Fundamental Rights in India: A Deep Dive into Articles 12

Fundamental Rights (Articles 12–35): The Bedrock of Indian Constitutional Law

The Fundamental Rights enshrined in Articles 12–35 of the Indian Constitution form the cornerstone of India’s democratic framework, safeguarding individual liberties while fostering social justice in a diverse society. These rights, enforceable by courts, protect citizens against state overreach and ensure equality, freedom, and dignity in social and legal contexts, including family dynamics, education, and personal laws. Rooted in the principles of justice, liberty, and equality, they balance individual autonomy with societal harmony. This article provides a comprehensive overview of Fundamental Rights, their key provisions, practical implications in social settings, and landmark judgments that have shaped their interpretation.

Article 12 of Indian Constitution: Definition of State and Key Cases

Introduction to Article 12

Article 12 plays a key role in the Indian Constitution. It defines “the State” for Part III, which deals with Fundamental Rights. This definition helps decide against whom citizens can enforce these rights. The article says: “In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, ‘the State’ includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.”

Core Elements: The term “State” covers central and state governments, their legislatures, local bodies like municipalities, and “other authorities.”
Purpose: It ensures Fundamental Rights apply not just to obvious government bodies but also to entities that act like the government.
Why It Matters: For competitive exams, understanding this helps in questions on writs, judicial review, and government accountability.

The simple idea is that “State” is broad. It protects citizens from unfair actions by government-linked bodies.

Breaking Down the Definition of “State”

The definition lists clear parts like governments and legislatures. But “other authorities” is the tricky part. Courts have expanded it over time to include bodies that work as government tools.

Government and Parliament/Legislatures: These are direct arms of power at central and state levels.
Local Authorities: Includes municipal committees, district boards, or any body with local governance powers.
Other Authorities: Not limited to statutory bodies. It covers entities under government control, even if they seem private.

Early views limited “other authorities” to bodies like governments. But Supreme Court rulings changed this. Now, the focus is on whether a body is an “instrumentality” or “agency” of the State. This means it must have strong government ties in finance, function, or control.

Evolution Through Key Cases

Courts have shaped the meaning of “other authorities” case by case. Three landmark judgments stand out: R.D. Shetty (1979), Pradeep Kumar Biswas (2002), and Zee Telefilms (2005). Each added clarity on tests to check if a body is “State.”

R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979)

This case set the foundation for testing “instrumentalities.” It involved a challenge to the International Airport Authority of India (IAAI) over unfair tender rules.

Background: R.D. Shetty claimed IAAI violated equality under Article 14 by not following fair procedures.
Key Issue: Is IAAI “other authorities” under Article 12?
Court’s Reasoning: The Supreme Court said yes. It created a flexible test to spot government instrumentalities. No single factor decides; look at the whole picture.
The Six-Point Test:
1. Does the government own all or most shares?
2. Does government funding cover almost all costs?
3. Is there deep and widespread government control?
4. Does the body have a monopoly given or protected by the State?
5. Does it perform public or government-like functions?
6. Was it created by transferring a government department to a corporation?
Outcome: IAAI met most points, like full government funding and control. So, it was “State.” This test made it easier to include corporations under Article 12.
Impact: It shifted focus from strict rules to practical government involvement. Aspirants note: This test is often quoted in exams for its balance of factors.

Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002)

This ruling built on R.D. Shetty and overruled old limits. It dealt with the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and its unit, the Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (IICB).

Background: Pradeep Kumar Biswas was fired unfairly from IICB. He filed a writ, but lower courts said CSIR is not “State” based on an old case (Sabhajit Tewary, 1975).
Key Issue: Is CSIR “other authorities” despite being a society, not a statutory body?
Court’s Reasoning: A seven-judge bench said yes. It refined the R.D. Shetty test. The main question: Is there “deep and pervasive” government control in finance, administration, and function? Mere rules or oversight do not count; control must dominate.
- CSIR gets 70% government funds.
- Government appoints key leaders, like the Director-General.
- Prime Minister is ex-officio President.
- It handles public tasks like research for economic growth, once done by government departments.
Application of Tests: The court used R.D. Shetty’s six points but stressed overall dominance. It rejected the idea that non-statutory bodies are always excluded.
Outcome: CSIR is “State.” The old Sabhajit Tewary ruling was overruled (5:2 majority). Dissent argued no full control or funding.
Impact: Expanded Article 12 to more societies and non-statutory entities with government dominance. For exams, remember: Pervasive control is the core, not form.

Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005)

This case drew limits to the expansion. It checked if the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is “State.”

Background: Zee Telefilms challenged BCCI’s decision to cancel its cricket broadcast rights, claiming violation of Fundamental Rights.
Key Issue: Is BCCI “other authorities” under Article 12?
Court’s Reasoning: The Supreme Court said no. It applied tests from R.D. Shetty and Pradeep Kumar Biswas.
- No government shares or funding.
- No deep control; BCCI is autonomous, registered as a society.
- Monopoly on cricket is not State-given or protected.
- It performs public functions like selecting teams, but without government dominance.
- Control must be “pervasive and particular” to the body.
Tests Highlighted: Focused on financial aid, shareholding, control, and monopoly. If missing, even public functions do not make it “State.”
Outcome: BCCI is not “State.” Writ petition dismissed. A dissent said BCCI’s public role and national representation qualify it.
Impact: It balanced expansion by excluding pure private bodies. Shows Article 12 applies only to true government extensions, not all public-like entities.

Introduction to Key Doctrines in Indian Constitutional Law

Doctrine of Eclipse: The Temporary Shadow Over Laws

This doctrine says that a law inconsistent with fundamental rights is not dead forever. It just gets “eclipsed” or hidden. If the conflict is fixed later, the law comes back to life.

Core Idea in Simple Terms: Imagine a solar eclipse where the sun is blocked but still exists. Similarly, a pre-Constitution law that violates Part III (Fundamental Rights) is overshadowed but not erased. It can revive if the right causing the conflict changes.
When It Applies: Mainly to laws made before 1950 (pre-Constitution era). Post-1950 laws get struck down fully if they violate rights, as per Article 13(2).
Key Legal Basis: Article 13(1) declares pre-Constitution laws void if they infringe fundamental rights. But the doctrine keeps them alive in a dormant state.
Landmark Case – Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955): Here, a state law on transport was eclipsed by Article 19(1)(g) (right to trade). When Article 19(6) was amended to allow state monopolies, the law revived without fresh enactment.
Why It Matters for Exams: Courts use this to avoid chaos from old laws vanishing. Remember: Eclipse applies only to fundamental rights violations, not other constitutional issues.
Quick Tip for Aspirants: Mnemonic – “Eclipse = Temporary Block, Revival Possible.” Link it to Article 368 amendments that can “remove the shadow.”

This doctrine shows the Constitution’s flexible nature, allowing laws to adapt over time without total repeal.

Doctrine of Severability: Surgical Removal of Invalid Parts

Severability means “cutting away” the bad part of a law while keeping the good part intact. If a law has unconstitutional sections, the court removes only those if they can stand alone.

Core Idea in Simple Terms: Picture a fruit with a rotten spot. You cut out the rot and eat the rest. Likewise, if part of a statute violates the Constitution, that part is void, but the rest survives if separable.
When It Applies: To both pre- and post-Constitution laws under Article 13. The test is whether the valid part can function independently without the invalid one.
Key Legal Basis: Article 13 allows declaring laws void “to the extent of inconsistency.” This supports severing bad provisions.
Landmark Case – R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala v. Union of India (1957): A law on prize competitions was partly invalid for promoting gambling. The court severed the gambling-related parts, saving the rest for skill-based contests.
Another Key Example – A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1970): Here, severability was used to strike down biased selection rules while upholding the overall administrative process.
Why It Matters for Exams: It prevents entire laws from failing due to minor flaws. Courts check legislative intent: If the law works without the bad part, it stays.
Quick Tip for Aspirants: Test for Severability – “Intention + Independence.” Ask: What did lawmakers want? Can the good part live on its own?

This doctrine reflects judicial wisdom in preserving useful laws, blending mercy with strict constitutional checks.

Doctrine of Waiver: Choosing to Give Up Rights

Waiver means voluntarily giving up a fundamental right. But not all rights can be waived, especially if they serve public good.

Core Idea in Simple Terms: Think of waiving a right like skipping a free gift – it’s your choice, but some gifts (rights) are too important for society to let you skip.
When It Applies: Only to personal rights under Part III. Rights with public interest, like equality or freedom from exploitation, cannot be waived.
Key Legal Basis: No specific article mentions waiver, but courts infer it from the nature of rights. Article 12 defines state actions, but waiver is about individual consent.
Landmark Case – Basheshar Nath v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1959): The Supreme Court ruled that fundamental rights can be waived if they are for personal benefit. But in this tax case, waiver was not allowed as it involved public revenue.
Another Key Example – Behram Khurshid Pesikaka v. State of Bombay (1955): A person waived the right against self-incrimination (Article 20(3)), but the court said such waivers are invalid if they harm justice.
Limits on Waiver: Cannot waive rights like Article 14 (equality) or Article 21 (life and liberty) as they protect society. Waiver must be informed and voluntary.
Why It Matters for Exams: It tests the balance between individual freedom and public welfare. Courts reject waivers that could lead to exploitation.
Quick Tip for Aspirants: Classify Rights – “Personal = Waivable (e.g., property under old Article 31); Public = Non-Waivable (e.g., anti-discrimination).”

This doctrine highlights how the Constitution values both personal choice and collective good, ensuring rights are not lightly discarded.

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution: Equality, Arbitrariness, and Key Cases from E.P. Royappa to Joseph Shine

Core Idea of Article 14: Equality as a Fundamental Right

Article 14 stands as a pillar in Part III of the Indian Constitution. It promises fairness to all. The exact words are: “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” This means two things in simple terms.

Equality before the law: No one is above the law. Everyone faces the same rules, no matter their status. This comes from British legal ideas.
Equal protection of the laws: Laws must treat similar situations alike. The State cannot favor one group without reason. This draws from American principles. Article 14 does not mean absolute equality. It allows reasonable differences based on real needs. But it hates unfair or random actions by the State. Arbitrariness – meaning decisions without logic or fairness – is its biggest enemy. Over time, courts have used this to strike down bad laws and actions.

Arbitrariness: The Hidden Enemy of Equality

Arbitrariness is when the State acts without reason, logic, or fairness. It goes against the spirit of Article 14. Think of it as a test: If a law or action seems random or unjust, it fails under Article 14.

This idea grew from court rulings. It helps check if laws are fair in real life.
Courts say equality and arbitrariness cannot coexist. One cancels the other.
Over years, this test has become stronger. It now includes “manifest arbitrariness” – when unfairness is clear and obvious. This concept protects people from State power that feels whimsical or biased. It ensures laws serve justice, not harm.

How Arbitrariness Evolved: A Step-by-Step Journey Through Key Cases

The story of arbitrariness under Article 14 unfolds like a chain. It starts with a basic idea and builds into a powerful tool. We trace it from E.P. Royappa to Shayara Bano, ending at Joseph Shine. Each case adds a layer, making the law clearer and stronger.

Starting Point: E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) This case sparked the modern view of Article 14.

Quick Facts: E.P. Royappa, a senior officer, challenged his sudden transfer by the Tamil Nadu government. He said it was unfair and targeted him without cause.
Court’s Key Ruling: The Supreme Court said Article 14 is not just about classification (treating likes alike). It goes deeper. Justice Bhagwati noted: “Equality is antithetic to arbitrariness.” This means arbitrary actions by the State violate equality.
What It Changed: Before this, courts focused on reasonable classification. Now, arbitrariness became a direct test. If an action lacks reason, it fails Article 14.
Why It Matters for Exams: This judgment linked Article 14 with Articles 19 and 21. It said fundamental rights are connected, not separate. Aspirants should note how it expanded equality beyond old limits. This case set the foundation. It turned Article 14 into a shield against random State power.

Building Strength: Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) This famous Triple Talaq case took the idea further. It introduced “manifest arbitrariness.”

Quick Facts: Shayara Bano challenged the Muslim practice of instant divorce (Talaq-e-Biddat). She said it was unfair to women and allowed men to end marriages without reason.
Court’s Key Ruling: A 3:2 majority struck down the practice. The Supreme Court said laws can fail under Article 14 if they are “manifestly arbitrary.” This means obvious unfairness, without logic or purpose. The court linked back to Royappa, saying arbitrariness kills equality.
What It Changed: It made arbitrariness a ground to cancel even personal laws. The test now applies to customs that seem outdated or biased. Justice Nariman stressed that such laws must pass modern fairness checks.
Why It Matters for Exams: This shows Article 14’s role in social reform. It protects gender equality and fights discrimination. Remember, it also touched Article 15 (no discrimination) but rooted in Article 14’s anti-arbitrariness rule. Shayara Bano sharpened the tool from Royappa. It made courts bolder in calling out clear injustices.

Modern Peak: Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) This adultery case sealed the evolution. It affirmed arbitrariness as a core test.

Quick Facts: Joseph Shine challenged Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code. This old law punished only men for adultery, treating women as property. It ignored women’s choices.
Court’s Key Ruling: The Supreme Court struck it down unanimously. Chief Justice Misra said the law was “manifestly arbitrary” and violated dignity. It echoed Royappa: Arbitrariness denies equality. The court added that laws must respect individual rights, not old biases.
What It Changed: It expanded arbitrariness to include gender stereotypes. Laws that assume roles based on sex fail this test. The judgment linked it to privacy and choice under Article 21.
Why It Matters for Exams: This case shows Article 14’s living nature. It evolves with society. Note how it built on Shayara Bano’s “manifest” idea and Royappa’s base. It promotes substantive equality – real fairness, not just formal rules. Joseph Shine marks the current high point. It reminds us that Article 14 fights all forms of unfairness.

Key Takeaways for Competitive Exams

Article 14 is dynamic. It grows through cases to meet new challenges.
Arbitrariness test: From Royappa’s basic opposition to equality, to Shayara Bano’s “manifest” standard, to Joseph Shine’s focus on dignity.
Link to Other Rights: These cases show Article 14 works with 15, 19, and 21 for broader justice.
Prep Tip: Memorize quotes like “Equality is antithetic to arbitrariness” from Royappa. Compare facts and impacts across cases for essay questions. This chain – Royappa → Shayara Bano → Joseph Shine – shows how courts keep equality alive and relevant.

Articles 15 & 16 Explained with Key Cases (Indra Sawhney, Jarnail Singh, EWS, Maratha & 50% Cap)

Understanding the Basics: Articles 15 and 16 as Pillars of Equality with Reservation

The Indian Constitution aims for equality but recognizes social inequalities. Articles 15 and 16 play a key role here. They ban discrimination while allowing the government to make special rules for weaker sections. This balance helps uplift backward groups through reservations in education, jobs, and promotions.

Article 15 in Simple Terms: This article stops discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. But it has exceptions. The state can create special provisions for women, children, and socially or educationally backward classes. For example, reservations in schools or colleges for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) come from this.
Article 16 for Public Jobs: It ensures equal opportunity in government employment. No one can be denied a job due to religion, race, caste, sex, descent, birth place, or residence. Yet, it allows reservations for backward classes in appointments and promotions. This means quotas in public sector jobs to correct historical wrongs.

These articles form the legal base for affirmative action in India. Reservations are not just favors; they are tools for social justice, as backed by court rulings.

The Core Idea of Reservation: From Equality to Equity

Reservation means setting aside seats or positions for disadvantaged groups. It started post-independence to help SCs, STs, and later OBCs. The goal is equity – giving extra support to those who start from behind.

Key features include:

Quotas in education (like admissions to colleges).
Jobs in government services.
Promotions within public jobs.
Recent additions like economic-based reservations.

But limits exist to prevent overuse. Courts have shaped these through judgments, ensuring reservations do not harm overall merit or equality.

Landmark Judgment: Indra Sawhney Case (1992) – The Foundation of Modern Reservations

This case, also called the Mandal Commission case, is a cornerstone. It came from a challenge to OBC reservations in central government jobs.

Background Story: In 1990, the government implemented the Mandal Commission’s report, reserving 27% jobs for OBCs. This led to protests and court battles.
Supreme Court’s Key Rulings:
- Upheld 27% reservation for OBCs but said it must exclude the “creamy layer” – the well-off among backward classes.
- Set a 50% cap on total reservations to protect open competition.
- No reservations in promotions (this changed later).
- Backwardness must be proven by data, not just caste.

This judgment made reservations more fair and data-driven. It stressed that quotas should help the truly needy, blending legal logic with social needs.

Evolution in Promotions: Jarnail Singh Case (2018) – Reservations Get a Boost

Building on Indra Sawhney, this case dealt with reservations in promotions for SCs and STs.

What Sparked It: Earlier laws allowed quotas in promotions, but courts questioned if backwardness data was needed.
Court’s Decisions:
- States can provide reservations in promotions for SCs/STs without proving current backwardness – their historical disadvantage is enough.
- But “creamy layer” exclusion applies to SCs/STs too, like OBCs.
- No need for quantifiable data on inadequacy of representation if overall efficiency is maintained.

This ruling strengthened affirmative action in career growth, ensuring legal safeguards while promoting inclusion.

Breaking New Ground: 103rd Amendment and EWS Reservation (2019)

The Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act added economic criteria to reservations, beyond caste.

Main Changes:
- Inserted clauses in Articles 15 and 16 for 10% reservation to Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) from general categories.
- EWS means families with income below Rs 8 lakh per year, no large land holdings, etc.
Legal Backing: In Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India (2022), the Supreme Court upheld it. It said EWS quota does not violate basic structure as it aids the poor without affecting existing reservations.
Impact: This expands reservations to cover poverty, not just social backwardness. It applies to education and jobs, but states can adjust criteria.

This amendment shows how reservations adapt to modern needs, mixing academic views on equality with legal innovations.

The Maratha Reservation Saga: Challenges to the 50% Cap

Maratha quota highlights ongoing debates on expanding reservations.

Timeline of Events:
- 2018: Maharashtra government passed a law for 16% reservation to Marathas as socially and educationally backward.
- This pushed total quotas above 50% (to 68%).
Court Interventions:
- In 2021, Supreme Court struck it down in Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil vs Chief Minister. Reasons: No exceptional circumstances to breach 50% cap; Marathas not proven backward enough.
- Reaffirmed Indra Sawhney’s 50% rule – only rare cases like in remote areas can exceed it.
Recent Updates (Up to 2025): Maharashtra tried again with a 10% quota in 2024, but courts are reviewing. It stresses data-backed claims and state powers under Article 342A.

This case teaches that reservations must be justified, not politically driven, maintaining a academic tone on federalism and rights.

The 50% Cap: A Safeguard for Balance

From Indra Sawhney, the 50% ceiling is a key rule to ensure reservations do not overshadow merit.

Why 50%?: It keeps half the opportunities open for all, preventing reverse discrimination.
Exceptions Allowed: Only in extraordinary situations, like for tribal areas (as in Tamil Nadu’s 69% quota, upheld with conditions).
Ongoing Relevance: Courts repeatedly enforce it, as in Maratha and other cases. But debates continue – some argue for removal in diverse India.

This cap blends legal limits with social goals, reminding us that equality means fair shares for everyone.

Article 20 of the Indian Constitution: Safeguards Against Ex-Post Facto Laws, Double Jeopardy, and Self-Incrimination

Introduction to Article 20: Core Protections for the Accused

Article 20 stands as a key safeguard in the Indian Constitution. It protects people from unfair convictions. This article falls under Fundamental Rights in Part III. It ensures justice in criminal matters. Think of it as a shield against three main threats: laws applied backward, repeated trials for the same crime, and forced self-harm in testimony. These rights apply to all persons, not just citizens. They cannot be suspended even during emergencies.

Now, let’s break it down clause by clause. Each part builds on real-life legal needs. Use these notes to grasp concepts quickly for multiple-choice questions or essays in exams.

Clause 1: Guard Against Ex-Post Facto Laws

This clause stops the government from punishing someone for an act that was not a crime when done. In simple terms, no backward punishment.

Basic Rule: You can only be convicted if you broke a law that existed at the time of your action. New laws cannot make past acts criminal.
What It Covers: It blocks two things – creating new crimes for old acts and increasing punishment for past crimes.
Key Exception: It does not stop laws that reduce punishment or remove a crime category. For example, if a new law makes a penalty lighter, it can apply backward.
Real-World Example: Imagine stealing was not a crime in 2020, but a 2021 law makes it one. You cannot be punished for a 2020 theft.
Important Case Insight: In the case of Kedar Nath Bajoria vs. State of West Bengal (1953), the Supreme Court said this protection applies only to criminal laws, not civil ones.
Exam Tip: Remember, this clause echoes Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It promotes fairness in law-making.

Key takeaway: Ex-post facto means “after the fact.” This clause ensures laws look forward, not backward, to punish.

Clause 2: Ban on Double Jeopardy

This clause prevents repeated trials and punishments for the same offence. It saves people from endless legal harassment.

Core Protection: No one can face prosecution and punishment more than once for the same crime.
What Counts as ‘Same Offence’: It must involve the same facts and same law. Different laws on similar facts do not trigger this.
Scope Limits: This applies only after a full trial and final verdict. It does not block appeals or retrials if the first trial was flawed.
Key Difference from Other Systems: Unlike the US Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, India’s version requires both prosecution and punishment, not just jeopardy.
Practical Scenario: If you are acquitted in a murder case, the state cannot try you again for that murder under the same charges.
Notable Case: Maqbool Hussain vs. State of Bombay (1953) clarified that departmental inquiries do not count as prosecutions, so no double jeopardy there.
Exam Focus: Note that this does not apply to civil proceedings or foreign court judgments.

Key takeaway: Double jeopardy acts like a “one-strike” rule in criminal law. It ends the cycle of repeated accusations.

Clause 3: Right Against Self-Incrimination

This clause protects the accused from being forced to testify against themselves. It upholds personal dignity in investigations.

Fundamental Guarantee: No accused person can be compelled to give evidence that harms their own case.
What It Includes: Covers oral statements, documents, or any material that could lead to guilt. Police cannot force confessions.
Exceptions in Practice: Voluntary statements are allowed. Also, things like fingerprints, handwriting samples, or blood tests do not count as “testimony.”
Broader Application: This right starts from the accusation stage and lasts through the trial. It does not apply to witnesses who are not accused.
Everyday Example: During questioning, you can stay silent without penalty. But refusing non-testimonial evidence, like a DNA sample, might not be protected.
Landmark Judgment: In Selvi vs. State of Karnataka (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that narco-analysis, brain mapping, and lie detectors violate this clause if done without consent.
Link to Other Rights: It connects with Article 21’s right to life and liberty, ensuring fair trials.

Key takeaway: Self-incrimination is like a lock on your words. It forces the state to prove guilt without your unwilling help.

Evolution of Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty in Indian Constitution – From A.K. Gopalan to Supriyo Case

Study Notes: Journey Through Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty

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.” This simple line has grown into a powerful shield for human rights. Over decades, the Supreme Court has expanded its meaning through key judgments. Think of it as a living tree – starting narrow and branching out to cover dignity, fairness, privacy, and more. We trace this growth step by step, from rigid rules to broad protections, using landmark cases as milestones.

Milestone 1: The Narrow Beginnings – A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)

This case marked the early, limited view of Article 21. A.K. Gopalan, a communist leader, was detained under a preventive law. He argued it violated his freedoms.

Core Issue: Does “procedure established by law” mean just any law, or must it be fair like “due process” in the U.S.?
Court’s Key Holding: The Supreme Court said Article 21 only needs a valid law passed by the legislature. It does not check if the law is just or reasonable. Rights under Article 19 (freedoms like speech) and Article 21 are separate – no overlap.
Simple Impact: Personal liberty meant only freedom from physical detention. The Court ignored deeper ideas of justice. This view dominated for years, allowing harsh laws if they followed basic procedures.
Academic Insight: It reflected a positivist approach – law is what the state says, not what is morally right. But critics saw it as too mechanical, ignoring human dignity.

This rigid stance held until challenges exposed its limits, setting the stage for change.

Milestone 2: The Big Shift – Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without reasons, blocking her travel. She challenged it under Article 21. This judgment revolutionized constitutional law, like opening a door to wider rights.

Core Issue: Can the government restrict liberty without fair procedures? Must “procedure established by law” be reasonable?
Court’s Key Holding: Yes, the procedure must be fair, just, and not arbitrary. The Court linked Article 21 with Articles 14 (equality) and 19 (freedoms). It borrowed “due process” ideas – laws must pass tests of reasonableness.
Simple Impact: Personal liberty now included rights to travel, live with dignity, and more. No longer just about detention; it covered life’s quality. This overruled parts of Gopalan’s narrow view.
Academic Insight: Known as the “golden triangle” of Articles 14, 19, and 21. It introduced substantive due process – checking not just how a law is applied, but if the law itself is fair. This expansion made Article 21 a source of many implied rights, like speedy trial or clean environment.

From here, Article 21 evolved from a shield against state overreach to a promoter of positive rights, influencing countless cases.

Milestone 3: Embracing Privacy – Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017)

This nine-judge bench case arose from the Aadhaar scheme’s privacy concerns. Retired judge Puttaswamy argued it invaded personal data. The ruling declared privacy a core part of life and liberty.

Core Issue: Is there a fundamental right to privacy under the Constitution?
Court’s Key Holding: Yes, privacy is inherent in Article 21. It includes bodily autonomy, informational privacy, and choices in personal life. The state can limit it only if necessary, proportional, and legal. Overruled old cases denying privacy as a right.
Simple Impact: Protected against unchecked surveillance or data misuse. Expanded “life” to mean a dignified existence, including decisions on health, identity, and intimacy. Linked to equality and freedom.
Academic Insight: Drew from global human rights norms. Emphasized dignity as the heart of Article 21. The “proportionality test” became key – any restriction must be minimal and justified. This built on Maneka’s reasonableness, making privacy a tool against digital-age threats.

Puttaswamy’s privacy framework opened doors to modern issues, like data protection and personal choices.

Milestone 4: Testing Boundaries in Love and Identity – Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India (2023)

Petitioners, including same-sex couples, sought legal recognition for queer marriages. They argued denial violated rights under Article 21. The Supreme Court discussed marriage, dignity, and liberty.

Core Issue: Does Article 21 include a right to same-sex marriage? How does it protect queer relationships?
Court’s Key Holding: No fundamental right to marry, as marriage is a social institution shaped by laws and culture. But queer persons have rights to dignity, autonomy, and cohabitation under Article 21. Discrimination against them violates equality. Left legalization to Parliament.
Simple Impact: Affirmed protections for same-sex unions in daily life, like inheritance or benefits, without full marriage rights. Highlighted privacy in intimate choices, building on Puttaswamy.
Academic Insight: Reinforced Article 21’s role in upholding human dignity for marginalized groups. Used “choice” and “autonomy” from earlier cases. Though not granting marriage, it urged reforms and recognized evolving societal norms. Dissenting views pushed for stronger rights.

This case shows Article 21’s ongoing adaptation to social changes, from detention laws to personal identities.

Constitution of India – Article 23 and 24: Prohibition of Human Trafficking and Child Labour

Constitution of India: Article 23 & 24 – Human Trafficking and Child Labour

(Quick-Revision Study Notes for Competitive Exams)

Article 23 – Prohibition of Traffic in Human Beings and Forced Labour

Simple Meaning Article 23 says no one can be forced to work against their will and no one can be bought or sold as a slave or bonded worker.

Exact Text (in easy words)

Traffic in human beings, begar, and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited.
Any person who breaks this rule can be punished by law.
State can impose compulsory service for public purpose (but no discrimination on religion, race, caste, etc.).

Key Words Explained

Trafficking in human beings → Buying/selling of men, women, children for prostitution, slavery, organ trade, forced marriage, etc.
Begar → Forced labour without payment (very common in villages earlier).
Forced labour → Bonded labour, where a person works to repay a loan that never ends.
Similar forms → Devadasi system, child domestic servants, contract labour without freedom.

Scope – Very Wide

Applies to State + Private individuals (unlike most FRs).
Covers both free and paid forced labour.
Even if a person “agrees” under economic pressure, it is still forced labour.

Exception (Only One) State can make any law for compulsory service for public purposes. Example: Compulsory military service during war, compulsory vaccination, jury duty. But → No discrimination allowed on ground of religion, race, caste or class.

Important Laws Made under Article 23

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITPA)
Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976
Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 → now replaced by 2016 amendment
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) – indirectly linked

Landmark Judgments on Article 23

People’s Union for Democratic Rights vs Union of India (1982) (Asiad Games case) → Payment of less than minimum wage is forced labour → violates Article 23.
Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union of India (1984) → Court gave detailed guidelines for identification and release of bonded labourers. → State must rehabilitate freed bonded labourers.
Sanjit Roy vs State of Rajasthan (1983) → Paying less than minimum wage in famine relief work is forced labour.

Article 24 – Prohibition of Employment of Children in Factories, etc.

Simple Meaning No child below 14 years can work in any factory, mine or hazardous work.

Exact Text (in easy words) “No child below the age of fourteen years shall be employed to work in any factory or mine or engaged in any other hazardous employment.”

Key Points

Age limit → Below 14 years only.
Places → Factories, mines and hazardous employment.
Non-hazardous work → Allowed after 14 years (but regulated).
Applies to → Both government and private sector.
Exception → None for hazardous work.
Family business & artists → Allowed with conditions (2016 amendment).

2016 Amendment + Present Position (Very Important for Exams)

Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act renamed as Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act.
Complete ban on employment of children below 14 years in all occupations (except family business & entertainment).
Adolescents (14–18 years) banned from hazardous occupations (list of 65 occupations).
Helping in family enterprise after school hours or during vacations → Allowed.
Child artists in audio-visual industry → Allowed with strict safeguards.

Important Laws under Article 24

Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (as amended in 2016)
Right to Education Act, 2009 (Article 21A) → supports Article 24 because education is compulsory up to 14 years.
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015

Landmark Judgment on Article 24

M.C. Mehta vs State of Tamil Nadu (1996) (Child labour in Sivakasi firecracker factories) → Court ordered:
- Employing children below 14 in hazardous work is illegal.
- Employer must pay ₹20,000 per child for rehabilitation fund.
- State must provide alternative employment to adult family member.
- First major direction for child labour eradication.

Article 25 to 28 – Freedom of Religion, Essential Religious Practices Test, Triple Talaq, Sabarimala & Hijab Cases

Quick Recap – What Do Articles 25 to 28 Actually Say?

Article 25 – Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion → Subject to public order, morality, health and other provisions of Part III → State can regulate economic, financial, political or secular activity associated with religion State can provide for social welfare and reform or throw open Hindu religious institutions of public character to all classes of Hindus (includes Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists)
Article 26 – Freedom to manage religious affairs Every religious denomination has the right: (a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes (b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion (c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property (d) to administer such property in accordance with law
Article 27 – No person shall be compelled to pay any taxes for promotion or maintenance of any particular religion (freedom from taxation for religion)
Article 28 – Freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or worship in certain educational institutions → No religious instruction in fully state-funded institutions → In state-recognised or state-aided institutions, attendance cannot be compulsory → Institutions administered by State but established under endowment/trust can impart religious instruction

The Most Important Judicial Test – “Essential Religious Practices” (ERP) Test

(Repeatedly asked in UPSC Mains & Prelims and almost every Judiciary exam)

Originated in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar (1954) – Shirur Mutt case
Court said: What is religion and what is essential part of a religion will be decided by the court looking at the doctrine of that religion itself.
Only those practices which are essential and integral to the religion are protected under Articles 25–26.
Non-essential or secular/superstitious practices can be regulated or banned by the State.

Evolution of the Test (must remember chronology):

Shirur Mutt (1954) → Court will look at religion’s own scriptures/doctrine
Durgah Committee, Ajmer (1961) → Practices must be “essential”
Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji (1963) → Essentiality to be decided with reference to tenets
Seshammal (1972) → Agamas and customs also considered
Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala (2018) – Sabarimala → 4:1 majority said even long-standing practice can be tested on constitutional morality
Shayara Bano (2017) & Joseph Shine (2018) → ERP test applied with Part III values (equality, dignity)

Landmark Cases Simplified (High-weightage for Exams)

1. Shayara Bano vs Union of India (2017) – Triple Talaq Case

Issue: Is instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) protected under Article 25?
3:2 majority held: → Triple talaq is NOT an essential religious practice of Islam (Hanafi school only, not in Quran) → It is arbitrary and violates Article 14 (equality) → Manifestly arbitrary → unconstitutional
Result: Led to Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 (criminalised triple talaq)

2. Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala (2018) – Sabarimala Case

Issue: Can women (10–50 years) be barred from entering Sabarimala temple (Lord Ayyappa – Naisthika Brahmachari)?
4:1 majority (CJI Dipak Misra, Khanwilkar, Chandrachud, Nariman; Indu Malhotra dissenting) held: → Exclusion of women is NOT an essential religious practice → Custom violates Articles 14, 15, 17, 25 and constitutional morality → Devotees of Ayyappa do not form a separate religious denomination (Article 26 not applicable)
2018 judgement → Women of all ages allowed entry
Review petitions filed → Referred to 7-judge bench in 2019 → Still pending (as of Dec 2025)

3. Karnataka Hijab Case – Resham vs State of Karnataka (2022, Supreme Court)

Karnataka Government order banned hijab in classrooms saying uniform is part of “reasonable restriction”.
Supreme Court delivered split verdict (Oct 2022): Justice Gupta → Hijab is NOT essential religious practice Justice Dhulia → Hijab is a matter of choice, privacy and dignity; no need to go into ERP
Matter referred to CJI for larger bench → Still pending (as of Dec 2025)

Article 29 & 30: Minority Rights & Educational Institutions

Why Articles 29 and 30 are Important for Exams

These are the only two Articles under the heading “Cultural and Educational Rights”.
Most frequently asked in Prelims (direct questions) and Mains (application-based).
Almost every year 1–2 questions come from related case laws.
Very important for Judiciary, CLAT and State PSC exams.

Article 29 – Protection of Interests of Minorities (Cultural Right)

Article 29(1) Any section of the citizens residing in India having a distinct language, script or culture has the right to conserve the same.

Key Points to Remember

Applies to both minorities and majority (any “section of citizens”).
Example: Hindi-speaking people in Tamil Nadu can demand conservation of Hindi language.
State cannot impose any restriction on this right by law.
No one can be denied admission in state or state-aided institutions only on grounds of religion, race, caste, language (Article 29(2)).
This clause applies to all citizens (majority + minority).

Simple Trick 29(1) → Conservation of culture (any citizen) 29(2) → No denial of admission in government institutions (all citizens)

Article 30 – Right of Minorities to Establish and Administer Educational Institutions

Article 30(1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

Article 30(1A) (Added by 44th Amendment) If the State acquires property of a minority institution, it must pay compensation so that the right under Article 30(1) is not destroyed.

Article 30(2) State shall not discriminate in granting aid only because it is a minority institution.

Core Components of Article 30 Right (Very Important for Mains)

Right to establish (choose location, infrastructure, courses)
Right to administer (appoint staff, admit students, frame fees, discipline)
Right to get recognition and aid from State
Right against forced acquisition without adequate compensation

Who is a “Minority”?

Determined state-wise (not national level).
Example: Christians are minority in Uttar Pradesh but majority in Nagaland.
Supreme Court in TMA Pai Foundation (2002): Minority status is decided state-wise.

Reasonable Restrictions Allowed on Minority Institutions

The right is not absolute. State can impose “reasonable regulations” in the interest of:

Efficiency
Standards of education
Discipline
Prevention of maladministration
National interest

But regulations cannot destroy the minority character.

Landmark Judgments – Must Remember Names & Ratio (High Weightage)

Re Kerala Education Bill (1958)
- First major case.
- State can regulate but cannot take away administration.
St. Xavier’s College vs State of Gujarat (1974)
- Minority institutions have right to appoint their own Principal and teachers.
- Excessive state control is not allowed.
St. Stephen’s College vs University of Delhi (1992)
- Minority-aided institutions can give only 50% preference to minority students.
- Remaining 50% seats on merit (open for all).
TMA Pai Foundation vs State of Karnataka (2002) – (11-judge bench – Bible for this topic)
- Minority status is state-wise.
- Unaided minority institutions have full autonomy in admission and fee.
- State can fix quota only for aided institutions.
- “Administration” means day-to-day management, not total control by government.
P.A. Inamdar vs State of Maharashtra (2005)
- No reservation (SC/ST/OBC) can be forced on unaided minority or non-minority institutions.
- No compulsory seat-sharing with government.
Pramati Educational Trust vs Union of India (2014)
- RTE Act, 2009 (25% reservation for poor children) does not apply to minority institutions (both aided and unaided).
Society for Un-aided Private Schools of Rajasthan (2012)
- RTE applies to government and aided schools + non-minority unaided schools only.

Recent Developments (2020–2025)

103rd Constitutional Amendment (EWS quota) does not apply to minority institutions.
Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) minority status case is still pending (2024–25 hearings going on) – whether AMU is a minority institution or not.

One-Line Summary for Quick Revision

Article 29 = Cultural right for all citizens + no discrimination in state institutions
Article 30 = Exclusive right of religious & linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions with reasonable state regulation.

Article 32 of Indian Constitution: | PIL, Locus Standi, Epistolary Jurisdiction & Continuing Mandamus

Article 32 – The Heart and Soul of the Indian Constitution

Dr B.R. Ambedkar called Article 32 the “heart and soul” of the Constitution because it gives every citizen the direct right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Without Article 32 itself is a Fundamental Right!

Exact Text of Article 32 (Must Remember)

Article 32(1): The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights is guaranteed.
Article 32(2): The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate.
Article 32(3): Parliament may empower any other court to issue these writs, but no law can suspend the right under Article 32.
Article 32(4): The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided by the Constitution (i.e., only during Emergency under Article 359).

Key Point → If Article 32 is suspended or taken away, the Constitution will lose its soul.

Why Article 32 is called the “Heart and Soul”?

It is the only Fundamental Right that guarantees the enforcement of all other Fundamental Rights.
Even if a person is poor or in jail, he can directly approach the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court cannot refuse relief under Article 32 (Chandigarh Prakash vs Union of India, 1978).

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) – The Biggest Gift of Article 32

Before 1980s → Only the aggrieved person could file a case (strict locus standi). After 1980s → Judges relaxed the rule of locus standi and allowed any public-spirited person to file a petition on behalf of poor, illiterate or oppressed people.

Landmark Cases that started PIL:

Hussainara Khatoon vs State of Bihar (1979) → Prison reforms, release of under-trial prisoners.
S.P. Gupta vs Union of India (1981) → Judges Transfer Case – Judges openly accepted that any member of the public can file PIL.
Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union of India (1984) → Bonded labour – Court said even a letter can be treated as writ petition.

Relaxation of Locus Standi (Who can file PIL?)

Any person acting in good faith.
Even a stranger or NGO can file if the victim cannot approach the court.
But the petitioner must not have political or personal motive (S.P. Gupta Case & later BALCO Employees Case, 2001).

Epistolary Jurisdiction (Letter = Writ Petition)

Supreme Court started treating simple letters or postcards as writ petitions. Famous examples:

Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration (1980) – A prisoner wrote a letter from jail → Court treated it as writ petition.
Many bonded labourers’ cases started with letters written by journalists or activists.

Continuing Mandamus

When a problem is huge and long-term, the Supreme Court keeps the petition alive and issues directions from time to time. This is called “Continuing Mandamus”.

Best examples:

Vineet Narain vs Union of India (1998) – Hawala Case → Court monitored CBI investigation for years.
TN Godavarman Case (1996 onwards) – Forest conservation case still continuing since 28 years!
Vishaka Guidelines Case (1997) → Sexual harassment at workplace – Court kept monitoring till Parliament made law in 2013.

Five Writs under Article 32 (Quick Recall Table in Mind)

Habeas Corpus → “Produce the body” – against illegal detention.
Mandamus → “We command” – to public official to do his duty.
Prohibition → Stops lower court from exceeding jurisdiction.
Certiorari → Quashes illegal order of lower court/tribunal.
Quo Warranto → “By what authority” – questions illegal holding of public office.

Important Recent Judgments (2020–2025)

Kaushal Kishor vs State of UP (2023) → Article 32 can be used even if alternative remedy exists, if Fundamental Right is violated.
Supreme Court in 2023 said misuse of PIL is increasing → Court will impose heavy costs on fake PILs.
During COVID-19, many PILs were filed under Article 32 for oxygen, medicines, etc. – Court used suo motu + continuing mandamus.

Quick Revision Bullet Points

Article 32 = Fundamental Right + Remedy for all other Fundamental Rights.
Dr Ambedkar → “Heart and Soul”.
PIL + Relaxed locus standi + Epistolary jurisdiction = Revolution in Indian judiciary.
Continuing mandamus = Long-term monitoring by Supreme Court.
Supreme Court cannot refuse relief under Article 32.
Only suspended during Emergency (1975–77 example).

Memorize this line for Mains answer: “Article 32 is not only the protector but also the soul of Fundamental Rights because it provides an expeditious, inexpensive and direct remedy to the citizens against violation of their Fundamental Rights by the State.”

All the best for your exam! Keep revising these points 3–4 times – Article 32 is a very high-weightage topic in UPSC Prelims, Mains and all Judiciary exams.