Fundamental Rights — PPSC previous year questions

Dr B.R. Ambedkar called Article 32, the right to constitutional remedies, 'the very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it'. It lets a citizen move the Supreme Court directly to enforce the Fundamental Rights. The Court uses the writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari and quo warranto. Without this remedy the other rights would be mere declarations.

Article 14 says the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law. It also guarantees the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. Article 13 declares laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights void. Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. Article 16 provides equality of opportunity in public employment. Articles 14 to 18 together form the Right to Equality.

The right to property was removed from Part III by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978, which repealed Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 and made it only a legal/constitutional right under Article 300A. Right to life (Article 21), right to equality (Articles 14–18) and right to education (Article 21A, inserted by the 86th Amendment, 2002) remain fundamental rights.

The Supreme Court can issue the writ of habeas corpus under Article 32. The High Courts can issue it under Article 226. Subordinate courts have no writ jurisdiction. Article 32 lets the Supreme Court act only to enforce Fundamental Rights. Under Article 226 a High Court may issue writs for Fundamental Rights and for 'any other purpose'. So the High Court's writ jurisdiction is actually wider.

Article 32 guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and empowers it to issue writs; Article 226 gives a parallel power to the High Courts. Article 19 gives the six freedoms, Article 21 protects life and personal liberty, and Article 24 prohibits child labour in factories and hazardous work.

All three statements are incorrect. Article 20 protects every person, citizen or foreigner; it bars retrospective criminal laws only, so civil and tax laws can still be applied backwards; and its protection against self-incrimination applies only to criminal proceedings, not civil ones.

Statement 1 is false. Article 17 abolishes untouchability, not Article 18, which abolishes titles. The Constitution does not define the term at all. Statement 2 is true. The Supreme Court held freedom of the press to be part of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). It said so in Romesh Thappar (1950), Express Newspapers and Bennett Coleman. Statement 3 is true. In the Ramlila Maidan incident case (2012) the Court held the right to sleep to be part of the right to life under Article 21.

Article 19(2) lets the State restrict free speech on listed grounds such as security of the State, public order, decency, defamation and contempt of court. A ruling party's interest, an official's discretion or customs are not grounds listed in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has read the right to a clean and healthy environment into the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, in cases such as Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) and the M.C. Mehta cases. Article 14 guarantees equality, Article 19 the six freedoms and Article 25 freedom of religion; the duty to protect the environment appears separately in Articles 48A and 51A(g).

The Right against Exploitation is set out in two articles: Article 23 prohibits traffic in human beings and begar or forced labour (IV), and Article 24 prohibits employment of children under fourteen in factories, mines or hazardous work (II). Protection of the interests of minorities (Article 29) belongs to the cultural and educational rights, and abolition of untouchability (Article 17) falls under the right to equality.