The Idea of Fundamental Rights and Their

Importance
Introduction
Fundamental Rights are a cornerstone of modern democratic societies, ensuring that individuals
enjoy liberties essential for human dignity, equality, and justice. The concept evolved through
centuries of legal and philosophical thought, culminating in constitutional guarantees worldwide.
In India, Fundamental Rights are enshrined in Part III of the Constitution (Articles 12-35),
securing a just and humane society. This document explores their origins, philosophical basis,
case law interpretations, and significance.

1. Historical Evolution of Fundamental

Rights
1.1 The Philosophical and Political Foundations

The idea of Fundamental Rights is deeply rooted in natural law theory, social contract
theory, and liberal philosophy. Major thinkers have contributed to this concept:

1.​ John Locke (1632-1704) – Advocated for the natural rights of life, liberty, and property,
emphasizing that the government's legitimacy stems from protecting these rights.
2.​ Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) – Introduced the Social Contract Theory,
arguing that the state must ensure individual freedoms while maintaining social order.
3.​ Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) – Believed in the intrinsic dignity of individuals, shaping
modern human rights discourse.
4.​ Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) – Critiqued natural rights as "nonsense upon stilts" but
acknowledged the importance of legal rights protected by the state.
5.​ Karl Marx (1818-1883) – Criticized rights as a bourgeois construct, arguing for
economic and social justice over individual freedoms.

1.2 Development of Rights in Legal Systems

The recognition of Fundamental Rights can be traced through:

 ●​ Magna Carta (1215) – Limited the monarch’s power and established principles of legal
due process.
●​ Bill of Rights (1689, England) – Laid the foundation for constitutional monarchy and
parliamentary sovereignty.
●​ The U.S. Bill of Rights (1791) – Established inalienable rights such as freedom of
speech, religion, and due process.
●​ The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (1789) – Proclaimed
equality, liberty, and fraternity as core rights.
●​ The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948) – A global framework
ensuring fundamental freedoms.

India’s Fundamental Rights were heavily influenced by these historical documents, particularly
the U.S. Bill of Rights and UDHR.

2. Fundamental Rights in the Indian

Constitution
The Constituent Assembly of India sought to create a rights framework balancing individual
liberty and social justice. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar called Fundamental Rights the "heart and soul"
of the Constitution.

2.1 Classification of Fundamental Rights

Category Articles Description

Right to Equality Articles Guarantees equality before the law and prohibits
14-18 discrimination.

Right to Freedom Articles Includes freedoms of speech, assembly,

19-22 movement, and personal liberty.

Right Against Articles Prohibits human trafficking and child labor.

Exploitation 23-24

Right to Freedom of Articles Ensures religious liberty and secularism.

Religion 25-28

Cultural and Educational Articles Protects minority rights in language, culture, and
Rights 29-30 education.
Right to Constitutional Article 32 Allows citizens to seek Supreme Court
Remedies intervention if rights are violated.

3. Case Laws and Judicial Interpretations

3.1 Right to Equality (Articles 14-18)
Key Case Law: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

●​ Established the Basic Structure Doctrine, ensuring that fundamental rights cannot be
diluted.
●​ Held that Article 14 (Equality before Law) is a part of this Basic Structure.

Key Case Law: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

●​ Expanded the scope of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).

●​ Introduced the Golden Triangle Doctrine (Articles 14, 19, and 21 must be read
together).

3.2 Right to Freedom (Articles 19-22)

Key Case Law: Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950)

●​ Declared freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)) as a fundamental

democratic right.
●​ Struck down a ban on a magazine critical of the government.

Key Case Law: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)

●​ Struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalized offensive speech online.
●​ Reinforced free speech protection against vague laws.

3.3 Right Against Exploitation (Articles 23-24)

Key Case Law: People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India
(1982)

●​ Expanded Article 23 to cover forced labor in all forms.

 ●​ Held that even low wages could constitute forced labor.

3.4 Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-28)

Key Case Law: S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

●​ Affirmed secularism as part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.

●​ Stated that religious freedom cannot disrupt public order or state neutrality.

3.5 Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29-30)

Key Case Law: T.M.A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002)

●​ Defined the autonomy of minority institutions in educational matters.

●​ Strengthened Article 30 protections for minorities.

3.6 Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32)

Key Case Law: Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978)

●​ Expanded habeas corpus to protect prisoners from torture and inhumane treatment.

4. The Importance of Fundamental Rights

4.1 Safeguarding Democracy
Fundamental Rights ensure government accountability, public participation, and protection
from state tyranny. Article 32, termed by Dr. Ambedkar as the "soul of the Constitution,"
guarantees judicial enforcement of rights.

4.2 Ensuring Social Justice and Inclusivity

By prohibiting discrimination (Articles 15 and 17), the Constitution uplifts marginalized
communities such as Dalits, women, and religious minorities.

4.3 Protecting Individual Liberty

Fundamental Rights prevent arbitrary arrests, censorship, and exploitation, ensuring
freedom of expression and personal liberty.

4.4 Strengthening Federalism and Secularism

Rights ensure equal treatment across states and protect secular governance, as reaffirmed
in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994).

4.5 Evolution Through Judicial Activism

●​ Kesavananda Bharati (1973) → Introduced Basic Structure Doctrine.
●​ Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) → Recognized sexual harassment laws under
Article 21.
●​ Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) → Decriminalized Section 377 (LGBTQ+
rights) under Right to Life (Article 21).

Doctrine of Severability and Doctrine of

Eclipse
Introduction
The Indian Constitution ensures the supremacy of Fundamental Rights and provides
mechanisms to safeguard them from unconstitutional legislation. Two key doctrines used by
courts in this regard are the Doctrine of Severability and the Doctrine of Eclipse.

●​ Doctrine of Severability (Article 13(1) & (2)) states that if a part of a law is
unconstitutional, only that part is invalidated while the rest remains in force.
●​ Doctrine of Eclipse holds that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with
Fundamental Rights are not void ab initio but remain dormant and can be revived if
the inconsistency is removed.

These doctrines play a crucial role in ensuring legislative conformity with Fundamental Rights
while maintaining legal continuity. This document provides an in-depth analysis, including
historical evolution, philosophical underpinnings, judicial interpretations, and case law.
1. Doctrine of Severability
1.1 Meaning and Scope
The Doctrine of Severability (also known as the Doctrine of Separability) allows courts to
separate the unconstitutional portion of a law while upholding the valid part, provided the
latter can stand independently.

Constitutional Basis: Article 13(1) & (2)

●​ Article 13(1): Any pre-constitutional law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights shall be
void to the extent of inconsistency.
●​ Article 13(2): The State shall not make laws that take away or abridge Fundamental
Rights, and any such law shall be void to the extent of such contravention.

Thus, only the unconstitutional part is struck down, ensuring that the rest of the statute
remains intact if it retains meaning.

1.2 Judicial Interpretations and Case Laws

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

●​ Facts: A.K. Gopalan challenged his detention under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950,
on the ground that it violated his right to life and personal liberty (Article 21).
●​ Judgment: The Supreme Court struck down certain provisions of the Act but upheld
the rest, applying the Doctrine of Severability.

1.2.2 R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India (1957)

●​ Facts: A law restricting gambling was challenged for interfering with lawful trade under
Article 19(1)(g).
●​ Judgment: The Supreme Court held that while betting and gambling could be
regulated, the law could not restrict skill-based games. The unconstitutional portion was
severed, while the rest remained valid.
●​ Principle: If the valid part of a statute can stand independently, it shall be upheld.

1.2.3 Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992)

●​ Facts: The Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law) was challenged as violating legislative
privileges and Fundamental Rights.
 ●​ Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the Anti-Defection Law but struck down
Paragraph 7, which barred judicial review, applying the Doctrine of Severability.

1.3 Conditions for Applying the Doctrine of Severability

A law can be partially struck down only if:

1.​ The valid and invalid portions are distinct and separable.
2.​ The remaining part retains its legislative intent and effectiveness.
3.​ Striking down the unconstitutional portion does not alter the fundamental
character of the statute.

If the unconstitutional part is inseparable from the valid part, the entire statute is struck down.

Example: Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)

●​ Facts: The 42nd Amendment limited judicial review by declaring certain constitutional
amendments beyond challenge.
●​ Judgment: The Supreme Court struck down clauses restricting judicial review but
upheld the rest of the Amendment.

Thus, the Doctrine of Severability ensures that laws remain functional while protecting
Fundamental Rights.

2. Doctrine of Eclipse
2.1 Meaning and Scope
The Doctrine of Eclipse applies to pre-constitutional laws that conflict with Fundamental
Rights. These laws are not void ab initio (from the beginning) but remain inoperative
(eclipsed). If the inconsistency is removed, the law becomes valid again.

Constitutional Basis: Article 13(1)

●​ Article 13(1) states that pre-existing laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights
shall be void to the extent of inconsistency.
●​ However, these laws are not repealed, but only remain dormant unless modified.
This means:

●​ Before the Constitution → The law was valid.

●​ After the Constitution → If it violates Fundamental Rights, it becomes inactive
(eclipsed).
●​ If the inconsistency is removed → The law revives.

2.2 Judicial Interpretations and Case Laws

2.2.1 Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955)

●​ Facts: The CP & Berar Motor Vehicles Act, 1947 was challenged as violating Article
19(1)(g) (freedom of trade).
●​ Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that the law became unconstitutional after the
commencement of the Constitution, but once Article 19(6) was amended, the law
became valid again.
●​ Principle: Pre-constitutional laws do not become void but remain inactive until
revived.

2.2.2 State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills (1974)

●​ Facts: The Bombay Land Revenue Act was challenged for violating Article 14
(Equality before Law).
●​ Judgment: The Court held that since the law was pre-constitutional, it was eclipsed,
but could apply to non-citizens, as Article 14 applies only to citizens.
●​ Principle: The doctrine applies only to pre-constitutional laws and affects only
citizens.

2.2.3 Dulare Lodh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1956)

●​ Facts: A UP law restricting appeals was challenged for violating Article 14.
●​ Judgment: The Court held that the law was eclipsed and remained inoperative unless
modified.

2.3 Conditions for Applying the Doctrine of Eclipse

1.​ The law must be pre-constitutional (enacted before January 26, 1950).
2.​ The law must violate Fundamental Rights and be inconsistent with Article 13(1).
3.​ The law is not dead, but only inoperative until the inconsistency is removed.
 4.​ The law remains applicable to non-citizens, as Fundamental Rights do not always
apply to them.

Example: Revival of Laws After Constitutional Amendment

●​ Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) → Held that pre-constitutional laws can be
revived if Parliament amends Fundamental Rights.
●​ Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) → Confirmed that Fundamental Rights
cannot be abrogated, affecting how eclipsed laws are revived.

3. Comparative Analysis of Severability

and Eclipse
Aspect Doctrine of Severability Doctrine of Eclipse

Applicability Both pre- and post-constitutional Only pre-constitutional laws

laws

Effect on Law Only unconstitutional portions are Entire law remains dormant but
struck down revivable

Law The valid portion remains The law remains inoperative

Post-Judgment operative until the inconsistency is
removed

Scope Ensures unconstitutional Allows laws to remain dormant

provisions do not invalidate entire rather than be repealed entirely
statutes

Article 21A of the Indian Constitution:

Right to Education
1. Introduction
Article 21A of the Indian Constitution guarantees the Right to Education as a Fundamental
Right. It mandates free and compulsory education for children between the ages of 6 to 14
years. This article was inserted by the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002,
recognizing education as a fundamental necessity for national development.

The inclusion of Article 21A strengthens the Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21)
by ensuring that every child has access to education, laying the foundation for an equitable and
democratic society.

2. Constitutional Provisions and Text of Article 21A

The text of Article 21A reads:

“The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of
six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine.”

Key Features of Article 21A

1.​ State’s Responsibility → The government is bound to provide education to children.

2.​ Age Limit → Education is guaranteed only for children aged 6-14 years.
3.​ Free Education → No child shall be charged fees for primary education.
4.​ Compulsory Education → The State must ensure that all children attend school.
5.​ Mode of Implementation → The manner of providing education is decided by the
government through law (e.g., the Right to Education Act, 2009).

3. Evolution of the Right to Education in India

3.1 Pre-86th Amendment Position

Before Article 21A, the Right to Education was not explicitly a Fundamental Right but was
included as a Directive Principle of State Policy (DPSP) under Article 45, which stated:

"The State shall endeavor to provide, within a period of ten years from the
commencement of this Constitution, for free and compulsory education for all
children until they complete the age of fourteen years."

However, as DPSPs are not enforceable in courts, the government failed to implement this
provision effectively.

3.2 Judicial Recognition of Right to Education

Even before Article 21A, the Supreme Court had recognized the Right to Education as a
fundamental right under Article 21 through landmark judgments.

Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992)

●​ Facts: The Karnataka government allowed private medical colleges to charge high
capitation fees, making education unaffordable for many students.
●​ Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the Right to Education is a fundamental
right derived from Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).

Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993)

●​ Facts: The issue was whether education is a fundamental right and if the government
could regulate fees of private institutions.
●​ Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that:
○​ Primary education (up to 14 years) is a Fundamental Right under Article 21.
○​ Higher education is not a Fundamental Right, but the State must make it
accessible.
○​ The State must regulate private institutions to prevent commercialization of
education.

3.3 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002

In response to these judicial pronouncements and the need for legal clarity, the 86th
Amendment Act, 2002 inserted Article 21A, making education a Fundamental Right. The
Amendment also:

●​ Modified Article 45 → Now, it directs the State to provide early childhood care and
education.
●​ Inserted Article 51A(k) → Makes it the duty of parents to ensure their children receive
education.

4. Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009

To implement Article 21A, Parliament enacted the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education (RTE) Act, 2009, which came into force on April 1, 2010.

Key Provisions of the RTE Act, 2009

1.​ Free and Compulsory Education → No child shall pay school fees, and the
government must provide necessary facilities.
2.​ Neighbourhood Schools → Children must have access to schools within their local
area.
 3.​ No Detention Policy → Students cannot be failed or expelled until Class 8.
4.​ Reservation in Private Schools → 25% of seats in private schools are reserved for
economically weaker sections (EWS).
5.​ No Discrimination → Schools cannot deny admission based on caste, gender,
disability, or economic status.
6.​ Infrastructure and Teacher Qualification → Schools must meet minimum standards
in terms of infrastructure and qualified teachers.

Judicial Validation of RTE Act

Society for Unaided Private Schools v. Union of India (2012)

●​ Issue: Private schools challenged the 25% reservation for economically weaker
sections under the RTE Act.
●​ Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of RTE, ruling that
private schools must comply, but unaided minority institutions were exempted.

5. Importance of Article 21A

5.1 Social and Economic Benefits

●​ Promotes Equality → Ensures education for all, reducing disparities based on caste,
gender, or income.
●​ Empowers Individuals → Education equips children with skills and knowledge,
enabling them to contribute to society.
●​ Reduces Child Labor → With mandatory schooling, child labor decreases as children
are engaged in formal education.

5.2 Constitutional and Democratic Significance

●​ Strengthens Democracy → An educated population is better equipped to participate

in democracy.
●​ Upholds Fundamental Rights → Education enhances awareness of rights, reducing
exploitation and discrimination.
●​ Fulfills DPSPs → Article 21A transforms Directive Principles (Article 45) into
enforceable Fundamental Rights.

6. Limitations and Challenges

6.1 Implementation Gaps

●​ Poor School Infrastructure → Many government schools lack basic facilities like
classrooms, toilets, and drinking water.
●​ Teacher Shortages → There is a lack of trained teachers, affecting the quality of
education.

6.2 Age Restriction (6-14 years)

●​ Excludes children below 6 years → Early childhood education is crucial but not
covered.
●​ Excludes children above 14 years → Secondary education is still not a fundamental
right.

6.3 Private Schools and RTE Compliance

●​ Many private schools resist 25% EWS reservations, citing financial burden.

6.4 Learning Outcomes and Quality of Education

●​ Rote learning dominates, and many students lack basic literacy and numeracy skills.