Introduction
Fundamental Rights, enshrined in Part III (Articles 12–35) of the Constitution of India, are the cornerstone of Indian democracy, guaranteeing individual liberties and protecting citizens against arbitrary state actions. Inspired by the U.S. Bill of Rights, these rights are justiciable, meaning they can be enforced through courts. They aim to ensure dignity, equality, and freedom while balancing individual rights with societal interests. Below is a detailed explanation of each article, including its scope, provisions, exceptions, and relevant case laws, structured for comprehensive understanding.

---

Overview of Fundamental Rights

---

Article	Right/Provision	Scope	Key Case Law
12	Definition of State	Defines state for Part III	R.D. Shetty (1979)
13	Laws inconsistent with rights	Judicial review	Kesavananda (1973)
14	Equality before law	Anwar Ali (1952)
15	Prohibition of discrimination	Includes reservations	Navtej Johar (2018)
16	Equality in employment	Reservations for backward classes	Indra Sawhney (1992)
17	Abolition of untouchability	Social justice	–
18	Abolition of titles	Prohibits titles except honors	Balaji (1996)
19	Six freedoms	Citizens only	Sakal Papers (1962)
20	Protection against conviction	Ex-post facto, double jeopardy	–
21	Life and liberty	Expansive interpretation	Maneka Gandhi (1978)
21A	Right to education	Children 6–14	Mohini Jain (1992)
22	Protection against arrest	Preventive detention	D.K. Basu (1997)
23	Prohibition of trafficking	Includes forced labor	PUDR (1982)
24	Prohibition of child labor	Children below 14	M.C. Mehta (1996)
25	Freedom of religion	Subject to public order	Sabarimala (2018)
26	Manage religious affairs	Religious denominations	–
26	Manage religious affairs	Religious denominations	Venkataramana (1958)
27	Freedom from religious taxation	Secular state	–
28	No religious instruction	State-funded institutions	–
29	Protect culture/language	Cultural minorities	T.M.A. Pai (2002)
30	Minority educational institutions	Religious/linguistic minorities	P.A. Inamdar (2005)
31	Repealed (Right to Property)	Moved to Article 300A	–
32	Constitutional remedies	Writs, judicial review	Romesh Thappar (1950)
33	Modify rights for armed forces	National security	R. Vishwan (1983)
34	Restrictions during martial law	–	–
35	Legislation for rights	Parliament’s power	–

Detailed Explanation of Articles 12–35

Article 12: Definition of State

• Provision: Defines “State” for the purpose of Part III, including:
  • Government and Parliament of India.
  • State governments and legislatures.
  • Local authorities (e.g., municipalities, panchayats).
  • Other authorities under government control or performing public functions.
• Purpose: Ensures that Fundamental Rights are enforceable against state actions, not private individuals (unless private entities perform state-like functions).
  
• Judicial Interpretation:
  • R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority (1979): Held that bodies like public corporations or government-controlled entities are “State” if they perform public functions or are under state control.
  • Zee Telefilms v. Union of India (2005): Clarified that private bodies like BCCI are not “State” unless they perform governmental functions.
    
• Significance: Expands the scope of accountability to include statutory and non-statutory bodies.

Article 13: Laws Inconsistent with Fundamental Rights

• Provision:
  • Declares any law (pre- or post-constitutional) void to the extent it violates Fundamental Rights.
  • Includes ordinances, orders, bylaws, rules, and notifications.
  • Allows judicial review to test the validity of laws.
    
• Key Clauses:
  • Article 13(1): Pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void unless saved by amendments.
  • Article 13(2): Post-constitutional laws violating Fundamental Rights are void ab initio.
  • Article 13(3): Defines “law” broadly to include customs and usages.
    
• Case Laws:
  • Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Established the Basic Structure Doctrine, ensuring that Fundamental Rights form part of the unamendable core of the Constitution.
  • Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951): Initially upheld Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights, later modified by Kesavananda.
    
• Significance: Article 13 is the “guardian” of Fundamental Rights, empowering courts to strike down unconstitutional laws.

---

Right to Equality (Articles 14–18)

Article 14: Equality Before Law and Equal Protection of Laws

• Provision:
  • Equality before law: All persons are equal in the eyes of the law, regardless of status (derived from British rule of law).
  • Equal protection of laws: Laws must apply uniformly to persons in similar circumstances, allowing reasonable classification but prohibiting arbitrary discrimination.
• Scope:
  • Applies to citizens, non-citizens, and legal persons (e.g., companies).
  • Permits reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia and rational nexus with the law’s objective.
• Case Laws:
  • State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952): Struck down a law for arbitrary classification, emphasizing rational nexus.
  • Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992): Upheld reservations but clarified that Article 14 prohibits excessive or arbitrary quotas.
  • Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017): Declared triple talaq unconstitutional for violating Article 14’s guarantee against arbitrariness.
• Significance: Ensures fairness and non-discrimination in state actions.

Article 15: Prohibition of Discrimination

• Provision:
  • Prohibits discrimination by the State on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
  • Allows access to public places (shops, hotels, wells) without discrimination.
  • Permits special provisions for women, children, and socially/educationally backward classes (e.g., SC/ST, OBC).
    
• Key Clauses:
  • Article 15(3): Allows special provisions for women and children (e.g., maternity benefits).
  • Article 15(4): Added by 1st Amendment (1951), enables reservations for backward classes.
  • Article 15(5): Added by 93rd Amendment (2005), allows reservations in educational institutions (except minority institutions).
    
• Case Laws:
  • State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951): Led to the 1st Amendment to enable reservations.
  • Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): Decriminalized homosexuality, citing Article 15’s protection against sex-based discrimination.
    
• Significance: Promotes social justice by addressing historical inequalities.

Article 16: Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment

• Provision:
  • Guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.
  • Prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, or residence.
  • Allows reservations for backward classes and residence-based criteria for certain posts.
    
• Key Clauses:
  • Article 16(2): Prohibits discrimination in employment.
  • Article 16(4): Permits reservations for underrepresented backward classes.
  • Article 16(4A): Added by 77th Amendment (1995), allows promotions with consequential seniority for SC/ST.
    
• Case Laws:
  • Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992): Upheld 27% OBC reservation but capped total reservations at 50%.
  • M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006): Upheld Article 16(4A) but required data to justify reservations in promotions.
• Significance: Balances meritocracy with affirmative action.

Article 17: Abolition of Untouchability

• Provision:
  • Abolishes untouchability and forbids its practice in any form.
  • Punishable under laws like the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955.
• Scope:
  • Applies to both state and private individuals.
  • Aims to eradicate caste-based discrimination and promote social equality.
• Case Laws:
  • People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982): Expanded the scope to include social practices like manual scavenging.
• Significance: A transformative provision addressing historical social evils.

Article 18: Abolition of Titles

• Provision:
  • Prohibits the State from conferring titles (except military or academic honors).
  • Prohibits citizens from accepting foreign titles without the President’s consent.
• Purpose: Promotes equality by eliminating distinctions based on titles.
• Case Laws:
  • Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India (1996): Upheld Bharat Ratna and Padma awards as they are not titles but honors.
• Significance: Reinforces democratic ethos by discouraging feudal practices.

---

Right to Freedom (Articles 19–22)

Article 19: Protection of Six Freedoms

• Provision:
  • Guarantees six freedoms to citizens (not non-citizens):
    1. Freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)).
    2. Freedom to assemble peaceably without arms (Article 19(1)(b)).
    3. Freedom to form associations or unions (Article 19(1)(c)).
    4. Freedom to move freely throughout India (Article 19(1)(d)).
    5. Freedom to reside and settle in any part of India (Article 19(1)(e)).
    6. Freedom to practice any profession, trade, or business (Article 19(1)(g)).
• Restrictions:
  • Subject to reasonable restrictions under Articles 19(2)–(6) for sovereignty, security, public order, decency, morality, defamation, etc.
    
• Case Laws:
  • Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950): Struck down a ban on a magazine, affirming freedom of speech.
  • Sakal Papers v. Union of India (1962): Invalidated restrictions on newspaper pricing as violating Article 19(1)(a).
  • K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): Recognized the right to privacy as part of Article 19 (and Article 21).
    
• Significance: The cornerstone of democratic expression and mobility.

Article 20: Protection in Respect of Conviction for Offences

• Provision:
  • Ex-post facto laws: No person can be convicted for an act that was not an offense at the time it was committed (Article 20(1)).
  • Double jeopardy: No person can be prosecuted and punished for the same offense twice (Article 20(2)).
  • Self-incrimination: No person can be compelled to be a witness against themselves (Article 20(3)).
• Scope:
  • Applies to citizens, non-citizens, and legal persons.
  • Cannot be suspended during emergencies.
• Case Laws:
  • Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar (1962): Clarified that Article 20(1) applies to substantive laws, not procedural changes.
  • Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013): Upheld disqualification of convicted legislators, aligning with Article 20.
• Significance: Protects against retrospective criminal laws and ensures fair trials.

Article 21: Protection of Life and Personal Liberty

• Provision:
  • No person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
• Scope:
  • Applies to citizens and non-citizens.
  • Expanded through judicial interpretation to include the right to dignity, privacy, education, health, and a clean environment.
• Case Laws:
  • Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Held that “procedure established by law” must be fair, just, and reasonable, introducing due process.
  • A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950): Initially limited Article 21 to procedural law, later overruled.
  • K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): Declared the right to privacy as intrinsic to Article 21.
  • Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): Decriminalized Section 377, protecting sexual orientation under Article 21.
• Significance: The most dynamic right, evolving through judicial activism to encompass socio-economic rights.

Article 21A: Right to Education

• Provision:
  • Added by the 86th Amendment (2002), guarantees free and compulsory education to children aged 6–14 years.
• Scope:
  • Implemented through the Right to Education Act, 2009 (RTE), mandating 25% reservation in private schools for disadvantaged children.
• Case Laws:
  • Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992): Recognized education as part of Article 21, leading to Article 21A.
  • Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993): Limited the scope to primary education, influencing the 86th Amendment.
• Significance: Promotes universal education and social equity.

Article 22: Protection Against Arrest and Detention

• Provision:
  • Safeguards against arbitrary arrest:
    • Right to be informed of grounds of arrest.
    • Right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner.
    • Right to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours.
  • Preventive detention:
    • Allows detention without trial for up to three months (extendable with advisory board approval).
    • Detainees have the right to know grounds and make representations.
• Scope:
  • Applies to citizens and non-citizens.
  • Exceptions for enemy aliens and preventive detention laws.
• Case Laws:
  • A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982): Upheld preventive detention but emphasized procedural safeguards.
  • D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997): Issued guidelines to prevent custodial torture, reinforcing Article 22.
• Significance: Balances state security with individual liberty.

---

Right Against Exploitation (Articles 23–24)

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

• Provision:
  • Prohibits human trafficking, begar (forced labor without payment), and other forms of forced labor.
  • Allows compulsory service for public purposes (e.g., military draft).
• Scope:
  • Applies to citizens and non-citizens.
  • Enforced through laws like the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976.
• Case Laws:
  • People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982): Expanded “forced labor” to include underpayment of wages.
• Significance: Addresses historical and modern forms of exploitation.

Article 24: Prohibition of Child Labour

• Provision:
  • Prohibits employment of children below 14 years in factories, mines, or hazardous occupations.
• Scope:
  • Applies to citizens and non-citizens.
  • Implemented through the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (amended 2016).
• Case Laws:
  • M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996): Directed strict enforcement against child labor in hazardous industries.
• Significance: Protects children’s rights and promotes education (linked to Article 21A).

---

Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25–28)

Article 25: Freedom of Conscience and Free Profession, Practice, and Propagation of Religion

• Provision:
  • Guarantees freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion.
  • Subject to public order, morality, health, and other constitutional provisions.
• Scope:
  • Applies to citizens and non-citizens.
  • Excludes commercial or secular activities (e.g., cow slaughter bans upheld for religious sensitivities).
• Case Laws:
  • Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986): Upheld Jehovah’s Witnesses’ right to abstain from singing the national anthem for religious reasons.
  • Sabarimala Case (Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, 2018): Struck down restrictions on women’s entry to Sabarimala temple, citing Article 25.
• Significance: Balances individual faith with secular governance.

Article 26: Freedom to Manage Religious Affairs

• Provision:
  • Grants religious denominations the right to:
    • Establish and maintain institutions for religious/charitable purposes.
    • Manage their own affairs in matters of religion.
    • Own and administer property.
• Scope:
  • Subject to public order, morality, and health.
• Case Laws:
  • Shri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore (1958): Upheld restrictions on temple entry for public interest.
• Significance: Protects autonomy of religious institutions.

Article 27: Freedom from Taxation for Promotion of Religion

• Provision:
  • Prohibits the State from levying taxes to promote any particular religion.
• Scope:
  • Applies to taxes, not fees for services (e.g., pilgrimage facilities).
• Significance: Reinforces India’s secular character.

Article 28: Freedom from Religious Instruction in Educational Institutions

• Provision:
  • Prohibits religious instruction in fully state-funded institutions.
  • Allows religious instruction in institutions established under endowments or trusts.
  • Ensures no one is compelled to attend religious instruction without consent.
• Scope:
  • Applies to state-aided and state-recognized institutions.
• Significance: Safeguards secular education.

---

Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29–30)

Article 29: Protection of Interests of Minorities

• Provision:
  • Protects the right of any section of citizens with distinct language, script, or culture to conserve it.
  • Prohibits denial of admission to state-aided institutions based on religion, race, caste, or language.
• Scope:
  • Applies to citizens only.
  • Covers both minorities and majorities with distinct cultural identities.
• Case Laws:
  • T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002): Clarified minority rights to establish educational institutions.
• Significance: Preserves cultural diversity.

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

• Provision:
  • Grants minorities (religious or linguistic) the right to establish and administer educational institutions.
  • Prohibits the State from discriminating in granting aid to such institutions.
• Scope:
  • Applies to citizens only.
  • Subject to state regulations for standards and transparency.
• Case Laws:
  • St. Stephen’s College v. University of Delhi (1992): Allowed minority institutions limited autonomy in admissions.
  • P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005): Clarified that unaided minority institutions have greater autonomy.
• Significance: Empowers minorities to preserve their identity through education.

---

Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32)

Article 32: Remedies for Enforcement of Fundamental Rights

• Provision:
  • Guarantees the right to approach the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
  • Empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs: Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, Quo Warranto.
• Scope:
  • Called the “heart and soul” of the Constitution by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.
  • Cannot be suspended even during emergencies.
• Case Laws:
  • Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950): Emphasized Article 32’s role in protecting Fundamental Rights.
  • I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007): Reaffirmed judicial review under Article 32 as part of the Basic Structure.
• Significance: Ensures effective enforcement of rights through judicial intervention.

---

Article 33: Power of Parliament to Modify Fundamental Rights

• Provision:
  • Allows Parliament to modify the application of Fundamental Rights to:
    • Armed forces.
    • Paramilitary forces.
    • Police forces.
    • Intelligence agencies.
• Purpose: Ensures discipline and security in defense and law enforcement.
• Case Laws:
  • R. Vishwan v. Union of India (1983): Upheld restrictions on armed forces’ rights to form unions.
• Significance: Balances rights with national security.

Article 34: Restriction on Rights During Martial Law

• Provision:
  • Allows restrictions on Fundamental Rights in areas under martial law.
• Scope:
  • Martial law is distinct from a national emergency.
  • No specific instance of martial law has been declared in India.
• Significance: Provides flexibility during extreme crises.

Article 35: Legislation to Give Effect to Fundamental Rights

• Provision:
  • Empowers Parliament to make laws to enforce Fundamental Rights.
  • Grants exclusive legislative power to Parliament (not States) for certain matters, e.g., laws punishing untouchability or trafficking.
• Scope:
  • Facilitates laws like Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, and Bonded Labour Abolition Act, 1976.
• Significance: Ensures uniform national laws for critical rights issues.

---

Key Features of Fundamental Rights

• Justiciable: Enforceable through courts (Articles 32, 226).
• Not Absolute: Subject to reasonable restrictions for public interest.
• Dynamic Interpretation: Expanded through judicial activism (e.g., right to privacy, education).
• Universal Application: Most rights extend to non-citizens (e.g., Articles 14, 20, 21, 23)**.
• Amendability: Can be amended but not abrogated (Kesavananda Bharati case).
• Suspension: Except Articles 20 and 21, rights can be suspended during a national emergency (Article 359).

---

Landmark Cases and Their Impact

• Kesavananda Bharati (1973): Established that Fundamental Rights form part of the Basic Structure, limiting Parliament’s amendment power.
• Maneka Gandhi (1978): Expanded Article 21 to include due process and fairness.
• K.S. Puttaswamy (2017): Declared privacy a Fundamental Right, influencing multiple rights.
• Navtej Singh Johar (2018): Decriminalized homosexuality, reinforcing equality and dignity.

---

Recent Developments (Up to June 19, 2025)

• Privacy and Data Protection: Post-Puttaswamy, courts have linked privacy to digital rights, with ongoing debates on the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
  
• LGBTQ+ Rights: Following Navtej Johar, courts are addressing same-sex marriage and adoption rights, invoking Articles 14, 15, and 21.
  
• Reservation Policies: Recent cases continue to refine reservation limits and creamy layer criteria under Articles 15 and 16.
  
• Judicial Activism: The judiciary remains active in expanding rights, particularly in environmental and health domains under Article 21.

---

Practical Implications

• Empowerment: Fundamental Rights empower citizens to challenge state actions and seek justice.
• Social Transformation: Articles 15, 17, and 23 address historical inequalities and promote inclusion.
• Balancing Act: Restrictions ensure that individual freedoms align with national interests.
• Global Relevance: India’s rights framework aligns with international human rights standards (e.g., UDHR, ICCPR).

---

Study Tips

• Group by Category: Memorize rights by categories (Equality, Freedom, etc.).
• Focus on Key Articles: Prioritize Articles 14, 19, 21, and 32 for their depth and case law.
• Link Case Laws: Use landmark cases (e.g., Kesavananda, Maneka) to understand judicial evolution.
• Use Flowcharts: Map articles to their scope (citizens vs. non-citizens) and restrictions.
• Practice Writs: Understand the five writs under Article 32 with practical examples.
• Stay Updated: Follow recent judgments on privacy, reservations, and minority rights.

---

---