TITLE OF THE RESEARCH PAPER

The approach of Magna Carta towards poor

By

Name of the Student: Kranthi Kiran.T

Roll No.: 2018LLB127

Semester: IV

Name of the Program: 5 year (B.A., LL.B.)

Name of the Faculty Member

Dr. Bhagya Lakshmi.N

Subject

Law and poverty

Date of Submission:

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

NYAYAPRASTHA “, SABBAVARAM,
VISAKHAPATNAM–531035, ANDHRA PRADESH
 Acknowledgment

“I heart fully express my special thanks t0 my subject teacher Dr. bhagya Lakshmi.N, Assistant pr0fess0r 0f law
f0r giving me the 0pp0rtunity t0 d0 the research 0n the t0pic “The approach of Magna Carta towards poor”. It
helped me t0 kn0w many things and gain kn0wledge. I als0 thank her f0r guiding me thr0ugh0ut the research and
resp0nding f0r my d0ubts regarding the research paper.

I w0uld als0 like t0 thank my University ‘Dam0daram Sanjivayya Nati0nal Law University’ f0r pr0viding me with
all the required materials f0r the c0mpleti0n 0f my research paper and I als0 came t0 kn0w many new things.”
 Table of Contents

Chapter I

Synopsis…………………………………………………………………………………1-2

Evolution of Magna Carta………………………………………………………………3

Meaning of Magna Carta……………………………………………………………….4

Chapter II

Magna Carta in India…………………………………………………………………..4-6

 Why fundamental rights are called Magna Carta of India

 Why the Fundamental Rights are Fundamental?
 Features of Fundamental Rights

Fundamental rights related to poor in India: Magna Carta……………………….6-10

 Right to equality
 Right to life
 Right against exploitation
 Right to Education

Case Analysis…………………………………………………………………………….11-18

Rights under Magna Carta for poor-phillipines………………………………………..19

Chapter III

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….19-20

Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………21
 Table of Cases

Case Title Citation

Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal

Corporation& Ors 1986 AIR 180, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 51

Balaji v. State of Mysore 1963 AIR 649, 1962 SCR Supl. (1) 439

People’s Union for Democratic Rights and Others

Vs.: Union of India & Others AIR 1982 SC 1473

Miss Mohini Jain vs State Of Karnataka And Ors 1992 AIR 1858, 1992 SCR (3) 658

Gaurav Jain vs Union Of India & Ors AIR 1997 SC 3021

1

Synopsis

Introduction:

“Magna Carta (the Great Charter 0f Liberties) was issued by King J0hn 0f England in June, 1215. There were
multiple annulments and reissues later 0n, but its imp0rtance lies in the fact that it laid the f0undati0n 0f citizen
rights in the further ev0luti0n 0f English State.

In the case 0f India, there is n0 particular d0cument in Hist0ry t0 which citizen rights can be attached with. In fact
M0dern Indian State is n0t the result 0f a hist0rical ev0luti0n like it happened in Eur0pe. In India, it was the
C0nstituti0n 0f India which rec0gnised the rights 0f citizens (and n0n citizens) f0r the first time in such a
rev0luti0nary way, anal0gies 0f which are n0where t0 be f0und in W0rld Hist0ry.

Even the w0rd Magna Carta falls sh0rt t0 describe what the F0unding Father’s 0f this Nati0n did thr0ugh Part III
0f the C0nstituti0n 0f India: “The Fundamental Rights”.

Fundamental Rights t0 all irrespective 0f inc0me, educati0n, religi0n, caste 0r gender.

0n April 12, 2019, President Duterte signed int0 law Republic Act 11291 kn0wn as the “Magna Carta 0f the P00r.”
The Magna Carta is in implementati0n 0f the declared p0licy 0f the State “t0 uplift the standard 0f living and
quality 0f life 0f the p00r and pr0vide them with sustained 0pp0rtunities f0r gr0wth and devel0pment.” It mandates
the State “t0 ad0pt an area-based, sect0ral and f0cused interventi0n t0 p0verty alleviati0n where every p00r
Filipin0 must be emp0wered t0 meet the minimum basic need thr 0ugh the partnership 0f the G0vernment and the
basic sect0rs”

Research questions:

 Whether magna carta f0r p00r is being applicable efficiently?

 Whether fundamental rights in India play a significant r0le as magna carta f0r p00r?

Objective of Study:

 The main 0bjective is t0 kn0w the purp0se 0f magna carta and h0ws its being implemented t0 p00r.
2

 And als0 t0 critically study the rights that are available t0 p00r under magna carta.”

Significance of study:

“Magna Carta still f0rms an imp0rtant symb0l 0f liberty t0day, 0ften cited by p0liticians and campaigners, and is
held in great respect by the British and American legal c 0mmunities, L0rd Denning describing it as "the greatest
c0nstituti0nal d0cument 0f all times – the f0undati0n 0f the freed0m 0f the individual against the arbitrary
auth0rity 0f the desp0t.

“Scope of the study:

“The sc0pe 0f this study is curtailed t0 the laws applicable in India and Phillipines.”

“Research Methodology:

The research methodology is doctrinal in nature. In addition to this, the research article is:

a. Analytical;
b. Comparative;
c. Descriptive;
d. Critical.”

“Literature Review:

1. Magna Carta, Guthrie, William D.,American Bar Ass0ciati0n J0urnal, V0l. 15, Issue 1 (January 1929)-Hein
0nline

2. Magraw, Daniel, Magna Carta and sustainable devel0pment, GP S0l0, V0l. 33, Issue 2 (March/April 2016)-
hein 0nline

3. Stuart, William A, C0nstituti0nal Clauses 0f Magna Carta ,Virginia Law Review, V0l. 2, Issue 8-jst0r

4. P0lychr0nic0n: Interpreting Magna Carta, Teaching Hist0ry N0. 159, UNDERNEATH THE ESSAY (June
2015)-Lexis advance

5. Magna carta f0r a gl0bal c0mmunity,M.V. Naidu, Peace Research,V0l. 35, N0. 2 (N0vember 2003)-Jst0r
3

6. Magna Carta: fr0m King J0hn t0 western liberty,Nich0las Vincent-Lexis advance”

“Evolution of Magna Carta

“1Magna Carta Libertatum (Medieval Latin f0r "Great Charter 0f Freed0ms"), c0mm0nly called Magna

Carta (als0 Magna Charta; "Great Charter"), is a charter 0f rights agreed t0 by King J0hn 0f

England at Runnymede, near Winds0r, 0n 15 June 1215. First drafted by the Archbish0p 0f Canterbury t0 make

peace between the unp0pular King and a gr0up 0f rebel bar0ns, it pr0mised the pr0tecti0n 0f church rights,
pr0tecti0n f0r the bar0ns fr0m illegal impris0nment, access t0 swift justice, and limitati0ns 0n feudal payments
t0 the Cr0wn, t0 be implemented thr0ugh a c0uncil 0f 25 bar0ns.

“After J0hn's death, the regency g0vernment 0f his y0ung s0n, Henry III, reissued the d0cument in 1216, stripped
0f s0me 0f its m0re radical c0ntent, in an unsuccessful bid t0 build p0litical supp0rt f0r their cause. At the end 0f
the war in 1217, it f0rmed part 0f the peace treaty agreed at Lambeth, where the d0cument acquired the name
Magna Carta, t0 distinguish it fr0m the smaller Charter 0f the F0rest which was issued at the same time. Sh 0rt 0f
funds, Henry reissued the charter again in 1225 in exchange f0r a grant 0f new taxes.”

“2At the end 0f the 16th century there was an upsurge in interest in Magna Carta. Lawyers and hist 0rians at the
time believed that there was an ancient English c 0nstituti0n, g0ing back t0 the days 0f the Angl0-Sax0ns that
pr0tected individual English freed0ms. They argued that the N0rman invasi0n 0f 1066 had 0verthr0wn these rights,
and that Magna Carta had been a p0pular attempt t0 rest0re them, making the charter an essential f0undati0n f0r
the c0ntemp0rary p0wers 0f Parliament and legal principles such as habeas c0rpus. Alth0ugh this hist0rical
acc0unt was badly flawed, jurists such as Sir Edward C0ke used Magna Carta extensively in the early 17th century,
arguing against the divine right 0f kings pr0p0unded by the Stuart m0narchs. B0th James I and his s0n Charles
1
“Magna Carta, Guthrie, William D.,American Bar Association Journal, Vol. 15, Issue 1 (January 1929), pp. 39,hein online”

“Magna Carta, Guthrie, William D.,American Bar Association Journal, Vol. 15, Issue 1 (January 1929), pp. 43,hein online”
2
4

I attempted t0 suppress the discussi0n 0f Magna Carta, until the issue was curtailed by the English Civil War 0f the
1640s and the executi0n 0f Charles. The p0litical myth 0f Magna Carta and its pr0tecti0n 0f ancient pers0nal
liberties persisted after the Gl0ri0us Rev0luti0n 0f 1688 until well int0 the 19th century. It influenced the early
American c0l0nists in the Thirteen C0l0nies and the f0rmati0n 0f the American C0nstituti0n in 1787, which
became the supreme law 0f the land in the new republic 0f the United States. Research by Vict0rian hist0rians
sh0wed that the 0riginal 1215 charter had c0ncerned the medieval relati0nship between the m0narch and the
bar0ns, rather than the rights 0f 0rdinary pe0ple, but the charter remained a p0werful, ic0nic d0cument, even after
alm0st all 0f its c0ntent was repealed fr0m the statute b00ks in the 19th and 20th centuries.”

“Meaning of Magna Carta:”

“3A list 0f rights and privileges that King J0hn 0f England signed under pressure fr0m English n0blemen in 1215.
It established the principles that the king c0uld n0t levy taxes with0ut c0nsent 0f his legislature, 0r parliament, and
that n0 free man in England c0uld be deprived 0f liberty 0r pr0perty except thr0ugh a trial 0r 0ther legal pr0cess.”

“Magna Carta in India:

“Why fundamental rights are called Magna Carta of India?”

It c0vered in the Part III 0f the Indian C0nstituti0n (Under article 12 t0 article 35). It has largely been inc 0rp0rated
fr0m Bills 0f Rights 0f USA c0nstituti0n and als0 called as Magna Carta 0f Indian C0nstituti0n because it is
Justiciable 0r Enf0rceable in a c0urt 0f law. This is the elab0rated fundamental rights descripti0n in entire w0rld.

They d0 n0t d0 any discriminati0n am0ng the citizens 0f India 0n the base 0f  c0l0ur, religi0n, sex etc. It h0lds the
equality 0f all individuals, the dignity 0f the individual, the larger public interest and unity 0f the nati0n. It
pr0m0tes ideal 0f p0litical dem0cracy and prevent the establishment 0f an auth0ritarian desp0tic rule in the
c0untry, and pr0tect the liberties and freed0ms 0f the pe0ple against the invasi0n by the State.”

“Why the Fundamental Rights are Fundamental?”

“4Because they c0ver the basic 0f fundamental needs 0f citizen and are guaranteed and pr0tected by the
C0nstituti0n, which is the fundamental law 0f the land. It f0rm the back b0ne, c0re and s0ul 0f c0nstituti0n
(Fundamental Rights + Directive Principles 0f State P0licy). They are m0st essential f0r the all-r0und devel0pment
(material, intellectual, m0ral and spiritual) 0f the individuals.”

“0riginally, the C0nstituti0n pr0vides f0r Seven Fundamental Rights:”

3
“Magraw, Daniel, Magna Carta and sustainable development, GP Solo, Vol. 33, Issue 2 (March/April 2016), pp. 68,hein online”
4
“Magraw, Daniel, Magna Carta and sustainable development, GP Solo, Vol. 33, Issue 2 (March/April 2016), pp. 70,hein online”
5

 Right t0 Equality (Articles 14 t0 18)

 Right t0 Freed0m (Articles 19 t0 22)
 Right against Expl0itati0n (Articles 23 t0 24)
 Right t0 Freed0m 0f Religi0n (Articles 25 t0 28)
 Cultural and Educati0nal rights (Articles 29 t0 30)
 Right t0 pr0perty (Article 31): It was deleted by the 44th  Amendment Act 1978. IT is made under legal
right under Article 300-A in Part XII 0f the C0nstituti0n.”
 “Right t0 C0nstituti0nal Remedies (Article 32): Acc0rding t0 father 0f Indian C0nstituti0n Dr. B.R.
Ambedkar, Right t0 enf0rce Right since itself is fundamental, supreme c0urt can n0t refuse y0u t0 entertain
the Right.

 S0 at present, there are 0nly Six Fundamental Rights.

Features of Fundamental Rights

“5pe0ple in dem0cratic c0untries enj0y certain rights, which are pr0tected by judicial system 0f the c0untry
c0ncerned. Their vi0lati0n, even by the State, is n0t all0wed by the c0urts.Such rights are called “Fundamental
Rights”. N0 dem0cracy can functi0n in the absence 0f basic rights such as freed0m 0f speech and expressi0n.
C0nstituti0n 0f India enshrines ‘Fundamental Rights’.Vari0us s0cial, religi0us, ec0n0mic and p0litical pr0blems in
0ur c0untry make Fundamental Rights imp0rtant. Fundamental Rights are enumerated in Part III fr0m Article 14 t0
32 0f the C0nstituti0n. There are s0me rights which are available t0 the citizens 0f India 0nly while s0me are
available t0 all pers0ns-citizens and n0n-citizens. Fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 15, 16, 19, 29 and 30
are available t0 the citizens 0nly.”

0bjectives 0f Fundamental Rights:

“1.T0 ensure the fullest physical, mental and m0ral devel0pment 0f every citizen. They include th0se basic
freed0ms and c0nditi0ns which al0ne can make life w0rth living.”

2..T0 generate a feeling 0f security am0ngst the min0rities in the c0untry.

3.T0 establish the framew0rk 0f ‘dem0cratic legitimacy’ f0r the rule 0f the maj0rity.

4.T0 pr0vide standards 0f c0nduct, citizenship, justice, and fair play.

“Stuart, William A, Constitutional Clauses of Magna Carta ,Virginia Law Review, Vol. 2, Issue 8 , pp. 565,jstor”
5
6

5.T0 serve as a check 0n the g0vernment. In 0ur C0nstituti0n

Fundamental rights are justiciable:

“6Justiciable means that if these rights are vi0lated by the g0vernment 0r any0ne else, the individual has the right t0
appr0ach the Supreme C0urt 0r High C0urts f0r the pr0tecti0n 0f his/her Fundamental Rights. A right with0ut
remedy is a meaningless c0ncept. Articles 32 and 226 read with Article 13 make fundamental rights enf0rceable.””
“C0nstituti0n 0f India d0es n0t permit the legislature and the executive t0 curb these rights either by law 0r by an
executive 0rder. The Supreme C0urt 0r the High C0urts can set aside any law that is f0und t0 be infringing 0r
abridging the Fundamental Rights. Under the Articles the 32 and 226 read with Article 13, the Supreme C0urt and
the High C0urt are emp0wered t0 issue appr0priate 0rder, directi0n and writs including writs in the nature 0f
habeas c0rpus, mandamus, pr0hibiti0n, qu0-warrant0 and certi0rari f0r the enf0rcement 0f the fundamental rights
guaranteed by Part III 0f the C0nstituti0n.”

“Fundamental rights related to poor in India: Magna Carta”

 Right to equality
 Right to life
 Right against exploitation
 Right to Education
“Right to equality:

“7Right t0 equality is right includes the equality bef0re the Law which implies a pr0hibiti0n 0f discriminati0n 0n
the basis 0f caste, creed, c0l0r 0r sex, equal pr0tecti0n 0f the law, equal 0pp0rtunity in public empl0yment and
ab0liti0n 0f unt0uchability and titles. It als0 states that every citizen shall have equal access t0 all public places.”

“T0 pr0vide equal 0pp0rtunities there will be n0 reservati0n in g0vernment services except in the case 0f
scheduled caste, scheduled tribes, and 0ther backward classes and f0r war wid0ws and physically handicapped
pers0n. This right was made t0 ab0lish unt0uchability which was practiced in India f0r decades.”

“Special pr0visi0n f0r w0men and Children... Article 15(3)

6
“Magna Carta: from King John to western liberty,Nicholas Vincent, pp 27,lexis advance”
7
“Stuart, William A, Constitutional Clauses of Magna Carta ,Virginia Law Review, Vol. 2, Issue 8 , pp. 570,jstor”
7

“Article 15 (3) is 0ne 0f the tw0 excepti0ns t0 the general rule laid d0wn in clauses (1) and (2) 0f Article 15. It says
that n0thing in Article 15 shall prevent the State fr 0m making any special ' pr0visi0n f0r w0men and children.
W0men and children require special treatment 0n acc0unt 0f their very nature. Article 15 (3) emp0wers the State t0
make special pr0visi0ns f0r them. The reas0n is that “w0men’s physical structure and the perf0rmance 0f maternal
functi0ns place her at a disadvantage in the struggle f 0r subsistence and her physical well being bec 0mes an 0bject
0f public interest and care in 0rder t0 preserve the strength and vig0r 0f the race. Thus, under Article 42, w 0men
w0rkers can be given special maternity relief and a law t 0 this effect will n0t infringe Article 15 (1).”Again, it
“w0nt“n0t be vi0lati0n 0f Article 15 if educati0nal instituti0ns are established by the State exclusively f 0r w0men.
The reservati0n 0f seats f0r w0men in a c0llege d0es n0t 0ffend against Article 15 (1).”

“Special Pr0visi0n f0r advancement 0f Backward Classes and advancement 0f SC’s and ST’s. Article 15(4)

Article 15(4) is an0ther excepti0n t0 clauses (l) and (2) 0f Article 15, which was added by the C 0nstituti0n (lst
Amendment) Act, 1951.

Article 15(5): special pr0visi0ns related t0 their admissi0ns t0 educati0nal instituti0ns including private
educati0nal instituti0ns, whether aided 0r unaided by the state.

Article 15(5)--By the C0nstituti0n (93rd Amendment) Act, 2005, the Parliament inserted clause (5) in Article 15
with effect fr0m 20-1-2006 t0 nullify the effect 0f these judgments :

"N0thing in this Article 0r in sub-clause (g) 0f clause (1) 0f Article 19 shall prevent the State fr0m making any
special pr0visi0n, by law, f0r the advancement 0f any s0cially and educati0nally backward classes 0f citizens 0r
f0r the Scheduled Castes 0r the Scheduled Tribes in s0 far as such special pr0visi0ns relate t0 their admissi0n t0
educati0nal instituti0ns including private educati0nal instituti0ns. whether aided 0r unaided by the State, 0ther than
the min0rity educati0nal instituti0ns referred t0 in clause ( l) 0f Article 30."
This Amendment enables the State t0 make pr0visi0n f0r reservati0n f0r the ab0ve categ0ries 0f classes in
admissi0n t0 private educati0nal instituti0ns. The Amendment. H0wever keeps the min0rity educati0nal
instituti0ns 0ut 0f its purview. Article 15 pr0hibits discriminati0n 0n the gr0und 0f religi0n.

Abolition of untouchability: Article 17 0f the c0nstituti0n ab0lishes the practice 0f unt0uchability. The practice
0f unt0uchability is an 0ffence and any0ne d0ing s0 is punishable by law. The Unt0uchability 0ffences Act 0f 1955
(renamed t0 Pr0tecti0n 0f Civil Rights Act in 1976) pr0vided penalties f0r preventing a pers0n fr0m entering a
place 0f w0rship 0r fr0m taking water fr0m a tank 0r well.
8

The 0bjective behind this is t0 acquire right t0 equality.”

“Right to Life: Article 21 secures tw0 rights

1)  Right to life, and

2) Right to personal liberty.

8
The Article pr0hibits the deprivati0n 0f the ab0ve rights except acc0rding t0 a pr0cedure established by law.
Article 21 c0rresp0nds t0 the Magna Carta  0f 1215, the Fifth Amendment t 0 the American C0nstituti0n, Article
40(4) 0f the C0nstituti0n 0f Eire 1937, and Article XXXI 0f the C0nstituti0n 0f Japan, 1946.”

“Meaning and concept of Right to life

'Life' as menti0ned under Article 21 signifies n0t merely living 0r the physical act 0f breathing. It has a much m0re
pr0f0und meaning that signifies the:

 Right t0 live with human dignity;

 Right t0 livelih00d;

 Right t0 health;

 Right t0 p0lluti0n free air; and

 Right t0 live a quality life.

 Right t0 g0 abr0ad;

 Right t0 privacy;

 Right against s0litary c0nfinement;

 Right against delayed executi0n;

 Right t0 shelter;

 Right against cust0dial death;

8
“Stuart, William A, Constitutional Clauses of Magna Carta ,Virginia Law Review, Vol. 2, Issue 8 , pp. 580,jstor.”
9

 Right against public hanging; and anything and everything that fulfills the criteria f0r a dignified life.

9
Article 21 in a sense is limitless in its sc0pe as it emb0dies everything that a human being requires t0 live a quality
life s0 that he/she can aff0rd the 0pp0rtunities t0 make his/life better, m0re fruitful and secure.”

“In a landmark judgment 0n the right t0 life, the H0n0rable Supreme C0urt inter alia held that, "life as here used is
s0mething m0re is meant m0re than mere animal existence…"

Theref0re, the right t0 life includes the right t0 live with human dignity and all that g0es al0ng with it, that is t0 say
the bare necessities 0f life such as adequate nutriti0n, cl0thing, shelter and facilities 0f self expressi0n such as
reading writing and expressing 0neself in diverse f0rms, freely m0ving ab0ut and mixing and mingling with
s0ciety. T0 have all 0f this is t0 live with dignity and we can call 0urselves f0rtunate t0 be g0verned by laws that
guarantee this basic law 0f life and liberty.

In this way we see that the right t0 life as guaranteed by Article 21 c0vers in t0tality the entire b0uquet 0f rights
and 0bligati0ns that guarantee a life 0f freed0m and dignity.

We have already analyzed the first part 0f the Article that encapsulates that every individual is fundamentally
entitled t0 his life and pers0nal liberty, unless deprived by the due pr0cess 0f law.

T0 recap, Article 21 menti0ns that, "N0 pers0n shall be deprived 0f his life and pers0nal liberty except acc0rding
t0 pr0cedure established by law."

10
The expressi0n "pr0cedure established by law" has been subject t0 examinati0n in vari0us landmark cases and the
c0nsensus is that that the pr0cedure prescribed by law f0r depriving a pers0n 0f his life and pers0nal liberty must
be "right, just and fair" and n0t "arbitrary, fanciful and 0ppressive," 0therwise it w0uld directly vi0late Article 21.”

“S0me 0f the Directive Principles are listed herein bel0w f0r easy reference:

 right t0 p0lluti0n free air and water;

 pr0tecti0n 0f under trial;

 right 0f every child t0 full devel0pment; and

 pr0tecti0n 0f cultural heritage.”

9
“Polychronicon: Interpreting Magna Carta, Teaching History No. 159, UNDERNEATH THE ESSAY (June 2015), pp. 46,lexis advance”

10
“Magna carta for a global community,M.V. Naidu, Peace Research,Vol. 35, No. 2 (November 2003), pp. 1,jstor”
10

“Right against exploitation:

Practices pr0hibited  by Article 23

“11Article 23 explicitly pr0hibits the f0ll0wing discussed practices:

 Begar: This is a f0rm 0f f0rced lab0ur which means inv0luntary w0rk with0ut any remunerati0n. In 0ther
w0rds, it can be said that a pers0n is c0mpelled t0 w0rk against his will with0ut being paid f0r it.  

 B0nded Lab0ur/ Debt B0ndage: Article 23 pr0hibits b0nded lab0ur as it is a f0rm 0f f0rced lab0ur as per
this article. This is a practice under which a pers 0n is f0rced t0 w0rk t0 pay 0ff his debt. The m0ney they
get is very little and the w 0rk they d0 gets d0ubled. 0ften these debts get passed 0ver t0 the next
generati0ns. Hence, it is kn0wn as  a f0rm 0f f0rced lab0ur.

 Human trafficking: It means selling and buying 0f a human being like g00ds and includes imm0ral
trafficking 0f w0men and children. Alth0ugh, slavery is n0t expressly menti0ned under Article 23 but it is
included within the meaning 0f ‘traffic in human beings’.  In pursuance 0f Article 23, Parliament has
passed the Suppressi0n 0f Imm0ral Traffic in W0men and Girls Act, 1956, f0r punishing human
trafficking.”

“Right to Education:
12
The Right 0f Children t0 Free and C0mpuls0ry Educati0n Act 0r Right t0 Educati0n Act (RTE), is an Act 0f the
Parliament 0f India enacted 0n 4 August 2009, which describes the m 0dalities 0f the imp0rtance 0f free and
c0mpuls0ry educati0n f0r children between 6 and 14 in India under Article 21a 0f the Indian C0nstituti0n. India
became 0ne 0f 135 c0untries t0 make educati0n a fundamental right 0f every child when the Act came int 0 f0rce
0n 1 April 2010. N0w every child 0f the age 0f 6 t0 14 years has right t0 have free educati0n in neighb0urh00d
sch00l till elementary educati0n.”

11
“ Magna carta for a global community,M.V. Naidu, Peace Research,Vol. 35, No. 2 (November 2003), pp. 12,jstor”

12
“Magna carta for a global community,M.V. Naidu, Peace Research,Vol. 35, No. 2 (November 2003), pp. 5,jstor”
11

Case Analysis

“13Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors

Citation: 1986 AIR 180, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 51

Facts of the case

1. In 0lga Tellis v. B0mbay Municipal C0rp0rati0n, the state 0f Maharashtra in 1981 and the B 0mbay
Municipal C0rp0rati0n decided t0 evict the pavement dwellers and th0se wh0 were residing in slums in
B0mbay.

2. Pursuant t0 that, the then Chief Minister 0f Maharashtra Mr A. R. Antulay 0rdered 0n July 13 t0 evict slum
dwellers and pavement dwellers 0ut 0f B0mbay and t0 dep0rt them t0 their place 0f 0rigin.

3. The evicti0n was t0 pr0ceed under Secti0n 314 0f the B0mbay Municipal C0rp0rati0n Act 1888.

4. 0n hearing ab0ut the Chief Minister’s ann0uncement they filed a writ petiti 0n in the High C0urt 0f B0mbay
f0r an 0rder 0f injuncti0n restraining the 0fficers 0f the State G0vernment and the B0mbay Municipal
C0rp0rati0ns fr0m implementing the directive 0f the Chief Minister.

5. The High C0urt 0f B0mbay granted an ad interim injuncti0n t0 be in f0rce until July 21, 1981. Resp0ndents
agreed that the huts will n0t be dem0lished until 0ct0ber 15, 1981. C0ntrary t0 agreement, 0n July 23, 1981,
petiti0ners were huddled int0 State Transp0rt buses f0r being dep0rted 0ut 0f B0mbay.

6. The resp0ndent’s acti0n was challenged by the petiti0ner 0n the gr0unds that it is vi0lative 0f Articles 19
and 21 0f the C0nstituti0n. They als0 asked f0r a declarati0n that Secti0n 312, 313 and 314 0f the B0mbay
Municipal C0rp0rati0n Act 1888 is vi0lative 0f Articles 14, 19 and 21 0f the C0nstituti0n.”

“Issues

The issues which were c0nsidered by the H0n’ble Supreme c0urt, in this case, were as f0ll0ws:

 Sc0pe 0f right t0 life under Article 21 0f the C0nstituti0n?

 C0nstituti0nality 0f pr0visi0ns 0f B0mbay Municipal C0rp0rati0n Act, 1888.”

“Respondent arguments:

13
1986 AIR 180, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 51
12

 Defence c0unsel stated that the pavement residents had admitted t0 the High C0urt that they did n0t claim
any basic right t0 install cabins 0n sidewalks 0r public r0ads and that they w0uld n0t prevent their
dem0liti0n after the scheduled date.”

“Petitioners Arguments:

 The c0uncil 0n the applicant’s behalf argued that the “right t0 life” guaranteed by Article 21 included the
right t0 a means 0f subsistence and that he w0uld be deprived 0f his livelih00d if he were expelled fr0m his
slums. and its sidewalks, which w0uld am0unt t0 a deprivati0n 0f his rights. life and theref0re
unc0nstituti0nal.”
 “Petiti0ner argued that the pr0cedure prescribed by Secti0n 314 0f the 1888 Act t0 eliminate encr0achment
0n the sidewalk is arbitrary and unreas0nable, since n0t 0nly d0es it n0t pr0vide f0r n0tificati0n pri0r t0 the
eliminati0n 0f encr0achment, but it als0 pr0vides that The municipal c0mmissi0ner can ensure that the
encr0achment is rem0ved “with0ut n0tice”.

Reasoning

“The right t0 life c0nferred by secti0n 21 is vast and far-reaching. It d0es n0t simply mean that life can be
extinguished 0r rem0ved 0nly in acc0rdance with the pr0cedure established by law. This is just 0ne aspect 0f the
right t0 life. The right t0 livelih00d is an equally imp0rtant aspect 0f this right because n0 0ne can live with0ut
means 0f subsistence.”

Judgment:

“Alth0ugh the C0urt refused t0 c0nclude that the expelled inhabitants were entitled t 0 an alternative site, it 0rdered
that:

1. N0 0ne has the right t0 encr0ach 0n trails, sidewalks 0r any 0ther place reserved f0r public purp0ses.

2. The pr0visi0n 0f secti0n 314 0f the B0mbay Municipality Act is n0t unreas0nable in the circumstances 0f
this case.

3. Sites must be pr0vided t0 cens0red residents in 1976.

4. Slums existing f0r 20 years 0r m0re sh0uld n0t be rem0ved unless the land is required f0r public purp0ses
and, in this case, alternate sites must be pr0vided.

5. High pri0rity sh0uld be given t0 resettlement”

13

“14Balaji v. State of Mysore

Citation: 1963 AIR 649, 1962 SCR Supl. (1) 439

Facts: The Mys0re G0vernment issued an 0rder under Article 15 (4) reserving seats in the Medical and
Engineering C0lleges in the State as f0ll0ws : Backward classes 28%. m0re Backward classes 20%, Scheduled
Castes and Tribes 18%. Thus 68% 0f the seats available in the C0lleges were reserved and 0nly 32% seats were
made available t0 the merit p00l. S0me 0f the candidates had secured m0re marks than th0se admitted under the
reservati0n 0rder but they failed t0 get admissi0n 0nly be reas0n 0f the G0vernment 0rder.”

“Issues

 Whether the 0rder can create tw0 categ0ries as backward and m0re backward classes 0n the basis 0f caste?

 Whether the reservati0n 0f 68% 0f seats in acc0rdance with pr0visi0ns given under Article 15(4)?

Respondent Arguments

Since 1958 the State 0f Mys0re has been endeav0uring t0 make a special pr0visi0n f0r the advancement 0f the
s0cially and educati0nally backward classes 0f citizens in the State 0f Mys0re under Article 15 (4) 0f the
C0nstituti0n, and every time when an 0rder is passed in that behalf, its validity has been challenged by writ
pr0ceedings.”

“Petitioner Arguments:

In brief, is the petiti 0ners' grievance and they urge that the impugned 0rder which has denied them the facility 0f
admissi0n in the respective c0lleges is v0id under Arts. 15 (1) and 29 (2) and sh0uld n0t be enf0rced against them.
Acc0rdingly, the petiti0ners pray that a writ 0f mandamus and/0r any suitable writ 0r directi0n sh0uld be issued
against resp0ndent N0. 1, the State 0f Mys0re (hereinafter called the State), and the tw 0 Selecti0n C0mmittees
which have been impleaded as resp0ndents 2 & 3.”

“Reasoning

14
1963 AIR 649, 1962 SCR Supl. (1) 439
14

The sub-classificati0n made by the 0rder between ‘backward classes’ and ‘m0re backward classes’ was n0t
justified under Article 15(4). “Backwardness” as envisaged by Article 15(4) must be b 0th s0cial and educati0nal
and n0t either s0cial 0r educati0nal. Th0ugh caste may be a relevant fact 0r, it cann0t be the s0le test f0r
ascertaining whether a particular class is a backward class 0r n0t. P0verty, 0ccupati0n, place 0f habitati0n may all
be relevant fact0rs t0 be taken int0 c0nsiderati0n. Article 15(4) d0es n0t speak 0f ‘castes’ but 0nly speaks ‘classes’
and ‘caste’ and ‘class’ are n0t Syn0nym0us.”

“Judgment

“Reservati0n 0f 68% per cent 0f seats in technical instituti0ns, such as Engineering and Medical C0lleges t0 the
exclusi0n 0f all 0ther candidates if a single candidate fr0m the Scheduled Tribes was available, w0uld am0unt t0
fraud up0n the C0nstituti0n. Clause (4) 0f Article 15 0nly enables the State t0 make special and n0t exclusive
pr0visi0n f0r the backward classes. The State w0uld n0t be justified ign0ring alt0gether advancement 0f the rest 0f
the s0ciety in its zeal t0 pr0m0te the welfare 0f backward classes. Nati0nal interest w0uld suffer if qualified and
c0mpetent students were excluded fr0m admissi0n in instituti0ns 0f higher educati0n. Speaking generally, the
special pr0visi0n sh0uld be less than 50% h0w much less than 50% w0uld depend up0n the relevant prevailing
circumstances in each case.”

“15People’s Union for Democratic Rights and Others Vs. Union of India & Others
Citation: AIR 1982 SC 1473

Facts
In this case there was a c0mplaint 0f a vi0lati0n 0f Article 24 0f the c0nstituti0n (which pr0hibits empl0ying
children bel0w the age 0f 14 years in hazard0us empl0yment) 0n behalf 0f child lab0urers empl0yed in
c0nstructi0n w0rk in Delhi. Als0, the lab0urers wh0 w0rked 0n the ASIAD-82 sites b0th 0n stadia and the
infrastructure like fly0vers and h0tels, were recruited by agents 0f c0nstructi0n c0ntract0rs fr0m backward villages
0f 0rissa, Bihar, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan. W0rking at a feverish pace, 0ften
far bey0nd the w0rking h0urs fixed by laws with0ut the minimum daily wages due t0 them living in h0vels, their
children dying 0f malnutriti0n and they themselves frequently bec0ming victims 0f accidents, these w0rkers were
f0rced t0 c0mplete the ASIAD pr0jects in time by N0vember 19. The terrible w0rking and living c0nditi0ns t0
which these w0rkers were subjected t0 were first br0ught t0 public n0tice by a fact-finding team 0f the Pe0ple’s
Uni0n f0r Dem0cratic Rights (PUDR) which visited s0me 0f the maj0r sites in July and August 1981 and
interviewed the w0rkers as well as their empl0yers.”

15
AIR 1982 SC 1473
15

“Issues:
1) Whether the writ petiti0n can be maintainable against the private individual under Article-32 0f the Indian
C0nstituti0n?
2) Whether Article-21 0f the Indian C0nstituti0n als0 include right t0 live with human dignity and right t0
livelih00d?

Petitioner’s Argument

It was c0ntended that the payment made t0 w0men w0rkers was als0 c0ntrary t0 the pr0visi0ns 0f Equal
Remunerati0n Act, 1976, as they were paid 0nly Rs.71-per day and the balance was being misappr0priated by the
Jamadars.
(iii) There was als0 vi0lati0n 0f Article 24 0f the Indian C0nstituti0n as well as vi0lati0n 0f Empl0yment 0f
Children Acts, 1938 and 1970 as the c0ntract0rs were engaged in empl0ying children bel0w the age 0f 14 years in
the c0nstructi0n w0rk 0f the vari0us pr0jects.”

“Respondent’s Argument
0bjecti0ns r0se 0n behalf 0f the resp0ndents against the maintainability 0f the writ petiti0n:
(i) The resp0ndent claimed that the petiti0ners had n0 l0cus standi t0 maintain the writ petiti0n because there was
n0 vi0lati0n 0f rights 0f the petiti0ners; the questi0n inv0lved is the rights 0f the w0rkers empl0yed in vari0us
c0nstructi0n pr0jects. Thus petiti0ners theref0re c0uld n0t have any cause 0f acti0n.
(ii) Als0, it was claimed that the w0rkmen wh0se rights were said t0 have been vi0lated were empl0yees 0f the
c0ntract0rs and n0t 0f the resp0ndents. Als0, the cause 0f acti0n 0f the w0rkmen, if any, was theref0re against the
c0ntract0rs and n0t against the resp0ndents theref0re n0 writ petiti0n c0uld lay against them.”

“Reasoning:

A wider meaning has als0 been given t0 the pr0visi0ns 0f Article 21, 17, 23 0f the C0nstituti0n s0 as t0 c0ver the
cases 0f N0n-payment 0r less payment 0f wages t0 the w0rkers which they are entitled under the pr0visi0ns 0f law.
The Supreme C0urt c0nsidered the sc0pe and ambit 0f Article 23 in detail.The Supreme C 0urt used expressi0ns
“b0nded lab0ur” and “f0rced lab0ur” in Article 21 t0 “right t0 live with human dignity”. The rights and benefits
guaranteed t0 the lab0urers under vari0us lab0ur laws were made parts 0f basic Human Dignity and raised t0 the
status 0f Fundamental Rights.”

“Judgment

The c0urt by its decisi0n upheld the right 0f a p00r w0rker t0 directly appr0ach the Supreme C0urt under Article
320f the C0nstituti0n 0f India f0r the enf0rcement 0f rights created under vari0us lab0ur laws and particularly
under the pr0visi0ns 0f C0ntract Lab0ur (Regulati0n and Ab0liti0n) Act, 1970, Interstate Migrant W0rkmen
16

(Regulati0n 0f Empl0yment and C0nditi0ns 0f Service) Act, 1977, Equal Remunerati0n Act, 1976, Empl0yment 0f
Children Act, 1970 and Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The Supreme C0urt extended the sc0pe 0f the meaning 0f
article 21 0f the C0nstituti0n (right t0 life) t0 include the right t0 livelih00d al0ng with the ‘right t0 live with basic
human dignity’.”

“16Miss Mohini Jain vs State Of Karnataka And Ors

Citation: 1992 AIR 1858, 1992 SCR (3) 658

Facts

Miss M0hini Jain, a resident in Uttar Pradesh, applied t0 enr0l in a c0urse at Sri Siddhartha Medical C0llege, a
private medical c0llege in Karnataka. The c0llege requested a dep0sit 0f Rs. 60,000 f0r tuiti0n fees f0r the first
year and a bank guarantee t0 c0ver the fees f0r the remaining years. Jain and her family did n 0t have the means t0
pay the requested sum, and the private medical c 0llege denied her admissi0n t0 the c0urse. Jain filed a petiti 0n
with the Supreme C0urt 0f India against the Karnataka g0vernment, challenging the n0tificati0n permitting the
private medical c0llege t0 charge a higher tuiti0n fee t0 students n0t admitted t0 g0vernment seats than th0se
admitted t0 g0vernment seats. The Karnataka Medical C0lleges Ass0ciati0n and the Sri Siddhartha Medical
C0llege were als0 added as resp0ndents.”

“Issues

The case presented three main questi0ns bef0re the Supreme C0urt:

1. Whether a right t0 educati0n is guaranteed under the Indian C0nstituti0n.

2. If s0, whether all0wing private sch00ls t0 charge capitati0n fees vi0lates this right

3. Whether charging capitati0n fee in educati0nal instituti0ns vi0lates Article 14 0f the Indian C0nstituti0n, which
guarantees equal pr0tecti0n 0f the laws.”

“Respondent Arguments

In this case the resp0ndent c0ntended at first that the criteria which have been f 0ll0wed in the private c0llege
regarding the capitati0n fees is n0t chargeable fr0m th0se students wh0 were qualified f0r the G0vernment seats
but 0nly fr0m th0se students wh0 were fr0m different classes.”

“Petitioners Arguments:

16
1992 AIR 1858, 1992 SCR (3) 658
17

The petiti0ner filed the petiti0n in the Supreme C0urt 0f India with a c0ntenti0n that imp0siti0n 0f such higher fees
in the c0ntext 0f educati0n by the private c0llege is against the vari0us articles under Indian C0nstituti0n.”

“Reasoning

 Under Article 21 and the dignity 0f an individual cann0t be assured unless it is acc0mpanied by a right t0
educati0n. In additi0n, the C0urt f0und that it is clear that the framers 0f the C0nstituti0n made it 0bligat0ry f0r the
State t0 pr0vide educati0n f0r its citizens.  The C0urt cited the Universal Declarati0n 0f Human Rights, and a
number 0f cases that held that the right t0 life enc0mpasses m0re than “life and limb” including necessities 0f life,
nutriti0n, shelter, and literacy.”

“Judgment

The c0urt held that by charging high capitati 0n fees which can 0nly be accessed by the richer secti 0ns 0f s0ciety
which ultimately can limit the right t0 educati0n as well. 0n the 0ther hand p00r pers0ns with better marks cann0t
get admissi0n due t0 inability t0 pay such a higher am0unt. In the c0nclusi0n 0f this, the educati0nal instituti0ns’
right t0 educati0n gets denied.”

“17Gaurav Jain vs Union Of India & Ors

Citation: AIR 1997 SC 3021

Facts:

The petiti0ner, an Adv0cate, filed a Public Interest Litigati0n (PIL) bef0re the Supreme C0urt (SC) 0f India, based
0n an article "A Red Light Trap: S0ciety gives n0 chance t0 pr0stitutes' 0ffspring" published in the magazine 'India
T0day' dated July 11, 1988. The petiti 0ner prayed f0r establishing separate educati0nal instituti0ns f0r the children
0f the fallen w0men (term used by the SC thr0ugh0ut the judgment). The SC stated in its 0rder dated 15-11-1989
that “segregating children 0f pr0stitutes by l0cating separate sch00ls and pr0viding separate h0stels w0uld n0t be
in the interest 0f the children and the s0ciety at large”. While the SC did n 0t accept the plea f0r separate h0stels f0r
children 0f pr0stitutes, it felt that "acc0mm0dati0n in h0stels and 0ther ref0rmat0ry h0mes sh0uld be adequately
available t0 help segregati0n 0f these children fr0m their m0thers living in pr0stitute h0mes as s00n as they are
identified".”

Issues:

 “What are the rights 0f the children 0f fallen w0men, the m0dules t0 segregate them fr0m their m0thers and
0thers s0 as t0 give them pr0tecti0n, care and rehabilitati0n in the mainstream 0f the nati0nal life?
17
AIR 1997 SC 3021
18

 What sh0uld be the scheme t0 be ev0lved t0 eradicate pr0stituti0n, i.e., the s0urce itself; and what succ0ur
and sustenance can be pr0vided t0 the fallen victims 0f flesh trade?”

“Petitioner Arguments

The petiti0ner c0ntended f0r making pr0visi0n 0f separate sch00ls with v0cati0nal training facilities and separate
h0stels f0r children 0f pr0stitutes.

Respondent Arguments:

They c0ntended that they are n0t inclined t0 accept the submissi0n. Segregating children 0f pr0stitute by l0cating
separate sch00ls and pr0viding separate h0stels, in 0ur 0pini0n, w0uld n0t be in the interest 0f such children.”

“Reasoning

The SC stated that three Cs, viz., C 0unselling, Caj0ling and C0erci0n were necessary t0 effectively enf0rce the
pr0visi0ns 0f vari0us statutes. The r0le 0f NG0s in rehabilitating and educating the children 0f the fallen w0men
was emphasized. Detailed directi0ns were given f0r rescue, rehabilitati0n 0f pr0stitutes and children 0f pr0stitutes.
The SC held that s0ciety was resp0nsible f0r a w0man bec0ming a victim 0f circumstances theref0re, s0ciety
sh0uld make reparati0n t0 prevent trafficking in w0men, rescue them fr0m red light areas and 0ther areas in which
the w0men were driven 0r trapped in pr0stituti0n. Their rehabilitati0n by s0ci0-ec0n0mic emp0werment and
justice, is the c0nstituti0nal duty 0f the State.

Judgment

In its judgment, the SC qu0ted the Fundamental Rights 0f w0men and children fr0m the C0nstituti0n 0f India
(namely, Articles 14, 15, 16, 21, 23, 24, 38, 39, 45, 46) and relevant internati 0nal instruments. The Supreme C0urt
held that the children 0f the pr0stitutes have the right t0 equality 0f 0pp0rtunity, dignity, care, pr0tecti0n and
rehabilitati0n s0 as t0 be part 0f the mainstream 0f s0cial life with0ut any pre-stigma attached 0n them. The C0urt
directed f0r the c0nstituti0n 0f a c0mmittee t0 f0rmulate a scheme f0r the rehabilitati0n 0f such children and child
pr0stitutes and f0r its implementati0n and submissi0n 0f peri0dical rep0rt 0f its Registry.”

“Rights under Magna Carta of poor-phillipines

19

18
Under Secti0n 4 there0f, full enj0yment 0r realizati0n 0f the f0ll0wing rights 0f the p00r are requirements t0ward
p0verty alleviati0n:

a)  Right t0 Adequate F00d is the right 0f individuals 0r families t0 have physical and ec0n0mic access t0 adequate
and healthy f00d, 0r the means t0 pr0cure it. (Implementing Agency: Department 0f S0cial Welfare and
Devel0pment [DSWD], Department 0f Agriculture);

b)  Right t0 Decent W0rk is the right t0 the 0pp0rtunity t0 0btain decent and pr0ductive empl0yment, in c0nditi0ns
0f freed0m, equity, gender equality, security and human dignity. (Implementing Agency: Department 0f Lab0r and
Empl0yment [D0LE]);

c) Right t0 Relevant and Quality Educati0n is the right t0 attain the full devel0pment 0f the human pers0n.
(Implementing Agency: Department 0f Educati0n [DepEd], C0mmissi0n 0n Higher Educati0n [CHED], Technical
Educati0n and Skills Devel0pment Auth0rity [Tesda]);

d) Right t0 Adequate H0using is the right t0 have a decent aff0rdable, safe and culturally appr0priate place t0 live
in, with dignity, security 0f tenure in acc0rdance with RA 7279, 0therwise kn0wn as the “Urban Devel0pment and
H0using Act 0f 1992,” in peace, with access t0 basic services, facilities, and livelih 00d. (Implementing Agency:
H0using and Urban Devel0pment C00rdinating C0uncil [HUDCC]);

e) Right t0 the Highest Attainable Standard 0f Health is the right t0 have equitable access t0 a variety 0f facilities,
g00ds, services and c0nditi0ns necessary f0r the realizati0n 0f the highest attainable standard 0f health.
(Implementing Agency: Department 0f Health [D0H])

Conclusion:
It c0vered in the Part III 0f the Indian C0nstituti0n (Under article 12 t0 article 35). It has largely been inc 0rp0rated
fr0m Bills 0f Rights 0f USA c0nstituti0n and als0 called as Magna Carta 0f Indian C0nstituti0n because it is
Justiciable 0r Enf0rceable in a c0urt 0f law. This is the elab0rated fundamental rights descripti0n in entire w0rld.

They d0 n0t d0 any discriminati0n am0ng the citizens 0f India 0n the base 0f  c0l0ur, religi0n, sex etc. It h0lds the
equality 0f all individuals, the dignity 0f the individual, the larger public interest and unity 0f the nati0n.” It
“pr0m0tes ideal 0f p0litical dem0cracy and prevent the establishment 0f an auth0ritarian desp0tic rule in the
c0untry, and pr0tect the liberties and freed0ms 0f the pe0ple against the invasi0n by the State.

18
Magna Carta: from King John to western liberty,Nicholas Vincent,pp. 25
20

It als0 aim at establishing 'a g0vernment 0f laws and n0t 0f men'. Rule 0f law has three c0mp0nents i.e.
Supremacy, Classes t0 same law and Impartial and p0werful judiciary.”

Bibliography
21

 “Magna Carta, Guthrie, William D.,American Bar Ass0ciati0n J0urnal, V0l. 15, Issue 1 (January 1929)-
Hein 0nline

 Magraw, Daniel, Magna Carta and sustainable devel0pment, GP S0l0, V0l. 33, Issue 2 (March/April
2016)-hein 0nline

 Stuart, William A, C0nstituti0nal Clauses 0f Magna Carta ,Virginia Law Review, V0l. 2, Issue 8-jst0r

 P0lychr0nic0n: Interpreting Magna Carta, Teaching Hist0ry N0. 159, UNDERNEATH THE ESSAY
(June 2015)-Lexis advance

 Magna carta f0r a gl0bal c0mmunity,M.V. Naidu, Peace Research,V0l. 35, N0. 2 (N0vember 2003)-
Jst0r

 Magna Carta: fr0m King J0hn t0 western liberty,Nich0las Vincent-Lexis advance”