actions for
constitutional compliance (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973). Independence
is ensured through secure tenure, Collegium appointments, and
contempt powers, safeguarding the rule of law.

 Single Citizenship:
Unlike federal systems with dual citizenship (e.g., USA), India provides
single citizenship, fostering national unity across diverse states.

 Emergency Provisions:
Articles 352–360 allow the Centre to assume control during national,
state, or financial emergencies, centralizing power to address crises.
The S.R. Bommai (1994) ruling limited misuse of Article 356.

 Women’s Representation:
The 106th Amendment (2023) reserves one-third of seats for
women in the Lok Sabha, state assemblies, and Delhi Legislative
Assembly, effective post-delimitation (likely 2029). This enhances
gender equality, aligning with the Constitution’s egalitarian ethos.
These features collectively make the Indian Constitution a living document,
adaptable yet rooted in democratic principles.

2. Discuss the doctrine of basic structure with relevant case law.

The Basic Structure Doctrine, established in Kesavananda Bharati v.

State of Kerala (AIR 1973 SC 1461), is a judicial safeguard limiting
Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 to ensure the Constitution’s
core identity remains intact. This doctrine balances constitutional flexibility
with the preservation of fundamental principles, shaping India’s
constitutional jurisprudence.

Origin and Evolution

 Kesavananda Bharati (1973):

The Supreme Court, in a landmark 13-judge bench decision, ruled that
while Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, it cannot
alter its “basic structure.” The Court identified key features like
supremacy of the Constitution, federalism, secularism, democracy,
judicial review, and fundamental rights as part of this structure. This
overturned Golak Nath (1967), which had limited amendments to
fundamental rights, and set a permanent limit on amending power.

 Judicial Reinforcement:

o Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (AIR 1975 SC 2299): The

Court struck down Clause (4) of Article 329-A (39th Amendment),
which shielded election disputes of high officials from judicial
review, as it violated the basic feature of free and fair elections.

o Minerva Mills v. Union of India (AIR 1980 SC 1789): The

Court invalidated parts of the 42nd Amendment that gave
primacy to DPSPs over fundamental rights, emphasizing the
harmony between rights and principles as a basic feature.

o L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (AIR 1997 SC 1125):

Judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 was declared a basic
structure component, reinforcing the judiciary’s role.

o Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT (2010 Cri LJ 94):

The Delhi High Court used constitutional morality, aligned with
the basic structure, to decriminalize homosexuality, later
affirmed by the Supreme Court in Navtej Singh Johar (2018).

Key Features of the Basic Structure

The doctrine is not exhaustively defined, allowing judicial flexibility. Identified
features include:

 Supremacy of the Constitution: Ensures no authority overrides

constitutional mandates.

 Federal Character: Balances Union-State powers, critical with

proposals like the 129th Amendment Bill (2024).

 Secularism: Guarantees religious neutrality (S.R. Bommai, 1994).

 Democracy: Upholds free elections and people’s sovereignty.

 Judicial Review: Protects constitutional checks and balances.

 Fundamental Rights: Safeguards liberties, though not absolute.

Recent Context (Up to May 2025)

 106th Amendment (2023): The reservation of one-third seats for

women in legislatures aligns with equality and democracy, core basic
structure elements. No challenges have been reported, suggesting
compliance.

 129th Amendment Bill (2024, Pending): Proposes simultaneous

elections for Lok Sabha and state assemblies. Critics argue it may
undermine federalism by synchronizing state terms, potentially
violating the basic structure. The Supreme Court may review this if
enacted, following precedents like S.R. Bommai.

Significance and Criticism

 Significance: The doctrine prevents arbitrary amendments, protects

minority rights, and ensures constitutional stability. It has empowered
the judiciary to uphold democratic values, as seen in I.R. Coelho v.
State of Tamil Nadu (2007), which extended basic structure scrutiny
to the Ninth Schedule.

 Criticism: Some argue it grants excessive judicial power, lacking a

clear constitutional basis. The undefined nature of “basic structure”
invites subjectivity, though courts have applied it judiciously.

The doctrine remains a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law, ensuring the

Constitution evolves without losing its foundational ethos.

3. Explain the procedure for amendment of the Constitution.

The Indian Constitution’s amendment procedure, outlined in Article 368,
balances flexibility and rigidity, allowing adaptation while protecting core
principles. As of May 2025, 106 amendments have been enacted, with the
106th Amendment (2023) being the latest. Below is a detailed explanation
of the process, limitations, and recent developments.

Amendment Procedure

 Initiation:
An amendment bill can be introduced in either House of Parliament
(Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha) by a minister or private member. No prior
presidential permission is required, ensuring democratic access to the
process.

 Special Majority:
The bill must pass in each House with a special majority:

o Two-thirds of members present and voting, provided this exceeds

half the total membership of the House.

o For example, in a House of 545 members, at least 364 must be

present, with 243 voting in favor (assuming full strength).

 State Ratification:
Amendments affecting federal provisions require ratification by at least
half of the state legislatures. These provisions include:

o Election of the President (Articles 54, 55).

o Extent of executive and legislative powers of the Union and

States.

o Representation of states in Parliament.

o Provisions related to the Supreme Court and High Courts.

o The amendment procedure itself (Article 368).

Ratification involves a simple majority in each state legislature,
ensuring federal consensus.

 Presidential Assent:
After parliamentary approval (and state ratification, if required), the bill
is presented to the President, who must give assent, as per the 24th
Amendment (1971), which removed the President’s veto power.

Types of Amendments
The Constitution allows three types of amendments:

1. By Simple Majority: For non-Article 368 changes, such as creating

new states (Article 3) or altering state boundaries. These are not
considered “amendments” under Article 368.

2. By Special Majority: For most constitutional amendments, including

changes to fundamental rights or DPSPs (e.g., 42nd Amendment,
1976).

3. By Special Majority + State Ratification: For federal provisions, as

seen in the 106th Amendment (2023), which required ratification
due to its impact on legislative representation.

Limitations

 Basic Structure Doctrine: Established in Kesavananda Bharati

(1973), it prohibits amendments that alter the Constitution’s core
features, such as democracy, federalism, or judicial review. This was
reaffirmed in Minerva Mills (1980) and I.R. Coelho (2007).

 Judicial Review: Courts can scrutinize amendments for compliance

with the basic structure, ensuring constitutional integrity.

Recent Developments (Up to May 2025)

 106th Amendment (2023):

Known as the Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment)
Act, 2023, it reserves one-third of seats for women in the Lok Sabha,
state assemblies, and Delhi Legislative Assembly. The amendment
followed the full Article 368 procedure, including state ratification, due
to its impact on legislative representation. It will take effect after
delimitation, expected by 2029, and includes a 15-year sunset clause.

 129th Amendment Bill (2024, Pending):

Introduced on December 17, 2024, this bill proposes simultaneous
elections for Lok Sabha and state assemblies, amending Articles 83,
172, and 356, among others. It requires state ratification due to its
federal implications. As of May 2025, it remains pending in Parliament,
with debates over its impact on federalism and democracy. If enacted,
it could be challenged for violating the basic structure, following
precedents like S.R. Bommai (1994).

Significance
The amendment procedure ensures the Constitution remains a living
document, adaptable to societal changes while preserving its core. The
106th Amendment exemplifies its role in advancing gender equality, while
the 129th Amendment Bill highlights ongoing debates over federal
balance. The process’s checks (special majority, ratification, judicial review)
prevent hasty or authoritarian changes, maintaining democratic stability.

4. What do you understand by ‘Preamble’? Discuss its importance

and whether it is a part of the Constitution.

The Preamble to the Indian Constitution is a concise introductory statement

that encapsulates its philosophy, objectives, and guiding principles. It
declares India a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic
committed to securing Justice (social, economic, political), Liberty,
Equality, and Fraternity. As of May 2025, its relevance is underscored by
recent amendments like the 106th Amendment (2023).

Understanding the Preamble

 Content:
The Preamble begins with “We the People,” signifying the
Constitution’s authority derives from the citizens. It outlines the
nation’s character (sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic, republic)
and objectives (justice, liberty, equality, fraternity), setting the tone for
the constitutional framework.

 Historical Context:
Drafted by the Constituent Assembly, the Preamble was inspired by the
Objectives Resolution of Jawaharlal Nehru (1946). The terms “Socialist”
and “Secular” were added by the 42nd Amendment (1976),
reflecting India’s commitment to welfare and religious neutrality.

Importance of the Preamble

 Philosophical Core:
The Preamble embodies the Constitution’s soul, reflecting the
aspirations of a diverse nation. It articulates the vision of a just and
inclusive society, guiding lawmakers and citizens alike.

 Interpretive Tool:
Courts use the Preamble to interpret ambiguous provisions, ensuring
alignment with its objectives. In Berubari Union Case (AIR 1960 SC
845), the Supreme Court clarified that while not enforceable, the
Preamble aids in understanding the Constitution’s intent. For instance,
 “secularism” in the Preamble guided S.R. Bommai (1994) to uphold
state neutrality.

 Source of Sovereignty:
The phrase “We the People” establishes the people as the ultimate
sovereign, distinguishing India’s democratic ethos from colonial rule.
This was emphasized in Kesavananda Bharati (1973), where the
Preamble was deemed integral to the Constitution’s structure.

 Moral and Ideological Framework:

The Preamble provides a moral compass for governance, influencing
policies like reservations (106th Amendment) and welfare schemes
(e.g., MGNREGA), which align with justice and equality.

Is the Preamble Part of the Constitution?

 Judicial Clarification:

o Berubari Union Case (1960): Initially, the Supreme Court held

the Preamble was not part of the Constitution, as it was not
enforceable.

o Kesavananda Bharati (1973): The Court reversed this,

declaring the Preamble an integral part of the Constitution and
part of its basic structure. It cannot be amended to alter core
principles like democracy or secularism.

o LIC of India v. Consumer Education & Research Centre

(1995): Reaffirmed the Preamble’s role in shaping constitutional
interpretation.

 Non-Enforceable Nature:
While integral, the Preamble is not justiciable, meaning courts cannot
enforce its provisions directly. However, it influences judicial and
legislative actions, as seen in cases like Navtej Singh Johar (2018),
where equality and fraternity informed decriminalization of
homosexuality.

Recent Context (Up to May 2025)

 106th Amendment (2023): The reservation of one-third seats for

women in legislatures directly aligns with the Preamble’s goals of
equality and social justice, reinforcing its guiding role.
  129th Amendment Bill (2024, Pending): If enacted, simultaneous
elections may be scrutinized for compatibility with democratic and
federal principles in the Preamble, ensuring no dilution of “We the
People.”

Significance

The Preamble is not merely a preface but a living expression of India’s

constitutional vision. It bridges the Constitution’s legal framework with its
moral aspirations, ensuring governance reflects the people’s will. Its
integration into the basic structure underscores its permanence, making it a
cornerstone of Indian democracy.

5. Explain the concept of citizenship under the Indian Constitution.

Citizenship under the Indian Constitution defines who is entitled to the rights,
duties, and privileges of being an Indian citizen. Governed by Part II
(Articles 5–11) and the Citizenship Act, 1955, it establishes a framework
for acquisition, termination, and regulation of citizenship, emphasizing single
citizenship to foster national unity. As of May 2025, no new amendments
have altered these provisions since the Citizenship Amendment Act
(CAA), 2019.

Constitutional Provisions

 Article 5: Grants citizenship at the Constitution’s commencement

(January 26, 1950) to:

o Persons domiciled in India.

o Persons born in India or with parents born in India.

o Persons residing in India for at least five years before 1950.

 Article 6: Provides citizenship to persons who migrated from Pakistan

to India before July 19, 1948, or later with intent to settle permanently.

 Article 7: Addresses those who migrated to Pakistan after March 1,

1947, but returned to India, ensuring they retain citizenship under
certain conditions.

 Article 8: Covers persons of Indian origin residing abroad, allowing

citizenship by registration.

 Article 9: Prohibits dual citizenship; acquiring foreign citizenship

voluntarily terminates Indian citizenship.
  Article 10: Ensures continuity of citizenship subject to parliamentary
laws.

 Article 11: Empowers Parliament to legislate on all citizenship

matters, providing flexibility to adapt to changing needs.

Citizenship Act, 1955

The Citizenship Act, 1955, amended multiple times (e.g., 1986, 2003,
2019), details the modes of acquiring and losing citizenship:

 Acquisition:

o By Birth: Pre-1986, anyone born in India was a citizen (jus soli).

Post-1986, one parent must be an Indian citizen; post-2003,
neither parent can be an illegal migrant.

o By Descent: For those born abroad to Indian parents, subject to

registration.

o By Registration: For persons of Indian origin residing in India

for seven years or married to Indian citizens.

o By Naturalization: For foreigners residing in India for 11 of the

last 14 years, meeting character and language criteria.

o By Incorporation of Territory: E.g., citizens of Sikkim post-

1975 integration.

 Termination:

o Renunciation: Voluntary surrender of citizenship.

o Termination: Upon acquiring foreign citizenship.

o Deprivation: For fraud, disloyalty, or other specified grounds.

Single Citizenship

Unlike federal systems (e.g., USA) with dual citizenship, India adopts single
citizenship, ensuring uniform rights and duties across states. This promotes
national unity, preventing regional divisions, and aligns with the Preamble’s
emphasis on fraternity.

Recent Developments (Up to May 2025)

 Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019:

The CAA amended the 1955 Act to grant citizenship to non-Muslim
 immigrants (Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, Christians) from
Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan who entered India before
December 31, 2014, and faced religious persecution. It reduced the
residency requirement to five years. The CAA remains in effect, with
rules notified in March 2024, but has faced legal challenges for
potentially violating Article 14 (equality). No Supreme Court verdict has
invalidated it as of May 2025.

 No New Amendments:
Since the CAA, 2019, no further amendments to citizenship provisions
have been enacted. The 106th Amendment (2023) and 129th
Amendment Bill (2024, pending) do not affect citizenship rules.

Significance

 Unity and Equality: Single citizenship ensures equal treatment of

citizens, reinforcing national integration.

 Judicial Oversight: Courts protect citizenship rights, as seen in

Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005), which addressed
illegal migration.

 Global Context: The CAA, 2019, reflects India’s humanitarian stance

but raises debates over secularism, impacting its international image.

The citizenship framework balances national security, humanitarian

obligations, and constitutional principles, remaining robust amidst
contemporary challenges.

6. Discuss the classification of Fundamental Rights.

Fundamental Rights, enshrined in Part III (Articles 12–35) of the Indian

Constitution, are justiciable guarantees protecting individual liberties and
ensuring state accountability. Applicable to citizens and, in some cases, non-
citizens, they form the bedrock of India’s democratic framework. As of May
2025, no amendments have altered Part III since the 44th Amendment
(1978) removed the Right to Property. Below is a detailed classification with
recent judicial and legislative context.

Classification of Fundamental Rights

The Constitution categorizes Fundamental Rights into six groups, with a

seventh right (privacy) derived judicially:

1. Right to Equality (Articles 14–18):

 o Article 14: Ensures equality before law and equal protection of
laws, prohibiting arbitrary discrimination. It allows reasonable
classification based on intelligible differentia and rational nexus
(E.P. Royappa, 1974).

o Article 15: Prohibits state discrimination on grounds of religion,

race, caste, sex, or place of birth, with exceptions for affirmative
action (e.g., reservations for women, SCs/STs).

o Article 16: Guarantees equality of opportunity in public

employment, allowing reservations for backward classes (Indra
Sawhney, 1992).

o Article 17: Abolishes untouchability, with enforcement via the

Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955.

o Article 18: Prohibits titles (except military/academic) to prevent

social hierarchies.

o Recent Context: The 106th Amendment (2023) strengthens

Article 15 by reserving one-third of legislative seats for women,
promoting gender equality.

2. Right to Freedom (Articles 19–22):

o Article 19: Grants six freedoms to citizens: speech and

expression, assembly, association, movement, residence, and
profession, subject to reasonable restrictions (e.g., public order,
morality).

o Article 20: Protects against retrospective criminal laws, double

jeopardy, and self-incrimination.

o Article 21: Guarantees life and personal liberty, expansively

interpreted to include dignity, privacy, and health (Maneka
Gandhi, 1978).

o Article 22: Safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention,

ensuring rights like legal counsel.

o Judicial Expansion: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of

India (2017) recognized the Right to Privacy under Article 21,
covering data protection and personal autonomy.

3. Right Against Exploitation (Articles 23–24):

 o Article 23: Prohibits human trafficking and forced labor,
protecting vulnerable groups.

o Article 24: Bans child labor in hazardous employment, enforced

through laws like the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation)
Act, 1986.

o Significance: These rights address historical injustices, ensuring

human dignity.

4. Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25–28):

o Article 25: Guarantees freedom of conscience and religious

practice, subject to public order and morality.

o Article 26: Allows religious denominations to manage their

affairs.

o Article 27: Prohibits taxes for promoting any religion.

o Article 28: Restricts religious instruction in state-funded

institutions.

o Case Law: Sabarimala Case (2018) balanced religious

freedom with gender equality under Article 14.

5. Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29–30):

o Article 29: Protects minorities’ rights to conserve their

language, script, or culture and prohibits discrimination in
education.

o Article 30: Grants minorities the right to establish and

administer educational institutions (T.M.A. Pai Foundation, 2002).

o Purpose: Preserves India’s cultural diversity.

6. Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32):

o Empowers citizens to approach the Supreme Court for

enforcement of Fundamental Rights through writs (habeas
corpus, mandamus, etc.).

o Described as the “heart and soul” of the Constitution by Dr. B.R.

Ambedkar, it ensures judicial protection (Vineet Narain, 1998).

7. Right to Privacy (Derived Right):

 o Recognized under Article 21 in Puttaswamy (2017), it includes
personal autonomy, data protection, and freedom from
unwarranted surveillance. No amendments have codified it
separately.

Recent Developments (Up to May 2025)

 106th Amendment (2023): Enhances the Right to Equality (Articles

14, 15) by reserving seats for women, addressing gender disparities in
political representation. It does not directly amend Part III but supports
its principles.

 No Changes to Part III: The last amendment affecting Fundamental

Rights was the 44th Amendment (1978), which removed the Right
to Property (Article 31) and made Article 21 non-suspendable during
emergencies.

 Judicial Continuity: Cases like Navtej Singh Johar (2018) and

Anuradha Bhasin (2020) continue to expand rights under Article 21,
reinforcing privacy and internet access.

Significance

 Protection Against State Power: Fundamental Rights limit state

arbitrariness, ensuring individual freedoms.

 Judicial Enforcement: Article 32 and Article 226 (High Courts)

provide robust remedies, as seen in PILs like Hussainara Khatoon
(1979).

 Dynamic Interpretation: The judiciary’s expansive reading (e.g.,

privacy, environmental rights) keeps Part III relevant.

 Balancing Rights: The 106th Amendment exemplifies how rights

evolve to address contemporary inequalities, aligning with the
Constitution’s egalitarian vision.

Fundamental Rights are the cornerstone of India’s constitutional democracy,

ensuring liberty, equality, and justice for all.

7. Explain the Right to Equality. How is it ensured under the

Constitution?

The Right to Equality, enshrined in Articles 14–18 of the Indian

Constitution, is a fundamental guarantee ensuring fairness, non-
discrimination, and equal treatment under the law. It forms the bedrock of
India’s democratic ethos, addressing historical inequalities and promoting
social justice. As of May 2025, the 106th Amendment (2023) has further
strengthened this right by advancing gender equality.

Components of the Right to Equality

 Article 14: Equality Before Law and Equal Protection of Laws:

o Equality Before Law: Ensures all persons, regardless of status,

are subject to the same laws, with no privileges or exemptions. It
embodies the rule of law, preventing arbitrary state action (State
of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75).

o Equal Protection of Laws: Requires equal treatment for equals

and differential treatment for unequals, based on reasonable
classification. The classification must have an intelligible
differentia (clear distinction) and a rational nexus with the
law’s objective (E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC
555).

o Case Law: Maneka Gandhi (1978) linked Article 14 to due

process, ensuring fairness in procedures.

 Article 15: Prohibition of Discrimination:

o Prohibits state discrimination against citizens on grounds of

religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.

o Allows affirmative action for women, children, SCs/STs, and

socially/educationally backward classes.

o Example: Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) upheld

reservations for OBCs, balancing equality with social justice.

 Article 16: Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment:

o Ensures non-discrimination in public employment, with provisions

for reservations for backward classes.

o Case Law: M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) mandated

creamy layer exclusion for SC/ST promotions, ensuring equitable
reservation.

 Article 17: Abolition of Untouchability:

o Declares untouchability illegal and punishable, enforced through

the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955.
 o Significance: Addresses historical caste-based discrimination,
promoting social inclusion.

 Article 18: Abolition of Titles:

o Prohibits the state from conferring titles (except

military/academic) to prevent social hierarchies.

o Ensures egalitarian principles, though awards like Bharat Ratna

are permitted as recognitions, not titles.

How is the Right to Equality Ensured?

The Constitution employs multiple mechanisms to enforce and promote

equality:

 Judicial Review:
Courts can strike down laws or actions violating Article 14 or other
equality provisions. In State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan
(AIR 1951 SC 226), the Supreme Court invalidated a discriminatory
admission policy, prioritizing equality over DPSPs. Recent cases like
Navtej Singh Johar (2018) used Article 14 to decriminalize
homosexuality, ensuring equal treatment.

 Legislative Measures:
Laws like the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Equal Remuneration
Act, 1976, operationalize equality. The 106th Amendment (2023)
reserves one-third of legislative seats for women, directly advancing
Article 15’s affirmative action provisions.

 Affirmative Action:
Reservations for SCs, STs, OBCs, and women in education,
employment, and now legislatures (106th Amendment) address
historical disadvantages. The 103rd Amendment (2019) introduced
a 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), upheld in
Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022), expanding equality’s
scope.

 Constitutional Remedies:
Article 32 allows citizens to approach the Supreme Court for
enforcement of equality rights through writs (e.g., habeas corpus,
mandamus). Article 226 enables High Courts to address equality
violations, ensuring accessible justice.
  Judicial Interpretation:
The judiciary has dynamically interpreted equality to include
substantive equality, addressing real-world disparities. Shayara Bano
v. Union of India (2017) struck down triple talaq, citing Article 14’s
protection against gender discrimination.

Recent Developments (Up to May 2025)

 106th Amendment (2023):

This amendment significantly enhances the Right to Equality by
reserving one-third of seats for women in the Lok Sabha, state
assemblies, and Delhi Legislative Assembly. Effective post-delimitation
(likely 2029), it addresses gender underrepresentation, aligning with
Articles 14 and 15. The amendment reflects the judiciary’s push for
gender justice, as seen in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997).

 No Other Amendments:
No amendments have directly altered Articles 14–18 since the 44th
Amendment (1978). The 129th Amendment Bill (2024, pending)
does not impact equality provisions but may influence democratic
representation, indirectly linked to Article 14.

Significance

 Social Transformation: The Right to Equality dismantles caste,

gender, and religious barriers, fostering an inclusive society.

 Judicial Activism: Cases like Sabarimala (2018) demonstrate the

judiciary’s role in enforcing equality against traditional practices.

 Global Standards: Aligns with international human rights norms,

enhancing India’s democratic credentials.

 Challenges: Implementation gaps, such as persistent caste

discrimination and gender disparities, require continued legislative and
judicial efforts.

The Right to Equality, bolstered by the 106th Amendment, remains a

dynamic tool for achieving justice and fairness, ensuring the Constitution’s
promise of equality for all.

8. What are the reasonable restrictions under Article 19?

Article 19 of the Indian Constitution guarantees six fundamental freedoms

to citizens: speech and expression, assembly, association, movement,
residence, and profession. These freedoms are not absolute and are subject
to reasonable restrictions outlined in Articles 19(2)–19(6), balancing
individual rights with societal interests. As of May 2025, no amendments
have altered Article 19 since the 1st Amendment (1951).

Freedoms and Their Restrictions

1. Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19(1)(a)):

o Scope: Includes the right to express opinions, press freedom,

and access to information (e.g., right to internet access,
Anuradha Bhasin, 2020).

o Restrictions (Article 19(2)): The state can impose reasonable

restrictions on grounds of:

 Sovereignty and integrity of India (added by 16th

Amendment, 1963).

 Security of the state (e.g., against sedition).

 Friendly relations with foreign states.

 Public order (expanded post-Romesh Thappar v. State of

Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124).

 Decency or morality (e.g., obscenity laws).

 Contempt of court.

 Defamation.

 Incitement to an offense.

o Case Law: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) struck

down Section 66A of the IT Act for vague restrictions,
emphasizing proportionality.

2. Freedom to Assemble Peaceably Without Arms (Article 19(1)

(b)):

o Scope: Allows peaceful protests and gatherings without

weapons.

o Restrictions (Article 19(3)): Restricted for:

 Sovereignty and integrity of India.

 Public order (e.g., regulating protests to prevent violence).

 o Example: Himat Lal Shah v. Commissioner of Police (1973)
upheld the right to public meetings with reasonable regulations.

3. Freedom to Form Associations or Unions (Article 19(1)(c)):

o Scope: Includes forming political parties, trade unions, or social

groups.

o Restrictions (Article 19(4)): Limited for:

 Sovereignty and integrity of India.

 Public order.

 Morality (e.g., banning unlawful organizations).

o Case Law: All India Bank Employees’ Association v.

National Industrial Tribunal (1962) clarified that union rights
are subject to public interest.

4. Freedom to Move Freely Throughout India (Article 19(1)(d)):

o Scope: Ensures unrestricted movement within India’s territory.

o Restrictions (Article 19(5)): Imposed for:

 Interests of the general public (e.g., curfews during riots).

 Protection of Scheduled Tribes (e.g., restricting entry to

tribal areas).

o Example: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kaushalya (1964)

upheld restrictions on movement to curb prostitution, citing
public interest.

5. Freedom to Reside and Settle in Any Part of India (Article 19(1)

(e)):

o Scope: Guarantees the right to live and settle anywhere in India.

o Restrictions (Article 19(5)): Same as Article 19(1)(d), for

public interest or tribal protection.

o Case Law: U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Friends Co-

operative Housing Society (1995) balanced residence rights
with urban planning needs.

6. Freedom to Practice Any Profession or Carry on Any

Occupation, Trade, or Business (Article 19(1)(g)):
 o Scope: Allows citizens to engage in lawful professions or
businesses.

o Restrictions (Article 19(6)): Permitted for:

 Interests of the general public (e.g., licensing

requirements).

 Prescribing professional/technical qualifications (e.g.,

medical practice).

 State monopolies (e.g., nationalized industries).

o Example: Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh

(1950) struck down excessive restrictions on bidi manufacturing,
emphasizing reasonableness.

Judicial Oversight

 Reasonableness Test: Restrictions must be:

o Substantive (serving a legitimate purpose).

o Procedural (fair and non-arbitrary).

o Proportionate (not excessive, as in Shreya Singhal, 2015).

 Case Law: Romesh Thappar (1950) clarified that restrictions must

be narrowly tailored, leading to the expansion of “public order” in
Article 19(2) via the 1st Amendment (1951).

Recent Developments (Up to May 2025)

 No Amendments to Article 19: The last amendment was the 1st

Amendment (1951), which added “public order” and “friendly
relations” to Article 19(2). The 106th Amendment (2023) does not
affect Article 19, focusing on legislative reservations.

 129th Amendment Bill (2024, Pending): If enacted, simultaneous

elections may involve restrictions on political activities (e.g., election
timing), potentially scrutinized under Article 19(1)(c) for compliance
with democratic freedoms.

 Judicial Trends: Recent cases like Anuradha Bhasin (2020)

emphasize balancing free speech with security, especially in digital
contexts (e.g., internet shutdowns).

Significance
  Balancing Rights and Duties: Reasonable restrictions ensure
freedoms do not disrupt public order or national interests.

 Judicial Protection: Courts vigilantly review restrictions to prevent

state overreach, as seen in Kaushik Chanda v. State of West
Bengal (2021), which upheld speech rights against vague laws.

 Dynamic Relevance: Article 19 remains critical in addressing

contemporary issues like online expression and protest rights, ensuring
democratic vibrancy.

The reasonable restrictions under Article 19 reflect a delicate balance

between individual liberties and collective welfare, upheld through judicial
scrutiny.

9. Examine the scope and importance of Article 21.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states: “No person shall be deprived of

his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
As a cornerstone of Fundamental Rights, it applies to both citizens and non-
citizens, ensuring protection against arbitrary state action. Its scope has
been expansively interpreted by the judiciary, making it one of the most
dynamic provisions. As of May 2025, no amendments have directly altered
Article 21, but recent developments like the 106th Amendment (2023)
align with its principles.

Scope of Article 21

 Right to Life:
Beyond mere survival, it encompasses a life with dignity, including:

o Livelihood: Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation

(AIR 1985 SC 180) recognized the right to livelihood as
essential to life, protecting pavement dwellers from eviction
without alternatives.

o Health: Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989)

mandated emergency medical care as part of Article 21.

o Environment: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) extended

life to include a clean environment, addressing pollution.

o Education: Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh

(1993) derived the right to education, later codified as Article
21A (86th Amendment, 2002).
  Personal Liberty:
Encompasses freedom from arbitrary detention, torture, and invasions
of autonomy:

o Privacy: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)

recognized privacy as intrinsic to Article 21, covering data
protection, bodily autonomy, and personal choices.

o Freedom from Torture: D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal

(1997) established guidelines to prevent custodial violence.

o Speedy Trial: Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979)

derived the right to a speedy trial, addressing undertrial delays.

 Procedure Established by Law:

Post-Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597), the
procedure must be “just, fair, and reasonable,” incorporating due
process principles. This marked a shift from mere legality to
substantive fairness, linking Article 21 with Articles 14 and 19.

 Derived Rights:
The judiciary has derived numerous rights under Article 21, including:

o Right to legal aid (M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, 1978).

o Right to shelter (Chameli Singh v. State of U.P., 1996).

o Right to internet access (Anuradha Bhasin, 2020), critical in the

digital age.

Importance of Article 21

 Foundation of Rights:
Article 21 serves as the bedrock for derived rights, making it a
versatile tool for social justice. Its expansive interpretation has
addressed issues like gender equality (Sabarimala, 2018) and sexual
orientation (Navtej Singh Johar, 2018).

 Judicial Activism:
The judiciary’s creative interpretation has transformed Article 21 into a
“living right,” adapting to contemporary challenges. Vishaka v. State
of Rajasthan (1997) derived workplace harassment guidelines,
showcasing its proactive role.

 Protection Against Arbitrariness:

Article 21 ensures the state cannot infringe on life or liberty without
 fair legal processes, reinforcing the rule of law. A.K. Gopalan v. State
of Madras (1950) was overruled by Maneka Gandhi to prioritize
fairness.

 Universal Application:
By applying to “persons” (not just citizens), Article 21 upholds India’s
commitment to human rights, protecting foreigners and stateless
individuals.

 Non-Suspendable:
The 44th Amendment (1978) ensured Article 21 (and Article 20)
cannot be suspended during emergencies, safeguarding core rights
even in crises.

Recent Developments (Up to May 2025)

 106th Amendment (2023):

While not amending Article 21, the reservation of one-third legislative
seats for women enhances the right to dignity and equality, indirectly
supporting Article 21’s expansive scope. It aligns with judicial
precedents like Vishaka, emphasizing gender justice.

 No Direct Amendments:
Article 21 remains unchanged since its inception. The 129th
Amendment Bill (2024, pending) does not impact Article 21 but
may influence democratic participation, linked to life and liberty.

 Judicial Continuity:
Recent cases continue to expand Article 21. For instance, Common
Cause v. Union of India (2018) recognized the right to die with
dignity (passive euthanasia), and Anuradha Bhasin (2020)
emphasized digital access as part of liberty.

Significance

 Social Transformation: Article 21 has driven reforms in education,

health, and environmental protection, addressing systemic inequalities.

 Global Relevance: Aligns with international human rights standards,

enhancing India’s global standing.

 Challenges: Implementation gaps, such as delayed trials and

inadequate healthcare, require sustained efforts to fully realize Article
21’s potential.
Article 21’s dynamic interpretation ensures it remains a powerful instrument
for justice, adapting to India’s evolving needs while safeguarding
fundamental human rights.

10. Discuss the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the High
Courts under Articles 32 and 226.

The writ jurisdiction under Article 32 (Supreme Court) and Article 226
(High Courts) empowers the judiciary to enforce Fundamental Rights and
other legal rights through writs, ensuring constitutional protections against
state overreach. As of May 2025, no amendments have altered these
provisions, but their application remains critical, including in contexts like the
106th Amendment (2023).

Writ Jurisdiction Explained

 Writs:
The Constitution allows five writs:

o Habeas Corpus: Secures release from unlawful detention.

o Mandamus: Orders a public authority to perform a legal duty.

o Prohibition: Prevents a lower court from exceeding its

jurisdiction.

o Certiorari: Quashes a lower court’s decision for jurisdictional

errors.

o Quo Warranto: Challenges a person’s right to hold public office.

 Article 32: Supreme Court

o Scope: Guarantees the right to approach the Supreme Court

directly for enforcement of Fundamental Rights (Part III).
Described as the “heart and soul” of the Constitution by Dr. B.R.
Ambedkar, it ensures immediate redress.

o Features:

 Limited to Fundamental Rights violations (e.g., Articles 14,

21).

 The Court cannot refuse relief if a right is infringed, making

it a fundamental right itself.
  Enables Public Interest Litigation (PIL) for marginalized
groups (Hussainara Khatoon, 1979).

o Case Law:

 Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) used Article 32

to direct CBI investigations into corruption, showcasing its
proactive role.

 Navtej Singh Johar (2018) invoked Article 32 to

decriminalize homosexuality, protecting Article 21 rights.

 Article 226: High Courts

o Scope: Grants broader powers to High Courts to issue writs for:

 Enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

 “Any other purpose,” including legal rights, administrative

irregularities, or statutory violations.

o Features:

 Wider than Article 32, covering non-constitutional issues

(e.g., service disputes, tribunal decisions).

 Limited to the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction (state/UT).

 Supports PILs and judicial review of administrative actions.

o Case Law:

 L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) upheld

High Courts’ writ jurisdiction over tribunal decisions,
reinforcing their supervisory role.

 Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) used Article 226

to challenge triple talaq, later escalated to the Supreme
Court.

Key Differences

Aspect Article 32 Article 226

Court Supreme Court High Courts

Fundamental Rights
Scope Fundamental + legal rights
only
Nature Fundamental Right Constitutional provision

Jurisdicti
Nationwide State/UT-specific
on

Constitutional Broader remedies, including

Purpose
remedies administrative

Recent Developments (Up to May 2025)

 106th Amendment (2023):

While not amending Articles 32 or 226, the amendment’s
implementation (women’s reservation) may involve writ petitions
under these articles to ensure compliance or challenge irregularities.
For instance, PILs could address delimitation delays or reservation
enforcement, following precedents like Hussainara Khatoon.

 No Amendments:
Articles 32 and 226 remain unchanged since their inception. The 44th
Amendment (1978) indirectly strengthened Article 32 by ensuring
Fundamental Rights (except during emergencies) are enforceable. The
129th Amendment Bill (2024, pending) does not affect writ
jurisdiction but may lead to challenges under Article 32 if it impacts
democratic rights.

 Judicial Trends:
Recent PILs, such as those addressing environmental violations (M.C.
Mehta cases) or digital rights (Anuradha Bhasin, 2020), highlight the
continued relevance of writ jurisdiction in protecting Article 21 rights.

Significance

 Judicial Oversight: Writs ensure checks on legislative and executive

actions, upholding the rule of law.

 Access to Justice: Article 32’s direct access and Article 226’s regional
reach make justice accessible, especially through PILs for marginalized
groups.

 Constitutional Protection: The judiciary’s power to issue writs

safeguards Fundamental Rights, as seen in Sabarimala (2018),
balancing tradition with equality.

 Challenges: Frivolous PILs and judicial backlog strain the system,

requiring careful case management.
The writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 is a vital mechanism for
enforcing constitutional guarantees, ensuring India’s democratic framework
remains robust and responsive.

11. What is judicial review? Explain its scope and limitations.

Judicial Review is the judiciary’s power to examine the constitutionality of

legislative enactments and executive actions, striking them down if they
violate the Constitution. Rooted in the principle of constitutional supremacy,
it ensures that all laws and actions align with the Constitution’s mandates,
particularly Fundamental Rights and the basic structure. As of May 2025,
judicial review remains a cornerstone of Indian democracy, with recent
amendments like the 106th Amendment (2023) subject to its scrutiny.

Understanding Judicial Review

 Definition:
Judicial review empowers courts (Supreme Court and High Courts) to
invalidate laws or actions that contravene the Constitution, ensuring
the rule of law and separation of powers. It derives from Articles 13,
32, and 226, with Article 13 explicitly declaring laws inconsistent with
Fundamental Rights void.

 Historical Context:
The concept was affirmed in Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (AIR
1951 SC 458), which upheld Parliament’s amending power but
recognized judicial review over ordinary laws. The Kesavananda
Bharati (1973) case extended review to constitutional amendments,
introducing the basic structure doctrine.

Scope of Judicial Review

 Constitutional Validity of Laws:

Courts review statutes to ensure compliance with Fundamental Rights
and other constitutional provisions. In State of Madras v.
Champakam Dorairajan (1951), a discriminatory admission policy
was struck down for violating Article 15.

 Basic Structure Doctrine:

Post-Kesavananda Bharati (AIR 1973 SC 1461), amendments
under Article 368 are reviewable to ensure they do not alter the
Constitution’s basic structure (e.g., democracy, secularism). Minerva
Mills (1980) invalidated parts of the 42nd Amendment for disrupting
this balance.
  Administrative Actions:
Courts scrutinize executive decisions for legality, fairness, and
reasonableness. Maneka Gandhi (1978) mandated fair procedures
under Article 21, expanding review to procedural justice.

 Writ Jurisdiction:

o Article 32: Allows the Supreme Court to issue writs for

Fundamental Rights violations (Vineet Narain, 1998).

o Article 226: Enables High Courts to review both constitutional

and legal issues (L. Chandra Kumar, 1997).

 Judicial Activism:
Courts have proactively expanded rights through creative
interpretation, such as:

o Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): Established sexual

harassment guidelines.

o Navtej Singh Johar (2018): Decriminalized homosexuality,

invoking Articles 14 and 21.

 Review of Ordinances and Emergency Actions:

Courts can review ordinances (D.C. Wadhwa, 1987) and emergency
proclamations (S.R. Bommai, 1994), ensuring constitutional limits are
respected.

Limitations of Judicial Review

 Separation of Powers:
Courts cannot encroach on legislative or executive domains, such as
policy-making. Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club v. Chander
Hass (2008) cautioned against judicial overreach in administrative
matters.

 Political Questions:
Courts avoid purely political issues, like foreign policy or budget
allocations, unless constitutional violations are evident (Almitra H. Patel
v. Union of India, 2000).

 Procedural Constraints:
Review is limited to constitutional or legal errors, not factual disputes
unless manifestly arbitrary. State of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Laxmi
Devi (2008) emphasized deference to legislative wisdom.
  Basic Structure Limitation:
Even judicial review cannot alter the Constitution’s core, ensuring
consistency with Kesavananda Bharati.

 Judicial Restraint vs. Activism:

Excessive activism risks accusations of overstepping, as debated in
cases like NJAC Case (2015), where the Supreme Court struck down
the 99th Amendment for undermining judicial independence.

Recent Developments (Up to May 2025)

 106th Amendment (2023):

The reservation of one-third seats for women is subject to judicial
review to ensure compliance with the basic structure, particularly
equality and democracy. No challenges have been reported, but courts
may scrutinize its implementation post-delimitation.

 129th Amendment Bill (2024, Pending):

The simultaneous elections proposal may face judicial review if
enacted, particularly for its impact on federalism and democratic
representation. S.R. Bommai (1994) provides precedent for
reviewing federal encroachments.

 Judicial Trends:
Recent cases like Anuradha Bhasin (2020) (internet access) and
Common Cause (2018) (euthanasia) demonstrate judicial review’s
role in expanding Article 21, balancing rights with state interests.

Significance

 Constitutional Supremacy: Ensures all actions conform to the

Constitution, protecting democratic values.

 Rights Protection: Safeguards Fundamental Rights against state

overreach, as seen in Shayara Bano (2017).

 Federal Balance: Maintains Union-State harmony, critical with

proposals like the 129th Amendment.

 Challenges: Judicial backlog and varying interpretations of

“reasonableness” require streamlined processes.

Judicial review is a vital mechanism for upholding the Constitution’s integrity,

ensuring governance remains accountable and rights-focused.

12. Explain the doctrine of eclipse and severability.

The Doctrines of Eclipse and Severability are judicial tools addressing
the validity of laws that conflict with the Indian Constitution, particularly
Fundamental Rights under Part III. Codified in Article 13, these doctrines
balance constitutional supremacy with legislative intent, ensuring only
necessary parts of laws are invalidated. As of May 2025, no amendments
have altered these doctrines, and they remain relevant in constitutional
adjudication.

Doctrine of Eclipse

 Concept:
A law inconsistent with a Fundamental Right is not void ab initio but is
“eclipsed” or inoperative to the extent of the conflict. It remains valid
for non-citizens (to whom Fundamental Rights do not apply) or pre-
constitutional laws but is unenforceable against citizens until the
conflict is resolved.

 Mechanism:
If the constitutional bar (e.g., a Fundamental Right) is removed through
amendment or repeal, the law is revived, as the “eclipse” is lifted. The
doctrine applies primarily to:

o Pre-constitutional laws (enacted before January 26, 1950).

o Post-constitutional laws violating Fundamental Rights.

 Case Law:

o Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR

1955 SC 781): A pre-constitutional law restricting transport
permits violated Article 19(1)(g). The Supreme Court held it was
eclipsed, not void, and was revived after the 1st Amendment
(1951) relaxed Article 19 restrictions.

o State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills (1974): Clarified that

eclipsed laws remain operative for non-citizens, emphasizing the
doctrine’s limited scope.

 Application:
The doctrine preserves laws that may become valid with constitutional
changes, avoiding total invalidation. It is less relevant for post-
constitutional laws, which are typically struck down under Article 13(2).

Doctrine of Severability
  Concept:
When a part of a law violates the Constitution, only the offending part
is struck down, and the remaining provisions remain valid, provided
they are severable (i.e., can function independently). This ensures
minimal disruption to legislative intent.

 Mechanism:
Courts assess whether the valid parts are sufficiently independent to
operate without the unconstitutional portion. If not, the entire law may
be invalidated. The doctrine applies to both pre- and post-
constitutional laws.

 Case Law:

o A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (AIR 1950 SC 27): Specific

sections of the Preventive Detention Act were struck down for
violating Article 21, but the rest of the Act was upheld as
severable.

o R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India (AIR 1957 SC

628): The Court severed unconstitutional provisions of a prize
competition law, preserving its core.

o Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): Parts of the 42nd

Amendment were struck down, leaving other provisions intact,
demonstrating severability’s role in constitutional amendments.

 Test for Severability:

o Intention of Legislature: The valid parts must align with the

law’s original purpose.

o Functional Independence: The remaining provisions must be

workable without the invalid part.

Recent Developments (Up to May 2025)

 106th Amendment (2023):

The amendment, reserving one-third of legislative seats for women, is
consistent with Fundamental Rights (Articles 14, 15). No provisions
require eclipse or severability, as it aligns with equality principles. If
challenged, courts could sever implementation clauses (e.g.,
delimitation rules) if found unconstitutional, preserving the core
reservation.
  129th Amendment Bill (2024, Pending):
If enacted, the simultaneous elections law may face challenges for
violating federalism (a basic structure component). Courts could apply
severability to strike down specific provisions (e.g., state term
synchronization) while retaining others, or eclipse parts conflicting with
Fundamental Rights until resolved.

 No Amendments to Doctrines:
Article 13 and these doctrines remain unchanged. Recent cases like
Shayara Bano (2017) applied severability to invalidate triple talaq
provisions in Muslim personal law, leaving other practices intact.

Significance

 Constitutional Supremacy: Both doctrines ensure laws conform to

Fundamental Rights, upholding Article 13’s mandate.

 Preservation of Legislation: Eclipse avoids wholesale invalidation,

allowing laws to revive, while severability salvages valid portions,
respecting legislative effort.

 Judicial Flexibility: Courts can tailor remedies to specific violations,

as seen in Navtej Singh Johar (2018), where Section 377 was
partially struck down.

 Challenges: Determining severability can be complex, and the eclipse

doctrine’s relevance is limited for post-constitutional laws.

The doctrines of eclipse and severability are critical tools for maintaining
constitutional harmony, ensuring laws align with India’s democratic and
rights-based framework.

13. Discuss the significance of Directive Principles of State Policy.

Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs), enshrined in Part IV

(Articles 36–51) of the Indian Constitution, are non-justiciable guidelines
directing the state to promote a welfare-oriented society. Inspired by the Irish
Constitution and socialist ideals, they aim to secure social, economic, and
political justice, complementing Fundamental Rights. As of May 2025, the
106th Amendment (2023) has reinforced their relevance by advancing
gender equality.

Overview of DPSPs
  Nature:
DPSPs are not enforceable in courts but carry moral and political
weight, reflecting the Constitution’s vision of a just society. They guide
policymaking and legislation, ensuring governance aligns with the
Preamble’s objectives.

 Categories:

o Socialist Principles: Promote equitable resource distribution,

fair wages (Articles 39, 43).

o Gandhian Principles: Encourage village panchayats, prohibition

(Articles 40, 47).

o Liberal-Intellectual Principles: Advocate uniform civil code,

environmental protection (Articles 44, 48A).

o Recent Additions: The 97th Amendment (2011) added

Article 43B (cooperative societies), and the 106th Amendment
(2023) aligns with Article 38 (equality).

Significance of DPSPs

 Foundation for Welfare State:

DPSPs aim to create a society free from inequality and exploitation.
Article 39 mandates equitable distribution of resources, while Article
46 protects SCs/STs from exploitation. Policies like MGNREGA (Article
43) and the National Health Mission (Article 47) operationalize these
goals.

 Complementary to Fundamental Rights:

While Fundamental Rights (Part III) ensure political democracy, DPSPs
foster social and economic democracy. Unnikrishnan v. State of
Andhra Pradesh (1993) derived the right to education from Article
45, later codified as Article 21A, illustrating their synergy.

 Guide for Governance:

DPSPs provide a framework for consistent policymaking across
governments. Article 40 inspired the 73rd and 74th Amendments
(1992), establishing panchayats and municipalities. The 106th
Amendment (2023), reserving seats for women, reflects Article 38’s
call for equality.

 Moral and Political Obligation:

Though non-justiciable, DPSPs are backed by vox populi (public will),
 making them politically binding. Minerva Mills v. Union of India
(1980) emphasized their role in complementing Fundamental Rights,
ensuring a balanced constitutional framework.

 Judicial Interpretation:
Courts use DPSPs to interpret laws and assess reasonableness.
Kesavananda Bharati (1973) recognized their importance in the
basic structure, while State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976)
upheld reservations inspired by Article 46.

 Social Development:
DPSPs have driven landmark legislation:

o Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Article 43).

o Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986

(Article 24, linked to Article 39).

o National Forest Policy, 1988 (Article 48A).

o The 106th Amendment (2023) advances Article 38 by

promoting gender equity in political representation.

 Constitutional Vision:
DPSPs embody the framers’ vision of a just society, as articulated in
the Preamble. Article 51 (international peace) reflects India’s global
aspirations, influencing foreign policy.

Recent Developments (Up to May 2025)

 106th Amendment (2023):

By reserving one-third of legislative seats for women, this amendment
directly supports Article 38(2) (minimizing inequalities) and Article
39(a) (equal opportunities). It strengthens DPSPs’ role in achieving
substantive equality, with implementation expected post-delimitation.

 129th Amendment Bill (2024, Pending):

The simultaneous elections proposal may align with Article 39(d)
(equal pay for equal work) by streamlining electoral costs, but its
impact on federalism raises concerns. DPSPs may guide its judicial
review if enacted.

 No New DPSP Amendments:

The last DPSP addition was Article 43B (2011). The 106th
 Amendment reinforces existing principles without adding new
articles.

Significance in Practice

 Policy Continuity: DPSPs ensure successive governments prioritize

welfare, as seen in schemes like Mid-Day Meal (Article 47) and Aadhaar
(Article 39).

 Judicial Guidance: Courts invoke DPSPs to uphold welfare laws, as in

Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India
(1995), which linked Article 43 to workplace safety.

 Social Transformation: DPSPs have driven reforms in education

(Article 45), health (Article 47), and environmental protection (Article
48A), addressing systemic inequalities.

 Challenges: Non-justiciability limits enforcement, and some principles

(e.g., Article 44, uniform civil code) remain contentious due to cultural
diversity.

Conclusion

DPSPs are a vital component of India’s constitutional framework, guiding the

state toward a welfare-oriented, equitable society. The 106th Amendment
(2023) underscores their continued relevance, reinforcing gender justice.
Despite their non-enforceable nature, DPSPs shape India’s democratic and
social landscape, ensuring governance reflects the Constitution’s aspirational
ideals.

14. Explain the relationship between Fundamental Rights and

Directive Principles.

Fundamental Rights (Part III, Articles 12–35) and Directive Principles

of State Policy (DPSPs, Part IV, Articles 36–51) are complementary
pillars of the Indian Constitution, designed to achieve a balanced democratic
framework encompassing political, social, and economic justice.
Fundamental Rights protect individual liberties, while DPSPs guide the state
toward a welfare-oriented society. Their relationship has evolved through
judicial interpretation, legislative amendments, and constitutional balancing,
with the 106th Amendment (2023) reinforcing their synergy as of May
2025.

Nature of Fundamental Rights and DPSPs

  Fundamental Rights:

o Justiciable: Enforceable in courts via Articles 32 (Supreme

Court) and 226 (High Courts).

o Purpose: Protect individual freedoms, such as equality (Article

14), life and liberty (Article 21), and freedom of speech (Article
19).

o Scope: Restrict state power, ensuring political democracy and

individual autonomy.

o Example: Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)

invoked Article 21 to decriminalize homosexuality, emphasizing
personal liberty.

 DPSPs:

o Non-Justiciable: Not enforceable in courts but carry moral and

political weight, guiding state policy.

o Purpose: Promote public welfare, aiming for social and

economic justice (e.g., Article 39: equitable resource distribution;
Article 46: protection of weaker sections).

o Scope: Reflect the Preamble’s aspirations, fostering a welfare

state.

o Example: Article 45 inspired the Right to Education Act,

2009, operationalizing free education.

Relationship Between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs

 Complementary Nature:
Fundamental Rights and DPSPs together fulfill the Constitution’s vision
of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. Kesavananda Bharati v.
State of Kerala (AIR 1973 SC 1461) recognized their
interdependence, noting that Fundamental Rights ensure political
freedoms, while DPSPs drive social and economic equity.

o Example: The right to education, derived from Article 45

(DPSP) in Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993),
was codified as Article 21A (Fundamental Right) via the 86th
Amendment (2002), illustrating their synergy.
 Harmonious Interpretation:
Courts strive to balance both to avoid conflicts. Minerva Mills v.
Union of India (AIR 1980 SC 1789) held that neither should override
the other, as they form part of the Constitution’s basic structure. The
judiciary interprets laws to align with both, ensuring a cohesive
constitutional framework.

o Case Law: State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (AIR 1976 SC

490) upheld reservations inspired by Article 46 (DPSP) as
compatible with Article 16 (Fundamental Right), promoting
equality.

 Historical Conflicts and Resolution:

o Early Supremacy of Fundamental Rights: In State of

Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (AIR 1951 SC 226), the
Supreme Court prioritized Article 15 (Fundamental Right) over
Article 46 (DPSP), striking down a discriminatory admission
policy. This reflected the initial view that Fundamental Rights
were superior due to their justiciability.

o Shift Toward Balance: Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (AIR

1967 SC 1643) limited Parliament’s power to abridge
Fundamental Rights, recognizing DPSPs’ importance in achieving
constitutional goals.

o Article 31C: The 25th Amendment (1971) introduced Article

31C, protecting laws implementing Articles 39(b) and 39(c)
(DPSPs) from challenges under Articles 14, 19, or 31. The 42nd
Amendment (1976) extended this to all DPSPs, but Minerva
Mills (1980) restricted it to Articles 39(b) and 39(c), ensuring
neither Rights nor Principles dominate.

o Modern Approach: Unnikrishnan (1993) and Vishaka v.

State of Rajasthan (1997) demonstrate courts using DPSPs to
expand Fundamental Rights, such as deriving workplace safety
guidelines from Article 39(e).

 Legislative and Judicial Synergy:

DPSPs inspire legislation that complements Fundamental Rights:

o Article 39 led to the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976,

supporting Article 14’s equality mandate.
 o Article 48A influenced environmental laws, aligning with Article
21’s right to a clean environment (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India,
1987).

o Article 40 drove the 73rd and 74th Amendments (1992),

establishing panchayats, which support Article 14’s egalitarian
principles.
Courts use DPSPs to interpret Fundamental Rights expansively,
as in Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of
India (1995), where Article 43 informed workplace safety
rights under Article 21.

Recent Developments (Up to May 2025)

 106th Amendment (2023):

The reservation of one-third of seats for women in the Lok Sabha, state
assemblies, and Delhi Legislative Assembly directly supports Article
38(2) (minimizing inequalities) and Article 39(a) (equal
opportunities) of the DPSPs, while reinforcing Article 14 (equality) and
Article 15 (non-discrimination) of the Fundamental Rights. This
amendment exemplifies the synergy between the two, advancing
gender justice and political representation. Its implementation,
expected post-delimitation (likely 2029), will further align legislative
policy with constitutional ideals.

 129th Amendment Bill (2024, Pending):

The proposal for simultaneous elections may align with Article 39(d)
(economic efficiency in governance) by reducing electoral costs.
However, it could face challenges under Article 14 (equality in
democratic representation) if it disrupts state autonomy. Courts will
likely use DPSPs to interpret its constitutionality, ensuring a balance
between Fundamental Rights and Principles if the bill is enacted.

 No Amendments to Parts III or IV:

The last significant amendments affecting this relationship were the
86th Amendment (2002), adding Article 21A (education) inspired
by Article 45, and the 97th Amendment (2011), adding Article
43B (cooperative societies). The 106th Amendment reinforces
existing DPSPs without altering Part IV.

Significance
  Holistic Democracy: Fundamental Rights ensure political freedoms,
while DPSPs drive social and economic reforms, creating a
comprehensive democratic framework.

 Judicial Guidance: DPSPs aid courts in interpreting Fundamental

Rights, as seen in Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), where
Article 39 informed gender justice under Article 14.

 Policy Framework: DPSPs ensure welfare-oriented governance, as

evidenced by schemes like MGNREGA (Article 43) and the 106th
Amendment’s focus on gender equity.

 Social Transformation: The interplay has driven reforms in education

(Article 21A), health (Article 47), and gender equality (106th
Amendment), addressing systemic inequalities.

 Challenges: Conflicts arise when DPSPs-inspired laws (e.g.,

reservations) are challenged under Fundamental Rights, requiring
careful judicial balancing. The non-justiciability of DPSPs also limits
their direct enforcement.

Conclusion

The relationship between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs is one of mutual

reinforcement, ensuring India’s constitutional framework achieves both
individual liberty and collective welfare. The 106th Amendment (2023)
underscores this synergy, promoting gender equality in alignment with both
Article 14 and Article 38. Through judicial harmonization and legislative
action, these provisions continue to shape a just and equitable society,
fulfilling the Constitution’s aspirational goals.

23. Discuss the constitutional provisions regarding the Judiciary.

The Indian Constitution establishes an independent and robust judiciary

under Part V (Union Judiciary, Articles 124–147) and Part VI (State
Judiciary, Articles 214–231) to uphold the rule of law, protect Fundamental
Rights, and ensure constitutional supremacy. The judiciary serves as the
guardian of the Constitution, balancing the powers of the legislature and
executive. As of May 2025, no amendments have altered these provisions
since the 99th Amendment (2014), which was struck down, but the 106th
Amendment (2023) indirectly engages the judiciary through its
implementation.
Constitutional Provisions

 Supreme Court (Articles 124–147):

o Composition: Comprises the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and up to

33 other judges, appointed by the President after consultation
with the judiciary (Collegium System, Second Judges Case,
1993).

o Jurisdiction:

 Original (Article 131): Resolves disputes between the

Union and States or between States (e.g., river water
disputes).

 Writ (Article 32): Enforces Fundamental Rights through

writs (e.g., habeas corpus).

 Appellate: Handles constitutional, civil, and criminal

appeals from High Courts.

 Advisory (Article 143): Advises the President on

questions of law or public importance.

 Review and Curative: Reviews its own judgments (Article

137) and allows curative petitions to correct grave errors.

o Powers: Includes judicial review (Kesavananda Bharati,

1973), contempt of court (Article 129), and Public Interest
Litigation (PIL) to address societal issues (Hussainara Khatoon,
1979).

o Independence: Secured through fixed salaries (Consolidated

Fund, Article 125), secure tenure (impeachment only, Article
124(4)), and no post-retirement government posts (Article
124(7)).

 High Courts (Articles 214–231):

o Composition: Each state has a High Court with a Chief Justice

and other judges, appointed by the President in consultation with
the CJI, Governor, and state Chief Justice.

o Jurisdiction:

 Original: Issues writs under Article 226 for Fundamental

and legal rights.
  Appellate: Hears appeals from subordinate courts.

 Supervisory: Oversees lower courts and tribunals within

the state.

o Powers: Includes judicial review of administrative actions (L.

Chandra Kumar, 1997) and issuing directions for public welfare
(e.g., Shayara Bano, 2017, on triple talaq).

o Independence: Similar safeguards as the Supreme Court,

including secure tenure and fixed salaries.

 Subordinate Courts (Articles 233–237):

o District and lower courts operate under High Court supervision,

handling civil and criminal cases.

o Appointment: District judges are appointed by the Governor in

consultation with the High Court (Article 233).

o Role: Serve as the primary judicial interface for citizens,

ensuring local access to justice.

 Tribunals (Part XIVA, Articles 323A–323B):

o Established for specialized disputes (e.g., administrative, tax,

labor), via the 42nd Amendment (1976).

o Examples: National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Central

Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

o Judicial Review: Tribunal decisions are subject to High Court

(Article 226) and Supreme Court (Article 32) review, as
affirmed in L. Chandra Kumar (1997).

 Independence of the Judiciary:

o Safeguards:

 Collegium System: Judges appoint judges, ensuring

autonomy (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record
Association v. Union of India, 2015, struck down NJAC).

 Security of Tenure: Removal only by parliamentary

impeachment for proved misbehavior or incapacity.

 Financial Autonomy: Salaries charged to the

Consolidated Fund, immune to legislative cuts.
  Contempt Powers: Protects judicial authority (Article
129, Supreme Court; Article 215, High Courts).

o Significance: Ensures impartial adjudication, free from

executive or legislative interference, as seen in Minerva Mills
(1980).

Recent Developments (Up to May 2025)

 106th Amendment (2023):

The reservation of one-third seats for women in legislatures does not
amend judicial provisions but engages the judiciary in its
implementation. Courts may hear writ petitions under Articles 32 or
226 to ensure compliance with delimitation or challenge procedural
irregularities, following PIL precedents like M.C. Mehta (1987).

 No Amendments to Judicial Provisions:

The last attempt was the 99th Amendment (2014), which introduced
the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) but was struck
down in 2015 for violating judicial independence, a basic structure
component. The Collegium System remains intact.

 129th Amendment Bill (2024, Pending):

The simultaneous elections proposal may involve judicial review if
enacted, particularly for its impact on federalism and democratic
rights. Courts could invoke Articles 32 or 226 to scrutinize its
constitutionality, as in S.R. Bommai (1994).

 Judicial Trends:
Recent cases like Navtej Singh Johar (2018) and Anuradha Bhasin
(2020) highlight the judiciary’s role in expanding Article 21 rights,
reinforcing its constitutional guardianship.

Significance

 Constitutional Supremacy: The judiciary ensures all actions align

with the Constitution, as seen in Kesavananda Bharati (1973),
which established the basic structure doctrine.

 Rights Protection: Article 32 and 226 writs safeguard Fundamental

Rights, making justice accessible (Vishaka, 1997).

 Checks and Balances: Judicial review prevents legislative or

executive overreach, maintaining separation of powers.
  Challenges: Judicial backlog, delays in appointments, and occasional
overreach (e.g., PIL misuse) require reforms to maintain efficiency and
credibility.

The judiciary’s constitutional provisions establish it as a bulwark of

democracy, ensuring justice, equity, and constitutional integrity in India’s
governance framework.

24. Explain the powers and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court of India, established under Articles 124–147 of the

Constitution, is the apex judicial authority, serving as the final arbiter of
constitutional and legal disputes. Its extensive powers and jurisdiction make
it the guardian of the Constitution, protecting Fundamental Rights and
ensuring constitutional supremacy. As of May 2025, no amendments have
altered its provisions since the 99th Amendment (2014) was struck down,
but the 106th Amendment (2023) engages its oversight.

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

 Original Jurisdiction (Article 131):

o Resolves disputes between:

 The Union and one or more States.

 The Union and States versus other States.

 States against each other.

o Examples: Inter-state water disputes (e.g., Cauvery Water

Disputes Tribunal Case).

o Excludes disputes involving treaties or political questions,

ensuring focus on constitutional issues.

 Writ Jurisdiction (Article 32):

o Empowers the Court to issue writs (habeas corpus, mandamus,

prohibition, certiorari, quo warranto) for enforcing Fundamental
Rights.

o Known as the “heart and soul” of the Constitution, it ensures

direct access to justice (Vineet Narain v. Union of India,
1998).
 o Supports Public Interest Litigation (PIL), addressing societal
issues (Hussainara Khatoon, 1979).

 Appellate Jurisdiction:

o Constitutional (Article 132): Appeals involving substantial

questions of constitutional law, certified by High Courts.

o Civil (Article 133): Appeals from High Courts on significant

legal questions, especially if injustice is evident.

o Criminal (Article 134): Appeals in cases of death penalty,

acquittal reversals, or certified cases.

o Special Leave Petition (Article 136): Grants discretionary

appeals from any court or tribunal, ensuring justice (Pritam
Singh v. State, 1950).

 Advisory Jurisdiction (Article 143):

o The President may seek the Court’s opinion on questions of law

or public importance (e.g., Re: Berubari Union, 1960).

o Opinions are non-binding but carry significant weight.

 Review Jurisdiction (Article 137):

o Allows the Court to review its own judgments to correct apparent

errors or new evidence, ensuring fairness (Rupa Ashok Hurra v.
Ashok Hurra, 2002).

 Curative Jurisdiction:

o A post-review remedy to address gross miscarriages of justice,

introduced in Rupa Ashok Hurra (2002), ensuring finality with
justice.

Powers of the Supreme Court

 Judicial Review:

o The Court can strike down laws or actions violating the

Constitution, including amendments altering the basic structure
(Kesavananda Bharati, 1973).

o Examples: Minerva Mills (1980) invalidated parts of the 42nd

Amendment; Shayara Bano (2017) struck down triple talaq.
  Protector of Fundamental Rights:

o Ensures enforcement through writs, expanding rights like privacy

(Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, 2017) and internet access
(Anuradha Bhasin, 2020).

 Final Interpreter of the Constitution:

o Resolves constitutional ambiguities, setting binding precedents

(Golak Nath, 1967; S.R. Bommai, 1994).

 Contempt of Court (Article 129):

o Punishes actions undermining its authority, ensuring judicial

dignity (In re: Prashant Bhushan, 2020).

 Public Interest Litigation (PIL):

o Addresses public grievances, expanding access to justice for

marginalized groups (Vishaka, 1997; M.C. Mehta, 1987).

 Rule-Making Power (Article 145):

o Frames rules for its procedures, enhancing efficiency and

accessibility.

Recent Developments (Up to May 2025)

 106th Amendment (2023):

The reservation of one-third seats for women in legislatures is subject
to the Supreme Court’s review under Article 32 or Article 136 to
ensure compliance with the basic structure (equality, democracy).
Potential PILs may address implementation issues post-delimitation,
following precedents like Hussainara Khatoon.

 129th Amendment Bill (2024, Pending):

If enacted, the simultaneous elections proposal may face Supreme
Court scrutiny under Article 32 or 136 for its impact on federalism
and democratic rights. S.R. Bommai (1994) provides precedent for
reviewing federal encroachments.

 No Amendments to Supreme Court Provisions:

The 99th Amendment (2014), which proposed the NJAC, was struck
down in 2015 for violating judicial independence. The Collegium
System remains the appointment mechanism.
  Judicial Trends:
Recent rulings, such as Navtej Singh Johar (2018) and Common
Cause (2018) (euthanasia), highlight the Court’s expansive role in
protecting Article 21 rights, reinforcing its constitutional guardianship.

Significance

 Constitutional Guardian: The Supreme Court ensures laws and

actions align with the Constitution, as seen in Minerva Mills (1980).

 Rights Protection: Its writ and PIL jurisdiction make justice

accessible, especially for marginalized groups (Sabarimala, 2018).

 Federal Balance: Resolves Union-State disputes, critical with

proposals like the 129th Amendment.

 Challenges: Judicial backlog, PIL misuse, and occasional overreach

require reforms to maintain credibility.

The Supreme Court’s powers and jurisdiction position it as the ultimate

protector of India’s constitutional democracy, ensuring justice and
constitutional integrity.

25. Discuss the concept of Public Interest Litigation.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a judicial mechanism that allows

individuals, groups, or organizations to seek redress for public grievances,
even if they are not directly affected, to promote public welfare and enforce
constitutional rights. Pioneered in India in the late 1970s, PIL has
transformed the judiciary into a proactive institution addressing systemic
issues. As of May 2025, PIL remains a vital tool, with the 106th Amendment
(2023) potentially engaging its application.

Origin and Evolution

 Genesis:
PIL emerged through judicial activism in the late 1970s, led by Justices
P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer. It relaxed the traditional locus
standi rule, allowing public-spirited citizens to file petitions on behalf
of marginalized groups unable to access justice.

 Constitutional Basis:

o Article 32: Enables the Supreme Court to hear PILs for

Fundamental Rights violations.
 o Article 226: Allows High Courts to address both Fundamental
and legal rights, broadening PIL’s scope.

o Article 21: The expansive interpretation of life and liberty has

driven PILs, as seen in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar
(AIR 1979 SC 1360), which addressed undertrial prisoners’
rights.

 Evolution:
From early cases focusing on prisoner rights (Sunil Batra v. Delhi
Administration, 1978) to environmental protection (M.C. Mehta,
1987) and gender justice (Vishaka, 1997), PIL has evolved to cover
diverse issues, reflecting the judiciary’s role as a social reformer.

Features of PIL

 Relaxed Locus Standi:

Unlike traditional litigation, PIL allows non-aggrieved parties (e.g.,
NGOs, activists) to file petitions, ensuring justice for disadvantaged
groups like bonded laborers or slum dwellers.

 Broad Scope:
Covers issues such as:

o Human rights violations (e.g., custodial torture, D.K. Basu,

1997).

o Environmental protection (e.g., Taj Mahal pollution, M.C. Mehta,

1987).

o Gender justice (e.g., sexual harassment, Vishaka, 1997).

o Governance accountability (e.g., corruption, Vineet Narain,

1998).

 Judicial Creativity:
Courts issue guidelines, monitor implementation, and appoint
committees, as in Vishaka, which established workplace harassment
norms until legislative action.

 Accessibility:
PILs can be initiated via letters or petitions, reducing procedural
barriers (Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, 1984).

Landmark PIL Cases

  Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979): Addressed
undertrial prisoners’ plight, deriving the right to a speedy trial under
Article 21.

 S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981): Established PIL’s legitimacy,

emphasizing judicial access for the oppressed.

 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987): Tackled environmental

pollution, protecting the Taj Mahal and enforcing Article 21’s right to a
clean environment.

 Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): Issued guidelines against

workplace sexual harassment, filling a legislative void.

 Common Cause v. Union of India (2018): Recognized the right to

die with dignity, legalizing passive euthanasia under Article 21.

Recent Developments (Up to May 2025)

 106th Amendment (2023):

The reservation of one-third seats for women in legislatures may
inspire PILs to ensure its effective implementation post-delimitation
(likely 2029). Potential petitions could address delays, procedural flaws,
or inadequate representation, following precedents like Hussainara
Khatoon. Courts may issue directions to enforce Article 14 and
Article 38 compliance.

 129th Amendment Bill (2024, Pending):

If enacted, simultaneous elections could prompt PILs challenging its
impact on democratic rights (Article 14) or federalism. The Supreme
Court may use Article 32 to review its constitutionality, as in S.R.
Bommai (1994).

 No Amendments to PIL Framework:

PIL operates under Articles 32 and 226, unchanged since their
inception. Recent cases like Anuradha Bhasin (2020) (internet
access) and In re: Prashant Bhushan (2020) (contempt) highlight
PIL’s continued relevance in addressing digital and governance issues.

Significance

 Access to Justice: PIL empowers marginalized groups, ensuring their

rights are protected (Bandhua Mukti Morcha, 1984).
  Social Transformation: Drives reforms in education, health,
environment, and gender justice, aligning with Article 21 and DPSPs
(Article 38).

 Governance Accountability: Holds the state accountable, as seen in

Vineet Narain (1998), which reformed CBI investigations.

 Judicial Activism: Fills legislative gaps, as in Vishaka, enhancing the

judiciary’s role as a social reformer.

 Global Influence: India’s PIL model has inspired jurisdictions like

South Africa and Bangladesh, elevating its international stature.

Challenges

 Frivolous PILs: Misuse for publicity or personal gain burdens courts,

prompting guidelines in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh
Chaufal (2010).

 Judicial Overreach: Excessive intervention risks encroaching on

legislative/executive domains, as debated in NJAC Case (2015).

 Backlog: The influx of PILs contributes to judicial delays, requiring

streamlined case management.

Conclusion

PIL has revolutionized India’s judicial landscape, making justice accessible

and responsive to societal needs. The 106th Amendment (2023)
underscores its potential to enforce constitutional mandates, ensuring
equitable representation. As a tool of judicial activism, PIL continues to shape
India’s democratic and social fabric, balancing rights with public welfare.

26. What is meant by secularism in the Indian context?

Secularism, incorporated into the Preamble by the 42nd Amendment

(1976), is a foundational principle of the Indian Constitution, ensuring the
state’s neutrality in religious matters while promoting equality and harmony
among diverse religious communities. Unlike Western secularism, which
emphasizes strict separation of state and religion, Indian secularism adopts a
unique approach of positive engagement. As of May 2025, no amendments
have altered this principle, but the 106th Amendment (2023) aligns with
its egalitarian ethos.

Understanding Secularism in India

  Definition:
Secularism in India means the state neither favors nor discriminates
against any religion, maintaining equidistance while ensuring equal
treatment and religious freedom for all. It is enshrined in the Preamble
and operationalized through Articles 25–28.

 Indian vs. Western Secularism:

o Western Model: Emphasizes a strict separation, with minimal

state involvement in religion (e.g., USA’s First Amendment).

o Indian Model: Involves positive engagement, where the state

supports religious communities equally, intervenes to ensure
equality, and protects minority rights.

o Example: The state funds religious institutions (e.g., Haj

subsidies, temple trusts) but ensures non-discrimination, as seen
in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994).

Constitutional Provisions

 Preamble: Declares India a “Secular” republic, emphasizing state

neutrality and fraternity.

 Article 25: Guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to

practice, profess, and propagate religion, subject to public order,
morality, and health.

 Article 26: Allows religious denominations to manage their affairs,

including establishing institutions.

 Article 27: Prohibits taxes for promoting any religion, ensuring fiscal
neutrality.

 Article 28: Restricts religious instruction in state-funded institutions,

preserving secular education.

 Article 15: Prohibits discrimination on religious grounds, reinforcing

equality.

Judicial Interpretation

 S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (AIR 1994 SC 1918):

The Supreme Court held secularism as part of the basic structure,
prohibiting states from promoting any religion. It struck down misuse of
Article 356 in states for religious bias, reinforcing neutrality.
  Aruna Roy v. Union of India (AIR 2002 SC 3176):
Upheld value-based education on religions in schools, distinguishing it
from religious instruction, as compatible with secularism under Article
28. This emphasized India’s inclusive approach.

 Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017):

Struck down triple talaq, citing Article 14 and secular principles,
ensuring gender equality across religious practices.

 Sabarimala Case (Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of

Kerala, 2018):
Allowed women entry to the Sabarimala temple, balancing Article 25
(religious freedom) with Article 14 (equality), reinforcing secularism’s
egalitarian aspect.

Indian Secularism in Practice

 Positive Engagement:
The state supports religious festivals, manages trusts (e.g., Tirupati
Balaji), and provides minority welfare schemes, ensuring equitable
treatment. Article 30 allows minorities to establish educational
institutions, protecting cultural identity.

 Reformative Role:
The state intervenes to abolish discriminatory practices, such as
untouchability (Article 17) and triple talaq, aligning religious practices
with constitutional values.

 Challenges:
Communal tensions, politicization of religion, and debates over Article
44 (uniform civil code) pose challenges. The judiciary’s role in
balancing tradition with equality remains critical.

Recent Developments (Up to May 2025)

 106th Amendment (2023):

The reservation of one-third seats for women in legislatures supports
secularism by promoting gender equality across religious communities,
aligning with Article 15 and the Preamble’s fraternity. It reinforces the
state’s neutral role in ensuring equitable representation.

 129th Amendment Bill (2024, Pending):

The simultaneous elections proposal does not directly affect secularism
but may influence electoral dynamics. Courts may review its impact on
 minority representation under Article 14, ensuring secular principles
are upheld.

 No Amendments to Secular Provisions:

The 42nd Amendment (1976) remains the last change, adding
“Secular” to the Preamble. Recent cases like Navtej Singh Johar
(2018) continue to use secularism to protect individual rights across
communities.

Significance

 Unity in Diversity: Secularism fosters harmony in India’s multi-

religious society, preventing communal strife.

 Minority Protection: Ensures equal rights for religious minorities, as

seen in T.M.A. Pai Foundation (2002), upholding minority
educational rights.

 Constitutional Balance: Balances religious freedom (Article 25) with

equality (Article 14), as in Sabarimala (2018).

 Global Model: India’s inclusive secularism contrasts with exclusionary

models, enhancing its democratic credentials.

 Challenges: Communal polarization and resistance to reforms (e.g.,

uniform civil code) require vigilant judicial and societal efforts.

Conclusion

Secularism in the Indian context is a dynamic principle of equal respect and

engagement with all religions, ensuring a cohesive and equitable society. The
106th Amendment (2023) strengthens its commitment to equality,
reinforcing secularism’s role in India’s constitutional framework. Through
judicial oversight and state action, secularism remains a cornerstone of
India’s democratic identity.

27. Discuss the principles of natural justice.

Principles of Natural Justice are fundamental rules ensuring fairness,

impartiality, and transparency in judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative
proceedings. Implicit in the Indian Constitution, particularly under Articles
14 (equality) and 21 (due process), these principles safeguard against
arbitrary state action. As of May 2025, no amendments have altered their
application, but the 106th Amendment (2023) underscores their relevance
in ensuring equitable implementation.
Understanding Natural Justice

 Definition:
Natural justice comprises universal principles of fairness, rooted in
equity and justice, ensuring no one is prejudiced by arbitrary decisions.
The two core principles are Nemo Judex in Causa Sua (no one should
be a judge in their own cause) and Audi Alteram Partem (hear the
other side), with a third emerging principle of reasoned decisions.

 Constitutional Basis:

o Article 14: Ensures equality before law, requiring impartial and

non-arbitrary decisions.

o Article 21: Mandates fair procedures, as expanded in Maneka

Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597).

o These principles are enforced through writs under Articles 32

and 226.

Core Principles of Natural Justice

1. Nemo Judex in Causa Sua (Rule Against Bias):

o Concept: Decision-makers must be impartial, free from personal,

financial, or professional bias.

o Application: Applies to judges, tribunals, and administrative

authorities. Bias can be actual, apparent, or pecuniary.

o Case Law:

 A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (AIR 1970 SC 150): A

selection board member was disqualified for being a
candidate, ensuring impartiality.

 State of West Bengal v. Shivananda Pathak (1998):

Emphasized that even the appearance of bias violates
natural justice.

o Significance: Prevents conflicts of interest, fostering public trust

in decision-making.

2. Audi Alteram Partem (Right to a Fair Hearing):

o Concept: No one should be condemned without being heard.

Parties must receive:
  Adequate notice of charges or proceedings.

 Opportunity to present their case, including evidence and

representation.

 Access to relevant materials.

o Application: Mandatory in judicial, quasi-judicial, and some

administrative actions (e.g., disciplinary proceedings).

o Case Law:

 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Required a

hearing before passport impoundment, linking fair
procedure to Article 21.

 Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985):

Granted pavement dwellers a hearing before eviction,
protecting livelihood rights.

o Significance: Ensures procedural fairness, preventing arbitrary

decisions.

3. Reasoned Decision (Speaking Order):

o Concept: Decisions must be supported by reasons, ensuring

transparency and accountability.

o Application: Increasingly recognized as a natural justice

principle, especially in administrative law.

o Case Law:

 S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India (1990): Mandated

reasoned orders unless explicitly exempted, facilitating
appeals.

 Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985): Clarified that

reasons enhance fairness, though exceptions exist in
emergencies.

o Significance: Allows parties to understand decisions and

challenge errors, strengthening judicial review.

Application in India

 Judicial Proceedings: Natural justice is inherent in court processes,

ensuring fair trials (Article 21).
  Quasi-Judicial Bodies: Tribunals (e.g., NCLT, CAT) must adhere to
these principles (L. Chandra Kumar, 1997).

 Administrative Actions: Applies to decisions affecting rights, such as

license cancellations or employee dismissals (A.K. Kraipak, 1970).

 Exceptions: May be relaxed in emergencies, public interest, or

statutory exclusions, but courts scrutinize such exemptions (Tulsiram
Patel, 1985).

Recent Developments (Up to May 2025)

 106th Amendment (2023):

The implementation of women’s reservation in legislatures (post-
delimitation) must adhere to natural justice principles. For instance,
delimitation processes or reservation allocations require fair hearings
and impartial decision-making to comply with Article 14. Potential writ
petitions under Article 32 or 226 may invoke these principles,
following Olga Tellis.

 129th Amendment Bill (2024, Pending):

If enacted, simultaneous elections may involve administrative
decisions (e.g., election scheduling) subject to natural justice. Courts
could ensure fair procedures under Article 21, as in Maneka Gandhi.

 No Amendments to Principles:
Natural justice remains implicit in Articles 14 and 21, with no direct
amendments. Recent cases like Anuradha Bhasin (2020) (internet
access) emphasize fair procedures in administrative actions.

Significance

 Prevention of Arbitrariness: Ensures state actions are fair and

transparent, protecting Article 21 rights (Maneka Gandhi, 1978).

 Public Trust: Impartial and reasoned decisions enhance confidence in

governance (A.K. Kraipak, 1970).

 Judicial Enforcement: Writs under Articles 32 and 226 remedy

violations, as seen in Shayara Bano (2017).

 Global Standards: Aligns with international due process norms,

strengthening India’s legal framework.

 Challenges: Over-application in minor administrative matters can

delay processes, requiring judicial discretion.
Conclusion

The principles of natural justice are integral to India’s constitutional

framework, ensuring fairness and accountability in governance. The 106th
Amendment (2023) highlights their role in equitable implementation,
reinforcing their relevance. Through judicial enforcement, these principles
uphold the rule of law, safeguarding citizens’ rights and democratic values.

28. Write short notes on: Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Quo Warranto,
Certiorari, Prohibition

The Indian Constitution empowers the Supreme Court (Article 32) and High
Courts (Article 226) to issue five types of writs to enforce Fundamental
Rights and other legal rights, ensuring justice and constitutional compliance.
Below are detailed notes on each writ, updated to May 2025, with relevance
to the 106th Amendment (2023).

 Habeas Corpus:

o Meaning: Latin for “produce the body,” it secures the release of

a person unlawfully detained.

o Scope: Challenges illegal detention by state or private entities,

protecting Article 21’s right to personal liberty. It examines the
legality of detention orders, ensuring due process.

o Application: Used in cases of arbitrary arrests, custodial

violence, or preventive detention.

o Case Law: A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (AIR 1976

SC 1207) controversially limited its scope during emergencies,
but the 44th Amendment (1978) restored its applicability.
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) used habeas
corpus to address prisoner rights.

o Recent Context: The 106th Amendment (2023)’s

implementation may involve habeas corpus petitions if
individuals are detained arbitrarily during delimitation protests,
ensuring Article 21 compliance.

o Significance: Safeguards against state overreach, ensuring

liberty and fair procedures.

 Mandamus:
 o Meaning: Latin for “we command,” it directs a public authority
to perform a legal duty.

o Scope: Issued when an authority refuses to act within its

jurisdiction, enforcing statutory or constitutional obligations (e.g.,
public services, elections).

o Application: Used against government officials, tribunals, or

public bodies. Not issued against private entities or discretionary
duties.

o Case Law: Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) directed

CBI investigations into corruption, showcasing mandamus’s role
in governance accountability. Comptroller and Auditor
General v. K.S. Jagannathan (1986) mandated promotions for
eligible employees.

o Recent Context: Mandamus may be sought to compel

authorities to implement the 106th Amendment (2023)’s
women’s reservation post-delimitation, ensuring Article 14’s
equality mandate.

o Significance: Ensures administrative accountability, upholding

public rights.

 Quo Warranto:

o Meaning: Latin for “by what authority,” it challenges a person’s

right to hold a public office.

o Scope: Issued if the officeholder lacks qualifications, was

appointed unlawfully, or holds office beyond their term.

o Application: Applies to constitutional or statutory public offices

(e.g., Governors, judges).

o Case Law: B.R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu (2001) used

quo warranto to challenge an unqualified Chief Minister’s
appointment. University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao
(1965) clarified its role in ensuring lawful appointments.

o Recent Context: Quo warranto may be invoked if delimitation

authorities under the 106th Amendment (2023) are appointed
irregularly, ensuring Article 14 compliance.
 o Significance: Prevents usurpation of public offices, maintaining
governance integrity.

 Certiorari:

o Meaning: Latin for “to be certified,” it quashes a lower court or

tribunal’s decision for jurisdictional errors or violations of natural
justice.

o Scope: Corrects errors of law, excess of jurisdiction, or

procedural unfairness (e.g., bias, no hearing).

o Application: Used against judicial or quasi-judicial bodies, not

purely administrative actions.

o Case Law: L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)

reviewed tribunal decisions, affirming High Court oversight. Hari
Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque (1955) clarified
certiorari’s scope for legal errors.

o Recent Context: Certiorari may address tribunal decisions on

106th Amendment (2023) delimitation disputes, ensuring
Article 21’s fair procedures.

o Significance: Ensures judicial oversight, maintaining legal

standards.

 Prohibition:

o Meaning: Prevents a lower court or tribunal from exceeding its

jurisdiction during ongoing proceedings.

o Scope: Issued to halt unlawful actions before a final decision,

unlike certiorari, which corrects post-decision errors.

o Application: Applies to judicial or quasi-judicial bodies, not

administrative ones.

o Case Law: S. Govinda Menon v. Union of India (1967)

halted a tribunal’s overreach, ensuring jurisdictional discipline.
East India Commercial Co. v. Collector of Customs (1962)
clarified its preventive role.

o Recent Context: Prohibition may be sought if delimitation

tribunals under the 106th Amendment (2023) act beyond their
mandate, protecting Article 14.
 o Significance: Maintains jurisdictional boundaries, preventing
illegal proceedings.

Recent Developments (Up to May 2025)

 106th Amendment (2023):

The implementation of women’s reservation may involve writ petitions
to ensure compliance or challenge procedural irregularities. For
example, mandamus could compel delimitation action, while certiorari
or prohibition could address tribunal errors, aligning with Articles 14
and 21.

 129th Amendment Bill (2024, Pending):

If enacted, simultaneous elections may prompt writs (e.g., habeas
corpus for protest-related detentions, quo warranto for election
officials’ appointments), ensuring constitutional compliance.

 No Amendments to Writ Provisions:

Articles 32 and 226 remain unchanged. The 44th Amendment
(1978) strengthened their role by ensuring Article 21’s non-
suspension during emergencies.

Significance

 Rights Enforcement: Writs protect Fundamental Rights, as seen in

Navtej Singh Johar (2018) (habeas corpus, mandamus).

 Judicial Oversight: Ensure administrative and judicial actions align

with the Constitution (L. Chandra Kumar, 1997).

 Access to Justice: Provide immediate remedies, especially through

PILs (Hussainara Khatoon, 1979).

 Challenges: Overuse of writs, particularly in frivolous PILs, strains

judicial resources, requiring strict scrutiny.

These writs are essential tools for upholding constitutional guarantees,

ensuring justice and fairness in India’s legal system.

29. Write a note on the independence of the judiciary.

Independence of the Judiciary is a fundamental feature of the Indian

Constitution, ensuring the judiciary operates free from legislative and
executive interference. Recognized as part of the basic structure in
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (AIR 1973 SC 1461), it upholds
the rule of law, protects Fundamental Rights, and maintains constitutional
checks and balances. As of May 2025, no amendments have altered judicial
independence since the 99th Amendment (2014) was struck down, but
the 106th Amendment (2023) engages the judiciary’s role.

Constitutional Safeguards for Judicial Independence

 Appointment of Judges (Articles 124, 217):

o Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are appointed by

the President in consultation with the judiciary via the Collegium
System, established in Second Judges Case (1993) and
reaffirmed in NJAC Case (2015).

o The Collegium, comprising the CJI and senior judges, ensures

judicial primacy, minimizing executive influence.

o Case Law: Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record

Association v. Union of India (2015) struck down the 99th
Amendment’s National Judicial Appointments Commission
(NJAC) for undermining independence.

 Security of Tenure (Articles 124(4), 217):

o Judges can only be removed by parliamentary impeachment for

proved misbehavior or incapacity, requiring a two-thirds majority
in both Houses.

o No judge has been successfully impeached, underscoring the

high threshold, as seen in the failed impeachment attempt
against Justice V. Ramaswami (1993).

 Fixed Salaries and Allowances (Articles 125, 221):

o Salaries are charged to the Consolidated Fund of India, immune

to legislative cuts, ensuring financial autonomy.

o Post-retirement benefits are regulated to prevent executive

inducements.

 Prohibition on Post-Retirement Employment (Articles 124(7),

220):

o Supreme Court judges cannot practice law or hold government

posts after retirement, except temporary judicial roles (e.g.,
tribunals).
 o High Court judges can practice in other High Courts or the
Supreme Court but not in their parent court, reducing executive
influence.

 Contempt of Court (Articles 129, 215):

o The Supreme Court and High Courts can punish actions

undermining their authority, ensuring judicial dignity (In re:
Prashant Bhushan, 2020).

 Judicial Review (Articles 13, 32, 226):

o The power to strike down unconstitutional laws or actions

(Minerva Mills, 1980) ensures the judiciary’s autonomy,
preventing legislative overreach.

o L. Chandra Kumar (1997) affirmed judicial review as a basic

structure component.

 Separation of Powers:

o The Constitution delineates judicial functions, preventing

legislative or executive encroachment. Indira Nehru Gandhi v.
Raj Narain (1975) reinforced this separation, striking down
laws shielding judicial review.

Recent Developments (Up to May 2025)

 106th Amendment (2023):

The women’s reservation in legislatures does not amend judicial
provisions but relies on the judiciary for enforcement. The Supreme
Court and High Courts may hear writ petitions under Articles 32 or
226 to ensure fair delimitation or address challenges, reinforcing
judicial independence in upholding Article 14.

 129th Amendment Bill (2024, Pending):

If enacted, simultaneous elections may face judicial review for
federalism or democratic rights violations. The judiciary’s
independence will be critical in scrutinizing its constitutionality, as in
S.R. Bommai (1994).

 No Amendments to Judicial Independence:

The 99th Amendment (2014) was the last attempt to alter
appointments, struck down in 2015. The Collegium System continues,
 though criticized for opacity, prompting calls for reform (e.g.,
Memorandum of Procedure).

 Judicial Trends:
Recent cases like Navtej Singh Johar (2018) and Anuradha Bhasin
(2020) demonstrate the judiciary’s independent role in expanding
Article 21 rights, free from executive pressure.

Significance

 Rule of Law: Independence ensures impartial adjudication, upholding

constitutional mandates (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973).

 Rights Protection: Safeguards Fundamental Rights through writs

(Vishaka, 1997).

 Checks and Balances: Prevents authoritarianism, as seen in Minerva

Mills (1980), balancing state powers.

 Public Trust: An independent judiciary fosters confidence, critical in a

diverse society.

 Global Standards: Aligns with international norms, enhancing India’s

judicial reputation.

Challenges

 Appointment Delays: Vacancies in High Courts and the Supreme

Court strain judicial efficiency, requiring faster Collegium
recommendations.

 Collegium Criticism: Lack of transparency prompts reform debates,

though NJAC’s failure underscores independence’s priority.

 Judicial Overreach: Excessive activism (e.g., PIL misuse) risks

perceptions of bias, necessitating restraint (Balwant Singh Chaufal,
2010).

 Executive Pressure: Subtle influences, like post-retirement

appointments to tribunals, require stricter regulation.

Conclusion

Judicial independence is the cornerstone of India’s constitutional democracy,

ensuring justice, rights protection, and governance accountability. The 106th
Amendment (2023) highlights the judiciary’s independent role in enforcing
constitutional mandates. Despite challenges, the judiciary’s robust
safeguards maintain its autonomy, upholding India’s democratic ethos.

30. What are constitutional remedies for the enforcement of

Fundamental Rights?

Constitutional Remedies under Article 32 (Supreme Court) and Article

226 (High Courts) provide mechanisms to enforce Fundamental Rights (Part
III, Articles 12–35), ensuring protection against state violations. These
remedies, primarily through writs, are critical to India’s constitutional
framework, safeguarding individual liberties. As of May 2025, no
amendments have altered these provisions, but the 106th Amendment
(2023) engages their application.

Constitutional Remedies Explained

 Article 32: Supreme Court

o Nature: A Fundamental Right itself, described as the “heart and

soul” of the Constitution by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. It guarantees
direct access to the Supreme Court for enforcing Fundamental
Rights.

o Scope: Limited to violations of Part III rights (e.g., Articles 14,

21). The Court cannot refuse relief if a right is infringed.

o Writs Issued:

 Habeas Corpus: Secures release from unlawful detention

(Sunil Batra, 1978).

 Mandamus: Directs public authorities to perform duties

(Vineet Narain, 1998).

 Prohibition: Halts lower court overreach.

 Certiorari: Quashes jurisdictional errors (Hari Vishnu

Kamath, 1955).

 Quo Warranto: Challenges unlawful officeholding (B.R.

Kapur, 2001).

o Application: Supports Public Interest Litigation (PIL) for

marginalized groups (Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar,
1979, speedy trial).
 o Case Law: Navtej Singh Johar (2018) used Article 32 to
decriminalize homosexuality, protecting Article 21 rights.

 Article 226: High Courts

o Nature: A constitutional provision, not a Fundamental Right,

granting broader powers than Article 32.

o Scope: Enforces Fundamental Rights and “any other purpose,”

including legal rights, administrative irregularities, or statutory
violations.

o Writs Issued: Same as Article 32 (habeas corpus, mandamus,

etc.).

o Application: Covers state-specific issues, including service

disputes, tribunal decisions, and local governance. Supports PILs
(Shayara Bano, 2017, triple talaq).

o Case Law: L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)

affirmed High Courts’ review over tribunal decisions, enhancing
Article 226’s scope.

Key Differences

Aspect Article 32 Article 226

Court Supreme Court High Courts

Fundamental Rights Fundamental + legal

Scope
only rights

Constitutional
Nature Fundamental Right
provision

Jurisdicti
Nationwide State/UT-specific
on

Regional, often
Access Direct to apex court
preliminary

Recent Developments (Up to May 2025)

 106th Amendment (2023):

The women’s reservation in legislatures may prompt Article 32 or 226
petitions to ensure compliance or challenge implementation issues
(e.g., delimitation delays, reservation allocation). PILs could enforce
 Article 14 (equality) or Article 15 (non-discrimination), following
Hussainara Khatoon.

 129th Amendment Bill (2024, Pending):

If enacted, simultaneous elections may lead to writ petitions under
Article 32 (e.g., challenging democratic rights violations) or Article
226 (e.g., state-specific electoral issues). S.R. Bommai (1994)
provides precedent for such reviews.

 No Amendments to Remedies:
Articles 32 and 226 remain unchanged. The 44th Amendment
(1978) ensured Article 21’s non-suspension during emergencies,
strengthening Article 32’s role.

 Judicial Trends:
Recent PILs, such as Anuradha Bhasin (2020) (internet access) and
Common Cause (2018) (euthanasia), highlight the continued use of
Article 32 to expand Article 21 rights.

Significance

 Immediate Redress: Writs provide swift remedies against rights

violations, as seen in Navtej Singh Johar (2018).

 Judicial Oversight: Ensure state actions align with the Constitution

(L. Chandra Kumar, 1997).

 Access to Justice: PILs under Article 32 and 226 make justice

accessible, especially for marginalized groups (Vishaka, 1997).

 Constitutional Supremacy: Reinforce the judiciary’s role as the

Constitution’s guardian (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973).

 Challenges: Frivolous PILs and judicial backlog strain resources,

requiring stricter scrutiny (Balwant Singh Chaufal, 2010).

Conclusion

Constitutional remedies under Articles 32 and 226 are the backbone of

India’s rights enforcement mechanism, ensuring Fundamental Rights are
protected against state overreach. The 106th Amendment (2023)
highlights their role in upholding equitable governance. Through writs and
PILs, these remedies maintain India’s constitutional integrity, fostering a just
and democratic society.
31. Distinguish between: Fundamental Rights and Directive
Principles, Articles 32 and 226, Article 14 and Article 15

The Indian Constitution delineates distinct roles for Fundamental Rights,

Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs), and specific articles like
32, 226, 14, and 15, each serving unique purposes while interrelating to
uphold constitutional values. Below are detailed distinctions, updated to May
2025, with reference to the 106th Amendment (2023).

 Fundamental Rights vs. Directive Principles:

Aspect Fundamental Rights Directive Principles

Guidelines for state

Basic rights guaranteed to
policy under Part IV
individuals under Part III
Definition (Articles 36–51),
(Articles 12–35), ensuring
aiming for social and
personal liberties.
economic welfare.

Non-justiciable, not
Justiciable, enforceable via courts
Nature enforceable but morally
(Articles 32, 226).
binding.

Promote public welfare

Protect individual freedoms (e.g.,
Purpose (e.g., Article 39:
Article 21: life and liberty).
equitable resources).

Guides state action,

Restricts state power, ensuring
Scope fostering social and
political democracy.
economic democracy.

Violation leads to judicial No direct enforcement;

Enforceme
remedies (e.g., Navtej Singh influences policy (e.g.,
nt
Johar, 2018). MGNREGA, Article 43).

Article 38: Minimize

Example Article 14: Equality before law.
inequalities.

The 106th Amendment (2023)

strengthens Article 14 and 15
Recent by reserving seats for women,
Context aligning with Article 38’s
equality goals, showcasing their
synergy.
 Articles 32 vs. 226:

Aspect Article 32 Article 226

Supreme Court, apex judicial High Courts, state-

Court
authority. specific.

Enforces Fundamental
Enforces Fundamental Rights only Rights and other legal
Scope
(Part III). rights (e.g., statutory,
administrative).

Fundamental Right, “heart and Constitutional

Nature soul” of the Constitution provision, broader
(Hussainara Khatoon, 1979). remedy.

Jurisdictio Nationwide, direct access for rights Limited to state/UT,

n violations. often preliminary.

Habeas corpus, mandamus, Same, plus broader

Writs prohibition, certiorari, quo applications (e.g.,
warranto. service disputes).

106th Amendment (2023) may

prompt Article 32 PILs for national
Recent enforcement of women’s
Context reservation, while Article 226
addresses state-specific issues (L.
Chandra Kumar, 1997).

 Article 14 vs. Article 15:

Aspect Article 14 Article 15

Specific prohibition of
General equality before law and state discrimination
Scope equal protection of laws for all against citizens on
persons. religion, race, caste, sex,
or place of birth.

Broad, covers any arbitrary Narrow, limited to

Applicatio
discrimination (E.P. Royappa, specified grounds (Indra
n
1974). Sawhney, 1992).

Grounds Any form of arbitrariness, Religion, race, caste, sex,

 including non-specified grounds. place of birth only.

Permits affirmative action

Allows reasonable classification
Exception for women, children,
with intelligible differentia and
s SCs/STs, backward
rational nexus.
classes.

Prevents denial of access

Ensures fair treatment in laws to public places
Example
(Maneka Gandhi, 1978). (Champakam
Dorairajan, 1951).

106th Amendment (2023)

supports Article 14’s equality
Recent and Article 15’s affirmative
Context action by reserving legislative
seats for women, ensuring
gender equity.

Recent Developments (Up to May 2025)

 106th Amendment (2023):

Enhances Article 14 and 15 by promoting gender equality, aligning
with Article 38 (DPSP). It may involve Article 32 or 226 petitions to
enforce or challenge implementation, reinforcing their interplay.

 129th Amendment Bill (2024, Pending):

Simultaneous elections may engage Article 14 (equality in
representation) and Article 32/226 (remedies), with DPSPs (Article
39) guiding policy efficiency.

 No Amendments:
Part III, Part IV, and Articles 32/226 remain unchanged since the
86th Amendment (2002) (Article 21A) and 44th Amendment
(1978) (Article 32’s protection).

Significance

These distinctions highlight the Constitution’s nuanced framework:

 Fundamental Rights and DPSPs balance individual and collective

welfare, as seen in the 106th Amendment.

 Articles 32 and 226 ensure robust remedies, with Article 32’s

national scope complementing Article 226’s regional reach.
  Articles 14 and 15 together ensure comprehensive equality, with
Article 14’s broad protection and Article 15’s specific focus.
The interplay drives India’s constitutional democracy, ensuring justice
and equity.

32. Discuss the concept of equality before law and equal protection
of the laws.

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees equality before law and

equal protection of the laws, forming the cornerstone of the Right to
Equality (Articles 14–18). These twin principles ensure fairness, non-
discrimination, and protection against arbitrary state action, fostering an
egalitarian society. As of May 2025, the 106th Amendment (2023) has
reinforced these principles by advancing gender equality.

Understanding the Concepts

 Equality Before Law:

o Definition: All persons, regardless of status, wealth, or position,

are subject to the same laws without privilege or exemption. It
embodies the rule of law, ensuring no one is above the law,
including government officials.

o Origin: Rooted in English common law, it aligns with the

principle that the law is supreme and applies uniformly.

o Application: Prevents discriminatory treatment in legal

processes, ensuring equal access to justice.

o Case Law: State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (AIR

1952 SC 75) struck down a law creating special courts with
different procedures, as it violated uniform treatment under
Article 14.

 Equal Protection of the Laws:

o Definition: Requires the state to treat equals equally and

unequals differently, based on reasonable classification. It
permits differential treatment if justified by a rational basis.

o Test for Classification:

 Intelligible Differentia: The classification must be based

on a clear, rational distinction (e.g., income levels for tax
slabs).
  Rational Nexus: The distinction must have a reasonable
connection to the law’s objective (e.g., reservations for
backward classes).

o Application: Allows affirmative action to address inequalities,

such as reservations for SCs/STs.

o Case Law: E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1974

SC 555) expanded Article 14 to include protection against
arbitrariness, linking it to fairness.

Judicial Interpretation

 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597):

Linked Article 14 with due process under Article 21, ensuring
procedures are fair and non-arbitrary. This marked a shift from formal
to substantive equality.

 Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 477):

Upheld OBC reservations, affirming that Article 14 permits
classification for social justice, provided it meets the rational nexus
test. The “creamy layer” exclusion ensured equitable benefits.

 Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017):

Struck down triple talaq as arbitrary, violating Article 14’s protection
against gender discrimination, reinforcing substantive equality.

 Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022):

Upheld the 103rd Amendment (2019)’s 10% reservation for
Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), finding economic criteria a valid
classification under Article 14.

Mechanisms to Ensure Equality

 Judicial Review:
Courts strike down laws or actions violating Article 14, as in
Champakam Dorairajan (1951), which invalidated discriminatory
admissions. Navtej Singh Johar (2018) used Article 14 to
decriminalize homosexuality, ensuring equal treatment.

 Legislative Measures:
Laws like the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (Article 17) and
Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 (Article 14) operationalize equality.
The 106th Amendment (2023) reserves one-third of legislative seats
for women, directly advancing Article 14.
  Affirmative Action:
Reservations for SCs, STs, OBCs, and EWS address historical
disadvantages, upheld as reasonable classification (M. Nagaraj,
2006). The 106th Amendment extends this to gender equity.

 Constitutional Remedies:
Article 32 allows Supreme Court petitions for Article 14 violations,
while Article 226 enables High Court remedies, ensuring accessible
justice (Sabarimala, 2018).

Recent Developments (Up to May 2025)

 106th Amendment (2023):

By reserving one-third of seats for women in the Lok Sabha, state
assemblies, and Delhi Legislative Assembly, the amendment advances
Article 14’s equality mandate, addressing gender disparities in
political representation. It aligns with Indra Sawhney’s affirmative
action principles, effective post-delimitation (likely 2029).

 129th Amendment Bill (2024, Pending):

Simultaneous elections may engage Article 14 if they affect equal
representation. Courts could review its impact on democratic fairness,
ensuring equal protection.

 No Amendments to Article 14:

Article 14 remains unchanged since 1950. Recent cases like
Anuradha Bhasin (2020) reinforce its role in protecting digital access
as part of equality.

Significance

 Social Transformation: Article 14 dismantles caste, gender, and

economic barriers, fostering inclusivity (Sabarimala, 2018).

 Judicial Activism: Expansive interpretation prevents arbitrariness, as

in Maneka Gandhi (1978).

 Global Standards: Aligns with international human rights norms,

enhancing India’s democratic credentials.

 Challenges: Implementation gaps, such as persistent discrimination

and delays in reservation benefits, require sustained efforts.

Conclusion
Equality before law and equal protection of the laws under Article 14 are
dynamic principles ensuring fairness and justice. The 106th Amendment
(2023) exemplifies their role in addressing gender disparities, reinforcing
India’s commitment to an egalitarian society. Through judicial oversight and
legislative action, Article 14 remains a powerful tool for constitutional
democracy.

33. Explain the constitutional status of minorities.

The Indian Constitution grants special protections to minorities (religious,

linguistic, and cultural) to ensure their rights, preserve diversity, and
promote equality in a pluralistic society. These protections, primarily under
Articles 29–30, balance minority rights with national unity. As of May 2025,
no amendments have directly altered minority provisions, but the 106th
Amendment (2023) supports broader equality, indirectly benefiting
minorities.

Constitutional Provisions for Minorities

 Article 29: Protection of Cultural and Educational Rights:

o Clause (1): Any section of citizens with a distinct language,

script, or culture has the right to conserve it.

o Clause (2): Prohibits discrimination in admission to state-aided

educational institutions on grounds of religion, race, caste, or
language.

o Scope: Applies to all citizens, not just minorities, ensuring

cultural preservation and equal access to education.

o Example: Protects linguistic minorities (e.g., Tamil speakers in

non-Tamil states) and cultural practices.

 Article 30: Right to Establish and Administer Educational

Institutions:

o Clause (1): Religious and linguistic minorities have the right to

establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

o Clause (2): Ensures non-discrimination in state aid to minority

institutions.

o Scope: Grants autonomy to minority institutions, balancing

regulation with independence.
 o Example: Muslim or Christian schools can maintain religious
ethos while receiving state funding.

 Article 15: Non-Discrimination:

o Prohibits state discrimination on religion, race, caste, sex, or

place of birth, with affirmative action for minorities (e.g.,
scholarships for SC/ST students).

o Recent Context: The 106th Amendment (2023) extends

affirmative action to women, indirectly benefiting minority
women.

 Articles 25–28: Freedom of Religion:

o Article 25: Guarantees freedom of conscience and religious

practice, subject to public order and morality.

o Article 26: Allows religious denominations to manage their

affairs.

o Article 27: Prohibits taxes for promoting any religion.

o Article 28: Restricts religious instruction in state-funded

institutions.

o Significance: Ensures minorities practice their faith freely, as

seen in Sabarimala (2018), balancing tradition with equality.

 Article 347:

o Allows the President to recognize languages spoken by a section

of the population, supporting linguistic minorities (e.g., inclusion
of languages in the Eighth Schedule).

 Other Provisions:

o Article 350: Ensures facilities for linguistic minorities to receive

education in their mother