Article 12 and 13

 Article 12 and 13

https://blog.ipleaders.in/article-12-and-13-of-constitution-of-india/

Vedio:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvbcJ7SkG8w&list=PL7rJxqbj4SyJzx2BZ75iM29J3PoVOtOTk&index=1

Landmark cases relating to Fundamental Rights

 Landmark cases relating to Fundamental Rights

A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)

In this case, A.K. Gopalan filed a petition under Article 32 thereby invoking the writ of habeas corpus against his detention. Later, he was prohibited from disclosing the grounds based on which he was detained since Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 prohibited such disclosure in the court. As a result, he claimed that such detention violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution and further the provisions of the Act violate Article 22 of the Constitution.

This case led to the landmark judgement of the Supreme Court of India wherein the Hon’ble Court held that Article 21 of the Constitution shall not require the Indian courts to apply the due process of the standard of law. Further, the Hon’ble Court upheld the validity of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 except for Section 14, which provided that the reasons for detention given to the detainee or any representation made by him against such reasons shall not be disclosed in a court.

Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1952)

In this case, the Constitutional validity of the first Amendment of 1951, which curtailed the right to property, was challenged. In this case, it was challenged that the amendments that curb the fundamental right of the citizens are not allowed by Article 13 regarding Article 31A and 31B. It was held by the Supreme Court that the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 also includes the power to amend fundamental rights.

Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967)

In this case, Golak Nath and his family claimed an excess of 500 sections of land in Punjab. Meanwhile, the state government made an enactment namely, Punjab Securities and Land Tenures Act, 1950 by virtue of which Golak Nath and his family were only allowed to keep an excess of 30 sections of land and not more than that. As a result, Golak Nath filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution questioning the legitimacy of the enactment and further stating that his fundamental right to property was being violated. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the Parliament had the ability to revise the Fundamental Rights mentioned under Part III of the Constitution of India or not. The Court ruled that Parliament does not have the power to curtail any of the Fundamental Rights in the Constitution.

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

In this case, the aforementioned Golaknath case was reviewed. It was held by the Court that the “basic structure” of the Constitution cannot be amended. The Supreme Court through its 7:6 judgement had ruled that the Parliament has no powers or the authority to alter the basic structure of the constitution.

Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)

This case dealt with election disputes involving the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi along with the Purpose of the 39th Amendment of the Constitution. The primary question involved in the case was of the validity of clause (4) of the 39th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1975. The Supreme Court, in this case, added certain features as ‘Basic Features’ to the already existing list of basic features laid down in the Kesavananda Bharati case, such as the rule of law, democracy and judicial review.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

In this case, Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded in ‘public interest’. The Government refused to provide any details in the interests of the general public when the reasons for impounding her passport were asked. As a result, Maneka Gandhi filed a writ petition under Article 32 stating that the action of the Government violated Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The Government responded by stating that her passport was impounded because her presence was likely to be required regarding certain legal proceedings before a ‘Commission of Inquiry’. The Supreme Court held that a ‘procedure’ under Article 21 of the Constitution must be free from arbitrary, unfair, oppressive, or unreasonable aspects. 

Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union Of India and Ors. (1980)

In this case, the Supreme Court provided certain clarifications on the interpretation of the basic structure doctrine. The Court held that the power of the Parliament is limited in amending the Constitution. Therefore, the parliament cannot exercise such limited power to grant itself an unlimited authority of amending the Constitution. Thus, the Parliament cannot take away the Fundamental Rights of individuals. The judgement in this case also struck down Clause 4 and 5 of the Forty-second Amendment Act, 1976 enacted during the Emergency imposed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.

Amendability of Fundamental Rights

 Amendability of Fundamental Rights

The Supreme Court in the case of Kesavananda Bharati, (1974) that the Parliament can amend any part of the constitution including all the fundamental rights subject to the ‘Doctrine of Basic Structure’ of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has neither specifically defined as to what entails the basic structure nor did it mention any exhaustive list regarding the contents of the basic structure of the Constitution. The Apex Court however stated that only additions can be made to the basic structure and no deletions will be allowed to be made. The Supreme Court in a catena of judgements has held that the following provisions are a part of the basic structure of the Constitution –

• Sovereignty of India
• Democracy
• Secularism
• Republic
• Free and fair elections
• Judicial review, etc.

Doctrine of severability

The doctrine of severability is also known as the “Doctrine of Separability”. It protects our Fundamental Rights since it is enshrined in Article 13(1) of the Constitution stating that all the laws implemented in India before the initiation of the Constitution shall continue to be in force, however, the extent to which they are in conflict with the fundamental rights will to the degree of such irregularity be void. In simple terms, the entire law would not be held invalid or void, only the part of the law which is inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights shall be held void or invalid.  

Doctrine of eclipse

The doctrine of eclipse is applied when one provision of the law dominantly overshadows the other provision and as the name suggests this doctrine is employed when a law or an act disregards or is inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights. In the case of this doctrine, Fundamental Rights eclipse the law or act that is inconsistent, thereby making it unenforceable, yet not void ab initio. Such a law or act can be implemented once again if the limitations established by the Fundamental Rights are eliminated.

Salient features of Fundamental Rights

 Salient features of Fundamental Rights

• The Indian Constitution guarantees and protects fundamental rights.
• The Parliament has the power and authority to restrict the fundamental rights on reasonable grounds, however, such restrictions can only be made for a fixed period of time. The grounds based on which the fundamental rights are restricted by the parliament will be reviewed by the judiciary for reasonability. Therefore, fundamental rights are neither absolute nor sacrosanct.
• Fundamental Rights can be suspended in the case of national emergencies however, the rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 will still be applicable. In the case of military rule, fundamental rights can be restricted in any area within the Indian territory.
• The Constitution of India enables an individual to move directly to the Supreme Court of India for the enforcement of their fundamental right in case they are violated or restricted. The fundamental rights are thus justiciable.

The fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution of India have certain features that establish their uniqueness, these are:

1. Some of the Fundamental rights are available only to the citizens of India while some are available to everyone such as Indian citizens, foreign citizens, or even companies and corporations.
2. The state can impose reasonable restrictions on these rights, thus making them qualified and not absolute.
3. These fundamental rights are defended and guaranteed by the Supreme Court of India, hence the aggrieved party can directly move to the Supreme Court on the infringement of these rights.
4. These rights can be suspended during the operation of a National Emergency except the rights defined under Article 20 and 21.
5. The application of these rights can be restricted when a military rule is imposed under abnormal circumstances to restore order (Article 34) and is very different from the imposition of a national emergency.
6. The application of these rights can be restricted or abrogated by the parliament (Article 33), rights of armed forces, police forces, intelligence agencies, etc. can be restricted by this Article.

Vedios:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujCjYs0QHDI&list=PL7rJxqbj4SyJzx2BZ75iM29J3PoVOtOTk&index=2

Introduction and Importance

 Introduction and Importance

• Fundamental rights are enshrined under part III of the Indian Constitution which was adopted on 26th November 1949 but was put on use on 26th January 1950. 
• These Fundamental rights guarantee that every citizen of this nation can live a life of peace and harmony throughout the territory of India and these rights were included in the constitution because they were considered to be essential for the development of each and every individual. 
• People of all races, religion, caste, or sex, have been given the right to move to the Supreme Court or the High Court for the enforcement of these rights. 
• These Fundamental rights are Divided into seven categories which are covered from Article 12 till Article 35 of the Indian Constitution.
• The Fundamental rights are considered to be an important part, if not, the most important part of the Constitution of India.
• These rights have originated from France’s Declaration of Bill of Rights of Man, England’s Bill of Rights, Development of the Irish Constitution, as well as, United States of America’s Bill of Rights.

Originally the constitution provided for seven Fundamental rights,

1. Right to Equality (Article 14 to 18),
2. Right to Freedom (Article 19 to 22),
3. Right against exploitation ( Article 23 and 24),
4. Right to freedom of religion (Article 25 to 28),
5. Cultural and Educational rights (Article 29 to 30),
6. Right to property (Article 31),
7. Right to Constitutional remedies (Article 32).

But later on, the right to property was removed from the list of fundamental rights by the 44th Amendment Act of 1978. So now there are only six fundamental rights in the Constitution of India.

Home