Part 3 of Indian Constitution: Fundamental Rights, Article 12-35

Part III of the Constitution of India guarantees the Fundamental Rights in India, as outlined in Articles 12 to 35. Often called the "Magna Carta of India", this part ensures basic rights and freedoms for all citizens, forming the cornerstone of Indian democracy.

Part 3 of Indian Constitution: Overview

Part III of Indian Constitution enshrines the Fundamental Rights guaranteeing civil liberties to all citizens. These rights include equality before the law, freedom of speech, protection against discrimination and rights to life and personal liberty. They are enforceable in courts and ensure that individuals can seek redress if their rights are violated. The Parliament has the power to modify or restrict certain rights under specific circumstances such as for armed forces personnel or during martial law. These rights form the cornerstone of democratic framework of the country. The following table provides an overview of Part 3 of Indian Constitution.

Download 5 Key Takeaways on Part 3 of Indian Constitution PDF

Article 12 is an important part of Part 3 of Indian Constitution which deals with Definitions. According to Article 12 of Indian Constitution, the term “state” denotes-

• Union & State Government
• Parliament
• State Legislatures
• All Local or Other authorities

within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.

The term State includes both executive and legislative organs of the Union and States.

The President of India and Governors of states can also be referred to as ‘state’ as they are a

part of the executive.

Article 13 of Indian Constitution: Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights

Part 3 of Indian Constitution , Article 13 establishes the supremacy of fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution over any other laws in cases of inconsistency. Its key features include:

• Fundamental rights are enforceable in courts.
• Any law inconsistent with these rights whether enacted before or after the commencement of the Constitution is declared void.
• The Supreme Court and High Courts have the authority to review and declare laws unconstitutional under Article 32 and Article 226.
• It confines the application of fundamental rights to those stated within the article, particularly concerning pre-constitutional laws deemed invalid only to the extent they contradict “laws in force.”
• Fundamental rights apply to laws post-commencement and pre-commencement laws only become void from that date.
• Actions taken under pre-commencement laws remain unaffected despite the laws becoming void post-commencement.

Article 13 serves as a constitutional safeguard by ensuring that the laws enacted by the State do not violate the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part 3 of Constitution 

Article 14 guarantees that the State shall not deny to any person equality before law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. This provision includes two important expressions:

• Equality Before the Law
• Equal Protection of the Laws

The following are the exceptions to Article 14-

• Article 361: The President of India and State Governors enjoy certain immunities from legal proceedings.
• Article 361A: Protects members of Parliament from legal action related to their parliamentary duties.
• Article 31-C: Laws made to implement Directive Principles cannot be challenged under Article 14.
• Diplomatic Immunity: Foreign diplomats are exempt from local laws.
• Special Classes: Certain professions, like armed forces or medical practitioners, have specific regulations.

In Secretary Ministry of Defence vs Babita Puniya (2020), the Supreme Court ruled that Short Service Commissioned (SSC) women officers in the Indian Army are entitled to a permanent commission (PC) irrespective of their service duration exceeding fourteen years. The Court emphasised that denying them this right violates the principle of equality under Article 14 (Part III of Constitution of India)

Article 15 of Indian Constitution: Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth

Article 15 of Indian Constitution is available to citizens only and not to every person whether citizen or non-citizen. Article 15 is an extension of Article 14. The Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala (2018) also known as the Sabarimala case. The case addressed the exclusion of women aged 10 to 50 from the Sabarimala Temple which was dedicated to Lord Ayyappa. The Supreme Court held that this exclusion violated the fundamental rights of the women and stated that the custom did not constitute an essential religious practice and was discriminatory under Article 15 of Part 3 of Indian Constitution.

Article 16 of Indian Constitution: Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment

Article 16 of Indian Constitution under Part 3 of Indian Constitution guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment and ensures that the state does not discriminate based on religion, caste, sex, or place of birth.

• Article 16(1) grants the right to be considered for public employment opportunities but does not guarantee employment.
• Article 16(2) ensures no discrimination based on religion, caste, sex, etc., in public employment.
• Article 16(3) allows the Parliament to legislate provisions for reserving certain posts for residents of specific states or regions.
• Article 16(4) empowers the state to provide reservations for backward classes in public services if they are underrepresented.
• Article 16(4A) permits reservations in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes based on seniority if they are not adequately represented. The Article was inserted by 77th Amendment Act, 1995.
• Article 16(4B) also known as the Carry forward rule. It allows unfilled reserved vacancies to be carried forward to the next recruitment cycle without affecting the 50% reservation ceiling. Article 16(4B) was added by the 81st Amendment Act, 2000.
• Article 16(5) provides that appointments in religious or denominational institutions can prioritise individuals of that faith.
• Article 16(6) provides a 10% reservation for economically weaker sections (EWS) in public employment.

In Randhir Singh vs Union of India (1982) the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' was established under Article 14, Article 16 and Article 39(d) of the Constitution. In M Nagaraj vs Union of India (2006) the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Article 16(4A) of the Constitution.

Article 17 of Indian Constitution: Abolition of Untouchability

The practice of untouchability is officially ended and no longer allowed. Any action that tries to enforce or continue the practice of untouchability is strictly prohibited. In People’s Union for Democratic Rights vs Union of India (1982) Supreme Court held that when private individuals infringe rights under Article 17 (Part 3 of the Indian Constitution) it is the duty of state to act promptly.

Article 18 of Indian Constitution: Abolition of Titles

Article 18 prohibits the state from conferring any titles, except for military or academic distinctions. It also prevents the citizens of India from accepting titles from foreign states and limits individuals in positions of trust or profit under the state from accepting titles from foreign states without the consent of the President. Article 18 was inserted in the Part III of Indian Constitution to promote equality and prevent the social hierarchy. In Balaji Raghavan vs Union of India (1995), the Supreme Court ruled that national awards like the Bharat Ratna and Padma awards do not constitute titles under Article 18 of Indian Constitution.

Article 19 of Indian Constitution: Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc.

• Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19(1)(a)): Citizens can express opinions freely with reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) for state security, public order, decency and more.
• Freedom of Assembly (Article 19(1)(b)): Citizens can assemble peacefully, with restrictions to maintain sovereignty and public order.
• Freedom of Association (Article 19(1)(c)): Citizens have the right to form associations, unions, or cooperatives, with reasonable restrictions allowed under Article 19(4).
• Freedom of Movement (Article 19(1)(d)): Citizens can move freely across India, though Article 19(5) permits restrictions to protect Scheduled Tribes and the public.
• Freedom to Reside and Settle (Article 19(1)(e)): Citizens can reside anywhere in India.
• Article 19(1)(f) was repealed by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978.
• Freedom of Profession (Article 19(1)(g)): Citizens may pursue any profession, trade, or business, subject to reasonable restrictions.

In Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015) Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2005 was struck down and affirmed arbitrary restrictions on free speech violate Article 19(1)(a) under Part 3 of Indian Constitution. Recently, in Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India (2020) the Court recognized internet access as a fundamental right under Article 19.

Article 20 of Indian Constitution: Protection in respect of conviction for offences

Article 20 lays down three essential protections-

• protection against ex post facto laws
• protection against double jeopardy
• the prohibition of self-incrimination

In Kedar Nath vs State of West Bengal (1953) the Supreme Court held that enhanced punishment could not be applied to an act committed before the new law was enacted. In Maqbool Hussain vs State of Bombay (1953) the Supreme Court in this case held that the Sea Customs Authorities were not a Court or a Judicial Tribunal and confiscation of gold with them does not constitute a judgement. The plea of double jeopardy under Article 20 was rejected by the Court.

Article 21 of Indian Constitution: Protection of life and personal liberty

Article 21 under Part III of Indian Constitution states no person can be deprived of life or personal liberty except in accordance with procedure established by law. Article 14, Article 19 and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution form the “Golden Triangle” by jointly safeguarding equality, freedom and personal liberty as provided in Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India.

Recently in Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari vs State of Uttar Pradesh, a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan highlighted the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of Indian Constitution irrespective of the seriousness of the crime. The Court granted bail to the accused in the case.

Article 21A of Indian Constitution: Right to Education

The right to education was not explicitly provided in the Constitution. The concept of the right to education was present under Article 45 as a Directive Principle of State Policy. Article 21A was inserted by the 86th Amendment Act 2002 which recognized the right to education. The Apex Court in Mohini Jain vs State of Karnataka (1992) held right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of Part 3 of Indian Constitution includes Right to Education.

Article 22 of Indian Constitution: Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases

Article 22 deals with the protection against detention and arrest in certain cases. The following are the objectives-

• Prevention of arbitrary arrest and detention
• Ensure individuals are informed of the grounds for arrest
• Protect the right to legal representation
• Prevent prolonged detention without trial
• Ensure fair treatment during custody
• Provide checks on state power

In Hussainara Khatoon vs Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979) the Supreme Court reinforced the importance of free legal aid under Article 21 and highlighted the need for speedy trials for undertrial prisoners.

Article 23 of Indian Constitution: Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour

Article 23 prohibits trafficking in human beings, including trafficking for the purpose of forced labour, slavery or exploitation. It acts as a protective shield and plays a crucial role in upholding human dignity and preventing exploitation in various forms.

In Peoples Union for Democratic Rights vs Union of India 1982, popularly known as Asiad Workers Case. The Supreme Court interpreted the term “force” in Article 23 under Part III of Indian Constitution including physical force, legal coercion and economic factors that compel individuals to work for less than minimum wages. The Court held that all forms of forced labour, whether remunerated or not, are prohibited.

Article 24 of Indian Constitution: Prohibition of employment of children in factories, etc

Article 24 prohibits employment of children below 14 years of age in any factory, mine or any other hazardous employment. Article 24 must be r/w Article 39(e) and Article 39(f) of DPSP which provides for the protection of health and strength of children and that the tender age of children should not be abused.

In Bachpan Bachao Andolan vs Union of India (2011) the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of implementation of Article 24 and directed the government to take comprehensive measures for the rescue, rehabilitation and education of children engaged in labour.

Article 25 of Indian Constitution: Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion

Article 25 under Part 3 of Indian Constitution explicitly provides for freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to considerations of public order, morality, and health, as well as other provisions in the Constitution. It also states that no existing laws will be affected by this right and the State retains the authority to:

1. Regulate or restrict any economic, financial, political, or other secular activity related to religious practices.
2. Implement laws promoting social welfare and reform, or open Hindu religious institutions to all Hindus, regardless of caste or section.

In Shayara Bano vs Union of India (2017) the Supreme Court by a 3:2 majority declared the practice of Talaq-e-biddat i.e., triple talaq as unconstitutional and illegal and also ruled that it was not an essential religious practice.

Article 26 of Indian Constitution: Freedom to manage religious affairs

Article 26 of the Constitution deals with the right to freedom to manage religious affairs. It states that subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right-

• to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes
• to manage its own affairs in matters of religion
• to own and acquire movable and immovable property
• to administer such property in accordance with law

Article 27 of Indian Constitution: Freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion

Article 27 prevents the imposition of taxes on citizens that are used to promote or maintain any religion or religious denomination. In case of violation of Article 27 under Part III of Indian Constitution the following conditions must be satisfied-

• There must be a tax
• The proceeds of such tax must be used for the promotion or maintenance of a religion or religious denomination
• A person is compelled to pay the tax
• The dominant purpose behind the tax must be to promote or maintain a particular religion

In Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954) the Supreme Court established a key distinction between taxes for administrative purposes and taxes for religious promotion.

Article 28 of Indian Constitution: Freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in certain educational institutions

Article 28 deals with the freedom of individuals in relation to religious instruction and worship in educational institutions. In D.A.V. College vs State of Punjab (1971) the Supreme Court held that the academic study of life of Guru Nanak and teachings does not constitute religious instruction and is not in violation of Article 28.

Article 29 of Indian Constitution: Protection of interests of minorities

Article 29 of the Constitution of India is an important provision for protecting the cultural and educational rights of religious and linguistic minorities. Article 29 comprises two main clauses-

1. grants individuals belonging to distinct communities the right to preserve their language, script and culture.
2. prohibits discrimination in educational institutions based on religion, race, caste or language. 

The Supreme Court in St. Stephen’s College vs University of Delhi (1992) recognized the right of minority institutions to admit students based on their preferences and also held that in case of government-aided institutions, it could not deny admission based on religion.

Article 30 of Indian Constitution: Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions

Article 30 of the Constitution guarantees religious and linguistic minorities the right to create and handle their own educational institutions. The following are the objectives of Article 30 under Part 3 of the Constitution-

• Safeguard the Right to Education for Minorities
• Empower Minorities
• Preserve Cultural and Linguistic Rights
• Maintain Dignity and Distinct Identity
• Prohibit Discrimination

In Azeez Basha vs Union of India (1967) the Supreme Court held that Aligarh Muslim University was neither established nor maintained by the Muslim minority community and therefore could not be granted the status of a minority institution under Article 30.

Article 31 of Indian Constitution: Compulsory Acquisition of Property

Rep. by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, s. 6 (w.e.f. 20-6-1979)

The aim of Article 31 under Part III of Indian Constitution was to protect the property rights of the individuals against arbitrary state action and ensure that property could only be acquired for public purposes with compensation. The Article was influenced by Section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935. The 44th Amendment replaced the fundamental right to property under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 and introduced a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution.

Article 31A of Indian Constitution: Saving of laws providing for acquisition of estates, etc

Article 31A protects five types of laws from being challenged for violating Article 14 or Article 19. It includes-

• Acquisition of estates and related rights by the State
• Taking over the management of properties by the State
• Amalgamation of corporations
• Extinguishment or modification of rights of directors or shareholders of corporations
• Extinguishment or modification of mining leases

Article 31B of Indian Constitution: Validation of certain Acts and Regulations.

Article 31B protects laws in the Ninth Schedule from being challenged for violating fundamental rights. It offers broader immunity than Article 31A. The Supreme Court in I.R. Coelho case (2007) ruled that even laws under the Ninth Schedule would be open to scrutiny if they violated Fundamental Rights or the basic structure of the Constitution.

Article 31C of Indian Constitution: Saving of laws giving effect to certain directive principles

Article 31C protects laws aimed at implementing the socialist principles in Articles 39(b) and (c) from being invalidated for violating Article 14 or Article 19. It also provides that laws with a declaration for enforcing such policies cannot be challenged in court for not fulfilling that purpose.

Article 31D of Indian Constitution: Saving of laws in respect of anti-national activities

Repealed by the Constitution (Forty-third Amendment) Act, 1977, s. 2 (w.e.f. 13-4-1978)

Article 32 of Indian Constitution: Remedies for enforcement of rights

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution under Part 3 of Indian Constitution is considered as the ‘heart and soul of the Constitution’ by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. It provides the right to constitutional remedies, ensures the protection and enforcement of fundamental rights. It empowers individuals to approach the Supreme Court directly when their fundamental rights are violated.

• Habeas Corpus: A Latin term which means “You may have the body”. The writ of Habeas Corpus is important for safeguarding personal liberty against unlawful detention.
• Quo-Warranto: Means “By what authority”. The writ of Quo-warranto challenges the legality of a claim of the person to a public office. It ensures that no individual holds a public office without legal entitlement.
• Mandamus: Implies “We Command”. The writ of Mandamus is issued by a higher court to compel a lower court, tribunal or public official to perform a duty. It is important to note that it cannot be issued against the President or the Governor. The main objective of this writ is to prevent the misuse of public power.
• Certiorari: Means “to be certified”. The writ is issued by a higher court when there has been a wrongful exercise of jurisdiction by a lower court or tribunal.
• Prohibition: A directive issued by a higher court to a lower court. It is a directive to refrain from acting beyond its jurisdiction or engaging in proceedings that infringes legal principles.

ADM Jabalpur vs ShivKant Shukla (1976) popularly known as the “Habeas Corpus Case”. The Supreme Court in this case upheld the suspension of the writ during the Emergency.

Article 32A of Indian Constitution: Constitutional validity of State laws not to be considered in proceedings under article 32

Repealed by the Constitution (Forty-third Amendment) Act, 1977, s. 3 (w.e.f. 13-4-1978)

Article 33 of Indian Constitution: Power of Parliament to modify the rights conferred by this Part in their application to Forces, etc.

Article 33 grants Parliament the power to limit or revoke the fundamental rights of armed forces, paramilitary, police, and intelligence personnel to ensure discipline. Only Parliament can enact such laws, which cannot be challenged for violating fundamental rights. This also includes non-combatant staff like barbers, cooks, and mechanics.

Article 34 of Indian Constitution: Restriction on rights conferred by this Part while martial law is in force in any area

Article 34 under Part 3 of Indian Constitution permits for restrictions on fundamental rights during martial law, which is imposed in extreme situations like war or rebellion. It empowers Parliament to indemnify individuals for actions taken to restore order under martial law, and such indemnity laws cannot be challenged for violating fundamental rights.

Article 35 of Indian Constitution: Legislation to give effect to the provisions of this Part

Article 35 grants exclusive power to Parliament, not state legislatures, to make laws enforcing certain fundamental rights. Under Part III of Indian Constitution, these include prescribing residence criteria for employment in states or local bodies, empowering courts (other than the Supreme Court and High Courts) to enforce fundamental rights, restricting their application to armed forces and police, indemnifying actions taken under martial law, and prescribing punishments for offences like untouchability and human trafficking.