CGDI assignment

Q) Critically evaluate the various cases in the light of fundamental rights. Do you think these rights
have power over the weaker section of society?
Ans)
Fundamental Rights, enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution, are guarantees to protect individual
liberties and equality. These rights are inspired by global documents such as the American Bill of Rights and
the French Declaration of the Rights of Man. Fundamental rights, according to the Indian Constitution, are
the bedrock of an egalitarian society, designed to protect individuals' dignity and freedom. These rights,
however, are not absolute and can be subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order,
security, or morality. The rights are meant to guarantee individual freedoms, equality, and justice, and they
apply to all citizens of India. They include:
1. Right to Equality (Articles 14-18): Ensures equality before the law and prohibits discrimination on
various grounds.
2. Right to Freedom (Articles 19-22): Guarantees freedoms like speech, movement, and protection against
arbitrary detention.
3. Right against Exploitation (Articles 23-24): Prohibits human trafficking, forced labor, and child labor.
4. Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-28): Protects religious freedom and practices.
5. Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29-30): Safeguards the rights of minorities to preserve their
culture and education.
6. Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32): Empowers citizens to approach the courts for
enforcement of their rights.
These rights are not absolute but are subject to reasonable restrictions, balancing individual freedom with
societal interests.
The original constitution had seven Fundamental Rights which also included the Right to Property as a
Fundamental Right. Since the Right to Property was considered a hindrance to the goals of attaining Land
Reforms and equitable distribution of wealth, it was repealed by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, of
1978. Now, the Right to Property is not a fundamental right but a legal right under Article 300a.
Cases in Light of Fundamental Rights
1. Champakam Dorairajan v. State of Madras (1951)
This case marked the first instance where the Indian Supreme Court struck down a state law for being
violative of fundamental rights. Champakam Dorairajan, a Brahmin woman, was denied admission to a
medical college in Tamil Nadu due to a communal Government Order that reserved seats for different
communities. Dorairajan argued that the order violated her fundamental rights under Article 15(1)
(prohibition of discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth) and Article 29(2)
(protection of cultural and educational rights).
The Supreme Court upheld her contention, ruling that fundamental rights were sacrosanct and took
precedence over the Directive Principles of State Policy. The judgment invalidated the communal
reservation policy. This decision prompted the government to introduce the First Constitutional
Amendment Act (1951), adding Article 15(4), which allowed the state to make special provisions for the
advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, thus paving the way for affirmative action.
2. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
This landmark case arose when Swami Kesavananda Bharati, the head of a mutt in Kerala, challenged
the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1969, arguing that it violated his fundamental rights, particularly Article
31 (right to property, later repealed). The case became a pivotal test of Parliament’s amending power
under Article 368.
The Supreme Court, in a historic 13-judge bench judgment, ruled that while Parliament had the power to
amend the Constitution, it could not alter its basic structure, including principles like secularism,
 federalism, and the rule of law. The judgment limited Parliament’s ability to override fundamental rights
indiscriminately and safeguarded citizens’ rights from arbitrary legislative action. The basic structure
doctrine, introduced through this case, remains a cornerstone of constitutional law in India.
3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
This case arose when Maneka Gandhi's passport was arbitrarily impounded by the government without
providing valid reasons, allegedly violating her rights under Article 21 (protection of life and personal
liberty). Gandhi contended that the action also infringed upon Articles 14 (equality before the law) and
19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression).
The Supreme Court broadened the interpretation of Article 21, ruling that "life and liberty" could not be
curtailed without "just, fair, and reasonable" legal procedures. The judgment linked Articles 14, 19, and
21, emphasizing that these rights formed an integrated triad. This decision significantly expanded the
scope of fundamental rights, ensuring procedural fairness and protecting individuals against arbitrary
state actions.
4. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980)
Minerva Mills, a textile mill in Karnataka, challenged the 42nd Amendment, which sought to give the
Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) primacy over fundamental rights. The amendment also
limited judicial review by granting Parliament unrestrained amending powers under Article 368.
The Supreme Court struck down parts of the amendment, ruling that it violated the basic structure
doctrine established in the Kesavananda Bharati case. It emphasized that the Constitution maintained a
delicate balance between fundamental rights and DPSPs, and any attempt to disrupt this balance would
undermine its essential framework. The judgment upheld the sanctity of Articles 14 (equality) and 19
(freedom of speech and expression), reaffirming the judiciary's role as the guardian of constitutional
values.
5. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
This case addressed the misuse of Article 356, which allows the President to impose President's Rule in
states. S.R. Bommai, the Chief Minister of Karnataka, challenged the dismissal of his government under
this provision, alleging political bias.
The Supreme Court established guidelines to prevent arbitrary imposition of President’s Rule. It ruled
that such actions must conform to constitutional principles and be subject to judicial review. The
judgment emphasized federalism as part of the Constitution’s basic structure and upheld Article 14
(equality) by ensuring fairness in central-state relations. This case strengthened democratic governance
and limited the central government’s power to interfere in state matters.
6. Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006)
This case arose from the dissolution of the Bihar Legislative Assembly in 2005, even before a
government could be formed. The dissolution was challenged as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court
held that the dissolution violated Article 174 (sessions of state legislatures) and Article 14 (equality).
The court ruled that the Governor’s recommendation for dissolution was arbitrary and against
democratic principles. It emphasized that constitutional procedures must be strictly followed, and
decisions by constitutional authorities should not subvert the electoral mandate. This judgment
reinforced the sanctity of democratic institutions and the rule of law.
7. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala Case) (2018)
In this case, the Supreme Court addressed the exclusion of women aged 10-50 from entering the
Sabarimala Temple, citing it as discriminatory and unconstitutional. The practice was challenged under
Articles 14 (equality), 15(1) (prohibition of discrimination based on sex), and 25(1) (freedom of
religion).
The court ruled in favour of gender equality, holding that such exclusion violated the fundamental rights
of women and could not be justified by religious practices. It emphasized that constitutional morality
must prevail over traditional customs. The judgment was a landmark in promoting gender justice and
ensuring that equality extended to religious spaces.
8. M. Siddiq (D) Through Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das and Ors (Ayodhya Case) (2019)
 The Ayodhya dispute revolved around the ownership of a disputed site claimed by both Hindus and
Muslims. The case involved balancing the rights under Article 25 (freedom of religion) and Article 14
(equality before the law).
The Supreme Court awarded the disputed land to Hindus for constructing a temple and directed the
government to allot an alternative five-acre site to Muslims for building a mosque. The judgment aimed
to uphold communal harmony while respecting constitutional principles. It reaffirmed the court’s role in
resolving sensitive disputes through a balanced and fair approach.
9. Shah Bano Case (1985)

In this case, the Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of Shah Bano, granting her maintenance under
Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code even though her husband had divorced her under Islamic
law. The case became a significant turning point in the legal rights of women and their protection under
personal law systems. The judgment was criticized by some religious groups for interfering in personal
laws, but it was widely seen as an essential step in ensuring women's rights.

This case raised questions about the protection of fundamental rights for women in the context of
personal laws. While the ruling was a victory for women’s rights, the subsequent political fallout
(leading to the introduction of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986)
showcased how vulnerable the weaker sections can be to political and social pressures, undermining
their rights.

Other Notable Cases Involving Weaker Sections

 Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)
The Court decriminalized Section 377 of the IPC, affirming the LGBTQ+ community’s right to equality
(Article 14) and dignity (Article 21).
 Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
The Court held that the right to livelihood is part of the right to life under Article 21. Eviction of
pavement dwellers without rehabilitation was deemed unconstitutional.
 Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
The Court declared the right to privacy as an intrinsic part of Article 21, extending its protection to
marginalized groups vulnerable to state surveillance and discrimination.
The Impact of Fundamental Rights on Weaker Sections
 Caste-Based Discrimination
Although Article 17 abolishes untouchability and prohibits caste-based discrimination, its prevalence
remains a harsh reality in many areas. Dalits and Adivasis continue to face exclusion in social,
economic, and political spheres. While affirmative action, including reservations in education and
employment, has brought progress, administrative inefficiencies and societal prejudices dilute its impact.
Violent incidents, such as honor killings and caste-based atrocities, highlight the gap between
constitutional guarantees and lived experiences, underscoring the need for stricter enforcement
mechanisms.
 Gender Equality
Articles 14 (equality) and 21 (life and dignity) have been pivotal in advancing women’s rights through
landmark judgments like Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan. However, issues such as dowry deaths, domestic
violence, and workplace harassment persist, revealing the limitations of legal protections in a patriarchal
society.
While the judiciary has expanded the interpretation of women’s rights, societal change remains essential
to ensuring meaningful equality for women, particularly those from marginalized communities.
 Economic Deprivation and the Right to Development
Economic inequality exacerbates the challenges faced by weaker sections. Fundamental Rights, such as
the Right to Equality (Article 14) and the Right to Education (Article 21A), are often inaccessible to
economically disadvantaged groups due to systemic poverty, poor infrastructure, and inadequate
 implementation of social welfare schemes.
For instance, while Article 21A mandates free and compulsory education, the quality of education in
government schools remains substandard, further entrenching socio-economic disparities. Poverty,
unemployment, and lack of essential services render these rights symbolic rather than transformative for
marginalized groups.

Conclusion

Fundamental Rights are indispensable for the protection of weaker sections, but systemic challenges
undermine their impact. To enhance their efficacy:

1. Strengthen Implementation: Ensure effective enforcement of judicial decisions.

2. Raise Awareness: Promote legal literacy among marginalized communities.
3. Address Socio-Economic Barriers: Implement policies that provide economic and educational
support.
4. Judicial Reforms: Expedite cases involving Fundamental Rights violations.

In conclusion, while Fundamental Rights have the potential to empower weaker sections, realizing their full
promise requires a concerted effort from the judiciary, legislature, and society