INTERNATIONAL HUMAN

RIGHTS LAW
UNIT-III : NATIONAL HUMAN
RIGHTS LAW
TOPIC 3.1 AND 3.2
Constitutional Provisions
Fundamental Rights
Ms. Farah Hayat
Assistant Professor
Delhi Metropolitan Education, IP University
f.hayat@dme.ac.in
 Unit Objectives and Learning
Outcomes
• Unit Objectives:
• 1. In-depth insight into the constitutional, statutory and institutional aspects of human rights
protection in India, fundamental rights, DPSPs, NHRC particularly.
• 2. Covers constitutional provisions dealing with human rights and special legislations dealing
with protection of rights.
• 3. Discussion on institutional framework in India dealing with protection and enforcement of
human rights.

• Learning Outcomes:
• By the end of the course students should be able to:
• 1. Demonstrate a good understanding of the provisions under the Constitution of India dealing
with human rights.
• 2. Demonstrate a good understanding of fundamental rights.
• 4. Analyze complex human rights problems and apply relevant provisions of human rights law
in India.
 Suggested Readings

• 1. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Implementation of

Basic Human Rights, (Lexis Nexis)
• 2. Vijay Chitnis et. all., Human Rights and the
Law: National and Global Perspective
• 3. H.O. Agarwal, Human Rights, (CLP, 2018)
• 4. Bhagyashree A. Deshpande, Human rights-
Law and Practice, (CLP, 2017)
• 5. H.O. Agarwal, International Law and
Human Rights (CLP, 2019)
 Constitutional Provisions

Definition of State Power of Judicial Review

Article 12 Article 13

Power of the Parliament to restrict

or abrogate the fundamental rights
of the ‘Members of the Armed
Fundamental Rights Article 14- Forces, paramilitary forces, police
32 forces, intelligence agencies and
analogous forces
Article 33
Provision for the restrictions
Power of the Parliament to
on fundamental rights while
make laws on Fundamental
martial law(military rule) is
Rights
in force
Article 35
Article 34

Directive Principles of State

Policy
Article 36-51
Fundamental Rights under the
Constitution of India

Originally the constitution also included Right to property (Article

31). However, it was deleted from the list of Fundamental Rights by the 44 th
Amendment Act, 1978. It is made a legal right under Article 300-A in Part
XII of the Constitution.
• FRs are protected and guaranteed by the Constitution and are called
MAGNA CARTA OF INDIA.
• FRs are NOT sacrosanct or absolute, in the sense that the parliament can
curtail them or put reasonable restrictions for a fixed period of time.
However, the court has the power to review the reasonability of the
restrictions.
• FRs are justiciable: The constitution allows the person to move directly to
the Supreme Court for the reinforcement of his fundamental right as and
when they are violated or restricted.
• They can only be enforced against the State.
• Suspension of Fundamental Rights: All the Fundamental Rights can be
suspended during National Emergencies except the rights guaranteed under
Articles 20 and 21.
• Restriction of Fundamental Rights: The Fundamental Rights can be
restricted during military rule in any particular area.
 State u/Ar. 12
• 12. In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, “the State’’ includes
the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the
Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within
the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.

• Definition of State under Ar. 12 is not exhaustive.

• Article 12 states that the Central Government, the Parliament, State
Government, and State Legislatures come within the definition of “state”.
Apart from these, certain local authorities and other authorities within the
territory of India or under the control of the Government of India are also
said to be “state”.
• The expression “local authorities” usually refers to authorities such as
municipalities, District Boards, Panchayats, mining settlement boards, etc.
Anybody functioning under the state; owned; controlled and managed by
the “state” and carrying out a public function is a local authority and comes
within the definition of State.
 Judicial interpretation of “local
authorities” under Ar. 12
• The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. R.C. Jain, 1981 laid
down the test for determining which bodies would be considered as a local
authority under the definition of state enshrined under Article 12 of the
constitution.
• The issue in this case broadly was ‘Whether Delhi Development Authority
(DDA) is a local authority or not?’ The Court held that if an authority:
• Has a separate legal existence
• Functions in a defined area
• Has the power to raise funds on its own
• Enjoys autonomy i.e., self rule and
• Is entrusted by statute with functions which are usually entrusted to
municipalities,
• Then such authorities would come under ‘local authorities’ and hence
would be ‘state’ under Article 12 of the Constitution.
 Landmark judgment on “other
authorities” within “State”
• In the case of R. D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, 1979 a
similar question was raised before the court that whether International Airport
Authority is a state. The court through J.Bhagwati laid down the following test to
determine whether a body is included within ‘other authorities’ and comes within
the definition of ‘state’ :
• The financial assistance given by the State and magnitude of such assistance;
• If any usual or extraordinary assistance is provided by the State’;
• Nature and extent of control of management and policies of the corporation by
the state;
• The state conferred or state protected monopoly status of the agency;
• The function carried out by the corporation would ascertain whether the body is
an instrumentality or agency of the state or not;
• A government department was turned over to a company.

• The above-said parameters broadly determine whether an authority is ‘other

authority’ as per the definition of ‘state’ under Article 12. Considering these tests,
International Airport Authority was held to be ‘state’.
 Judicial Interpretation of “State”
u/Ar. 12
• In the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, 1981, question
arose before the court that whether a college that was
established by a registered society would come under the
definition of ‘state’ or not. If a corporation is an
instrumentality or agency of the government, it must
become within the meaning of ‘other authority’ and would
be ‘state’. BUT does not include every autonomous body with
any slightest relation with govt.
• The next case that came before the court on a similar issue was
Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. the Indian Institute of Chemical
Biology, 2002. The question before the court was whether
CSIR was an instrumentality of the state or comes within
‘other authorities’ under Article 12 or not.
• It was held that there is no strict rule that every registered
society having any connection with the government, to be
declared as ‘state’. If any of the objective tests laid down in the
case of Ajay Hasia is not fulfilled, then the check must be
whether the body is functionally, financially, and
administratively held by the government. If this condition is
fulfilled, then also the body would come under ‘other
authority’ and hence would be ‘state’ under Article 12.

• The case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas acts as a precedent for all

further cases related to the interpretation of ‘other authorities’.
• Further, in the case of Zee Telefilms v. Union of India, 2005
when the issue came before the court whether BCCI is a state
or not, the court again applied the tests laid down in Ajay
Hasia and Pradeep Kumar’s case and held BCCI, not a state.
• In the case of Naresh Sridhar Mirajkar v. the State of Maharashtra,
the issue before the court was whether a judicial order could be in
violation of fundamental rights and if such judicial order amenable to
writ? The judiciary for discharge of its judicial functions cannot
come under the definition of ‘state’ and is not amenable to the writ.

• In the case of Riju Prasad Sarma v. State of Assam, it was held by the
Supreme Court that when a court is acting in its judicial capacity, it
cannot be considered as ‘state’. However, its administrative action is
amenable to writ.

• Delhi High Court has given judgement in Sanjaya Bahel v. Union of

India & Others case in 2019, that the United Nations is not a "State"
within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is not
amenable to the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
 Power of Judicial Review u/Ar. 13
• Article 13 declares that any law which contravenes any of the provisions of the part
of the fundamental rights shall be void.
• Judicial review can be conducted on both states and central existing laws and the
ordinances of both constitutional and executive amendments. Judicial review
cannot be conducted on the laws present in the ninth schedule of the Indian
Constitution.

• Landmark cases-
• In Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, 1951 the first amendment act of 1951
was being challenged before the supreme court on the ground that ‘Right to
Property’ has been abridged by the Act. The Supreme Court ruled that the power of
the Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368 also includes the power
to amend Fundamental Rights.
• The word ‘law’ in Article 13 includes only ordinary laws and not the constitutional
amendment acts (constituent laws). Therefore, the Parliament can abridge or take
away any of the Fundamental Rights by enacting a constitutional amendment act
and such a law will not be void under Article 13.
• The landmark case of I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab,
1967 three constitutional amendments were challenged which
were 1st, 4th and 17th. The supreme court reversed its decision
that parliament has unlimited power of amendment under
article 368 and held that it has no power to amend to take away
or abridge the fundamental rights guaranteed under our
constitution. The supreme court observed that:
• Article 368 only provides a procedure to be followed
regarding amendments of the constitution. It does not actually
contain the power to amend the constitution.
The powers to amend the constitution is derived from article
245, 246, 248 and entry 97 of the Union list.
• In Keshavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, 1973
case, Golaknath ruling was overturned and power of
parliament under Article 368 was upheld but it cannot
amend basic structure of constitution.

• In Minerva mills v. Union of India, 1980 the

supreme court by a majority of decision struck down
section 4 of the 42nd Amendment Act which gave
power to the directive principles over article 24, 19,
31 of our constitution. As it would destroy the
harmony of the Indian Constitution, S.C held that part
III & IV of our constitution are equally important and
absolute primacy of one over other is not permissible.
 Right to Equality (Article 14-18)
• Ar. 14-Equality Before Law and Equal Protection of Law
• Whether it’s the president or a peasant, they are equal in the eyes of law and there is
no privilege that one has over the other (with exceptions).
• Law shall be the same and administered equally to equal people, which is equal
treatment under equal circumstances.
• Doctrine of Reasonable Classification.
• A Legislature is entitled to make reasonable classification for purposes of
legislation and treat all-in-one class on an equal footing. The Supreme Court has
thus underlined this principle under Western U.P. Electric Power and Supply
Corporation Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh that:
“Article 14 of the constitution ensures equality among equals: its aim is to protect
persons similarly placed against discriminatory treatment. It does not however
operate against rational classification. A person setting up a grievance of denial of
equal treatment by law must establish that between persons similarly
circumstanced, some were treated to their prejudice and the differential treatment
had no reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the law.”
• For example, classification made on the basis of hair colour, complexion, etc. is not
reasonable.
• Applicable on both citizens and non-citizens.
 Landmark Judgments
• Air India v Nargesh Meerza, (1978) 2 SCR 621
• Air India, a state-owned company, required female flight attendants to
retire under three circumstances: (1) upon reaching 35 years of age, (2)
upon getting married, or (3) upon first pregnancy. The same rules were not
applicable to male attendants. The Court struck the rules down, holding that
these requirements constituted official arbitrariness and hostile
discrimination in violation of Article 14.

• National Legal Service Authority [NALSA] v UOI, AIR 2014 SC 1863

• This case was filed by the National Legal Services Authority of India
(NALSA) to legally recognize persons who fall outside the male/female
gender binary, including persons who identify as “third gender”.
• While drawing attention to the fact that transgender person were subject to
“extreme discrimination in all spheres of society”, the Court held that the
right to equality (Article 14 of the Constitution) was framed in gender-
neutral terms (“all persons”). Consequently, the right to equality would
extend to transgender persons also.
• Navtej Singh Jauhar v UOI, WP (C) 572/2016 (LGBT Case)
• A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court unanimously struck down
Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, to the extent that it criminalized
same-sex relations between consenting adults. LGBT individuals are now
legally allowed to engage in consensual intercourse. The above segment of
Section 377 of IPC was held to be violative of right to equality which
equally applied to same sex couples.

• Joseph Shine v UOI, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1676

• A five-judge Bench unanimously struck down Section 497 of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC), thereby decriminalizing adultery. It struck down Section
497 IPC on the grounds that it violates Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the
Constitution. The Bench held that the section is an archaic and paternalistic
law, which infringes upon a woman’s autonomy and dignity. The Bench
also read down Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code
(CrPC). 198(2) CrPC specifies that only a husband can file charges for
offences under Section 497. In this process, the bench overruled its
judgments in Sowmithri Vishnu, Vishnu Revathi, and Y Abdul Aziz. These
judgments had upheld Section 497 as constitutionally valid.
• Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538
• In this case, the Supreme Court describes the jurisprudence of equality
before the law. The very famous “classification test” had been given in
this case. Simply put, it permits the State to make differential
classification of subjects (which would otherwise be prohibited by Article
14) provided that the classification is founded on intelligible differentia
(i.e. objects within the class are clearly distinguishable from those that are
outside) and has a rational nexus with the objective sought to be
achieved by the classification.

• E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1974 AIR 555

• The second test of Article 14 referred to as the “arbitrariness test”, was
propounded by Bhagwati, J. in this case. The test postulates that the
equality envisaged by Article 14 includes a guarantee against
arbitrariness in State action.
• Indra Sawhney v UOI, AIR 1993 SC 477
• This is a landmark judgment on aspects of reservation in India.
The Court interpreted the relation between Article 14 and
Article 16. It was held that Article 16(1) is a facet of Article
14. Just as Article 14 permits reasonable classification, so does
Article 16(1). A classification may involve reservation of seats
or vacancies. The principle aims of Article 14 and 16 is
equality and equality of opportunity and Clause (4) of Article
16 is a means of achieving the very same objective. Both the
provisions have to be harmonized keeping in mind the fact that
both are the restatements of the principle of equality enshrined
in Article 14. BUT reservation can’t be more than 50%.

• Therefore, there is reservations for SCs, STs and OBCs (ar.

15(4) in legislatures, govt. jobs, higher educational institutions.
 Food for Thought:
• Should reservation be made on the basis of economic
condition?

• Is there misuse of reservation system in India that is based on

caste? If yes, give reasons for why it should be discontinued. If
no, also give reasons.

• Do you think promotions in public employment should be only

on the basis of merit and ability?

• Give comments on recent 2022 decision in Janhit Abhiyan v.

Union of India petition filed in 2019 of SC upholding 10%
reservation to EWS in admissions and govt. jobs provided by
103rd constitutional amendment.
 Right to Freedom (Article 19)
• The six fundamental rights to freedom enshrined in the Constitution are
considered essential for the functioning of Indian democracy.

• But they come with certain reasonable restrictions (clause (2) to (6)).
• Protection of 6 Rights u/Ar. 19(1)(a)-(g)
• a. Right to freedom of speech and expression.
• Reasonable restrictions (RR) under clause 2-sovereignty and integrity of
India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public
order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation
or incitement to an offence
• b. Right to assemble peaceably and without arms.
• RR under clause 3-sovereignty and integrity of India or public order
• c. Right to form associations or unions or co-operative societies.
• RR under clause 4-sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or
morality
• d. Right to move freely throughout the territory of India.
• RR under clause 5-interests of the general public or for the
protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe
• e. Right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of
India.
• RR under clause 5-interests of the general public or for the
protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe
• g. Right to practice any profession or to carry on any
occupation, trade or business.
• RR under clause 6-(i) the professional or technical
qualifications necessary for practising any profession or
carrying on any occupation, trade or business, or
• (ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or
controlled by the State, of any trade, business, industry or
service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of
citizens or otherwise.
• Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, 1950
• In this case, the petitioner used to a publish and circulate a
newspaper names “cross roads” which used to review and
criticize the schemes and activities of the government of
Madras. The government of Madras banned the entry and
circulation of this newspaper in the state by the restriction of
public safety grounds.

• The supreme court in this case said that the right of circulation
of the newspaper lies solely with the establishment i.e., the
company of the newspaper and the state of Madras cannot
interfere with the same. The ground of Public safety under
Article 19(2) is not a reasonable restriction in this case and
hence a ban on entry and circulation of the newspaper by
the state of Madras cannot be imposed under Article 19(2).
• Sakal Paper v. Union Of India (AIR 1962 SC 305)
the court held that the Daily Newspaper(Price and
Control) Order 1960, which fixed a minimum price
and number of pages which a newspaper was entitled
to publish, was held unconstitutional, as it infringed
the liberty of the press.
• Bennett Coleman and Co. v. Union of India AIR
1973 SC 106
• The Court noted that freedom of press is an essential
element of Article 19(1)(a) and the absence of an
express mention of such freedoms as a special
category was irrelevant.
• Indian Express Newspaper v.
Union of India, 1986 AIR 515
• The Supreme Court of India in this
case held that Article 19 of the Indian
Constitution does not use the phrase
“freedom of press” in its language,
but it is contained within Article
19(1) (a). There cannot be any
interference with the freedom of press
in the name of public interest. The
purpose of the press is to enhance
public interest by publishing facts and
opinions, without which a democratic
electorate cannot take responsible
decisions. It is, therefore, the primary
duty of courts to uphold the freedom
of press and invalidate all laws or
administrative actions which interfere
with it contrary to the constitutional
mandate.
 Right to Life Article 21
• Article 21 ensures every person right to life and
personal liberty. Life and personal liberty has been
given a very expansive and wide amplitude covering
a variety of rights. Its deprivation is only possible
through “the procedure established by law”.

• In the case of Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar

Pradesh, 1963 the Supreme Court held that, ‘By the
term “life” is meant something more than mere
animal existence.
• A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, 1976
(Habeas Corpus case)
• The apex court of India, the Supreme Court,
held the Constitution above individual security
and liberty. It held that a person’s right to life
cannot be upheld by a High Court under
Article 226 of the Indian Constitution during a
National Emergency and that a person's right
to not be unlawfully detained can be
suspended.
• Maneka Gandhi v UOI, (1978) 1 SCC 248
• The seven-Judge Bench held that a triumvirate exists between Article 14,
Article 19 and Article 21. All these articles have to be read together. Right
to life includes right to live with dignity.
• Any law interfering with personal liberty of a person must satisfy a
triple test:
• (i) it must prescribe a procedure, just fair and reasonable.
• (ii) the procedure must withstand the test of one or more of the
fundamental rights conferred under Article 19 which may be
applicable in a given situation; and
• (iii) it must also be liable to be tested with reference to Article 14.
• As the test propounded by Article 14 pervades Article 21 as well, the law
and procedure authorizing interference with personal liberty must also be
right and just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. If the
procedure prescribed does not satisfy the requirement of Article 14 it would
be no procedure at all within the meaning of Article 21.
• In the case of Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi, 1981 it was
held that right to live includes the right to live with human dignity with
bare necessities of life such as: Adequate nutrition, Clothing, and
Shelter over the head and facilities for Reading, Writing, and
Expressing oneself in diverse forms.

• In the case of Vishakha v. the State of Rajasthan, 1997, the court

declared that sexual harassment of a working woman workplace amounts to
a violation of rights under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The guidelines have been laid down in order to protect the rights of a
woman at workplace. Following which the Sexual Harassment of woman at
Workplace (prevention, prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 was passed.

• The SC in the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. UOI, 2017 recognized

right to privacy to be a fundamental right that can be traced in Article 14,
19 and 21.
• Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, 1978 revealed the
inhumane treatment of detainees, with many of them subjected
to torture and sexual assault. It went a long way toward
bringing attention to the disturbing behavior of prison officials
toward detainees. The Supreme Court observed that the “right
to life” included the right to lead a healthy life so as to enjoy
all faculties of the human body in their prime conditions.
• In the case of Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P., the court
recognized right to education as a fundamental right inherent
in Article 21 of the Constitution. Later on, Right to Education
was added as a Fundamental Right as Article 21-A by 86th
Constitutional amendment. Eventually the Right of Children
to Free and Compulsory Education Act was enacted in 2009
which provides that every child between the ages of six to
fourteen years shall have the right to free and compulsory
education in a neighbourhood school, till completion of
elementary education.
 Rights of Accused and Arrested
Persons
• Ar. 20-Protection in Respect of Conviction for Offences
• Clause 1- non retrospective effect of laws
• Clause 2- double jeopardy
• Clause 3- law against self-incrimination

• Ar.22-Protection Against Arrest and Detention

• In the case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, 1997 the Supreme Court
laid down the guidelines to be followed by the Central and the State
investigating authorities in all cases of arrest and detention.
• The petitioner wrote a letter addressed to the Chief Justice drawing his
attention to certain news items published in the Telegraph and the Indian
express, regarding deaths in police lockups and custody and this letter was
treated as a writ petition by the Court.
• The court not only issued the guidelines but, also went to the extent that
any failure by the officials to comply to such guidelines would not only
subject them to departmental actions but would also amount to contempt of
Court.
• The Supreme Court in the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, 1994 laid down the guidelines governing arrest of a person
during investigation:
1. An arrested person being held in custody is entitled, if he so requests, to
have a friend, relative or other person told as far as is practicable that he
has been arrested and where he is being detained.
2. The police officer shall inform the arrested person, when he is brought to the
police station, of this right.
3. An entry shall be required to be made in the diary as to who was informed of
the arrest.

• Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. v. Home Secretary, State Of Bihar Air

1979 Sc 1369
• It was held that speedy trial is a fundamental right of every citizen. This
landmark case emphasized upon speedy trial and free legal aid for the
effective administration of justice and equality among the citizens. Article
21 of the Indian Constitution states that "no person shall be bereft of his life
and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law".
within the absence of speedy trial, justice can't be administered.
 Right Against Exploitation
• Ar. 23-Prohibition of Human Trafficking and Forced Labour
• Ar. 24-Prohibition of Child Labour

• M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1996

• The Supreme Court of India, gave certain directions on the issue of elimination of child
labour. The main features of judgment are as under:
• Survey for identification of working children;
• Withdrawal of children working in hazardous industry and ensuring their education in
appropriate institutions;
• Contribution @ Rs.20,000/- per child to be paid by the offending employers of children to a
welfare fund to be established for this purpose;
• Employment to one adult member of the family of the child so withdrawn from work and if
that is not possible a contribution of Rs.5,000/- to the welfare fund to be made by the State
Government;
• Financial assistance to the families of the children so withdrawn to be paid -out of the interest
earnings on the corpus of Rs.20,000/25,000 deposited in the welfare fund as long as the child
is actually sent to the schools;
• Regulating hours of work for children working in non-hazardous occupations so that their
working hours do not exceed six hours per day and education for at least two hours is ensured.
The entire expenditure on education is to be borne by the concerned employer.
Right to Freedom of Religion
Ar. 25-Freedom of
Conscience, Profession,
Practice and Propagation

Ar. 26-Freedom to Manage

Religious Affairs

Ar. 27-Freedom from

Taxation for Promotion of a
Religion

Ar. 28-Freedom of Attending

Religious Instructions
• Indian Young Lawyers Association v. The State of
Kerala, 2018 (The Sabhrimala Temple Judgment)
• A 4:1 SC majority held that the temple’s practice of
excluding women is unconstitutional. It held that the
practice violated the fundamental right to freedom of
religion—Article 25(1) of female worshippers. The
Bench struck down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu
Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965, which allowed
the exclusion of women between the age of 10-50
based on custom, as unconstitutional.
• Justice Chandrachud addressed the argument that the
exclusion was a form of untouchability prohibited
under Article 17 of the Constitution.
Educational and Cultural Rights

Ar. 29-Protection of Interests of Minorities

Ar.30-Right of Minorities to Establish and Administer
Educational Institutions
• Those groups are called ‘minorities’ that have
a common religion or language and who are,
either in a particular part of the country, or
across the country, outnumbered by another
religious or linguistic group.

• All minorities have the right provided by the

Constitution of India to protect, preserve and
develop their culture as well as establish and
maintain their educational institutions.
 Provision for the Redressal of Violations
of Fundamental Rights
• Right to remedy against violation of fundamental rights under Part III is
itself a fundamental right under Ar. 32.

• (1)The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the
enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
• (2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or
writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate,
for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
• (3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by
clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ), Parliament may by law empower any other court to
exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers
exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 ).
• (4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as
otherwise provided for by this Constitution.
• “Article 32 is the heart and soul of the Constitution”- B.R.
Ambedkar

• In the case of Skill Lotto Solutions Pvt Ltd. v. Union Of

India (2020), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “Article 32
is an important and integral part of the basic structure of the
Constitution. Article 32 is meant to ensure observance of rule
of law. Article 32 provides for the enforcement of fundamental
rights, which is the most potent weapon.”

• In the case of Gayatri Prasad Prajapati v. State of Uttar

Pradesh and Others (2022), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that writ petitions cannot be filed for quashing a criminal
proceeding or a First Information Report (FIR).
• Right to remedies for the enforcement of the fundamental rights using five
writs:
• Habeas Corpus - to direct the release of a person detained unlawfully.
Very useful in ensuring production of unlawfully detained persons in court.
• Mandamus - to direct a public authority to do its duty.
• Quo Warranto - to direct a person to vacate an office assumed wrongfully.
• Prohibition - to prohibit a lower court from proceeding on a case while
proceedings are going on.
• Certiorari - the power of the higher court to quash a proceeding from a
lower court and bring it before itself.

• Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a result of judicial activism where

requirement of locus standi under Ar. 32 and 226 is relaxed and
through PIL, judicial activism flourishes further in India. The seeds of
the concept of public interest litigation were initially sown in India
by Justice Krishna Iyer, in 1976 in Mumbai Kamagar Sabha v.
Abdulbhai Faizullabhai and others, 1976.
 Some Landmark Judgments where
Ar. 32 was invoked
• The first reported case of PIL was Hussainara Khatoon v.
State of Bihar,1979 that focused on the inhuman conditions of
prisons and under trial prisoners that led to the release of more
than 40,000 under trial prisoners.
• In the Bandhua Mukti Morcha, 1983 for release of bonded
labourers, the Supreme Court put the burden of proof on the
respondent stating it would treat every case of forced labor as a
case of bonded labor unless proven otherwise by the employer.
• Asiad Workers case, Justice P.N. Bhagwati held that anyone
getting less than the minimum wage can approach the Supreme
Court directly without going through the labor commissioner
and lower courts.
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, 1997
• The judgement of the case recognized sexual harassment as a
violation of the fundamental constitutional rights of Article
14, Article 15 and Article 21. The guidelines also directed for
the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention,
Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

• M.C Mehta v. Union of India, 1988

• It was a Public Interest Litigation brought against Ganga
water pollution so as to prevent any further pollution of Ganga
water. Supreme Court held that petitioner, although not a
riparian owner, is entitled to move the court for the
enforcement of statutory provisions, as he is the person
interested in protecting the lives of the people who make use
of Ganga water.
 Compensatory jurisprudence under
Ar. 32 by way of writ
• Higher judiciary has used its discretion under Ar. 32 to provide
compensation to victims of unlawful detention, custodial torture,
custodial death.
• Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar, 1983 Case heralded a new era of
compensatory jurisprudence in Indian legal history. Petitioner was detained
illegally in the prison for over fourteen years after his acquittal.
• Sebastian Hongrey v. Union of India, 1984
• Two persons arrested by army jawans in Manipur-Habeas Corpus filed-
officials failed to produce arrested persons-compensation granted to
respective wives, 1 lakh each.
• Bhim Singh v. State of J&K, 1985
• Member of legislative assemply illegally detained by the police from
attending session-provided compensation by way of exemplary costs.
• Nilabati Bahera v. State of Orissa, 1993
• custodial death of 2 year old, mother given 1.5 lakh in compensation by
court.
The topic that will be covered next is Directive
Principles of State Policy under Part IV of the
Constitution of India, their link with human
rights and fundamental rights and their
importance.