Fundamental Rights

Posted on by user

Introduction

Fundamental Rights occupy the central place in India’s constitutional order. Enshrined in Part III (Articles 12–35) of the Constitution, they are the primary guarantors of individual dignity, equality, liberty and justice against arbitrary State action. For practitioners, Fundamental Rights are not abstract ideals but sharply effective tools—vehicles for immediate relief, systemic reform and claim for compensation. Mastery of their text, doctrinal evolution and remedial architecture is indispensable for litigators, tribunals and advisory lawyers across public law, criminal, administrative and service practice.

Core Legal Framework

  • Constitutional source: Part III, Constitution of India — Articles 12 to 35.
  • Article 12: Definition of “State” — “the State” includes the Government and Parliament of India, 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.
  • Article 14: Equality before law and equal protection of laws.
  • Article 15: Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth.
  • Article 16: Equality of opportunity in public employment.
  • Article 17: Abolition of untouchability.
  • Article 19(1): Six freedoms (speech and expression; assembly; association; movement; residence; profession).
  • Articles 20–22: Criminal law protections (retroactivity, double jeopardy, self-incrimination; rights on arrest and detention).
  • Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty — “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
  • Articles 23–24: Prohibition of trafficking, forced labour, and child labour.
  • Articles 25–28: Freedom of conscience and religion.
  • Articles 29–30: Cultural and educational rights of minorities.
  • Article 32: Right to constitutional remedies — “the right to move the Supreme Court… for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part.”

  • Article 13: Laws inconsistent with Part III are void.

  • Remedies:

  • Article 32 — Supreme Court writ jurisdiction.
  • Article 226 — High Courts’ writ jurisdiction (not part of Part III but the principal remedy used in practice).
  • Article 142, 141 — enforcement and interpretation of Constitutional remedies and precedents.
  • Statutory overlay: Code of Criminal Procedure (for certain arrest/detention procedures), Evidence Act (proof standards), Service jurisprudence (Service Rules read with Articles 14/16/21), and administrative law principles inform procedural compliance.

Practical Application and Nuances

How Fundamental Rights function in everyday litigation and administration—concrete practice points.

  1. State action (Article 12) — threshold enquiry
  2. Always plead and prove that the impugned action is ‘State’ action (Article 12). Against private parties, claim is maintainable only if the private body is “instrumentality or agency” of the State (Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, (1981) 1 SCC 722). Ask: funding, statutory duty, government control, and public function.

  3. Practical tip: plead facts showing statutory origin, government control, common purpose — procure GO/contract/appointment letters to prove nexus.

  4. Selecting the right right and remedy

  5. Article 21 is porous and attracts many claims (custodial abuse, environmental degradation, livelihood, health). But misuse is common; map the grievance to the most specific right (e.g., service denial → Article 16/14 plus Article 21 where due process breached).

  6. Remedies: prefer Article 226 for speed and territorial efficiency; use Article 32 in matters of national importance or when High Court remedy is inadequate or exhausted.

  7. Framing reliefs — declaration plus consequential reliefs

  8. Typical prayer pattern: (a) declaration of violation, (b) quashing of action, (c) mandatory/executory directions (mandamus), (d) compensation (constitutional tort), (e) guidelines for systemic reform.

  9. Evidence: administrative records, orders, affidavits, service registers, medical/legal reports, police diaries/FIRs; custodial cases require D.K. Basu (1997) compliances to show breaches.

  10. Interim reliefs and urgency

  11. Habeas corpus: point out custody, produced persons, detention record, inform courts of habeas specifics (where held, by whom). Courts routinely grant immediate production and release if detention is mala fide.

  12. Interim orders in service and electoral matters: show prima facie violation and balance of convenience; always seek protective interim relief (status quo) while challenging substantive legality.

  13. Proof standards and relief of damages

  14. Constitutional claims are often fact-driven; establish malafide, arbitrariness or procedural deficiency. For custodial deaths/abuse, factual proof through medical records, eyewitness affidavits, police logs, post-mortem reports.

  15. Compensation: Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) permitted compensation for custodial death as a remedy for Article 21 breach; courts award restitutive and punitive damages, and direct departmental/prosecutional action.

  16. Limitations and reasonable restrictions

  17. Article 19 freedoms can be restricted by law for specified grounds; plead both the statutory basis and test reasonableness. The courts apply proportionality/necessity and nexus tests (Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) — fairness and reasonableness integral to Article 21).

  18. For Article 14, challenge unreasonable classification or arbitrariness: show absence of intelligible differentia or absence of nexus to objective (State of West Bengal cases; E. P. Royappa on arbitrariness).

  19. PIL and locus standi

  20. Public Interest Litigation expanded access but is constrained by the Supreme Court’s standards on locus, bonafides and maintainability. Avoid vague or publicity-driven claims; demonstrate public interest injury and identify victims or systemic failure.

Concrete examples of day-to-day usage
– Arrest without warrant: invoke Article 21 and Article 22, seek immediate production via habeas corpus; rely on D.K. Basu directions if custody conditions suspect.
– Termination of public servant: challenge on Article 14/16 for discrimination and Article 21 for violation of statutory or reasonable procedure; seek interim reinstatement and quashment.
– Denial of minority institution rights: invoke Article 29–30 and seek injunctive relief to prevent state interference.
– Environmental crisis (pollution affecting livelihood): invoke Article 21 (right to life with dignity), seek interim mitigation, closure of polluting units and compensation for affected persons.

Landmark Judgments

  • Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225
  • Principle: Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is subject to the ‘basic structure’ doctrine. Fundamental Rights constitute part of the basic structure that cannot be abrogated.

  • Practice: When confronting constitutional amendments or laws that seek to nullify Part III protections, litigate on “basic structure” grounds.

  • Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248

  • Principle: Article 21 is not restricted to ‘procedure established by law’ in the narrow Kable sense; the procedure must be just, fair and reasonable. Interrelation among Articles 14, 19 and 21 was cemented.

  • Practice: Use Maneka to argue that mere legislative sanction is insufficient—enactment must satisfy substantive and procedural fairness.

  • K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Privacy judgment), (2017) 10 SCC 1

  • Principle: Right to privacy is a facet of Article 21 and an independent right. It also influences digital data protection and surveillance litigation.

  • Practice: Privacy claims in data/biometric/Aadhaar contexts rely on Puttaswamy’s tripartite test (legality, necessity and proportionality).

  • Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, (1981) 1 SCC 722

  • Principle: Test for determining whether an entity is a ‘State’ under Article 12 — control, finances, statutory framework, public function.

  • Practice: Use Ajay Hasia to bring erstwhile private/nominally autonomous bodies within Article 12 for claiming remedies.

  • Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746

  • Principle: State is liable to pay compensation for custodial deaths; constitutional tort recognized.

  • Practice: In custodial death cases invoke Nilabati to claim damages alongside criminal/prosecutorial measures.

  • D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416

  • Principle: Guidelines laid down for arrest and detention to prevent custodial torture and deaths.
  • Practice: Cite D.K. Basu checklist (compliance by police) both to establish breach and to seek immediate setting right.

Strategic Considerations for Practitioners

  1. Plead State action early and precisely

  2. Many claims fail for want of a clear plead of Article 12 nexus. Attach documents to demonstrate control or statutory backing.

  3. Choose the right forum and timing

  4. Use Article 226 for speed and local reach; Article 32 when High Court remedy is inadequate. Be mindful of limitation and laches—constitutional courts are reluctant to entertain stale claims unless gross injustice is shown.

  5. Tailor the narrative — law plus facts

  6. Constitutional petitions must combine doctrinal citation with forensic detail: timelines, documents, names, official inaction. Avoid abstract pleadings.

  7. Seek both declaratory and consequential reliefs

  8. Ask for directions (mandamus), quashing (certiorari), injunction (prohibition), and compensation. For systemic breaches, seek supervisory directions and monitoring committees.

  9. Use interim reliefs strategically

  10. Interim reliefs preserve status quo and prevent irreparable harm. In custodial, health or pre-election cases, urgency matters — file ex parte applications where necessary.

  11. Avoid common pitfalls

  12. Don’t sue only for moral victory — state documents must back contentions.
  13. Avoid conflating private disputes with public law remedies unless State nexus is shown.

  14. Do not file frivolous PILs; courts penalize misuse and may dismiss on merits and bonafides.

  15. Leverage damages as a practical remedy

  16. Global trend: courts are comfortable awarding compensation for rights violations (Nilabati, Vishaka-related compensation). Use damages not only for restitution but to drive policy compliance.

  17. Draft effective relief clauses

  18. Be specific in relief sought: timelines, supervisory mechanisms, criteria for appointments/selection, probe committees, redressal mechanisms.

  19. Anticipate counter-arguments

  20. State will plead “reasonable restrictions”, public interest, national security, or alternative efficacious remedy. Prepare to meet proportionality and necessity tests and show inadequacy of alternatives.

Conclusion

Fundamental Rights are the litigative backbone of public law practice in India. For practitioners, success requires (1) precise identification of the right infringed, (2) clear demonstration of State action, (3) cogent factual proof and (4) selection of the appropriate constitutional remedy. Doctrinal developments—Maneka Gandhi’s due process inflection, Puttaswamy’s privacy jurisprudence, and Kesavananda’s basic structure doctrine—equip lawyers with robust arguments, but they must be marshalled with disciplined factual pleading and strategic remedial framing. In short: map the right, prove the State nexus, choose the correct forum, seek specific reliefs (including compensation), and anticipate proportionality/necessity defences — that is the practical roadmap to enforcing Fundamental Rights effectively in India.