The Basic Structure of the Indian Constitution: Explained Simply

Introduction:
 The concept of the "basic structure" of the Indian Constitution became a key part of
legal debates in India in the 1970s and 1980s.
 The idea is that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot
change the fundamental principles that form its core.
 This debate resurfaced when a government commission was set up to review the
Constitution in the late 1990s. Many feared that the government wanted to make
radical changes to the Constitution, but the commission clarified that the basic structure
would not be touched.
Power to Make Laws:
 The Constitution gives Parliament and state legislatures the power to make laws.
However, these powers are not unlimited.
 The judiciary (courts) has the authority to decide if any law violates the Constitution. If it
does, the courts can declare it invalid.
 Parliament has the power to amend (change) the Constitution under Article 368, but the
courts have placed limits on this power.
Kesavananda Bharati Case:
 In 1973, the Supreme Court, in the Kesavananda Bharati case, introduced the concept
of the "basic structure" of the Constitution. It ruled that Parliament can amend the
Constitution but cannot alter or destroy its basic features, such as democracy, rule of
law, and fundamental rights.
Before the Kesavananda Case
Early Challenges:
 Right after India’s independence, laws were passed to reform land ownership and
tenancy to distribute land more fairly among people, in line with the government’s
socialist goals.
 Landowners affected by these laws challenged them in court, arguing that the laws
violated their fundamental right to property.
 The courts supported the landowners, so Parliament passed amendments placing these
laws in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, which prevented courts from reviewing
them.
Ninth Schedule:
 Laws in the Ninth Schedule are shielded from being challenged in court, even if they
violate fundamental rights like the right to property.
Early Court Decisions:
 In cases like Sankari Prasad Singh Deo (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1955), the Supreme
Court said Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental
rights.
The Golaknath Case (1967):
 In this case, the Supreme Court changed its stance, ruling that Parliament could not
amend fundamental rights. It said that Article 368 (which outlines the procedure for
amending the Constitution) did not give Parliament the power to change fundamental
rights. This decision introduced the idea that certain parts of the Constitution are so
important they cannot be changed.
Parliament vs. Supreme Court
Conflicts After Golaknath:
 After the Golaknath decision, Parliament faced challenges to its power. One issue was
nationalizing banks (taking them over by the government) and another was abolishing
"privy purses" (payments made to former princes).
 Parliament argued these changes were necessary to implement socialist policies aimed
at reducing inequality, but the Supreme Court struck them down, leading to a struggle
between the two branches of government.
1971 Elections and the Constitutional Amendments:
 The 1971 elections brought Indira Gandhi’s Congress party back to power with a large
majority. The party campaigned on the promise of making changes to the Constitution,
particularly to restore Parliament’s supremacy over the courts.
 Over the next few years, several amendments were passed. These amendments:
o Gave Parliament the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including
fundamental rights.
o Placed more land reform laws in the Ninth Schedule, protecting them from
judicial review.
o Abolished the privy purses of former princes.
In simple terms, the struggle was about who has more power—Parliament or the judiciary—
and how much Parliament could change the Constitution, especially fundamental rights. The
Supreme Court eventually ruled that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot
change its basic structure, meaning the core principles of the Constitution (like democracy, the
rule of law, and fundamental rights) must always remain intact.
Emergence of the Basic Structure Concept: The Kesavananda Milestone
The concept of the Basic Structure of the Indian Constitution emerged as a way to limit the
power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. The turning point came in the landmark
Kesavananda Bharati case (1973). Here’s a simplified explanation of how this important
concept took shape:
Background:
 Parliament had been using its power to amend the Constitution to make significant
changes, including curbing some fundamental rights.
 These amendments led to a clash between Parliament and the Supreme Court.
Parliament claimed it had the power to amend any part of the Constitution, while the
courts resisted this, arguing that some parts of the Constitution were too fundamental
to be altered.
The Kesavananda Bharati case dealt with this conflict.
The Verdict:
The case was heard by 13 judges, who gave 11 separate judgments. Although there were some
differences in opinion, they agreed on several key points:
1. Parliament's Power to Amend: All judges agreed that Parliament had the power to
amend the Constitution.
2. Golaknath Case Overturned: The court rejected the earlier Golaknath case (1967)
decision, which said that Parliament couldn't amend fundamental rights. They ruled that
Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, but with limits.
3. Limits to Amending Power: Most importantly, seven out of the thirteen judges declared
that Parliament could not use its amending powers to alter or destroy the "basic
structure" of the Constitution.
This means that while Parliament can change certain aspects of the Constitution, there are core
principles that cannot be changed. These principles form the basic structure of the
Constitution.
Basic Features of the Constitution:
The judges gave different views on what constitutes the basic structure. Some of the features
they mentioned include:
 Supremacy of the Constitution: The Constitution is the highest law, and no other law
can override it.
 Republican and democratic form of government: India must remain a republic and a
democracy.
 Secularism: The state must treat all religions equally.
 Separation of powers: The division of powers between the legislature, executive, and
judiciary must remain.
 Federal character: The Constitution establishes India as a federal state, with powers
divided between the central and state governments.
Some judges added features like building a welfare state and national unity and integrity as
part of the basic structure.
Impact of the Kesavananda Verdict:
 The basic structure doctrine became a constitutional safeguard, ensuring that
Parliament cannot pass amendments that would damage the core values of the
Constitution.
 However, there was no unanimity on what exactly constituted the basic structure,
leaving room for interpretation by the courts in future cases.
Reaffirmation: The Indira Gandhi Election Case
In 1975, the Supreme Court had another opportunity to apply the basic structure doctrine. The
case concerned Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's election, which was declared void by the
Allahabad High Court due to electoral malpractices.
To protect Indira Gandhi, Parliament passed the Thirty-ninth Amendment to the Constitution.
This amendment:
 Prevented the courts from adjudicating disputes about the elections of key officeholders
(like the Prime Minister).
 Affected the judiciary's power to review election disputes, which was seen as part of the
basic structure.
The Supreme Court upheld the Thirty-ninth Amendment but struck down the part that took
away the court's power to review election disputes. The Court ruled that the ability to hold free
and fair elections and the power of judicial review were essential parts of the basic structure,
which Parliament could not alter.
Conclusion:
The basic structure doctrine protects the core principles of the Constitution from being eroded
by Parliament, even through amendments. Over time, this doctrine has become a key tool in
preserving the democratic and constitutional integrity of India.
Basic Features of the Constitution According to the Election Case Verdict
In this case, various judges gave their views on what parts of the Constitution cannot be
changed, as they form its "basic structure."
1. Justice H.R. Khanna:
o Democracy is a basic feature of the Constitution.
o Free and fair elections are crucial for democracy.
2. Justice K.K. Thomas:
o Judicial review (courts reviewing the validity of laws) is a basic feature.
3. Justice Y.V. Chandrachud:
o He listed four features that cannot be changed:
 India's status as a sovereign democratic republic.
 Equality of status and opportunity for all individuals.
 Secularism (no preference for any religion) and freedom of religion.
 Rule of law (government based on laws, not personal whims).
4. Chief Justice A.N. Ray:
o He had a controversial view: He believed Parliament's power was above the
Constitution, so Parliament could exclude election-related laws from judicial
review.
o He thought democracy was a basic feature, but not free and fair elections.
5. Justice K.K. Mathew:
o Agreed with Chief Justice Ray that not all laws were part of the "basic structure."
o However, he thought democracy was essential, and courts should handle
election disputes.
6. Justice M.H. Beg:
 o Disagreed with Chief Justice Ray. He argued that Parliament is not above the
Constitution, and the courts must always have the power to review laws.
o He believed that the separation of powers (between the government,
Parliament, and judiciary) and constitutional supremacy were part of the basic
structure.
Main Takeaway: Although judges disagreed on what exactly makes up the Constitution's basic
structure, they all accepted the idea that there are core parts of the Constitution that cannot be
changed.
Kesavananda Review Bench
Shortly after the election case decision, Chief Justice Ray tried to review the famous
Kesavananda Bharati case ruling (which had limited Parliament's power to amend the
Constitution). A special 13-judge bench was set up to discuss the matter. However, no clear
petition asking for this review had been filed, and after some debate, the bench was dissolved
without changing the previous decision.
Why is this important? The government, under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, seemed
interested in reversing the Kesavananda decision to give Parliament more power, but the
review didn't succeed.
Sardar Swaran Singh Committee and the 42nd Amendment
During the National Emergency (1975-1977), a committee led by Sardar Swaran Singh was
formed to suggest changes to the Constitution. These recommendations led to the 42nd
Amendment (1976), which:
1. Made the Directive Principles (guidelines for the government) more powerful than
some Fundamental Rights (like equality and freedom of speech).
2. Stated that constitutional amendments could not be questioned in court.
3. Removed judicial review for changes to Fundamental Rights.
4. Gave Parliament almost unlimited power to amend the Constitution.
Main Impact: This amendment significantly increased Parliament's powers and reduced the
judiciary's ability to challenge unconstitutional laws.
Basic Structure Doctrine Reaffirmed: Minerva Mills and Waman Rao Cases
The 42nd Amendment was challenged in court soon after it was passed. In Minerva Mills
(1980), the Supreme Court ruled that:
1. Judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, so Parliament cannot
take away this power from the courts.
 2. The amendment (Article 31C) that allowed Parliament to ignore Fundamental Rights in
certain cases violated the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive
Principles, which is essential to the Constitution's basic structure.
In another case, Waman Rao (1981), the court decided that all amendments made to the
Constitution after the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) could be reviewed to see if they
violated the basic structure. It also said that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule (which were
meant to be protected from judicial review) after 1973 could still be reviewed.
Conclusion
The basic structure doctrine—which says that certain key parts of the Constitution cannot be
changed by Parliament—was firmly established in these cases. The courts made it clear that:
1. The Supreme Court has the final say in interpreting the Constitution and deciding if
amendments violate its basic structure.
2. Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is not unlimited.
3. Fundamental principles like democracy, rule of law, judicial review, and separation of
powers are considered part of the basic structure and cannot be altered.

Doctrine of Eclipse
The doctrine of eclipse is a legal principle in India that helps deal with laws that existed before
the Constitution came into effect but are found to violate fundamental rights. Essentially, the
doctrine says that such laws don’t become completely invalid or void; instead, they become
inactive or "eclipsed" until the Constitution is changed to remove the conflict. Once the
inconsistency is removed, the law becomes active again. This doctrine is based on the idea that
fundamental rights under the Constitution are prospective, meaning they apply from the date
the Constitution was enforced (1950) and not before.
Key Concepts:
1. Fundamental Rights and Article 13:
o Article 13(1): Says that any law made before the Constitution that violates
fundamental rights becomes void to the extent of that violation.
o Article 13(2): Says that any law made after the Constitution that violates
fundamental rights is completely void.
2. Doctrine of Eclipse:
 o The doctrine applies to pre-Constitutional laws that conflict with fundamental
rights. These laws don't become entirely void but are "eclipsed" or temporarily
inoperative.
o Once the conflict is resolved (like through an amendment), the law can start
functioning again.

Important Cases:
1. Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955)
 Facts: The C.P. & Berar Motor Vehicles Act, 1947 allowed the government to
monopolize motor transport. After the Constitution was adopted in 1950, this law was
challenged as it violated Article 19(1)(g) (right to practice any profession).
 Judgment: The Supreme Court said the law didn’t become completely void but was just
eclipsed. When the First Amendment to the Constitution (1951) allowed government
monopolies, the law regained its force. The court ruled that the law was "inactive" or
"eclipsed" until the amendment fixed the conflict.
2. Keshava Madhavan Menon v. State of Bombay (1951)
 Facts: Menon published a pamphlet in 1949 (before the Constitution) and was charged
under the Indian Press Act, 1931. He argued that the Act violated his right to free speech
under Article 19(1)(a).
 Judgment: The Supreme Court held that fundamental rights do not have retrospective
application. Since the pamphlet was published before the Constitution came into force,
Menon couldn’t claim protection under Article 19(1)(a). The law was valid when the act
was committed, and the Constitution’s fundamental rights cannot be applied to past
actions.
3. State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills (1974)
 Facts: Ambica Mills, a non-citizen company, challenged a labor welfare law on the
grounds that it violated the fundamental rights of citizens under Article 19.
 Judgment: The Supreme Court said that only citizens can claim the protection of Article
19 rights, not non-citizens like Ambica Mills. So, while the law was void against citizens,
it remained effective for non-citizens, demonstrating that a law isn’t completely void but
only void to the extent of violating citizens’ rights.

Key Features of the Doctrine of Eclipse:

 1. Pre-Constitutional Law: This doctrine applies to laws made before the Constitution
came into force. These laws might have been valid at the time but became problematic
after the Constitution guaranteed fundamental rights.
2. Conflict with Fundamental Rights: If a pre-Constitutional law violates fundamental
rights, it gets "eclipsed." This means it can’t be enforced against citizens whose rights
are violated by that law.
3. Temporary Inoperativeness: The law isn't nullified or erased—it just becomes
inoperative temporarily. If the conflict with fundamental rights is resolved (like through
a Constitutional amendment), the law can come back into effect.
4. Potential for Revival: If an amendment fixes the inconsistency with fundamental rights,
the law that was eclipsed can become valid again.

Application to Post-Constitutional Laws:

The doctrine of eclipse doesn't generally apply to post-Constitutional laws (laws made after
the Constitution was adopted). The reason is that Article 13(2) makes such laws void ab initio
(from the beginning) if they violate fundamental rights. For example:
 In Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1959), the court said that post-Constitutional
laws can’t be revived by amendments. If such a law violates fundamental rights, it’s
considered void from the start.
 In Mahendra Lal Jaini v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963), the court confirmed that post-
Constitutional laws, if unconstitutional, must be re-enacted after an amendment; they
don’t automatically come back into force like pre-Constitutional laws.

Difference Between Doctrine of Eclipse and Doctrine of Severability:

 Doctrine of Eclipse: The law doesn’t become void but is temporarily inoperative. It
applies mostly to pre-Constitutional laws.
 Doctrine of Severability: If only part of a law violates the Constitution, that part is
severed or removed, while the rest of the law remains valid. This doctrine applies to
post-Constitutional laws.

Conclusion:
The doctrine of eclipse is important because it provides a way to deal with pre-Constitutional
laws that conflict with the new Constitution without erasing those laws entirely. It ensures that
laws can be revived when the Constitution is amended to resolve the conflict. However, for
post-Constitutional laws, this doctrine doesn’t apply, and they are considered void from the
beginning if they violate fundamental rights.
The doctrine of severability, also known as the doctrine of separability, is a legal principle that
allows parts of a law (or statute) to be invalidated without striking down the entire law. Here’s
a simpler explanation with examples from case law:

What is the Doctrine of Severability?

1. Basic Idea: If a part of a law conflicts with the Constitution (like violating fundamental
rights), only that problematic part can be declared void while keeping the rest of the law
intact.
2. Extent of Application: The phrase “to the extent of the inconsistency” indicates that
only the parts of the law that are unconstitutional are affected, not the entire statute.
How It Works
 Severable Provisions: If a law has both valid and invalid provisions (the good and the
bad), the valid provisions can still be enforced. For example, if a law has one clause that
is unconstitutional, but it can stand alone without the bad clause, the valid part remains
in effect.
 Indivisible Provisions: If parts of a law are so intertwined that they cannot be separated,
then the entire law may be declared invalid.

Case Law Examples

1. A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras (1950):

o Issue: The Supreme Court was asked to look at preventive detention laws.
o Outcome: The court held that if the preventive detention clause (part of the law) is
removed, the rest of the law remains valid and effective. This demonstrated the
application of the doctrine, allowing valid parts to persist even when one part was
unconstitutional.
2. D.S. Nakara vs. Union of India (1983):
o Issue: The court examined provisions regarding pensions and benefits.
o Outcome: The Supreme Court invalidated the inconsistent parts of the law but upheld
the rest. This case illustrated how the doctrine allowed for the separation of valid and
invalid provisions.
3. State of Bombay vs. F.N. Balsara (1951):
o Issue: The Bombay Prohibition Act was challenged.
o Outcome: Here, the court declared that the entire act could not be voided because
parts of it were valid. Thus, it highlighted that only specific provisions could be
invalidated.
 4. Minerva Mills vs. Union of India (1980):
o Issue: The validity of amendments to the Constitution was challenged.
o Outcome: The Supreme Court struck down a section of the 42nd Amendment but
upheld the remaining provisions. This case confirmed that amendments must also
adhere to the principles of the Constitution.
5. Kihoto Hollohan vs. Zachillhu (1992) (Defection Case):
o Issue: The constitutionality of provisions regarding the disqualification of members of
the legislature was contested.
o Outcome: The court declared one specific paragraph unconstitutional while upholding
the rest of the Tenth Schedule. This demonstrated the selective invalidation under the
doctrine.
6. R.M.D.C. vs. Union of India (1957):
o Issue: The court examined the provisions concerning the regulation of certain
commodities.
o Outcome: The Supreme Court established that if invalid parts could not be separated
from valid ones, the whole act would be declared void. This case emphasized the
legislative intent behind the law and the importance of judicial review.

Key Points to Remember

 Legislative Intent: Courts often consider the intentions behind a law to decide whether
parts can be severed.
 Judicial Power: Courts have the duty to declare laws unconstitutional if they contradict
the Constitution. This power comes from the belief that the Constitution represents the
will of the people.
 Fundamental Rights: The doctrine applies particularly in cases involving fundamental
rights as outlined in Part III of the Indian Constitution.

ARTICLE 21
 Sanctity of Human Life: Human life is one of the most important values in society.
Everyone has the right to live their life freely without unfair interference.
 Right to Life and Personal Liberty: In India, the Constitution guarantees the Protection
of Life and Personal Liberty as a fundamental right under Article 21. This means that no
one can be deprived of their life or liberty unless the law allows it.
Understanding Article 21
 Basic Meaning: Article 21 states, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to the procedure established by law.” This means that the
government must follow legal procedures before taking away someone's life or
freedom.
  Who It Applies To: This right applies to everyone, including foreigners. However, it
doesn’t grant foreigners the right to live in India permanently.
Evolution of Article 21
 Broader Interpretation: Initially, courts interpreted Article 21 narrowly, focusing mainly
on physical harm or death. Over time, the interpretation expanded to include the right
to live with dignity, which encompasses various aspects of life that make it meaningful.
 Prisoners’ Rights: Even people in prison retain their rights under Article 21, meaning the
state cannot violate their rights just because they are incarcerated.
Key Court Cases and Their Impact
1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950):
o Background: A communist leader was detained, claiming it violated his freedom
of movement.
o Court’s Decision: The court ruled that "personal liberty" meant physical freedom
and did not include the right to move freely. This case set a narrow
interpretation of personal liberty.
2. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1964):
o Background: A man was subjected to police surveillance without a legal basis.
o Court’s Decision: The court expanded the definition of personal liberty to include
privacy and protection against encroachments on one’s personal life, thus
recognizing broader freedoms.
3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978):
o Background: Maneka Gandhi's passport was impounded without a valid reason.
o Court’s Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that the right to travel is part of
personal liberty. The court emphasized that any restrictions on personal liberty
must be fair, just, and reasonable, significantly broadening the interpretation of
Article 21.
Interrelationship Between Articles 14, 19, and 21
 Articles Overview:
o Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law and prohibits discrimination.
o Article 19: Grants citizens various freedoms, including speech, assembly,
movement, and profession, but allows the state to impose reasonable
restrictions.
  Connection: Initially, Articles 19 and 21 were viewed separately. However, the Supreme
Court has stated that they are interconnected. Restrictions on personal liberty (Article
21) must also respect the rights granted under Article 19 and ensure equality under
Article 14.
 “Golden Triangle”: Articles 14, 19, and 21 are often referred to as the “Golden Triangle”
because they collectively protect fundamental rights and prevent arbitrary government
actions.
Conclusion
Article 21 is a crucial part of the Indian Constitution that safeguards individuals' rights to life
and personal liberty. Through various landmark cases, the interpretation of this article has
expanded to cover a wide range of rights, emphasizing the importance of dignity, freedom, and
fairness in society. The interconnection of Articles 14, 19, and 21 further strengthens the
protection of fundamental rights against state actions.

Article 15
Article 15 of the Indian Constitution is a key part of the rights aimed at ensuring equality for all
citizens. It was first debated in 1948 as Draft Article 9. The main goal was to prohibit
discrimination on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
During the debates, some members raised concerns that the Draft Article did not cover enough
areas, such as specific public spaces like gardens or roads, where discrimination could happen.
It was explained that the language used in the Article was broad enough to cover all public
spaces without listing each one. There was also a suggestion to include special provisions for
Scheduled Castes and Tribes along with women and children, but this was rejected to avoid
lawful segregation.
Key Provisions of Article 15
1. No Discrimination by the State: The government cannot treat citizens differently purely
based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
2. No Discrimination in Public Places: All citizens should have equal access to public
places, like shops, restaurants, hotels, and public facilities (e.g., wells, tanks, roads).
3. Special Provisions for Women and Children: The government can create special rules to
help women and children. These provisions are meant to protect their interests and
ensure they get fair opportunities.
 4. Affirmative Action for Backward Classes: The government can make special provisions
for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, as well as
Scheduled Castes and Tribes, to address historical inequalities.
5. Provisions for Education: Special rules can be made to help these backward classes and
tribes access educational institutions, including private ones, but this does not apply to
minority educational institutions.
6. Economically Weaker Sections (EWS): A newer provision allows the government to
make special provisions for economically weaker sections (EWS) of society, with a cap of
10% reservation in educational institutions.
Simplified Interpretation of Clauses
1. Clause (1): The government cannot discriminate against anyone solely because of their
religion, caste, gender, or place of birth.
2. Clause (2): Everyone should have equal access to public places and services like shops,
restaurants, and public utilities without facing discrimination.
3. Clause (3): The government can create special programs to help women and children,
recognizing their special needs in areas like education and safety.
4. Clause (4): Affirmative action for backward communities is allowed to help them catch
up in education and other areas.
5. Clause (5): The government can extend reservation in private schools and colleges for
backward classes and tribes, excluding minority institutions.
6. Clause (6): The government can reserve up to 10% of seats for economically weaker
sections in educational institutions, beyond the usual reservations for backward classes.
Key Amendments to Article 15
1. 1st Amendment (1951): Added the provision to help socially and educationally
backward classes, allowing reservations for these communities.
2. 93rd Amendment (2005): Allowed special provisions for backward classes and tribes in
private educational institutions.
3. 103rd Amendment (2019): Introduced provisions for economically weaker sections
(EWS), allowing up to 10% reservations in jobs and education for those from
economically disadvantaged families.
Important Judicial Cases Related to Article 15
 1. State of Madras vs. Champakam Dorairajan (1951): This case led to the 1st Amendment
of Article 15. The court said reservations should be based on backwardness, not just
caste or religion.
2. Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India (1992): The Supreme Court set a 50% limit on
reservations and introduced the concept of the "creamy layer," meaning that the more
privileged within backward classes should not benefit from reservations.
3. Janhit Abhiyan vs. Union of India (2022): The Supreme Court upheld the 10%
reservation for economically weaker sections (EWS), ensuring that reservations do not
exceed 50% in total.
Modern Relevance
 LGBTQ+ Rights: Article 15 has been used in recent times to challenge discrimination
against the LGBTQ+ community. In 2023, there was a major case (Supriyo Chakraborty
case) where the court recognized the rights of same-sex couples, although it did not
grant them legal marriage rights.
Conclusion
Article 15 plays a crucial role in ensuring equality for all citizens. While it prohibits
discrimination, it also allows for affirmative action to help historically disadvantaged groups like
backward classes, Scheduled Castes, Tribes, women, children, and economically weaker
sections. This helps promote not just formal equality (treating everyone the same) but also
substantive equality (providing extra help to those who need it).

Article 16 of the Indian Constitution is all about equality of opportunity in government jobs.
Here's a simple breakdown of its main points and how it evolved over time:
Background of Article 16
 Original Idea: Article 16 was discussed in 1948 as part of the Constituent Assembly
debates. The goal was to make sure everyone in India had an equal chance to get a
government job, without being discriminated against because of their religion, race,
caste, sex, or where they come from.
 Reservations: The Constitution also allowed for reservations in public jobs, especially
for people from backward classes who weren’t well-represented. This was to level the
playing field and give marginalized communities a fair chance.
During debates, there were differing opinions:
1. One group wanted no reservations, focusing on total equality.
 2. Another group wanted reservations for marginalized communities to ensure fairness.
3. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar supported the idea of reservations to help historically disadvantaged
groups get a seat at the table.
Key Clauses of Article 16
1. Equality for All: Everyone, no matter their background, has an equal right to apply for
government jobs.
2. No Discrimination: The government can't deny anyone a job based on their religion,
race, caste, sex, or where they’re from.
3. Residence Rules: Sometimes, Parliament can make rules requiring people to live in a
particular state to get a local government job.
4. Reservations for Backward Classes: The government can reserve jobs for people from
backward classes who aren't well-represented in the government.
5. Reservations in Promotions: Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) can get
reservations in promotions as well, so they can move up in their careers.
6. Carrying Forward Unfilled Reserved Vacancies: If reserved job positions are not filled in
one year, they can be carried over to the next year.
7. Religious Institutions: Some public jobs related to religious institutions may require the
job holder to follow a specific religion.
8. Economically Weaker Sections (EWS): The government can reserve 10% of jobs for
people who are economically weak, even if they don’t belong to backward classes, SCs,
or STs.
Major Amendments to Article 16
 77th Amendment (1995): Allowed reservations for SCs and STs in promotions.
 85th Amendment (2001): Gave seniority to SCs and STs in promotions.
 81st Amendment (2000): Allowed unfilled vacancies to be carried forward.
 103rd Amendment (2019): Introduced a 10% reservation for EWS.
Important Court Cases on Article 16
1. Balaji vs. State of Mysore (1963): Set a 50% cap on reservations, meaning reservations
should not go beyond 50% of total jobs.
2. Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India (1993): Known as the Mandal Case, it supported
reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) but excluded the wealthier or “creamy
 layer” from benefiting. The Court also said reservations should not be used in
promotions (later changed by amendments).
3. Jarnail Singh vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018): Clarified that SCs and STs don’t need to
prove backwardness to benefit from promotional reservations.
Simple Explanation of Key Terms
 Backward Class: People who have been socially and educationally disadvantaged for a
long time.
 Creamy Layer: The wealthier section of backward classes, who are excluded from
reservations because they no longer face the same disadvantages.
 Economically Weaker Sections (EWS): People who are economically poor but don’t fall
into the usual reserved categories (SC, ST, OBC).
Conclusion
Article 16 ensures that everyone has a fair shot at government jobs while acknowledging that
historically disadvantaged groups need extra support through reservations. It’s a balance
between equality for all and affirmative action to uplift marginalized communities. Over time,
courts and amendments have shaped Article 16 to better address social justice and equal
opportunity.

Article 20 of the Indian Constitution provides essential protections to people accused of

crimes. It ensures that no one is treated unfairly or punished beyond the laws in place. It has
three key safeguards:
1. Protection against Ex Post Facto Laws (Article 20(1))
 Provision: No one can be convicted for an act that wasn't a crime when they did it. Also,
they cannot be given a punishment that is more severe than the one in place at the time
of the offence.
 Explanation: You cannot be punished for something that was legal when you did it. For
example, if you did something that wasn’t a crime at the time, and a law is later passed
making it illegal, you cannot be convicted based on the new law. Similarly, if the
punishment for a crime changes after you committed it, the harsher punishment won't
apply to you.
Example Case:
 In Kedar Nath v. State of West Bengal (1953), the Supreme Court said that a law cannot
be applied to increase punishment for an act done before the law was passed.
2. Protection against Double Jeopardy (Article 20(2))
 Provision: No person can be tried and punished for the same crime twice.
 Explanation: This means that once someone has been punished for a crime, they cannot
be punished again for the same crime. For instance, if a person is found guilty of theft
and serves the sentence, they cannot be tried for that same act of theft again.
Example Case:
 In Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953), the Supreme Court said that double
jeopardy doesn’t apply when a person is tried by non-judicial authorities, like customs
officials, as they are not courts.
3. Protection against Self-Incrimination (Article 20(3))
 Provision: No person accused of a crime can be forced to testify against themselves.
 Explanation: This means that if you are accused of a crime, the law protects you from
being forced to say something that would prove you guilty. For example, if you're
accused of theft, you cannot be made to confess or provide evidence against yourself.
Example Case:
 In M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954), the court ruled that even during a police
investigation, the accused has the right to not give statements that could be used
against them.
Key Points of Interpretation:
 No Retrospective Punishment: You can only be punished based on the law that existed
when you committed the act.
 Double Jeopardy: You can only be punished once for a crime.
 No Forced Confession: You cannot be forced to testify or provide evidence against
yourself.
Notable Judicial Cases:
 M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954): The right against self-incrimination begins as
soon as you are treated as an accused.
 Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978): The right extends to all stages of the investigation,
not just in court.
Conclusion:
Article 20 protects individuals from being unfairly treated by the criminal justice system. It
ensures that no one is punished for things that weren’t crimes when they were committed,
protects against being tried twice for the same offence, and stops forced confessions. These
rights are crucial in maintaining fairness and justice in India.

Article 28 of the Indian Constitution ensures that people have freedom when it comes to
religious instruction and worship in educational institutions. Its main goal is to keep education
secular, especially in schools and colleges funded by the government.
What Does Article 28 Say?
1. No Religious Instruction in Government-Funded Schools (Article 28(1))
 What it says: Schools and colleges that are completely funded by the government
cannot teach religious lessons.
 Explanation: If a school is fully run with government money, it cannot promote any
religion. This keeps public education secular, meaning neutral in terms of religion.
2. Exception for Certain Schools (Article 28(2))
 What it says: Schools or colleges set up by specific trusts or endowments can give
religious instruction, even if the government is running them.
 Explanation: Some schools were created long ago with special rules saying they must
teach religious lessons (like schools connected to temples, mosques, or churches). Even
if the government manages these schools, they can still teach religious lessons because
of these founding rules.
3. No Forced Participation in Religious Activities (Article 28(3))
 What it says: Students in schools recognized or funded by the government cannot be
forced to participate in religious lessons or prayers unless they (or their guardians if
they’re minors) agree to it.
 Explanation: If you attend a government-aided school, you have the choice whether to
participate in religious lessons or worship. No one can make you take part unless you or
your parent/guardian say it’s okay.
Key Court Cases on Article 28
1. D.A.V. College vs State of Punjab (1971):
o Issue: The university taught the teachings of Guru Nanak, and the petitioner
argued this violated Article 28.
 o Court’s Ruling: The Supreme Court said that teaching about a person’s life and
philosophy, like Guru Nanak’s, is not the same as religious instruction. Learning
about history or ideas is okay, as long as it’s not teaching religion itself.
2. Aruna Roy vs Union of India (2002):
o Issue: The petitioner claimed that the National Curriculum Framework, which
included lessons on religious philosophy, violated Article 28.
o Court’s Ruling: The Supreme Court said teaching religious philosophy is allowed
as long as it promotes values like kindness and respect, not a specific religion. It
doesn’t violate Article 28 because it’s meant to encourage good values in society.
Conclusion:
Article 28 ensures that education funded by the government remains secular, meaning it
doesn’t promote any specific religion. It allows certain exceptions for institutions set up with
special religious rules, but it protects students' rights to choose whether or not they want to
take part in religious activities in school.

The Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy are two important
concepts in the Indian Constitution, but they serve different purposes and have different
characteristics. Here's a simple explanation of both:
1. Fundamental Rights:
 What they are: These are basic rights given to every citizen to protect their freedom,
equality, and justice.
 Where they are mentioned: In Part III of the Constitution, under Articles 12 to 35.
 Purpose: To ensure political democracy—this means giving people rights that protect
their freedom from unfair treatment by the government or others.
 Example of Fundamental Rights:
o Right to Equality (Article 14-18): All citizens are equal in the eyes of the law.
o Right to Freedom (Article 19-22): Freedom of speech, movement, and assembly.
o Right against Exploitation (Article 23-24): Protection from forced labor or child
labor.
 Enforceability: Legally enforceable—if someone’s fundamental rights are violated, they
can go to court, and the court will protect their rights.
  Can they be suspended?: Yes, except for Articles 20 and 21, which are still protected
even during a national emergency.
2. Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP):
 What they are: These are guidelines or ideals for the government to follow when
making laws and policies to ensure social and economic justice.
 Where they are mentioned: In Part IV of the Constitution, under Articles 36 to 51.
 Purpose: To help the government create a fair and just society where everyone has
opportunities for a good life.
 Example of Directive Principles:
o Promoting equal pay for equal work.
o Encouraging education for all.
o Supporting rural development and cottage industries.
 Enforceability: Not legally enforceable—you cannot go to court to force the
government to follow these principles. However, they guide the government in making
policies for the public good.
 Can they be suspended?: No, they cannot be suspended under any circumstances.
Key Differences Between Fundamental Rights and DPSP:

Directive Principles of State Policy

Parameter Fundamental Rights
(DPSP)

Protect individual freedom and Guide the government towards

Purpose
political democracy. social and economic welfare.

Enforceability Legally enforceable through courts. Not enforceable in courts.

Where They Are

Part III (Articles 12-35). Part IV (Articles 36-51).
Mentioned

These are negative in nature as they Positive in nature, allowing the

Nature stop the State from taking away State to take steps for social
rights. welfare.

Can They Be Yes, during a national emergency

No, they cannot be suspended.
Suspended? (except Articles 20 and 21).

Examples:
  Fundamental Rights: If the government violates your freedom of speech, you can go to
court.
 DPSP: If the government doesn’t provide free education, you can’t go to court, but it’s
still their responsibility to work towards it.
Conclusion:
Fundamental Rights protect individual freedoms, while DPSPs are goals for the government to
achieve a fairer society.
ARTICLE 29 AND 30
The Cultural and Educational Rights are fundamental rights in the Indian Constitution designed
to protect and preserve the diverse cultures and languages in India. Since India is a country with
many different cultures, languages, and traditions, the Constitution ensures that everyone,
especially minority groups, can maintain their unique identities.
Key Points of Cultural and Educational Rights:
1. Article 29: Protection of Minority Interests
o What it means: Any group of people in India, whether based on language, script,
or culture, has the right to protect and preserve their unique identity.
o Who it applies to: Although it mainly protects minorities, the Supreme Court has
ruled that it applies to any group, not just minorities.
o Example: If a community speaks a particular language, they have the right to
keep using it and preserve it through their customs and education.
Article 29(1): Groups with a distinct language, script, or culture have the right to protect it.
Article 29(2): No citizen can be denied admission to educational institutions maintained by the
government based only on their religion, race, caste, or language.
2. Article 30: Right of Minorities to Establish Educational Institutions
o What it means: Minorities, whether based on religion or language, have the
right to create and run their own educational institutions (schools, colleges)
without interference from the government.
o Government’s role: The government cannot discriminate against minority-run
institutions, even when giving financial aid.
o Example: A religious or linguistic minority group can set up their own school to
educate their children in their language or religious tradition.
Article 30(1): Minorities have the right to set up and run educational institutions of their choice.
Article 30(2): The government cannot treat minority institutions unfairly when providing
financial help.
Who are Minorities?
Minorities are groups of people who are smaller in number compared to the majority
population. They may differ from the majority in religion, language, ethnicity, etc. The
Constitution provides special protections for them because they might face discrimination or
marginalization.
Important Supreme Court Judgments:
1. Xaviers College vs. State of Gujarat (1974): St. Xaviers College, a religious minority
institution, challenged a law that interfered with its autonomy in hiring staff and
admitting students. The Supreme Court ruled that the law could not limit the rights of
minority institutions.
2. Re Kerala Education Bill (1958): The court ruled that the government couldn’t violate
the rights of minorities to manage their institutions, even if it passes new laws regarding
education.
3. Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust vs. Union of India (2014): The Supreme Court
stated that minority institutions, whether aided or unaided by the government, are not
covered by the Right to Education (RTE) law.
Conclusion:
Cultural and Educational Rights ensure that minorities in India can preserve their culture and
manage their own educational institutions without facing discrimination. These rights help
maintain India's rich cultural diversity and protect the unique traditions, languages, and
educational needs of different communities.

ARTICLE 31
Introduction
The Indian Constitution once gave people the fundamental right to own and protect their
property. This right was mainly outlined in Articles 19(1)(g) and 31. Article 19(1)(g) allowed
people to own and sell property, while Article 31 gave the government the authority to take
property if needed for public use, provided it paid compensation. However, this right was
limited by public interest concerns. In 1978, the 44th Amendment removed the right to
property from the list of fundamental rights. Now, it is only a legal right under Article 300A,
meaning the government can still take property, but the rules around it are less strict.
Doctrine of Eminent Domain
This is a legal principle that allows the government to take private land for public use, like
building a road or school, without needing the owner's permission. The government must pay
compensation, but the amount might not always reflect the market value of the land. This idea
comes from American law.
For example, imagine Manish owns land in Madras. The government could take his land for a
project, paying him less than what he could have gotten if he had sold it on the open market.
Key Court Cases Related to Property Rights
1. Maharao Sahib Sri Bhim Singhji v. Union of India
The government tried to take vacant urban land for public purposes. The court ruled
that not all urban land could be used this way without legal justification.
2. Ambika Mishra v. State of U.P.
The state of Uttar Pradesh limited how much land an individual could own. The law
allowed only males to own land, ignoring the rights of unmarried women and wives of
landowners. The court upheld the law's validity.
Article 31A: Protecting Laws on Land Acquisition
Article 31A was added to the Constitution to protect laws that allowed the government to take
over large estates and redistribute land to the poor, especially during the time when zamindars
(landlords) owned vast amounts of land, and peasants were suffering. It was introduced
through the 1st Amendment in 1951. Article 31A ensures that laws aimed at land reform can't
be easily challenged in court.
Article 31B: Protecting Certain Laws from Legal Challenges
Article 31B was created to protect certain laws from being declared invalid because they might
violate fundamental rights. Laws placed in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution are shielded
from court challenges. Even if a law violates a person's fundamental rights, it can't be easily
overturned if it’s in this Ninth Schedule.
For example, if there is a law called XYZ that violates fundamental rights but later gets added to
the Ninth Schedule, it will be protected from being challenged in court.
Article 31C: Protecting Laws Related to Directive Principles
Article 31C was introduced in 1971 through the 25th Amendment. It aimed to prioritize the
government's efforts to implement certain Directive Principles of State Policy, particularly those
aimed at social and economic justice (like fair distribution of wealth), even if it meant overriding
some fundamental rights like the right to equality (Article 14) or the right to property (Article
19).
However, if the president approves a law under Article 31C, and it violates fundamental rights
like equality, citizens have no legal way to challenge it.
Key Cases Related to Article 31C
 1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
This landmark case established the "basic structure" doctrine. It ruled that while the
Constitution can be amended, changes cannot destroy its basic structure, such as
fundamental rights. This decision limited the power of the government to amend the
Constitution in ways that could harm fundamental rights.
2. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India
The court struck down a part of Article 31C that gave Directive Principles more power
than fundamental rights. The judgment emphasized that both should be balanced, and
fundamental rights should not be compromised.
3. Sanjeev Coke Mfg. Co v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.
The court ruled that fundamental rights and Directive Principles should work together. It
stated that Article 31C, as it was originally written, undermined fundamental rights and
was, therefore, unconstitutional.
Ninth Schedule and Judicial Review
The Ninth Schedule was used to protect certain laws from being challenged in court. However,
after the case IR Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, the court ruled that even laws in the Ninth
Schedule must follow the basic structure of the Constitution. If a law violates fundamental
rights, it can still be reviewed by the court.
Conclusion
The right to property was once a fundamental right in India but has now been reduced to a
legal right. While the government can still take private property, the process and compensation
rules have changed. The Constitution has evolved through various amendments and court cases
to ensure a balance between protecting fundamental rights and implementing policies aimed at
social justice.

Article 13: Simplified Explanation

Abstract (Summary)
Article 13 of the Indian Constitution is a part of the Fundamental Rights section. It ensures that
all laws (old or new) are consistent with the Constitution. If any law violates fundamental rights,
Article 13 allows the judiciary (courts) to declare those laws invalid. This article emphasizes the
power of judicial review and ensures that citizens' rights are protected.

Introduction
The Indian Constitution is often called a "bag of borrowings" because it took ideas from many
other constitutions. One of the key ideas borrowed from the U.S. Constitution was
Fundamental Rights—rights that are essential for every person to live with dignity.
To protect these rights, two key articles were introduced:
 Article 12 defines what "State" includes (e.g., government, public authorities).
 Article 13 ensures that laws that go against fundamental rights are declared invalid.
This article is important because it guarantees that laws, whether made before or after the
Constitution came into effect, must not violate fundamental rights.

Laws Inconsistent with Fundamental Rights

Article 13 has two main points:
1. Article 13(1): Laws made before the Constitution that go against fundamental rights will
be considered void (invalid) to the extent that they violate those rights.
2. Article 13(2): Any law made after the Constitution that violates fundamental rights will
also be void.
This means that if a law interferes with your fundamental rights, it cannot stand.

Key Doctrines Under Article 13

1. Doctrine of Severability
If only a part of a law violates fundamental rights, the rest of the law remains valid. Only the
bad part is struck down. This applies to both pre- and post-Constitution laws.
Example:
In the case A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, a specific section of the Preventive Detention Act
was declared unconstitutional because it violated fundamental rights. However, the rest of the
Act continued to be valid.
2. Doctrine of Eclipse
If a law violates fundamental rights, it does not become completely void; it is just hidden (or
"eclipsed") by those rights. However, it can be revived if the Constitution is amended to remove
the conflict.
Example:
In Deep Chand v. State of U.P., the court explained that only laws made before the Constitution
can be revived, not laws made after.
3. Doctrine of Waiver
This doctrine says that individuals can waive (give up) their rights if they choose to. However, in
the case of fundamental rights, you cannot give them up, as they are for public benefit.
Example:
In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, pavement dwellers agreed to allow the
demolition of their huts but later claimed their fundamental right to life under Article 21. The
Supreme Court ruled that no one can give up their fundamental rights, even voluntarily.

Judicial Interpretation of Article 13

A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
This case challenged the Preventive Detention Act for violating personal liberty. The court ruled
that the Constitution did not provide a safeguard against laws that breach natural justice
(fairness).
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla
This case showed the misuse of the Preventive Detention Act. It led to changes in the
Constitution, making sure that Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended even during
emergencies.

Future Laws and Amendments

There was confusion about whether amendments to the Constitution (made by Parliament
under Article 368) could also be struck down under Article 13. The 24th Amendment clarified
that Article 13 only applies to legislative laws (ordinary laws) and not to constitutional
amendments.

Conclusion
Article 13 plays a critical role in ensuring that laws respect fundamental rights. Over time, many
improvements have been made, such as stronger protections for personal liberty after cases
like ADM Jabalpur. However, there is still a need for reforms, such as ensuring rights are not
only protected against the state but also against private individuals. Judicial review, allowed
under Article 13, is a powerful tool to check the constitutionality of laws and protect citizens'
rights.
In short, Article 13 acts as a safeguard for your fundamental rights, ensuring that any law,
whether old or new, cannot violate them. If a law does violate these rights, the courts have the
power to declare it invalid.

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution ensures equality before the law and equal protection of
the laws for every individual in India. It aims to prevent discrimination and protect everyone,
no matter their background, status, religion, or caste, ensuring that everyone is treated fairly
and equally by the law.
Simplified Explanation
1. Equality Before the Law: This means that every individual, regardless of who they are,
must be treated the same under the law. No one, not even the rich or powerful, is
above the law. For example, if two people commit the same crime, they should both
face the same legal consequences, no matter their status.
2. Equal Protection of the Laws: This ensures that similar cases or situations are treated in
the same way. For instance, if two people are in similar circumstances, like applying for
the same job, they should both be given equal opportunities without discrimination.
Significance of Article 14
 Prevents Discrimination: It makes sure that the government or any other authority
cannot make laws or take actions that unfairly discriminate against people.
 Guarantees Justice: It gives everyone the right to seek justice, ensuring that courts and
the legal system are open and fair to all, regardless of socio-economic status.
 Prevents Arbitrariness: Article 14 also protects against unfair or random decisions by
the government. It ensures that any law or action taken by the government must be
reasonable and just.
Exceptions to Article 14
While Article 14 promotes equality, it also recognizes that there are practical situations where
some groups may need to be treated differently:
 Public Officials vs. Private Citizens: For example, police officers have powers that
regular citizens do not, like making arrests, which is necessary for maintaining order.
 Special Rules for Specific Professions: Certain professions like doctors, lawyers, or
military personnel have specific rules and standards they must follow, which differ from
ordinary citizens.
  Discretionary Powers of Executives: Government officials, like ministers, sometimes
have powers to make decisions based on their judgment for effective administration.
Judicial Rulings and Key Cases
The Supreme Court has made several important decisions based on Article 14 to uphold
fairness and prevent discrimination:
 Maneka Gandhi Case (1978): This case expanded Article 14 to ensure that any law
restricting personal liberty must be fair and not arbitrary.
 Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): This case established that the core principles of the
Constitution, like equality, cannot be changed, even by Parliament.
 NALSA vs. Union of India (2014): The Supreme Court ruled that transgender people
have the right to be treated equally under Article 14.
 Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India (2018): This case decriminalized homosexuality by
ruling that discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals violated Article 14.
Conclusion
Article 14 is essential to ensuring that India remains a country where everyone is treated
equally under the law. It helps protect against unfair treatment, discrimination, and injustice. As
India grows and changes, Article 14 will continue to play a crucial role in promoting fairness and
equality for all.

Article 19 of the Indian Constitution is a key part of the fundamental rights given to citizens. It
ensures certain personal freedoms but also allows the government to put reasonable limits on
these freedoms to protect the country's interests. Here's a simplified explanation:
What does Article 19 offer?
It gives Indian citizens six main freedoms:
1. Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19(1)(a)): You can express your opinions
freely through speech, writing, or any other form of communication.
2. Freedom of Assembly (Article 19(1)(b)): You can gather peacefully with other people
(without weapons).
3. Freedom of Association (Article 19(1)(c)): You can form groups, unions, or cooperative
societies.
4. Freedom of Movement (Article 19(1)(d)): You can move freely throughout India without
restrictions.
 5. Freedom to Reside and Settle (Article 19(1)(e)): You can live and settle in any part of
India.
6. Freedom of Profession, Occupation, Trade, or Business (Article 19(1)(g)): You can
choose any job, profession, trade, or business you want.
What are the restrictions on these freedoms?
While Article 19 guarantees these rights, the government can impose restrictions when needed.
These restrictions are called reasonable restrictions, which means they are allowed if they
protect things like:
 National security
 Friendly relations with other countries
 Public order and safety
 Decency and morality
 Court orders (like in contempt of court cases)
 Defamation (when someone's reputation is damaged)
 Incitement to crime or violence
 Integrity and sovereignty of India (protecting the country's unity and security)
For example, freedom of speech cannot be used to incite violence or spread hatred. Similarly,
peaceful assembly cannot disrupt public order.
Notable cases related to Article 19
The judiciary has played a key role in interpreting Article 19. Here are some important rulings:
1. Brij Bhushan vs State of Delhi (1950): The Supreme Court ruled that the government
cannot censor media unless absolutely necessary for public safety. It struck down a pre-
censorship law on media content.
2. Indian Express vs Union of India (1985): The Court said that a free press is essential for
democracy, supporting the freedom of the media.
3. Naveen Jindal vs Union of India (2004): The Court ruled that flying the National Flag is a
fundamental right under freedom of expression.
4. Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015): The Court struck down a section of the IT Act
that allowed the government to arrest people for posting offensive content online,
stating it violated free speech rights.
 5. Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India (2020): The Court held that the right to access the
internet is part of the freedom of speech.
Conclusion
Article 19 is crucial for protecting personal freedoms, like speech and movement, which are
vital for democracy. However, these freedoms come with certain limitations to ensure public
safety and social order. Courts have helped maintain a balance between individual rights and
the greater good of society.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is a crucial part of the fundamental rights granted to
citizens. It primarily focuses on the right to life and personal liberty, stating that no one can be
deprived of these rights unless the law allows it. Here’s a simplified breakdown of its key
aspects:
What does Article 21 state?
 Right to Life and Personal Liberty: Article 21 says that everyone has the right to live and
to be free. This means you cannot be taken away from your life or freedom without a
proper legal process.
How has the interpretation of Article 21 changed over time?
Initially, Article 21 was understood narrowly, meaning it only protected people from physical
harm or death. Over time, the Indian judiciary has broadened this interpretation to include
various rights that are essential for living a dignified life. Now, it covers:
 Right to Privacy: You have the right to keep your personal life private and not be
subjected to unwanted intrusion.
 Right to Dignity: Everyone deserves to live with dignity, which means being treated with
respect.
 Protection against Arbitrary Detention: You cannot be arrested or detained without
proper legal reasons.
Key Judicial Pronouncements on Article 21
The Indian judiciary has played a significant role in interpreting Article 21 through various
landmark cases:
1. ADM Jabalpur vs ShivKant Shukla (1976): The Supreme Court took a narrow view of
Article 21 during an emergency, which drew criticism for limiting personal freedoms.
 2. Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (1978): The Court expanded Article 21 significantly by
ruling that any law that deprives someone of life or liberty must be just, fair, and
reasonable.
3. Kharak Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh (1962) & K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India
(2018): These cases established that privacy is part of personal liberty. The latter case
recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right.
4. People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs Union of India (1997): The Court ruled that
telephone tapping violates privacy, thus infringing on Article 21 unless it follows fair
legal procedures.
5. Joginder Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh (1994) & D.K. Basu vs State of West Bengal
(1996): These cases laid down guidelines to prevent unlawful detention and torture,
ensuring protections under Article 21.
6. Vishakha vs State of Rajasthan (1997): The Court set guidelines to prevent sexual
harassment, recognizing it as a violation of personal liberty and dignity.
7. Chameli Singh vs State of U.P. (1995): The Court included the right to shelter under
Article 21, linking it to the right to live with dignity.
8. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987): The Court stated that living in a pollution-free
environment is part of the right to life under Article 21.
9. M.H. Hoskot vs State of Maharashtra (1978) & Hussainara Khatoon vs Home Secretary,
State of Bihar (1979): These cases highlighted the right to free legal aid and the right to
a speedy trial as essential components of fair procedure under Article 21.
10. Shafin Jahan vs Ashokan K.M. (2018): The Court ruled that choosing whom to marry is
part of personal liberty under Article 21.
Conclusion
Article 21 is vital for protecting life and personal freedom in India. Over the years, the judiciary
has expanded its interpretation to include various rights, such as privacy, dignity, shelter, and
protection against wrongful detention. This ensures that citizens can lead meaningful and
dignified lives.

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is a crucial provision that allows individuals to seek justice
if their fundamental rights are violated. Here's a simplified overview of Article 32, its
significance, and how it works:
What is Article 32?
  Right to Approach the Supreme Court: Article 32 gives every citizen the right to directly
approach the Supreme Court if they believe their fundamental rights (as outlined in Part
III of the Constitution) have been violated. This means you can file a petition in the
Supreme Court without needing to go through lower courts first.
Why is Article 32 Important?
 Protection of Fundamental Rights: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar called Article 32 the "heart and
soul of the Constitution." It provides a guaranteed and effective way for individuals to
protect their rights and seek remedies when those rights are threatened.
Key Provisions of Article 32
1. Article 32(1): Guarantees every citizen the right to approach the Supreme Court to
enforce their fundamental rights. If your rights are violated, you can file a petition
directly in the Supreme Court.
2. Article 32(2): Allows the Supreme Court to issue different types of writs (legal orders) to
enforce fundamental rights. The main types of writs are:
o Habeas Corpus: Used to secure the release of someone who has been unlawfully
detained. It means "you may have the body" and helps check illegal detentions.
o Mandamus: This means "we command." It's issued to direct a lower court or
public official to perform a duty they are legally required to do.
o Prohibition: This prevents lower courts from exceeding their jurisdiction or
acting unlawfully.
o Quo Warranto: This challenges the authority of a person holding a public office,
asking by what authority they claim that position.
o Certiorari: This quashes (cancels) a lower court's order if that court acted beyond
its jurisdiction.
3. Article 32(3): Gives Parliament the power to allow other courts (besides the Supreme
Court) to issue writs for protecting fundamental rights.
4. Article 32(4): States that the right to approach the Supreme Court can be suspended
only during a state of emergency.
Types of Writs Explained
 Habeas Corpus: This writ protects individuals from unlawful detention. If someone is
held without lawful justification, the court can order their release.
 Quo Warranto: It checks whether a person is legally entitled to hold a public office. It
ensures that no one occupies a public position without proper authority.
  Mandamus: This writ compels a public authority or official to perform a specific duty
that they are required to do by law. However, it cannot be issued against the President
or the Governor.
 Certiorari: It is used to correct an error made by a lower court. If a lower court acts
outside its authority or fails to follow proper procedures, the Supreme Court can cancel
its order.
 Prohibition: This writ prevents a lower court from acting beyond its legal power. It acts
as a check against unlawful proceedings.
Judicial Pronouncements on Article 32
The Indian judiciary has interpreted and enforced Article 32 through several important cases:
1. ADM Jabalpur vs ShivKant Shukla (1976): Known as the "Habeas Corpus Case," the
Supreme Court upheld the suspension of this writ during the Emergency, which faced
criticism.
2. Sheela Barse vs State of Maharashtra (1983): The Court ruled that someone could file a
writ petition on behalf of a detained person, expanding the rights to approach the
Supreme Court.
3. Nilabati Behera vs State of Orissa (1993): The Supreme Court awarded compensation
for a custodial death, reinforcing the use of habeas corpus to protect against state
abuse.
4. G.D. Karkare vs T.L. Shevde (1952): The Court ruled that the writ of quo warranto
focuses on the legality of holding office, not the applicant's rights.
5. S.P. Gupta vs Union of India (1982): The Court stated that writs of mandamus cannot be
issued against the President for judicial appointments.
6. Surya Dev Rai vs Ram Chander Rai & Ors. (2003): The Supreme Court clarified that writs
of certiorari can only be issued against inferior courts, not against courts of equal or
higher rank.
7. East India Commercial Co. Ltd vs Collector of Customs (1962): The Court granted a writ
of prohibition to stop an inferior tribunal from acting beyond its authority.
Conclusion
Article 32 is essential for protecting individual rights in India. It allows citizens to seek legal
remedies for violations of their fundamental rights through various writs. The judiciary has
played a significant role in interpreting this article, ensuring that it serves as an effective tool for
upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution.
What is Reservation?
 Reservation is a system in India that provides certain groups of people with special
opportunities in jobs, education, and political representation.
 It aims to help those who have faced historical injustices because of their caste identity,
ensuring they get fair access to resources and opportunities.
Historical Background
 The idea of reservation started in the 1880s with thinkers like William Hunter and
Jyotirao Phule.
 It became official in 1933 when the British introduced the Communal Award, which
created separate electorates for various communities, including Dalits (previously
known as untouchables).
 After India gained independence, reservations were initially only for Scheduled Castes
(SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). In 1991, Other Backward Classes (OBCs) were also
included in the reservation system.
Mandal Commission
 Formed in 1978, the Mandal Commission aimed to identify socially and educationally
backward classes.
 It found that around 52% of India’s population belonged to OBCs, recommending that
27% of government jobs be reserved for them.
 The commission also identified backward classes among non-Hindus and created lists of
eligible castes.
Constitutional Provisions
 The Indian Constitution includes specific articles that govern reservations for SCs, STs,
and OBCs in jobs and political representation.
 Key articles include:
o Article 15(4): Allows states to make special provisions for SCs and STs.
o Article 16(4): Allows reservations in government jobs for backward classes.
o Article 330 & 332: Ensures representation for SCs and STs in Parliament and
State Assemblies.
Judicial Scrutiny
  The Supreme Court has played a significant role in interpreting reservation laws, ruling
that:
o The total reservation should not exceed 50%.
o There should be no reservations in promotions for backward classes.
o A “creamy layer” (more advantaged individuals within a community) should be
excluded from reservation benefits.
Need for Reservation
 Historical Injustice: To correct past wrongs faced by backward classes.
 Level Playing Field: To ensure everyone has equal opportunities, especially those
without access to resources.
 Adequate Representation: To ensure backward classes are adequately represented in
government and public services.
Arguments Against Reservation
 Some argue that reservations create divisions and can lead to workplace conflicts.
 Critics say that reservations reinforce caste distinctions rather than eliminating them.
 Others believe that the system can harm meritocracy by favoring backwardness over
talent.
Increasing Demands for Reservation
 Many people from various backgrounds, including upper castes, are demanding
reservations due to job competition and economic challenges.
 In some states, despite economic growth, there are issues like agrarian distress and
stagnation in job growth, leading to calls for more reservation.
Suggestions for Improvement
 Reservations should focus on truly underprivileged individuals rather than benefiting
those from privileged backgrounds within reserved categories.
 Better education and awareness about reservation benefits are necessary.
 A fairer system should be established to help the economically deprived from all
communities.
Way Forward
 Reservation should support the underprivileged without causing harm to others.
  The goal should be to encourage merit while also providing opportunities for those in
need.
 A balanced approach is necessary to ensure justice for backward classes while
maintaining efficiency in the system.
This system aims to promote equality and uplift marginalized communities, but it also requires
careful management to avoid potential issues related to social divisions and merit.

What is Article 12?

Definition of "State": Article 12 defines what is meant by "State" in the context of fundamental
rights (Part III of the Constitution). It explains that the "State" includes:
1. Government of India and Parliament: This covers the central government and its
legislative body.
2. State Governments and Legislatures: This includes the governments and legislative
bodies of each individual state.
3. Local Authorities: This means local government bodies, such as municipalities and
panchayats.
4. Other Authorities: This refers to any other entities that perform governmental
functions, whether they are located in India or controlled by the Indian government
from outside.
Why is Article 12 Important?
1. Protects Fundamental Rights: It ensures that all these entities are accountable to
uphold the fundamental rights of citizens. If someone feels their rights are violated, they
can seek legal remedies against these entities.
2. Ensures Accountability: By including various bodies in the definition of "State," it
promotes transparency and accountability in governance. All actions of these entities
can be challenged in court, preventing abuse of power.
3. Strengthens the Rule of Law: It reinforces that no entity is above the law. Everyone
must operate within the legal framework, promoting fairness and justice.
4. Facilitates Good Governance: It encourages public authorities to follow ethical
standards and constitutional principles, leading to responsible governance.
5. Supports Constitutional Supremacy: It emphasizes that all actions of the State must
align with the Constitution, which is the highest law in India.
Judicial Interpretations of Article 12
Several court cases have clarified the definition and application of Article 12:
 Ujjam Bai vs. State of U.P. (1961): The court ruled that "other authorities" should not
be interpreted narrowly but can include a wide range of entities.
 Rajasthan Electricity Board vs. Mohan Lal (1967): The court recognized the Rajasthan
Electricity Board as an "other authority" under Article 12.
 Zee Telefilms vs. Union of India (2005): The BCCI was found not to be a "State" because
it did not operate as a government body.
Does the Judiciary Fall Under Article 12?
Article 12 does not clearly state that the judiciary (like the Supreme Court and High Courts) is
included as a "State." The general understanding is:
 Judicial Functions: When judges are performing their official duties, they are not
considered part of the "State."
 Administrative Functions: However, in administrative roles, the judiciary can be
considered a part of the "State."
Conclusion
Article 12 is crucial for protecting citizens' fundamental rights in India. It ensures that various
governmental and quasi-governmental entities are accountable, promotes good governance,
and reinforces the rule of law. As India's governance evolves, the interpretation of Article 12
will continue to adapt to new challenges and contexts.