--- title: "Vol 2 1" book: "PG MPUB 202 (2nd Sem) Administrative & Constitutional Law Amended" category: "PG MPUB" publisher: "Ratan Prakashan Mandir Pvt. Ltd." type: "Educational Material" ---  According to Latest Syllabus Read For Sure Success In University Examination RATAN TEXT BOOK ADMINISTRATIVE AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Vol-2 M.A.Pub.Ad. (Sem-II) Dr. Anjali Pareekh Published by Ratan Prakashan Mandir Pvt. Ltd. 2nd Floor, Centre Plaza, Parinay Kunj, Lajpat Kunj Marg, Agra-282002 Copyright Authors & Publishers Published by Ratan Prakashan Mandir Pvt. Ltd. 2nd Floor, Centre Plaza, Parinay Kunj, Lajpat Kunj Marg, Agra-282002 ISBN :978-81-69604-65-9 Price 230.00 only Printed at : KIDS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. C-60, 61, 62, 63, EPIP, Shastripuram, Agra - 282007 Ph. : +91 9719004921 UNIT-13 CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION FOR CIVIL SERVICES IN INDIA Structure 13.0Introduction 13.1    Learning Objectives 13.2    Recruitment and Regulations in the Conditions of Service of Civil Servants Self-Check Exercise-1 13.3    Constitutional Remedies and Protection ensured to Civil Servants in India & Art 311 Self-Check Exercise-2 13.4     Summary 13.6     Glossary 13.7     References/Suggested Readings 13.8     Terminal questions 13.0 Introduction The Civil Services play a central role in a country's development and progress. The efficiency, democratic values, and overall development of a nation are largely influenced by the administrative body and civil machinery in place. The Constitution, along with various laws and acts, upholds the independence of the judiciary and the principle of the separation of powers, which aim to minimize or eliminate political interference in the executive branch. This separation ensures that peace, efficiency, and justice are maintained in the governance and legal system, as seen in countries like the United States. The independence of the judiciary is closely linked to judicial review and the concept of checks and balances, which allows for scrutiny of legislative and administrative actions to ensure their constitutionality. However, it is evident that the executive machinery in many countries, including ours, is increasingly influenced by political agendas, which hampers national growth and development. It is common to hear in the media that political interests often overshadow the capabilities and qualifications of administrative officers when it comes to their transfers and postings. This creates situations where inept and unqualified individuals are appointed to significant positions, while capable officials are sidelined to serve the personal interests of political leaders. Such practices often result in inefficiency, with competent and honest officers bearing the brunt of this system. The Constitution provides legal safeguards for civil servants to protect them from political manipulation and undue interference. Articles 309, 310, and 311 of the Indian Constitution specifically outline provisions regarding the appointment, dismissal, and removal of civil servants, offering a form of legal protection to ensure their positions are secure from unjust political influences. 13.1    Learning Objectives After studying this lesson, the learner will be able to -    Know the recruitment and regulations in the conditions of service of Civil Servants -    Know the doctrine of pleasure and its exceptions -    Know the Constitutional Remedies and Protection ensured to Civil Servants in India -    Know the Exceptions of Article 311 of the Indian Constitution 13.2    Recruitment and Regulations In The Conditions Of Service Of Civil Servants: Article 309 of the Indian Constitution grants the Parliament of India and the respective State Legislatures the authority to create laws and rules concerning the appointment and regulation of civil servants in both the Union and State Governments. This provision further specifies that if such laws have not been enacted by Parliament or any State Legislature, the President or the Governor of a State has the power to issue temporary laws to regulate these appointments. This ensures that the country is protected from maladministration and dysfunction. Article 309: The provisions of the Constitution make it clear that the rules and laws governing the appointments and postings of civil servants, as well as the rule-making powers of the executive and administrative officials, must not violate any part of the Indian Constitution, especially the Fundamental Rights of individuals. A common question that arises concerns the constitutional validity of the right to strike for civil servants. While some government employees or professional groups may form trade unions, the Indian Constitution does not recognize the right to strike as a fundamental or constitutional right. This issue was addressed by the Supreme Court of India in the landmark case of T.R. Rangarajan v. Govt. Of India. In this case, the two-judge bench held that government employees have no legal or moral right to strike. If they are aggrieved by government actions, they must seek redress through the appropriate tribunals or courts. In 2002, the Tamil Nadu state government suspended over 200,000 government employees under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Essential Services Maintenance Act, 2002, and the Tamil Nadu Ordinance, 2003, following their participation in a strike for their demands. The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of these actions. The court affirmed that government employees do not have the right to strike, as strikes often lead to maladministration, chaos, and disruption in society. The proper course of action for employees is to pursue legal remedies for their grievances. The court further emphasized that such a large-scale strike severely disrupts government operations, putting society and the state in a difficult situation. The state government justified its actions by highlighting that over 90% of its revenue, generated through direct taxes, was allocated to maintaining the salaries of over 1.2 million government employees. While the court acknowledged that trade unions have the right to collectively bargain on behalf of their members, it reiterated that they have no right to strike, and no organization or political party should be allowed to disrupt the functioning of the state or harm citizens in the process. As a result, the right to strike remains neither a fundamental, legal, nor constitutional right for government employees in India. Doctrine Of Pleasure The Doctrine of Pleasure is a significant principle that influences the career and tenure of a civil servant. In countries like England, a civil servant appointed by the Crown can be removed from their position without needing to provide any justification. This concept, known as "Absolute Pleasure," means that the civil servant’s position is entirely at the discretion of the Crown. However, in practice, public policy is generally considered before taking any action against a civil servant, and dismissal typically occurs only if it aligns with the interests of justice. In India, the principle of the Doctrine of Pleasure is outlined in Article 310 of the Indian Constitution, which grants the President of India the authority to appoint and remove civil servants at their discretion, subject to the provisions of the Constitution. Certain individuals, such as members of the Defence Services, the Union Public Service Commission, State Public Service Commissions, and the All India Services, hold their positions at the pleasure of the President of India or, in the case of state employees, the Governor of the respective state. However, it is important to note that this "pleasure" is not an absolute authority, as seen in the British system. It is subject to constitutional limitations and procedural safeguards. In the case of State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid, it was established that a civil servant has the right to claim their entitled salary, a fundamental and legal right that cannot be taken away. Article 310 of the Indian Constitution outlines that civil servants can only be removed in accordance with constitutional provisions and the statutes in force. Furthermore, Article 311 restricts arbitrary dismissal and mandates that specific procedures must be followed before any action is taken against a civil servant, ensuring protection against unreasonable or unjust actions by the state. Under the Fundamental Rules 56(b) and Rule 48 of the Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972, the government has the authority to grant compulsory retirement to a civil servant. This action, however, is not intended as punishment but as part of constitutionally enabled provisions, dependent on public policy and integrity. Civil servants also have the right to voluntarily retire with a three-month notice, as per Fundamental Rule 56(c). Additionally, Article 310 gives the government the power to abolish positions within the Central or State governments, but such actions are subject to judicial review. Exceptions of Doctrine of Pleasure As previously mentioned, in India, the power to exercise the Doctrine of Pleasure by the President, Governor, or the Government—whether at the Union or State level—is not absolute. The Constitution of India imposes several restrictions on this power. These restrictions are as follows: 1.    Article 311 provides the primary limitation on the dismissal or removal of a civil servant, ensuring that civil servants cannot be arbitrarily removed from their position. It grants them immunity and allows them to challenge their dismissal or removal through legal action if they believe it to be unjust. The article mandates that before a civil servant is dismissed or demoted, a proper inquiry must be conducted and due procedure must be followed. This protects civil servants from arbitrary actions. 2.    Specific Positions Exempt from the Doctrine of Pleasure Article 311 also outlines certain positions that are not subject to the Doctrine of Pleasure, including: o Judges of the Supreme Court of India (Article 124) o Judges of the High Courts of the States (Article 218) o The Auditor General of India (Article 148(2)) o The Chief Election Commissioner of India (Article 324) o Chairman and Members of the Public Service Commission (Article 317) These positions are protected from arbitrary removal and dismissal, as they are critical to the functioning of India's judicial, electoral, and auditing systems. Self-Check Exercise-1 Q.1 Article 124 concerned with the Judges of Supreme Court of India. True/False Q.2 Article 218 concerned with the Judges of High Courts of India. True/False 13.3 Constitutional Remedies And Protection Ensured To Civil Servants In India: Before delving into the constitutional protections granted to civil servants in India, it is important to first understand the concept of a civil post and who qualifies as a civil servant. Who are Civil Servants? As mentioned earlier, Article 311 applies specifically to civil servants in India, and it does not extend to other government employees or individuals, even if they are employed by the Union, State, or a corporation. The term "civil post" is not explicitly defined in Articles 310 or 311 or in any specific legislation. Instead, its meaning has been clarified through judicial interpretations. One important distinction is that defence employees are not covered under this definition. In the landmark case V.K. Nambudri v. Union of India, the Kerala High Court ruled that the legal protections afforded to civil servants do not apply to defence personnel or those associated with them. This is because defence personnel are governed by the Army Act, 1951, among other military regulations, and are not entitled to the same safeguards as civil servants. Their dismissal can occur without cause, especially in the interest of national security, and the courts typically do not intervene in matters related to the armed forces. One of the key cases that defined who qualifies as a civil servant in India is State of U.P. v A.N. Singh, where the Supreme Court outlined three critical criteria to determine whether an individual is a civil servant: 1.    Master-Servant Relationship: There must be a clear master-servant relationship between the individual and the State. If the person is employed under the authority of the State, then they may be considered a civil servant based on this relationship, along with other contextual factors. 2.    State as the Appointing Authority: The State must be the authority responsible for selecting and appointing the individual. If the State has the power to freely make this decision, then the person is more likely to be classified as a civil servant. If the state lacks discretion in the appointment process, the individual may not be regarded as a civil servant. 3.    Payment from State Treasury: The individual’s salary or wages must be paid from the State’s treasury or public funds. This establishes a direct link between the individual’s role and the authority of the State, confirming their position as a civil servant. When an individual satisfies these criteria, they are considered a civil servant and are entitled to the constitutional protections available to civil servants under the Indian Constitution. Constitutional Remedies available to Civil Servants under the Statutory Provisions of Article 311 Reasonable Opportunity to be Heard The principle of a reasonable opportunity to be heard is a cornerstone of the Indian legal system, ensuring fairness and justice in the treatment of individuals, particularly civil servants. This principle is reflected in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the broader framework of natural justice, which guarantees that an accused individual, including civil servants, must be given an opportunity to defend themselves against charges or allegations. Article 311(2) of the Indian Constitution mandates that a civil servant cannot be dismissed or demoted without a fair inquiry and a proper investigation. Furthermore, the civil servant must be given a reasonable opportunity to present a defense before the disciplinary authority or the relevant court of law. What Constitutes a Reasonable Opportunity? The concept of a "reasonable opportunity" is broad and flexible, and its exact scope depends on the specific circumstances of each case. This was addressed in the landmark case Khem Chand v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court ruled that a government servant who had been dismissed based on an inquiry officer’s report must be given a copy of the report. The dismissal was declared invalid because the accused was not made aware of the findings or the charges against him, violating the provisions of Article 311. This case emphasized the importance of providing a reasonable opportunity for the individual to defend themselves. Similarly, in the case of Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar, the Supreme Court ruled that a copy of the inquiry officer's report must be provided to the accused, even if it conflicts with the provisions of the law, as failing to do so violates natural justice and renders the action unconstitutional. Punishment and Article 311 Article 311 provides safeguards against arbitrary dismissal or reduction in rank, but these protections apply only if the action is punitive in nature. If the termination or reduction in rank is part of regular administrative procedures, public interest, or due to inefficiency or misconduct, the remedy under Article 311 does not apply. In the case Parshottam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, the appellant was reverted to a previous position due to dissatisfaction with his performance, without affecting his salary or rank. The Supreme Court ruled that to invoke Article 311, the action must amount to punishment. Since the appellant was not entitled to the higher post and the change did not affect his rank, the case did not qualify for the remedy under Article 311. Additionally, the Court has clarified that suspension is not considered a form of punishment. Suspension is a temporary measure, and while a civil servant is entitled to a minimum subsistence allowance during this time, they cannot claim a right to a reasonable opportunity unless the suspension leads to a formal dismissal. Compulsory Retirement as Punishment Compulsory retirement, as per Article 310 of the Indian Constitution, can be invoked by the government as a means to maintain efficiency in the civil service. However, in cases where compulsory retirement is used as a form of punishment, the civil servant is entitled to the protections under Article 311. In the case State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel, the Supreme Court laid down several key principles regarding compulsory retirement: 1.    A civil servant may be retired if they are no longer effective in their role or if it is in the public interest. 2.    The decision to retire an individual must follow procedural requirements, including departmental inquiries or review committee recommendations if applicable. 3.    Compulsory retirement is not considered punishment and does not invoke the provisions of Article 311, unless it is explicitly punitive. 4.    Adverse entries in the civil servant’s confidential report or ongoing inquiries may influence the decision, but these must be carefully scrutinized. 5.    Compulsory retirement should not deprive the civil servant of benefits such as pensions, gratuities, or other entitlements. In essence, compulsory retirement must be exercised with due regard for fairness, procedure, and the civil servant’s rights under the law. When done in accordance with these guidelines, it is not seen as a punitive action, and thus, it does not invoke the provisions of Article 311. Exceptions to Article 311 of the Indian Constitution Article 311(2) offers protection to civil servants against arbitrary punishment; however, there are certain exceptions where the provisions of this article do not apply. In these cases, civil servants are not entitled to the remedies or protections provided under this article. These exceptions include: 1.    Conviction on Criminal Charges: If a civil servant is dismissed, demoted, or terminated due to a conviction in a criminal case, they cannot invoke the remedy of a reasonable opportunity to be heard as guaranteed by Article 311. The principle of "clean hands" in law means that a person seeking redress should not be involved in any wrongful conduct. In cases where a civil servant is convicted of a criminal charge, the disciplinary proceedings may proceed regardless of their acquittal, as long as the acquittal is not honorable. This was upheld in the case of K. Venkateshwarlu v. State of A.P., where the Supreme Court stated that even if the civil servant is acquitted, a departmental inquiry can still be conducted if the acquittal was not honorable. 2.    Where Inquiry is Not Practicable: In situations where it is not possible or feasible to hold an inquiry due to national security concerns or public interest, the relevant authority may decide to remove or dismiss the civil servant without conducting an inquiry. However, such decisions must be documented in writing. In Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court ruled that making unsupported claims about potential harm to witnesses or difficulties in conducting an inquiry without concrete evidence was unjustified. The dismissal of the appellant was overturned, and he was reinstated with back pay and allowances. Article 311 also acknowledges exceptions where the principles of natural justice, like the Doctrine of Audi Alteram Partem, may not apply. For example, if a civil servant is convicted of causing harm to a superior, the misdeed may be so clear that holding an inquiry or giving the civil servant an opportunity to be heard would not be practicable. In such cases, although Article 311 protections are unavailable, two remedies remain: o The civil servant can appeal to a superior or principal secretary within their department, who has the authority to grant relief. o Judicial review is available under Article 32 or Article 226, allowing the courts to assess whether the punishment was arbitrary or disproportionate, or if the procedure was flawed. 3.    Reasonable Doubt Standard Does Not Apply in Disciplinary Proceedings: In disciplinary proceedings against civil servants, the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" does not apply. Instead, the proceedings must be based on reasonableness and sound evidence. The investigation should not rely on hypothetical scenarios or remote possibilities but on concrete and active evidence. The principle is that the facts and circumstances of the case should guide the conclusions, and the outcome must be justifiable. Disciplinary proceedings should be fair, and decisions should reflect what a reasonable person would conclude based on the evidence. 4.    Reasonableness of Punishment: While the disciplinary authority has the discretion to decide the punishment for misconduct, the judiciary has emphasized that the punishment must be proportionate to the offense. The punishment should not be excessive or unreasonable, and if it is, it can be challenged in court. If the punishment imposed is disproportionate or unjust, the concerned civil servant has the right to challenge it under the appropriate legal provisions. In summary, while Article 311 provides essential protections to civil servants, these exceptions highlight specific circumstances where such protections do not apply, including in cases of criminal conviction, national security concerns, or where a reasonable opportunity for defense may not be feasible. Self-Check Exercise-2 Q.1 All India Services of India holds their offices during the Pleasure of the President of India, and in the State concerned on the whims and pleasure of the Governor of the State. True/False Q.2 Article 32 or Article 226 Judicial Review can be taken. True/False 13.4    Summary From all of the above exceptions, the remedy stated under this Article is available to the concerned civil servant, on the condition that his dis-missal or reduction in rank must lead to punishment. 13.5    Glossary •    Termination- to come to an end in time or effect. •    Appellant - a person who applies to a higher court for a reversal of the decision of a lower court. •    Mal-administration - a situation in which the people who manage a company or organization behave in a careless or dishonest way and cause serious problems 13.6    Answers to self check exercises Self-Check Exercise-1 Q.1 True Q.2 True Self-Check Exercise-2 Q.1 True Q.2 True 13.7    References/Suggested Readings 13.8    Terminal questions Q1 Delineate recruitment and regulations in the conditions of service of civil servants. Q2 Explain doctrine of pleasure and its exceptions. Q3 Discuss Constitutional Remedies and Protection ensured to Civil Servants in India. 10 UNIT-14 FUNDAMENTALS OF DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS Structure 14 Introduction 13.1    Learning Objectives 13.2    Disciplinary proceedings against civil servants Self-Check Exercise-1 13.3    Servants under Article 311 of the Constitution of India Self-Check Exercise-2 13.4     Summary 13.5     Glossary 13.6    Answer to self-check exercises 13.7     References/Suggested Readings 13.8     Terminal questions 14.0 Introduction Disciplinary proceedings are often regarded as one of the most complex and frequently litigated areas of law in India, particularly within the realm of service matters. This branch of law is governed by a vast body of statutes, rules, regulations, and commentaries. What piqued my interest in this topic is the fact that disciplinary proceedings involve multiple stages, where the accused government servant challenges the allegations, asserting that they are unfounded and that the treatment they received was unjust, unreasonable, and arbitrary. Legal action, typically in the form of a case filed with the Public Services Tribunal, generally occurs only after an unfavorable decision has been made against the government servant. This article will explore how disciplinary proceedings are carried out within the Public Service Tribunal, the steps involved in filing a case, and the process through which it is pursued. Additionally, the article will cover the procedural aspects followed in courts and tribunals, along with the legal terms associated with them. 14.1    Learning Objectives After studying this lesson, the learner will be able to -    Know steps to be followed in disciplinary proceedings of civil servants -    Know the servants under Article 311 of the Indian Constitution 14.2    Disciplinary Proceedings against a Civil Servant As Lord Acton famously stated, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Often, government employees begin to abuse their authority and position. This can lead to neglecting duties, failing to follow regulations, and engaging in various forms of misconduct. To maintain discipline and ensure accountability, service rules include provisions for departmental proceedings to manage such behavior. Steps of Disciplinary Proceedings Government employees play a crucial role in the administration of the country. They form a key part of the nation's administrative framework, shouldering the responsibility of executing government policies. These employees offer public services at the grassroots level and also serve as a bridge, forwarding the concerns, requests, and issues of citizens to higher authorities for resolution. It was due to the dedication and loyalty of government servants that the British were able to maintain control over India for an extended period. Unlike their counterparts in the private sector, government employees have a unique work culture and set of responsibilities. They are compensated well and enjoy certain privileges and facilities, but they are also entrusted with significant duties toward the government and the public. With rising education levels, advancements in information technology, growing public awareness of fundamental rights, and laws like the Right to Information Act, 2005, the expectations placed on government employees have increased and become more time-sensitive. To ensure that they perform their duties effectively, various constitutional safeguards have been put in place. Self-Check Exercise-1 Q.1 Lord Acton said that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. True/False Q.2 Charge-sheet is an important step in departmental enquiry. True/False 14.3    Servants under Article 311 of the Constitution of India Article 311 of the Indian Constitution provides two important procedural safeguards for civil servants regarding their tenure of office. These safeguards are as follows: 1.    A civil servant cannot be removed or dismissed by an authority that is subordinate to the authority that appointed them. 2.    A civil servant cannot be removed, dismissed, or have their rank reduced unless an inquiry is conducted, providing them with a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves. As Lord Acton famously stated, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." This suggests that, at times, government servants may abuse their authority, neglect their duties, or engage in misconduct. To maintain discipline and regulate such behavior, departmental proceedings are established within service rules to hold employees accountable. Departmental proceedings against a public servant typically involve the following steps: 1.    Filing a complaint or allegation of misconduct against the government servant. 2.    Conducting a preliminary inquiry. 3.    Reviewing the preliminary inquiry report by the disciplinary authority. 4.    Issuing a show-cause notice to the government servant if the inquiry suggests they are at fault. 5.    The government servant responds to the show-cause notice. 6.    If the response is unsatisfactory, a charge-sheet is issued. 7.    The government servant responds to the charge-sheet. 8.    The disciplinary authority reviews the response. 9.    An Inquiry Officer is appointed, and a formal inquiry begins with the nomination of a Presenting Officer. 10.    The accused employee may receive legal assistance for their defense. 11.    Witnesses are called to testify. 12.    The Inquiry Officer submits a report. 13.    A show-cause notice is issued based on the inquiry findings. 14.    The employee submits their response, and their past records are considered. 15.    A proposed penalty is issued. 16.    A final decision is made. 17.    The employee may appeal the decision if applicable. The procedural framework for disciplinary actions is generally outlined in Service Rules and Standing Orders. However, these rules must be consistent with the provisions of the Constitution of India. For example, no rule can override constitutional provisions, such as those found in Articles 310 and 311. While the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 does not directly apply to departmental proceedings, the principles of natural justice must be followed. This means that the individual under investigation must be given a reasonable chance to defend themselves. Moreover, an acquittal in criminal court on the same charges does not prevent the continuation of departmental proceedings. This was established by the Supreme Court in the case of C.M.D.U.C.O. v. P.C. Kakkar (AIR 2003 SC 1571). Similarly, departmental proceedings may proceed even after the employee has retired, as noted in U.P.S.S. Corp. Ltd. v. K.S. Tandon (AIR 2008 SC 1235). The detailed analysis of various steps of the departmental proceedings is provided as under:- (1)Lodging of a complaint: Departmental proceedings against a government servant begin when a complaint is submitted to the disciplinary authority. Upon receiving the complaint, the disciplinary authority has the option to conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine whether there is enough initial evidence to support the allegations. The complaint can be filed by either a member of the public or a superior officer of the employee. (2)    Holding of Preliminary Enquiry:- The primary objective of a preliminary inquiry is to assess whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed with formal disciplinary action against the government servant. It is conducted by an officer superior to the individual under investigation, following instructions from the disciplinary authority. This inquiry helps the authority determine whether a full departmental inquiry is warranted. However, depending on the service rules, a preliminary inquiry may not always be required before initiating a regular inquiry. A preliminary inquiry is essentially a fact-finding process, aimed at gathering evidence for issuing a charge-sheet, rather than determining the guilt of the employee. In some cases, this inquiry may be conducted ex parte, meaning the employee is not necessarily involved. Despite this, in the interest of natural justice and to avoid legal challenges, the employee is often given an opportunity to respond to the allegations. There may be instances where the employee's defense, presented during the preliminary inquiry, could clear them of the accusations. While a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory before starting a regular inquiry, it is advisable in certain situations, such as: 1.    When the person responsible for a particular act or loss is unclear. 2.    When there is a need to gather prima facie evidence before proceeding with formal departmental actions. 3.    When the allegations are unclear or vague, requiring further investigation to clarify the details before formal charges can be established. (3)    Report of the Preliminary inquiry: Once the preliminary inquiry is completed, a written record of the proceedings should be prepared. This report should summarize the findings, indicating whether there is merit in the allegations and specifying the extent of the employee's involvement. Based on the report, the disciplinary authority will decide whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed with a regular departmental inquiry. It is important to note that when directing a preliminary inquiry, the disciplinary authority should avoid specifying the name of the employee under investigation, as this could negatively impact their defense. In the case State of U.P. v. C.S. Sharma (AIR 1968 SC 158), the disciplinary authority instructed the inquiry officer to conduct an investigation while expressing a belief in the employee's guilt. The Supreme Court ruled that such an expression of opinion by the disciplinary authority compromised the fairness of the inquiry process and rendered the proceedings invalid. (4)    Show Cause Notice When a Govt. official is held prima facie responsible for misconduct in the preliminary inquiry report, then show cause notice is issued by the disciplinary authority asking him to submit his reply as to why further proceedings be not initiated against him. In the show cause notice the delinquent is required to be informed that he is prima facie held responsible for the professional misconduct/lapse. (5)    Reply to the Show cause notice Thereafter the delinquent held prima facie responsible for misconduct, is required to submit his reply to the show cause notice within stipulated period prescribed in the show cause notice. If the delinquent failed to submit his reply within the prescribed period, then the disciplinary authority is empowered to move further into the matter ex-parte or reminder may be issued to the delinquent to submit his reply. (6)    Charge-Sheet A charge-sheet is a crucial document in disciplinary proceedings and must be prepared carefully and competently. An improper charge-sheet can invalidate the entire inquiry process. 1.    Clarity of Charges: The charges must be specific and clear. If the charges are vague, it undermines the inquiry process. Vagueness occurs when the allegations are not sufficiently detailed or understandable, preventing the accused from knowing exactly what they are being accused of and hindering their ability to mount a defense. 2.    Simple and Impartial Language: The charge-sheet should be written in clear and simple language that the employee can easily understand. 3.    Detailed Description of the Incident: The charge-sheet must include all relevant details about the incident. The employee must be provided with all materials related to the charges, allowing them a reasonable opportunity to prepare their defense, examine, and crossexamine witnesses. 4.    Statement of Allegations: Each charge should be supported by a clear statement of the allegations on which it is based. 5.    Basis of Charges: The charges should be grounded in a breach of conduct rules or other valid reasons, such as incompetence, inefficiency, insubordination, neglect of duty, or conduct unbecoming of a public servant. The disciplinary authority determines what constitutes sufficient grounds for these charges. 6.    Impartiality: The charge-sheet should not suggest that the disciplinary authority has already formed a judgment of guilt. If the charge-sheet appears biased or shows an intent to punish the employee without proper inquiry, it is considered malafide and can be quashed. The charge-sheet is merely a description of the alleged misconduct and requires proper evidence and investigation. 7.    Sufficient Time for Defense: The employee must be given adequate time to respond to the charges and provide an explanation. 8.    Provision of Information: To ensure a fair opportunity for defense, the disciplinary authority must provide the employee not only with the charge-sheet but also with the grounds for the charges and the circumstances leading to the proposed action. In cases where the preliminary inquiry report is referenced, a copy of the report must be provided to the employee, unless it is not being relied upon. Failing to do so may prejudice the employee's ability to defend themselves, as noted in Capt. I.S. Bawa v. State of Punjab (1996(5) SLR (P&H) 387). (j) Service of charge-sheet The charge-sheet must be delivered within a reasonable time frame. However, a delay in serving the charge-sheet does not automatically invalidate the inquiry proceedings unless it has caused prejudice to the accused. If the charge-sheet is issued after the expiration of the prescribed time limit, it may be subject to cancellation. The charge-sheet can be delivered personally, by mail, or through public notice, but the most common method in departmental inquiries is personal service. It should be directly handed to the employee, and a receipt should be obtained. If the employee refuses to acknowledge receipt, an endorsement should be made on the charge-sheet in the presence of at least two witnesses. If the employee can prove that the charge-sheet was never served, it may render the entire disciplinary process invalid. Therefore, it is crucial to have adequate evidence on record showing that the charge-sheet was properly delivered to the employee. To enable the employee to respond, the disciplinary authority must allow them to inspect the relevant official records, documents, and take copies of them. Upon request, the employee should also be provided with copies of witness statements recorded during the preliminary inquiry, especially if those witnesses will be called to testify during the departmental proceedings (State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal, AIR 1998 SC 3038). If the preliminary inquiry report is being relied upon, the employee must be given a copy of the report. Failing to provide it could prejudice the employee’s ability to defend themselves. However, providing a copy of the preliminary inquiry report is not always required, particularly if it is not being used as the basis for the inquiry (V.K. Nigam v. State of M.P., AIR 1997 SC 1358). The disciplinary authority has the discretion to deny access to records or extracts that are irrelevant to the inquiry or will not be used against the employee. It is important to note that the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, do not apply to departmental inquiries. (7)    Reply of the delinquent to the Charge-sheet: The delinquent has to submit his written reply to the charge-sheet within the time specified, unless it is extended by the competent authority.Failure of the delinquent to submit his explanation would enable the authority to proceed exparte.The authority is, therefore, not required to wait for the reply indefinitely. (8)    Scrutiny of the reply of the delinquent by the disciplinary authority: The disciplinary authority must carefully review the delinquent’s response. If the delinquent admits to all or some of the charges and seeks leniency, no further inquiry is required for those admitted charges. If the explanation provided by the delinquent is found to be satisfactory, and the authority decides not to impose a penalty, the proceedings should be concluded, and the relevant charges should be dismissed. If the explanation is satisfactory for some charges but not all, and if the disciplinary authority believes that a major penalty is unnecessary, it may impose a minor penalty instead, without the need for further inquiry or a show-cause notice. However, if the authority determines that a major penalty is justified after reviewing the explanation, a formal inquiry should be initiated, and an inquiry officer will be appointed to conduct a regular departmental inquiry. (9)    Appointment of Inquiry Officer and nomination of Presenting Officer: If the delinquent's response is deemed unsatisfactory by the disciplinary authority, an Inquiry Officer will be appointed to conduct a formal departmental inquiry. When selecting the Inquiry Officer, the following factors should be considered: (a)    The disciplinary authority should consider the seriousness of the alleged offense as well as the rank or position of the delinquent. (b)    The Inquiry Officer should hold a position senior to the delinquent official. (c)    It is essential to avoid any appearance of bias. The Inquiry Officer must be impartial, with an open mind, and capable of making objective decisions without any bias (S. Parthasarathy v. State of A.P., AIR 1973 SC 2701). (d)    The Inquiry Officer should not be the same person who conducted the preliminary inquiry. (e)    In most cases, the disciplinary authority should avoid acting as the Inquiry Officer. This is because the findings and recommendations made by the Inquiry Officer are intended to inform the disciplinary authority's final decision. It is also possible to appoint retired officers, boards, or courts as Inquiry Authorities. The disciplinary authority may appoint a Presenting Officer from the department to represent the case before the Inquiry Officer. The role of the Presenting Officer is to assist in presenting the department's evidence, not to prove the department's case. If no Presenting Officer is appointed, the inquiry can still proceed. The disciplinary authority is required to provide the Inquiry Officer with the charge-sheet and any relevant documents. Since the inquiry is a quasi-judicial process, it must adhere to the principles of natural justice. The Inquiry Officer will issue a notice to the delinquent, specifying the time, date, and location of the inquiry. If the delinquent fails to attend, the inquiry may proceed in their absence (ex parte). During the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer must ensure that the delinquent is given a fair opportunity to examine relevant documents, cross-examine witnesses, and present their own evidence. (10)    Legal Assistance for Defence: The delinquent employee has the right to defend themselves, either personally or through a representative from the same department. In some cases, a retired employee of the same department may also be allowed to represent the delinquent. Regarding legal representation, there is no inherent right under common law for a party to be represented by a lawyer in departmental proceedings. It has been established that a delinquent employee does not have the right to be represented by an advocate, and the proceedings will not be invalid simply because legal representation was not provided (F.C.I. v. Bant Singh, AIR 1997 SC 2982). However, in certain cases where the facts of the case are complex or technical, the need for legal assistance may be considered part of the "reasonable opportunity" to defend oneself. In such instances, denying legal representation could violate Article 311(2) and the principles of natural justice. No strict rule applies universally in this regard. On the other hand, if the disciplinary authority has engaged a lawyer, denying the delinquent the opportunity to have their own legal representation would amount to denying a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves (K.B. Rai v. State of Punjab, 1996(1) SLR (P&H) 353). Conversely, if the charges are straightforward and the officer handling the proceedings is not legally trained, refusing the delinquent's request for a lawyer would not necessarily constitute a violation of natural justice. (11)    Attendance and Examination of witnesses In departmental proceedings, the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 do not apply. Instead, the proceedings are governed by principles of equity and natural justice. During the inquiry, the department is responsible for presenting evidence against the delinquent first. The delinquent is then given the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses presented. The Inquiry Officer has the authority to summon witnesses. If the delinquent believes that any departmental witness should be recalled for further cross-examination, and if the Inquiry Officer deems it necessary for the sake of justice, the witness may be recalled. However, if the Inquiry Officer finds that recalling a witness would be unnecessary or merely intended to harass the witness, the request may be denied. The Inquiry Officer also has the discretion to call additional evidence or re-examine witnesses as needed. Beyond cross-examining the department’s witnesses, the delinquent must also be given a fair chance to present their own witnesses and any documentary evidence in their defense. Although the Inquiry Officer is not a court and cannot compel witnesses to attend, natural justice dictates that reasonable efforts must be made to ensure their attendance. (12)    Findings and Report of the Inquiry Officer After completing the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer must prepare a report that typically includes the following components: (a)    An introduction outlining the reasons for the inquiry, the appointment of the Inquiry Officer, and the dates of the hearings. (b)    A detailed statement of the charges and allegations made against the delinquent. (c)    The delinquent's explanation or defense. (d)    The oral and documentary evidence presented in support of the charges. (e)    The evidence provided by the delinquent and their representatives. (f)    The reasoning behind the Inquiry Officer’s acceptance or rejection of the evidence presented by either party. (g)    A summary of conclusions for each of the charges. The Inquiry Officer must provide clear findings on each charge, ensuring the delinquent understands the basis for any guilty verdict. These findings serve as a report to the disciplinary authority, assisting them in making the final decision. However, these findings are not binding on the authority, and the Inquiry Officer should not propose or recommend any penalties. (13)    Findings of the disciplinary Authority and issuance of Show Cause Notice to delinquent The Inquiry Officer's report serves as a helpful document for the disciplinary authority, assisting them in forming an opinion regarding the delinquent's guilt. If the disciplinary authority determines that the charges against the delinquent are unproven and that the individual should be cleared of all accusations, it will issue an order of exoneration and inform the concerned employee. However, if the charges are found to be substantiated, the disciplinary authority will issue a Show Cause Notice to the delinquent, proposing the penalty in accordance with the rules. The purpose of this notice is to provide the delinquent with a fair opportunity to respond to the proposed penalty. It must clearly outline the charges and the reasons for the disciplinary authority’s findings. The Show Cause Notice regarding the proposed penalty can only be issued after the conclusion of the regular departmental proceedings and the review of the Inquiry Officer’s report. (14)    Submission of reply to the Show Cause Notice and consideration of his past records The delinquent is required to submit his reply to the Show Cause Notice within stipulated period. Where the delinquent makes a request for a personal hearing, it must be given to him.Its denial might vitiate any action taken against him. Further, The disciplinary authority is free to consider the past service record of the delinquent while imposing penalty. (15)    Penalty Proposed The disciplinary authority must determine the appropriate penalty based on the severity of the employee's misconduct. The rules outline two categories of penalties: (a)    Minor Penalties: (i)    Censure (ii)    Withholding of promotion (iii)    Recovery from pay (iv)    Withholding of pay increments, without cumulative effect (b)    Major Penalties: (i)    Reduction to a lower stage in the pay scale for a specified period, which typically does not prevent promotion (ii)    Reduction to a lower pay scale, grade, post, or service, which usually serves as a barrier to promotion (iii)    Compulsory retirement (iv)    Removal from service (v)    Dismissal from service Censure and Warning Distinguished A "censure" differs from a "warning" in that the former is a formal penalty, while the latter is an administrative action. A warning serves as a tool for superior officers to caution subordinate employees, with the goal of improving efficiency and maintaining discipline. In some cases, a warning may be recorded in the employee’s Confidential Roll. However, simply recording a warning does not convert it into a formal censure. If a warning is noted in the Confidential Roll, it is treated as an adverse entry, and the employee has the right to challenge it in accordance with the relevant rules. The process for imposing minor penalties should be followed in such situations. Although mentioning a warning in the Confidential Roll may indicate the employee's fault and could influence assessments for promotion, it does not constitute a censure, as no formal punishment is intended. Refusing to consider an employee for promotion solely on this basis has been ruled as unlawful. (16)    Final order: After completing the necessary procedures, the disciplinary authority issues the final order imposing a penalty. Since disciplinary proceedings under the Service Rules are quasi-judicial, the order issued by the disciplinary authority must have the characteristics of a judicial order. It should be a comprehensive and reasoned decision that meets legal standards. Therefore, the final order must clearly present the points considered, the conclusions reached, and the reasons behind those conclusions. These reasons must establish a logical connection between the facts and the conclusions drawn. Additionally, providing reasons for the decision allows the employee to challenge the order by appealing or seeking revision before a higher authority or even approaching the High Court if necessary. (17)    Remedies against Imposition of Penalties A government employee who is dissatisfied with the decision of the disciplinary authority has several avenues for remedying the situation: (A)    Constitutional Remedies: As a citizen of India, a government employee is entitled to protection under the Constitution. If any action taken against him infringes on his constitutional rights, he may invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 or that of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution. (B)    Administrative Remedies: 1.    Appeal: The right to appeal is a fundamental defense for a government employee. An employee may file an appeal to the designated appellate authority under the service rules. Typically, the appeal must be submitted within 45 days from the date the order is received by the employee. However, the appellate authority may accept a late appeal if the employee can demonstrate valid reasons for the delay. The appeal must be comprehensive, containing all relevant statements and supporting evidence, and should not include disrespectful language. A copy of the appeal is forwarded to the authority that issued the original order. This authority must send the appeal, along with its comments and relevant records, to the appellate authority promptly. The appellate authority, typically the one immediately superior to the original authority, must issue a reasoned order. The appellate authority has the discretion to confirm, reduce, increase, or annul the penalty. It may also return the case to the original authority with further instructions. If the appellate authority finds that the original decision violated constitutional or legal provisions, or was arbitrary, it can revise or modify the decision. 2.    Revision: If an employee is unsatisfied with the decision of the appellate authority, they may file for revision with the designated revisional authority as per the service rules. A revision cannot be initiated until after the appeal process is concluded. The revision power is invoked only under specific circumstances: o If there was a material irregularity in the inquiry or appellate proceedings that the employee could not have discovered or presented during the earlier stages, or o If there is an obvious mistake or error in the record. The revision should be treated similarly to an appeal under the rules. 3.    Review: The right of review is distinct from the right of appeal, as it does not allow for a complete reevaluation of the case. In the absence of a specific provision authorizing a review of the disciplinary decision, it is not permissible. However, if the authority is granted such a power, it must exercise it within the prescribed time limit. Self-Check Exercise-2 Q.1 Under Article 311, an appeal shall generally be preferred within a period of 45 days from the date of delivery of the order to the government employee. True/False Q.2 The Censure and warning are same thing. True/False 14.4    Summary The process for initiating disciplinary action against a government employee is comprehensive and detailed. Government servants are expected to carry out their duties with the highest standards of diligence, efficiency, and accountability. The thoroughness of the procedure is designed to guarantee that employees can fulfill their responsibilities free from undue influence or corruption. At the same time, it serves to maintain discipline within the workforce, removing those who fail to meet the expectations of both the public and their respective departments. 14.5    Glossary •    Ultra-vires- acting or done beyond one's legal power or authority. •    Show cause notice - produce satisfactory grounds for application of (or exemption from) a procedure or penalty. •    Grievances - something that you think is unfair and that you want to complain or protest about 14.6    Answers to self check exercisesSelf-Check Exercise-1 Q.1 True Q.2 True Self-Check Exercise-2 Q.1 True Q.2 False 14.7    References/Suggested Readings 14.8    Terminal questions Q1 Enumerate the various steps during departmental proceedings of civil servants. Q2 Explain the step of findings and report of the Inquiry Officer. Q3 What remedies are available with the civil servants against penalties imposed? UNIT-15 AMENDMENT OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION Structure 15 Introduction 15.1    Learning Objectives 15.2    Necessity of Amending various provisions of the constitution & Doctrine of Basic structure Self-Check Exercise-1 15.3    Essential features of basic structure of Indian Constitution & Scope of Amending Self-Check Exercise-2 15.4    Summary 15.5    Glossary 15.6    Answer to self-check exercises 15.7    References/Suggested Readings 15.8    Terminal questions 15.0 Learning Objectives After studying this lesson, the learner will be able to -    Know the necessity of amending various provisions of the constitution -    Know the essential features of basic structure of Indian Constitution -    Know the Scope of amending the basic structure of Indian Constitution -    Know the procedure of amendment of the Indian Constitution 15.1    Introduction The Indian Constitution stands out as one of the most remarkable documents in the world, being the longest and most detailed constitution. Despite its length and complexity, what makes it truly fascinating is its flexibility. The framers of the Constitution designed it to evolve alongside the country’s growth. This adaptability ensures that the government can amend the Constitution to address various emerging issues, as outlined in Article 368. However, a pertinent question arises: if the Constitution itself grants power to the government, how can the government possess the authority to modify the very document that defines its power? 15.2    The necessity of Amending provisions in the Constitution The framers of our Constitution intentionally designed it to be flexible, allowing it to adapt and evolve with the changing needs of the nation. Article 368 grants Parliament broad authority to amend the Constitution, with no restrictions on which sections can be changed. However, granting Parliament such unrestricted power could pose a threat to democracy. If left unchecked, the Constitution could become a tool to further the government’s control, rather than serving as the foundational document that protects democratic principles. There are concerns that Parliament could amend provisions to expand its own powers. While this may seem like a distant possibility, it has already occurred in the past, as seen in the 39th and 25th Amendments, where efforts were made to enhance the supremacy of the legislature. This concern led the judiciary to establish the Basic Structure Doctrine in several key cases, ensuring that certain core principles of the Constitution cannot be altered. Doctrine of Basic Structure The Basic Structure Doctrine asserts that there are fundamental principles embedded in the Constitution that form its core foundation. These principles are crucial for the Constitution's survival and include ideas like free and fair elections, the federal nature of the country, judicial review, and the separation of powers. The government is prohibited from altering these core elements through amendments. While the Supreme Court has not provided an explicit list of these principles, it is up to the judiciary to interpret and identify them when legal challenges arise. These principles are so vital that their violation could lead to either anarchy or authoritarian rule, undermining the democratic fabric of the nation. It is due to these safeguards that India remains one of the largest democracies in the world. Therefore, while Parliament holds the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot modify, abolish, or introduce provisions that would disturb its basic structure. The first step towards understanding constitutional law is acknowledging that the Constitution established a self-governing republic, acting as a natural law. Edmund Burke, the father of conservatism, once said, "A Constitution is an ever-developing thing, continuously ongoing as it embodies the spirit of the nation. The impact of the past enriches it now and makes the future richer than the present." Article 368, found in Part XX of the Constitution, outlines three types of amendments: by a simple majority, by a special majority, and by a special majority with ratification by the States. Given the dynamic nature of society, the Constitution must be amendable to adapt to political, economic, and social changes. A rigid Constitution would hinder the nation’s progress. The amendment provisions exist to address future challenges, allowing the document to remain relevant as circumstances evolve. Without the ability to amend the Constitution, citizens may resort to extra-constitutional means, such as rebellion, to achieve necessary changes. The framers of the Constitution foresaw the importance of preserving India’s unity and integrity, establishing mechanisms that ensure justice and accountability, including the right to challenge the government in court for even small claims. Although the judiciary and Parliament have not provided a comprehensive or exclusive definition of the "basic structure," the judiciary has developed the doctrine through case-by-case rulings. This doctrine emerged as a response to issues that arose from the balance between fundamental rights and the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution, as addressed in landmark cases such as Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) and Minerva Mills (1980). The Constitution, crafted with great care by the framers, is a cultural heritage. Its integrity and identity must remain safeguarded against challenges that could undermine its foundational principles. Self-Check Exercise-1 Q.1 Article 368 falls under Part XIX of the Constitution. True/False Q.2 The constitution can be amended as per provision of Article 368. True/False 15.3    Essential features of basic structure of Indian Constitution Over the years, through several landmark cases, the judiciary has progressively broadened the interpretation of what constitutes the basic structure of the Constitution. Here are some key features identified in various rulings: 1.    Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): In this landmark case, several essential principles were declared as part of the Constitution's basic structure: o Chief Justice Sikri recognized the supremacy of the Constitution, a republican and democratic government, the secular nature of the state, the separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, and the federal character of the Constitution as fundamental elements. o Justices Shelat and Grover added that the directive principles of state policy, aimed at establishing a welfare state, and the unity and integrity of the nation were also key aspects. o Justices Hegde and Mukherjea identified the sovereignty of India, the democratic nature of the polity, national unity, the core individual freedoms, and the welfare state mandate as basic features. o Justice Jaganmohan Reddy emphasized the significance of the Preamble and its embodiment in constitutional provisions such as a sovereign democratic republic, parliamentary democracy, and the three branches of government. 2.    Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): In this case, Justice K.K. Thomas highlighted that the ability for judicial review is an essential element of the basic structure. Justice Y.V. Chandrachud also noted four fundamental principles that could not be altered: o Sovereign democratic republic status, o Equality of status and opportunity for all, o Secularism and freedom of conscience and religion, o The rule of law, which was also implied in the Golak Nath case (1967) by Justice Mudholkar. 3.    Minerva Mills Judgment (1980): The court in this case concluded that limiting the amending power of the Constitution itself forms a part of the basic structure. 4.    Central Coal Fields Case (1980): This case recognized that the right to access justice effectively is a core element of the basic structure. 5.    Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachillhu (1992): The court suggested that democracy, along with a fair electoral process, is an integral part of the Constitution's basic structure. 6.    S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): This ruling confirmed that democracy, federalism, and secularism are essential features of the Constitution’s basic structure. 7.    M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006): The court acknowledged the doctrine of equality as a fundamental component of the Constitution’s basic structure. These rulings collectively underscore the judiciary's role in ensuring that the core principles of the Constitution are protected from any amendments that may undermine its foundational values. Scope of amending the basic structure of Indian Constitution Fundamental rights are undeniably essential to the foundation of any civil society, and as such, they form a core part of the legal framework. However, as society evolves, so too must these rights. The scope and interpretation of fundamental rights may need to adapt to changing social, economic, and political realities. This is why many constitutions include provisions for amendment, allowing legal relationships to be adjusted as necessary. A prime example of this flexibility is the British Constitution, which has a straightforward process for making changes, including constitutional ones. Broad amending powers do not diminish fundamental rights; rather, they provide a mechanism for ensuring these rights remain aligned with the times. Article 368 of the Indian Constitution lays out the process for amendments, granting Parliament the authority to alter the Constitution. The amending procedure itself requires a special majority in both Houses of Parliament, and certain amendments also need to be ratified by the legislatures of at least half the states if they affect matters related to the states. For years, legal scholars in India have debated whether there are any express or implicit limitations on Parliament’s power to amend fundamental rights, beyond following the procedure laid out in Article 368. This debate was first addressed in the Shankari Prasad case of 1951, which examined the constitutionality of the First Amendment. The challenge argued that the amendment violated fundamental rights, but the Supreme Court upheld its validity, stating that the term "law" in Article 13(2) referred to common law, not constitutional amendments. This issue resurfaced in Sajjan Singh v. State of Punjab (1963), where the Court once again ruled that Parliament had broad powers under Article 368 to amend fundamental rights, and that Article 13 did not apply to such amendments. However, in the Golak Nath case (1967), the Supreme Court overturned this stance, ruling that constitutional amendments could not alter or limit fundamental rights, as the term "law" in Article 13(2) included constitutional law. The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) brought this debate to its peak. In this case, the Court addressed whether Parliament could amend fundamental rights in a way that would diminish or eliminate them. The petitioners argued that such amendments violated the Constitution’s basic structure. The Court ruled that the power to amend the Constitution was contained within Article 368, and that amendments made under this provision were not subject to the limitations of Article 13. However, the Court also introduced the basic structure doctrine, ruling that while Parliament could amend the Constitution, it could not alter its fundamental principles or structure. While the Court's interpretation of what constitutes the "basic structure" is subjective, it asserts that these essential elements cannot be altered by Parliament through the amending power. This doctrine ensures that certain principles, though not explicitly outlined in the Constitution, remain inviolable and form the bedrock of India’s democratic framework. Thus, while the Constitution is designed to be flexible, allowing for necessary changes, it also includes safeguards to preserve its core values. Kesavananda Bharati case On April 24, 1973, the Supreme Court delivered its pivotal judgment in the Kesavananda Bharati case, often referred to as the "Essential Features Case." The judgment, which spanned over 700 pages, is considered a landmark decision in Indian constitutional law. Rather than focusing directly on the specific issues raised by the petitioners, the case extensively explored the constitutional principles surrounding amendments in India. The ruling came from a thirteen-judge Constitutional Bench, which issued eleven separate judgments. Only two of these were joint opinions: one written by Justices Shelat and Mukerjea, and the other by Justices Hegde and Grover. In an intriguing turn, the case saw a split decision, with six judges ruling in favor of the petitioners and six against them. The thirteenth judge, Justice Khanna, took a middle path, offering a unique perspective. His opinion, which was not entirely shared by any of the other judges, eventually became the guiding legal principle. Justice Khanna concluded that the power to amend the Constitution is not unlimited and that Parliament cannot alter its fundamental framework, or "basic structure." He further upheld the substantive part of Article 31-C, which repealed certain fundamental rights, as constitutional, since it did not impact the Constitution’s basic structure. However, he declared the portion of the article that removed judicial review as invalid. On the broader issue of amending power under Article 368, Justice Khanna reinforced that Parliament's power to amend is indeed limited. Twenty-fourth Amendment issue To assess the constitutionality of the Twenty-fourth Amendment, the principles established in the Kesavananda Bharati case were immediately referenced. Opponents of unlimited amending power raised concerns that granting such authority could endanger Fundamental Rights and other crucial aspects of the Constitution. However, as noted by legal scholar Seervai, this argument was dismissed by emphasizing that, although misuse of power could be challenged, "the fear of abuse of power does not justify denying its existence." In the Kesavananda case, the government argued that despite having unlimited power to amend the Constitution, including the ability to curtail human freedoms under Article 31-C, it would not misuse this authority. The Bench expressed apprehension about this argument, suggesting that if such a fear were to dictate constitutional interpretation, it could lead to the conclusion that many essential parts of the Constitution should be considered unamendable. Ultimately, the Court's reasoning leaned toward the position of the Privy Council, rather than the earlier reflections in the poet's writings. The Twenty-fourth Amendment was upheld as valid, but with a crucial limitation. The Court affirmed that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution was subject to the constraint that the "basic structure" of the Constitution could not be altered. Furthermore, it was believed that overturning the Golak Nath ruling restored the legal situation that existed before it, making the Twenty-fourth Amendment less significant. In this way, the Kesavananda judgment achieved the same objective the government sought to accomplish through the Twenty-fourth Amendment. Twenty-fifth Amendment The following points were upheld regarding the Twenty-fifth Amendment, with certain qualifications: 1.    Court's jurisdiction on 'amount': Courts could not assess the adequacy of the 'amount' payable for property acquisition or requisition, even though 'amount' was distinct from 'compensation.' However, it was required that the 'amount' had a reasonable connection to the original value of the property and could not be arbitrary or illogical. 2.    Restoration of legal status prior to Golak Nath ruling: The Amendment restored the legal position that existed before the Golak Nath case, where it was ruled that Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31(2) were mutually exclusive. This meant Article 19(1)(f) was not applicable to statutes passed under Article 31(2). 3.    Article 31-C - Protection of specific laws: The first clause of Article 31-C, which sought to protect certain laws from being challenged under Articles 14, 19, and 31, was upheld. This protection applied to legislation aimed at fulfilling the directives under Articles 39(b) and (c), and it was not necessary to delegate amendment authority for this purpose. 4.    Article 31-C - Invalidating second clause: The second clause of Article 31-C was deemed invalid. The Court ruled that while laws meant to implement Articles 39(b) and (c) were immune from challenges under Articles 14, 19, and 31, the judiciary still retained the authority to review whether such laws genuinely achieved the objectives of those Articles. If the second clause had remained intact, it would have allowed laws to be shielded from judicial scrutiny, which the Court ruled against, emphasizing that no legislature could create laws immune from legal challenge solely through its own declaration. Twenty-ninth Amendment The petitioners' main argument defending the legality of the Twenty-ninth Amendment centered on the relationship between Articles 31A and 31B. They contended that Article 31B was directly linked to Article 31A and that only laws covered by Article 31A should be included in the Ninth Schedule under Article 31B. The Court considered previous cases, including State of Bihar v. Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga (1952), Visweshwar Rao v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (1952), and N.B. Jeejeebhoy v. Assistant Collector, Thana Prant, Thana (1964), which had already addressed similar issues. In those cases, it was concluded that Article 31B operated independently of Article 31A. Reopening a settled matter was challenging. Nevertheless, the Court still needed to examine whether the laws added to the Ninth Schedule by the Twenty-ninth Amendment, or any of their provisions, violated core constitutional principles or altered the Constitution's fundamental character. A Constitution Bench was assigned the task of determining whether the Twenty-sixth Amendment aligned with the Kesavananda decision and upheld the Constitution’s core structure. Significance of the case The Kesavananda ruling was significant in the following ways: 1.    Previous decisions by the judiciary had suggested that various provisions of the Constitution were of equal, if not greater, importance than fundamental rights. However, the Golak Nath case had limited this perspective to only fundamental rights. Kesavananda expanded on this by identifying additional elements that constitute the "basic structure" of the Constitution, which cannot be modified through constitutional amendments. 2.    The Golak Nath case had made all fundamental rights non-amendable, a position seen by many, including the government, as too restrictive. Kesavananda introduced more flexibility, stating that not all fundamental rights are part of the Constitution’s core framework. Only those rights considered integral to the "basic structure" are immune from amendment. The IR Coelho’s judgement The Supreme Court's ruling in IR Coelho v. Union of India (2007) holds significant importance. The case, which was heard by a nine-judge bench, stemmed from a reference made by a constitution bench in 1999. In Balmadies Plantations Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu (1972), the Court had invalidated the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969, concluding that it did not qualify for the protection provided to agrarian reforms under Article 31-A of the Constitution. Later, the Constitution (Thirty-fourth Amendment) Act inserted the Janmam Act into the Ninth Schedule, which was subsequently challenged. The Constitution bench observed that amendments made after the Kesavananda Bharati judgment on 24.4.1973, which inserted laws into the Ninth Schedule, were subject to judicial scrutiny. These amendments could be contested if they were found to undermine the basic structure of the Constitution. The case revolved around the extent to which judicial review should apply to constitutional amendments that place statutes in the Ninth Schedule, and whether such amendments or the laws they protect should be immune from challenge. Essentially, the issue at hand was whether laws that violate fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, or 31 can be included in the Ninth Schedule, or whether such amendments that threaten the Constitution’s core structure could be declared invalid. Judgement of the case Absolute immunity is not granted in all cases. In the IR Coelho case, the Court emphasized that the Kesavananda Bharati decision did not address the constitutionality of Article 31-B. However, the Court chose to regard Article 31-B as valid, noting that the constitutionality of this article, particularly in relation to the First Amendment, was not part of the issues raised when the matter was referred to the nine-judge bench for consideration. The Court ruled that granting absolute immunity at discretion contradicts the theory of the Constitution’s basic structure. As a result, laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973 (the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment) were no longer immune from judicial review concerning the rights outlined in Part III of the Constitution. These laws, therefore, became subject to scrutiny in light of fundamental rights. Additionally, the Court observed that laws intersecting with the fundamental rights embedded in the basic structure of the Constitution would be tested against a higher standard of validity. Any law that undermines a core principle of a fundamental right or its essential feature would be invalidated. Each case requires a careful assessment of the extent to which a law infringes upon or limits fundamental rights. What constitutes the basic structure? The IR Coelho case represents a significant development in the legal interpretation of the Constitution’s basic structure. The judgment from the five-judge bench in the earlier M. Nagaraj case served as a foundation for the IR Coelho Court’s expansion of these ideas. The Court addressed the tension between interpreting the Constitution based on its original meaning and the flexible nature of its text, which allows for the incorporation of various constitutional values. In Nagaraj, the Court had affirmed that the fundamental framework of the Constitution may not necessarily be explicitly outlined in its language. In Nagaraj, the Court emphasized that principles like secularism, federalism, socialism, and reasonableness—though not directly mentioned in the Constitution—are essential to its integrity and are part of constitutional law. The IR Coelho Court further clarified this point, noting that the basic structure could encompass both the written provisions of the Constitution and these underlying principles. It distinguished between the "essence of the rights test" and the "rights test," explaining the difference between the fundamental principles supporting an expressed right and the actual right explicitly stated in the Constitution. According to the IR Coelho Court, the Kesavananda Bharati case should not be interpreted as excluding fundamental rights from the basic structure. This allowed the Court to continue developing its argument. The IR Coelho Court also drew upon Nagaraj to assert that fundamental rights are not granted by the government, but are inherent to individuals. Part III of the Constitution merely affirms their existence and offers protection for them. Therefore, the Court held that each fundamental right in Part III has “foundational value.” Finally, the Court recognized Article 32 as part of the basic structure. Referencing Minerva Mills, the Court reiterated that Articles 14, 19, and 21—often referred to as the "golden triangle"—are also integral to the Constitution's basic structure. The ‘rights test’ and ‘essence of rights’ In IR Coelho, the Court had to clarify the distinction between the “rights test” and the “essence of rights” in relation to Part III of the Constitution and its connection to the fundamental structure. Although laws can be added to the Ninth Schedule, the Court emphasized that once Article 32 is invoked, these laws must undergo a thorough examination against the fundamental rights. The Ninth Schedule can be amended without any restrictions on how often it is reviewed, and this flexibility means that any change to the Ninth Schedule directly impacts Article 32. Since Article 32 is part of the Constitution's basic structure, it must be assessed within the framework of the fundamental rights as they currently stand in Part III. The Court concluded that the constitutional validity of laws under the Ninth Schedule could be tested using the direct impact and effect test, which is often referred to as the rights test. According to this test, the determining factor is not the form of the law, but its actual impact. The Court is responsible for deciding whether the interference caused by the law is justified and whether it violates the basic structure of the Constitution. This means that the impact of a law, rather than its formal characteristics, will be the key factor in determining its constitutionality. This approach shifts the responsibility of deciding the necessity of a law from Parliament to the judiciary. It grants the courts the authority to assess the validity of such laws by applying both the rights test and its fundamental components. Ultimately, the courts will decide whether the law infringes upon the Constitution’s fundamental structure, and this determination could be decisive in the final ruling. The Ninety-Ninth Constitutional Amendment and the doctrine of basic structure The National Judicial Appointment Commission Act (NJAC Act) and the Ninety-Ninth Constitutional Amendment were introduced as a proposal to establish a new body for judicial appointments, replacing the existing system where the Supreme Court's three senior-most judges (the Collegium) make appointments, with the Executive playing a largely consultative role. The constitutionality of the Ninety-Ninth Amendment was challenged in the case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India (2015). The central issue was whether the amendment violated the Constitution's basic structure by altering or undermining it. The petitioners argued that the Constitution’s core principle of judicial independence is tied to the judiciary's exclusive control over judicial appointments, with minimal involvement from the Executive. They maintained that any deviation from this principle could threaten the independence of the judiciary. On the other hand, the respondents contended that the independence of the judiciary would not be compromised by the Executive’s involvement in judicial appointments. They argued that the revised system would continue to uphold the judiciary's supremacy and independence while promoting transparency and accountability, and that these changes would not alter the Constitution’s basic structure. The Court, in a 4:1 judgment, disagreed with the respondents. It ruled that the new system violated the Constitution's basic structure by diminishing the judiciary’s primary role in selecting judges. The Court held that the proposed amendments, particularly Articles 124A, B, and C, could potentially undermine the separation of powers, judicial independence, and the rule of law. Self-Check Exercise-2 Q.1 Article 32 is part of the basic structure of Indian constitution. True/False Q.2 Articles 14, 19, and 21 which were identified by the Supreme Court as the ‘golden triangle’ are part of the basic structure of the Constitution. True/False 15.4    Summary This article examines the process of constitutional amendments. We have discovered that the Constitution has a concept known as the "Basic Structure," which is considered fundamental to justice, and any violation of it is seen as a breach of core principles. Initially, the judiciary believed that only the Preamble constituted the basic structure of the Constitution. However, later rulings expanded this understanding to include other elements, such as judicial review, as part of the Basic Structure. The government has attempted, in several significant cases, to amend the Constitution to better serve the public interest. Initially, the judiciary opposed these efforts, but over time, certain judgments began to suggest that the executive could, in some instances, override specific elements of the basic structure if it served the public good. Nonetheless, in subsequent cases, the judiciary remained firm in its stance, allowing amendments only if there was clear evidence that they would substantially benefit public welfare. It is important to recognize that the Constitution is the foundation of our democracy. While it was a visionary act by the framers to include provisions for constitutional amendments, these provisions must be used responsibly. Misuse of these powers could lead to an imbalance, granting excessive control to the legislative or executive branches, thereby threatening the very fabric of our democracy. 15.5    Glossary •    Republic- a country that has an elected government and an elected leader. •    Totalitarianism - a form of government that attempts to assert total control over the lives of its citizens. •    Immunity - the ability to avoid or not be affected by disease, criticism, punishment by law, etc. 15.6    Answers to self check exercisesSelf-Check Exercise-1 Q.1 False Q.2 True Self-Check Exercise-2 Q.1 True Q.2 True 15.7    References/Suggested Readings 15.8    Terminal questions Q1 Discuss the essential features of amendment of Indian Constitution. Q2 bring out the various ways of amending Indian Constitution. Q3 Can fundamental rights be amended? If yes, then discuss the scope by giving ample examples. UNIT-16 Procedure to Amendment of Constitution Structure 16 Introduction 16.1    Learning Objectives 16.2    Procedure of Amendment of the Indian Constitution Self-Check Exercise-1 16.3    Amendment of Fundamental Rights & Constitutional Amendments since 2019 Self-Check Exercise-2 16.4    Summary 16.5    Glossary 16.6    Answer to self-check exercises 16.7    References/Suggested Readings 16.8    Terminal questions 16.0 Introduction The Constitution of India is one of the most remarkable documents in the world. No other nation has a constitution as detailed or as extensive as India's, making it the longest constitution globally. Despite its thoroughness, what makes this document particularly intriguing is its remarkable flexibility. The framers of the Constitution designed it to be adaptable, ensuring that it would not only serve the country as it evolves but also evolve alongside it. To facilitate this, the Constitution allows for amendments to address emerging issues, a power granted by Article 368. However, this raises an important question: If the Constitution is the source of the government's power, how can the government hold the authority to amend the very document that grants it that power? 16.1    Learning Objectives After studying this lesson, the learner will be able to - Know the Scope of amending the fundamental rights of the Indian Constitution - Know the procedure of amendment of the Indian Constitution 16.2    Procedure to Amendment •    Article 368 in Part XX of the Constitution outlines the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and the procedures involved. o It allows Parliament to make changes to the Constitution through the addition, modification, or repeal of any provision, following the established procedure. o However, the article restricts amendments that affect the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution, as established in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973). •    The amendment process includes two main types: 0. Amendments requiring a special majority in Parliament. 1.    Amendments requiring both a special majority in Parliament and ratification by at least half of the state legislatures through a simple majority vote. Some provisions of the Constitution can be amended with a simple majority in each House of Parliament, and these are not considered amendments under Article 368. What is a Simple Majority? •    Several provisions of the Constitution can be modified by a simple majority in Parliament, outside the scope of Article 368. These provisions include: o The creation of new states or the modification of existing states' areas, boundaries, or names. o o o o o o The creation or abolition of legislative councils in states. The regulation of official language use. Matters related to citizenship, such as acquisition and termination. The organization of elections to Parliament and state legislatures. Administration of scheduled areas and tribes under the Fifth Schedule. Administration of tribal areas under the Sixth Schedule. What is a Special Majority? •    Special Majority: o Under Article 368(2), Parliament can amend the Constitution by passing a Bill with a special majority. o Provisions such as Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) can be amended with a special majority, but any amendments must remain within the framework of the Constitution's basic structure. o Provisions that do not require state ratification and are governed by Article 368 can also be amended with a special majority. • Special Majority with State Ratification: o Some provisions, particularly those related to the federal structure of the country, can only be amended if Parliament passes the amendment with a special majority and the consent of half of the state legislatures through a simple majority. o Key provisions that require state ratification include the election process for the President, the functioning of the Supreme Court and High Courts, the representation of states in Parliament, the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and states, and the scope of executive powers of both the Union and the states. o Notably, any change to Article 368 itself requires the consent of the states. Self-Check Exercise-1 Q.1 The provisions that require ratification by the states are the election of President, Supreme Court and High Courts, representation of states in Parliament, distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the states, and the extent of executive power of the Union and the states.. True/False Q.2 103rd Constitutional Amendment states that individuals from economically weaker sections of society can seek reservation from educational institutions, including private institutions. True/False 16.3    Amendment of Fundamental Rights o The fundamental rights outlined in Part III of the Indian Constitution serve as the core of human rights in the nation. The judiciary has repeatedly upheld these rights in landmark cases, emphasizing their inviolability. These rights take precedence over other sections of the Constitution and play an essential role in shaping the nation's legal framework. However, with Parliament's authority to amend the Constitution, questions arise: Can they alter the fundamental rights? Do these rights constitute the Constitution's "basic structure"? To explore this, we examine the cases of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Golak Nath v. State of Punjab. o Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1965 o This case ruled that fundamental rights could be amended, provided the amendments were indirect or of minimal significance, as per the powers under Article 226. Various states had implemented agrarian reforms, prompting Parliament to amend certain sections of the Constitution, such as through the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, and Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964. The Seventeenth Amendment specifically added 44 Acts to the Ninth Schedule, including the acquisition of estates under Section 31A. The petitioners argued that the amendment violated Article 226 and the powers of the judiciary. o Key Issues: o Did the amendment infringe upon the powers under Article 226? o Should the ruling in Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India be reconsidered? o Did the amendment deal with land, and was Parliament authorized to make laws regarding it? o Could Parliament validate laws ruled unconstitutional by the courts? o Held: o Impact on Article 226: The Court determined that if the Act's effect on Article 226 was incidental or insignificant, it did not require the procedures under Article 368. o Reopening Previous Decisions: The Court refused to revisit Sri Sankari Prasad, stating that reopening the case was unnecessary. o Parliament’s Authority on Land Laws: Parliament’s actions were deemed to validate existing land laws, rather than create new ones. o Validation of Invalid Laws: Under Article 368, Parliament could retrospectively validate laws previously declared invalid. o The dissent by Justice J.R. Mudholkar introduced the concept of "basic features" in the Constitution, which became pivotal in the later Kesavananda Bharati case. Justice Mudholkar raised the question of whether changes to fundamental rights could be regarded as altering the Constitution's basic structure, which led to significant debate on the limits of Parliament's amending power. o I. C. Golaknath & Ors v. State of Punjab, 1971 o This case overruled Sajjan Singh and declared that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights. The petitioners challenged the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, which added several Acts to the Ninth Schedule. o Key Issues: o Could fundamental rights be amended by Parliament? o Held: The Court found that Articles 245, 246, and 248 empower Parliament to legislate, but Article 368 only governs the procedure for amending the Constitution. Amendments affecting fundamental rights under Part III would be void under Article 13. The Court adopted the doctrine of prospective overruling, meaning laws previously validated by amendments would remain valid, but from the judgment date forward, Parliament could not amend fundamental rights. o Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain & Anr, 1975 o This case examined whether judicial review was a basic feature of the Constitution. Indira Gandhi's government, following electoral malpractice allegations, invoked emergency powers and passed an amendment (Article 329-A) that barred judicial review of elections. The Court ruled the amendment unconstitutional, emphasizing that free and fair elections are an essential feature of India’s democracy. o Key Issues: o Was the 39th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1975, constitutional? o Held: The Court upheld the Kesavananda Bharati doctrine, striking down Article 329-A, which undermined judicial review. It found that free and fair elections and judicial review were core principles of democracy, integral to the Constitution’s basic structure. o Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors v. Union of India & Ors, 1980 o This case dealt with amendments made through the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976, and questioned the scope of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. o Key Issues: o The constitutionality of the Forty-Second Amendment Act, 1976. o Held: The Court declared clauses expanding the amending power and eliminating judicial review unconstitutional, asserting that such amendments violated the basic structure of the Constitution. It reaffirmed that Parliament’s amending power is not absolute and cannot infringe on fundamental rights or the core democratic principles of the Constitution. o M. Nagaraj & Others v. Union of India & Others, 2007 o This case reviewed amendments to Article 16(4A) that provided reservation in promotions with seniority, questioning their constitutionality in light of the basic structure doctrine. o Key Issues: o Constitutionality of the Constitution (Eighty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 2001. o Held: The Court upheld the amendment, ruling that it did not violate the basic structure. It confirmed that such amendments must still respect equality before the law, as enshrined in Article 14, and should not undermine the Constitution’s fundamental principles. o I.R. Coelho (Dead) By Lrs v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors, 2007 o In this case, the Court examined whether laws inserted into the Ninth Schedule could bypass judicial review. o Key Issues: o Can laws in the Ninth Schedule be immune from judicial review? o Held: The Court ruled that laws in the Ninth Schedule must pass the basic structure test, ensuring they do not violate fundamental rights. It clarified that judicial review is an essential part of the Constitution’s framework and cannot be excluded by adding laws to the Ninth Schedule. Constitutional Amendments in 2019 Name of Objective Amendment Amendment | | Added Clause (6) to Clause (6) states that individuals from economically | |---|---| | 103rd | Article 15 Added weaker sections of society can seek reservation from Clause (6) to Article educational institutions, including private institutions. 16 This is notwithstanding minority institutions Clause (6) | of Article 16 established reservation of individuals from economically weaker sections in government posts. • The abolishment of Legislative councils in mentioned States. 104th Amended Article 334 • Dual Citizenship for Indian origin outside the country. • • Quota to educationally backward classes Quota for religious minorities in government service. Self-Check Exercise-2 Q.1 India has provision of dual citizenship. True/False Q.2 103rd Constitutional Amendment states that individuals from economically weaker sections of society can seek reservation from educational institutions, including private institutions. True/False 16.4    Summary This chapter examined the process of constitutional amendments and the concept of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. It was discovered that violating this structure goes against fundamental principles of justice. Initially, the judiciary viewed the preamble as the core of the Constitution's basic structure. However, over time, it was ruled that other elements, such as judicial review, could also be considered part of the Basic Structure. In various landmark cases, the government sought to amend the Constitution to better serve the public good. The judiciary, initially resistant, eventually acknowledged the possibility of allowing certain modifications to the Basic Structure if they aligned with the public's best interests. However, subsequent rulings made it clear that unless the judiciary was thoroughly convinced of the amendments' benefit to public welfare, they remained firm in protecting the Constitution’s core values. Ultimately, it is crucial to recognize that the Constitution is the foundation of our democracy. While the framers wisely included provisions for constitutional amendments, these provisions must not be abused, as such misuse could lead to an imbalance of power between the branches of government, undermining the democratic structure. 16.5    Glossary •    Republic- a country that has an elected government and an elected leader. •    Totalitarianism - a form of government that attempts to assert total control over the lives of its citizens. •    Immunity - the ability to avoid or not be affected by disease, criticism, punishment by law, etc. 16.6    Answers to self check exercises Self-Check Exercise-1 Q.1 True Q.2 True Self-Check Exercise-2 Q.1 True Q.2 True 16.7    References/Suggested Readings 16.8    Terminal questions Q1 Discuss the essential features of amendment of Indian Constitution. Q2 bring out the various ways of amending Indian Constitution. Q3 Can fundamental rights be amended? If yes, then discuss the scope by giving ample examples. Block-IV UNIT-17 FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN INDIA Structure 17 Introduction 17.1    Learning Objectives 17.2    Genesis, Significance and characteristics Self-Check Exercise-1 17.3    Part III Fundamental Rights Self-Check Exercise-2 17.4    Summary 17.5    Glossary 17.6    Answer to self-check exercises 17.7    References/Suggested Readings 17.8    Terminal questions 17.0 Introduction The fundamental rights were included in the Constitution of India with lot of enthusiasm, as the American idea of the ‘Bill of Rights’ was one of the inspiring factor while the Indians were struggling against the Britishers for freedom. Even during an alien rule the Indian nationalists were making demands for inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Government of India Act of 1935. But their demand could not get fulfilled as the concept of a written list of rights was not popular among the Britishers. They believe that the rights are created by the Parliament. Sir John Simon, the chairman of the Simon Commission opposed the idea of inclusion of a bill of rights in the constitution. He was of the view that the concept of the British Constitution implied the sovereignty of the Parliament. All rights in Britain originates therefore, from Parliament. Secondly, the necessity of fundamental rights arises only where autocracy rules. But where there is a parliamentary system of government there is no necessity of fundamental rights. Thirdly there can only be two possibilities with regard to fundamental rights; either they are justiciable or non-justiciable’. Similar were the views of other Britishers. But there was a fundamental difference between the British constitutional system which has evolved itself in the span of a period of centuries, and the Indian system which was not a well established system, and social structure was a fragmented structure. Finally the Government of India Act, 1935 was passed without any mention of the fundamental rights. As the Indian nation got its Constituent Assembly in 1946, there was a strong demand for inclusion of a Unit on fundamental rights in the proposed constitution. A separate committee was formed under the chairmanship of Sardar Patel along with some other members particularly representing the minorities. This Committee submitted its report to the Drafting Committee, which prepared the Part on fundamental rights on the recommendations of the fundamental rights Committee. Though there were so many constitutions in the world having the fundamental rights, and the UN was also at the same time busy in preparing the list of inalienable rights of the man, yet the framers of the Indian Constitution carefully selected the rights to confer the status of fundamental rights on those rights. Peculiar social fabric of India, having typical problems like untouchability, caste based rankings in society, diversities based on diverse factors like language, religion, culture, level of development etc. were kept in mind while preparing the list of the fundamental rights. Part III, which deals with these rights was given the place of prominence in the Constitution. This Part was made not only ‘justiciable’ but also immune from any encroachment by the Government in future (Article 13). The makers of our Constitution tried their best to clarify the provisions of the fundamental rights and the limits for the enjoyment of these rights. The distinction was also made between the residents of India as the citizens and the non-citizens as the two words ‘citizens’ and ‘persons’ has been used in different rights. The Right to Constitutional Remedies in case of any infringement on these rights is made itself a fundamental right ( Article 32). This Article was considered as heart and soul of the Constitution. The importance of this Article can be measured from the views expressed by the chairman of the Drafting Committee before the Constituent Assembly about its importance. Dr. Ambedkar said, “if I was asked to name the particular Article in this Constitution as the most important without which this Constitution would be a nullity, I could not refer to any other Article except this one. It is the very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it and I am glad that the House has realized its importance. Hereafter, it would not be possible for any legislature to take away the writs which are mentioned in this Article”. 17.1    Learning Objectives After studying this lesson, the learner will be able to -    Know the significance and characteristics of fundamental rights -    Know in detail the fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution -    Know the amended fundamental rights and their reason 17.2    Genesis, Significance and Characteristics The evolution of constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights in India drew inspiration from several historical documents, such as the English Bill of Rights (1689), the U.S. Bill of Rights (ratified in 1791), and France's Declaration of the Rights of Man (adopted during the 1789 Revolution). During the British colonial period, Indian students were introduced to concepts of democracy, human rights, and European political history through their education. Moreover, the Indian student community in England found motivation in the British parliamentary system and the workings of British political parties. The Rowlatt Acts of 1919, which granted sweeping powers to the British authorities, permitted indefinite detention, searches without warrants, restrictions on public gatherings, and severe censorship of the media. Public outcry against these provisions led to widespread non-violent civil disobedience movements across India, demanding civil freedoms and restrictions on government authority. The Indian independence movement was also influenced by Ireland’s fight for independence and the development of its constitution. Additionally, the directive principles of the Irish constitution served as a model for addressing India's social and economic challenges post-independence. In 1928, the Nehru Commission, consisting of representatives from various Indian political parties, proposed constitutional reforms. These reforms included demands for dominion status, universal suffrage, protection of fundamental rights, and safeguards for religious and ethnic minorities. In 1931, the Indian National Congress, the largest political party at the time, passed resolutions committing to the defense of fundamental civil rights and socio-economic rights, such as the abolition of untouchability and the establishment of a minimum wage. By 1936, the Congress further embraced socialism, drawing on the constitution of the former USSR as a source of inspiration for instituting fundamental duties of citizens to contribute to the nation's welfare. The chairman of the constitution drafting committee — B. R. Ambedkar After India gained independence on 15 August 1947, the responsibility of framing a constitution for the newly independent nation was entrusted to the Constituent Assembly of India, which was made up of elected representatives under the leadership of Rajendra Prasad. Although the Congress party held the majority in the Assembly, Congress leaders ensured the inclusion of individuals from various political backgrounds to assist in drafting the constitution and formulating national laws. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar was appointed as the chairman of the drafting committee, while Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel chaired various committees and sub-committees focused on different aspects of the constitution. A significant event that influenced the development of the Indian Constitution occurred on 10 December 1948, when the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, urging all member countries to incorporate these rights into their national constitutions. The concept of Fundamental Rights was incorporated into the first draft of the Constitution (February 1948), the second draft (17 October 1948), and finally, the third and final draft (26 November 1949), which were prepared by the Drafting Committee. Significance and characteristics The inclusion of Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution was based on the belief that they are crucial for the development of every individual’s personality and for upholding human dignity. The framers of the Constitution saw democracy as ineffective without the protection of civil liberties, such as freedom of speech and religion. They believed that democracy fundamentally relies on public opinion, and therefore, citizens must have the means to express and form that opinion freely. To ensure this, the Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech and expression, along with various other freedoms through the Fundamental Rights. Everyone, regardless of their race, religion, caste, or gender, is entitled to approach the Supreme Court and High Courts to protect their Fundamental Rights. It is not mandatory for the affected party to initiate such actions themselves. For example, individuals in poverty may not have the resources to do so, but in the interest of justice, others can bring a case on their behalf. This is known as "Public Interest Litigation." In certain instances, High Court judges have also taken action based on reports in the media. The Fundamental Rights not only safeguard individual freedoms but also serve to prevent severe human rights violations. They promote national unity by ensuring all citizens have access to the same opportunities and resources, regardless of their background. While some of these rights are granted to all people, others are specifically reserved for Indian citizens. For example, the right to life and personal liberty, as well as freedom of religion, applies to everyone, while the rights to freedom of speech and expression and to reside in any part of the country are restricted to citizens of India, including non-resident Indians. Similarly, the right to equality in public employment is not available to overseas citizens of India. The primary purpose of Fundamental Rights is to protect individuals from arbitrary state actions, though some rights are also enforceable against individuals. For instance, the Constitution abolishes untouchability and forbids forced labor (begar), acting as a check both on state and private actions. However, these rights are not absolute and can be limited by reasonable restrictions necessary for the welfare of the general public. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights, can be amended, but Parliament cannot alter the Constitution's basic structure, such as secularism and democracy. These rights, protected by constitutional amendments, serve as checks not only on the executive but also on Parliament and state legislatures. Self-Check Exercise-1 Q.1 The necessity of fundamental rights arises only where autocracy rules. True/False Q.2 Who was the chairman of the constitution drafting committee? 13.3 PART-III FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS The Third Part of Indian Constitution begins with the definition of the word ‘State’. It includes the Government and Parliament of India, Governments and Legislatures of the States and other authorities under the control of the Government. This Article stands intact till date and no alteration has been made in it. This Article stands as following. Art.12- Definition. 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. This Article which defines the meaning of the word ‘State’ for the purpose of the Part III, (dealing with the fundamental rights) remained intact since the commencement of the Constitution. The scope of this Article was kept flexible by including the words ‘other authorities’ in the definition of the word ‘State’. Various judgments of the courts have interpreted it according to the nature of these ‘other authorities’. Some of the ‘other authorities’ were declared as ‘State’ and others declared as ‘not the State’. The test applied by the Judiciary to determine the question is mainly based on financial assistance by the Government, control of the Government in the administration of the body, monopoly status conferred on the body, and nature of functions of the body etc. The authorities declared as ‘State’ in various judgments included the Rajasthan Electricity Board, Nationalized Banks, and Delhi Transport Corporation etc. The other authorities declared as ‘not the State’ included the Board of Control for Cricket in India etc. These are different interpretations of the courts based on the nature and functions of the various bodies involved in the cases. Otherwise the structure of the Article 12 has not seen any change till date. Art.13- Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights (1)    All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void. (2)    The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void. (3)    In this article, unless the context otherwise requires, (a) "law" includes any Ordinance, order, byelaw, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law ; (B) "laws in force" includes laws passed or made by a Legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas. This Article was given the responsibility of safeguarding the fundamental rights. It has to insure the paramountcy of the fundamental rights. In clause (1) it provided for the inapplicability of all the laws in force to the extent of inconsistency with the fundamental rights. In clause (2) it had forbidden the State from making any law in the future, which is inconsistence with the fundamental rights. The third clause was meant to make it clear that a ‘law’ includes all the possible forms of law by naming these as Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage etc. There was no mention of the term ‘amendment’ in this Article in the original Constitution. It had led to the confrontation between the Judiciary and the Parliament on several occasions. The first amendment inserted Article 31A and Article 31B in the Part III, along with the addition of the 9th Schedule. The amendment was challenged in the Supreme Court, on the ground that the Parliament has no power to make an amendment in this Part. But the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the first amendment on the ground that Article 13 forbids the State from making any ‘law’ against the fundamental rights, but this amendment does not fall under the term ‘law’ used in that Article, as it is within the scope of Parliament due to the constituent power conferred on the Parliament under Article 368. This decision was again upheld in the Sajjan Singh V. State of Rajasthan Case in 1965. In this case the Court observed that the non inclusion of the word ‘amendment’ in Article 13 is not a result of omission by mistake, rather it was deliberately kept out of the scope of this Article, so an amendment of this Part cannot be challenged on grounds of inconsistency with the fundamental rights. But this decision of the Supreme Court was overruled by the Court itself in 1967 in the famous Golak Nath Case4. In this case the Supreme Court held that an amendment is also covered under the term ‘law’ in the Article 13. There is no fundamental difference between the enactment of a law and of a constitutional amendment. Requirements as to 2/3 majority in Parliament and ratification by half of the State Legislature are provided only as additional protective measures to check a hasty decision by a thin majority in Parliament. Existence of such additional safeguards does not make a constitutional amendment anything else than a law. Term ‘law’ used in Article 13 includes a constitutional law also, and a constitutional amendment is nothing else than a constitutional law. The Court also held that Article 368 does not confer any constituent power on Parliament. It provides for procedure only to amend those parts or Articles of the Constitution, which are amendable. As Article 13 had forbidden the State from making any law against fundamental rights, so naturally no amendment can be done by the Parliament in these rights. If Parliament thinks it necessary it can summon a Constituent Assembly again for which it is empowered under residuary powers. This decision led to a serious clash between the Parliament and the Judiciary. To negate the effect of this decision, Parliament passed twenty fourth amendment in 1971. It amended Article 13 and Article 368 providing for the amendment of the Constitution. In Article 13 it inserted clause (4) making an express provisions that the bar of this Article would not be applicable to an amendment, made under the constituent power of the Parliament. The newly inserted clause (4) was as under; Art. 13(4) Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under article 368. This amendment was again challenged in the Kesavananda Bharati Case. But the Supreme Court upheld the validity of 24th amendment and held that an amendment does not fall within the meaning of the term ‘law’ as used in Article 13. As a result of judicial decisions, and amendment of this Article, now the Parliament has power to amend the Constitution including the fundamental rights. As a result of this judgment a new concept had taken birth in the Constitutional Law of India. The Supreme Court declared that Parliament has power to amend the Constitution including the part on fundamental rights, but it could not change the basic structure of the Constitution. Right to Equality Art.- 14. Equality before law. The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. This Article has not seen any changes by the way of amendment of the Constitution. Till ninety eighth amendment it remained intact as it was in the Constitution at its commencement. In various cases the Judiciary has interpreted it that equality provided under this Article is not an absolute equality, rather it is contextual equality. Treating unequals as equals is not equality, it is denial of equality for the weakers. Unequals should be treated as unequals, and the weakers may be conferred some sort of reasonable relaxations for this purpose. Though this Article has not seen any structural change, but some of the amendments have resulted into some changes in the status of the fundamental right provided under this Article. Insertion of Article 31A; Article 31A was inserted in the Part on fundamental rights with the first amendment. This Article was related with the power of the State to make laws to acquire the estates in order to abolish the Zamindari. It had also declared that any such law providing for acquisition of estates etc. cannot be challenged before the courts on grounds of inconsistency with any of the rights conferred by Part III. With the fourth amendment the scope of this power of the State was extended to companies and corporations also. But the primacy of such laws was narrowed down. After this amendment Article 31A has provided that no law making a provision for acquisition of estates, or taking over of management of any corporation, or for termination of any licence or lease for searching minerals etc. can be challenged before the courts on grounds of inconsistency with the rights conferred by Article 14, Article 19 or Article 31. Insertion of Article 31C; Twenty-Fifth amendment has inserted Article 31C in Part III of the Constitution. It had undermined the status of Right to Equality, as it has made this right subordinate to the directive principals enshrined in Clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39. Article 31C had provided that any law which is enacted for the purpose of giving effect to any of the provisions of Clauses (b) or (c) of Article 39, shall enjoy the primacy over the fundamental rights provided under Articles 14, 19 and 31. This overriding power of the State was further extended by the forty-second amendment (1976). This amendment altered this provision, and provided that no such law which aimed at to secure any of the directive principals can be challenged in the courts on grounds of its inconsistency with the rights conferred by Article 14, Article 19 or Article 31. But this alteration was declared as 'invalid' by the Supreme Court in Mineral Mills v. Union of India Case in 1980. Now as an effect of this decision the State can make a law to give effect to the directive principals enshrined in Clause (b), and Clause (c) of Article 39, and such law cannot be challenged on grounds of inconsistency with the fundamental rights conferred by Article 14 or Article 19. Art.-15. Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. (1)    The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. (2)    No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, restriction or condition with regard to (a)    access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places ofpublic entertainment; or (b)    the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public. (3)    Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children. This Article was amended by the first and the ninety- third amendments. Originally this Article had prohibited the State from discriminating against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. But the third clause enabled the State to make special provisions for women and children. In Part IV (directive principals) the State was also directed under Article 46 to take special care of the educational and economic interests of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other weaker sections of the society. In response to this social responsibility provisions for reservation of seats were made by various State Governments. The Madras Government reserved the seats in the State Medical and Engineering Colleges among the different communities. This move of the State Government was challenged by Champakam Dorairajan on the grounds of violation of Article 15. The State Government insisted that the decision to divide the seats was taken in order to implement the directive principles. But this plea of the State Government was rejected by the Supreme Court. The Court held that the directive principles which were kept non justiciable by the Constitution itself cannot override the fundamental rights which are expressly made justiciable. The G.O. of the Madras Government was found volatile of the provisions of Art. 15 and Art. 29(2), hence declared void. First Amendment, 1951 As a reaction to the judgment in Champakam Dorairajan case, the first amendment was enacted by the Parliament (originally the Constituent Assembly itself working as the Parliament of the Union till the first general election) in 1951. It added an enabling provision in Article 15 in the form of clause (4), which enabled the State to make special provisions in favour of socially and educationally backward classes of the society. The newly added clause (4) was as under; Art.15(4) Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Ninety-Third Amendment, 2006 This Article was also amended with the 93rd amendment in 2005. This amendment added another enabling provision in this Article in the form of clause (5). Its main objective was stated as to provide access to the socially and educationally backward classes and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to the seats available in the private educational institutions, as the number of seats in the Government institutions and the aided institutions was limited. The Government had felt that the principle enshrined in the Article 46 cannot be logically achieved by utilizing this limited number of seats7. But as the minority educational institutions established under Article 30 have also a special responsibility to protect the interests of minorities, so these institutions were not covered under this reservation. The newly inserted clause (5) is as following; Art. 15(5) Nothing in this article or in sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 shall prevent the State from making any special provision, by law, for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes in so far as such special provisions relate to their admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of article 30. The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act was enacted by the Parliament in 2006. This Act has provided for reservation in admission into central educational institutions for the SCs (15%), the STs (7.5%), and the OBCs (27%). This Act was challenged before the Supreme Court, along with 93rd amendment. But the Court upheld the validity of 93rd amendment and this Act providing reservation in admissions into Central Educational Institutions9. The Court also ruled that the ‘creamy layer’ must be excluded from enjoying the benefit of this reservation. Right to Education Act was passed by the Parliament in August 2009, which came into force on April 1, 2010. This Act has fixed the responsibility of private unaided schools to admit 25% of children belonging to the weaker sections and disadvantaged groups of the society. This provision of the Act was challenged before the Supreme Court by Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan. But the Court upheld the validity of this provision of the Act, and declared that this provision shall be applicable to government-controlled schools, government-aided schools (including minority schools), and private unaided schools except the unaided minority schools. After both of these amendments this Article now contains five clauses instead of original three. Clause (4) had enabled the State to provide for special provisions for the advancement of the down trodden, and clause (5) was added for enabling the State to extend the reservation for the backward sections of society even in the private and unaided educational institutions. Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment At the time of the Constitution's adoption, Article 16 addressed the principle of equal access to public employment, consisting of five clauses that covered various aspects of the issue. Clause (1) ensures that all citizens have equal opportunity for public employment. Clause (2) prohibits discrimination by the state based solely on religion, race, caste, or similar factors when it comes to access to public office. Clause (3) grants the state the authority to set residency requirements within a specific state for individuals seeking employment in that state. Clause (4) allows the state to make provisions for the reservation of positions for socially and economically weaker sections in state services. Clause (5) provides exceptions to this article in certain cases where laws specify that certain posts in religious or denominational institutions may be reserved for individuals of a specific religion or denomination. The full text of Article 16 is as follows: Article 16 - Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment 1.    There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters related to employment or appointment to any office under the State. 2.    No citizen shall be deemed ineligible for, or discriminated against in relation to, any employment or office under the State on the sole basis of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence, or any other such factors. 3.    This article does not prevent Parliament from enacting laws that require specific residency conditions for certain classes of employment or appointments under a State or local authority as specified in the First Schedule. 4.    This article does not prevent the State from reserving appointments or posts for any backward class of citizens that, in the State's opinion, is underrepresented in the public services. 5.    This article does not affect any law that mandates that a person holding a position in a religious or denominational institution, or a member of its governing body, must adhere to a particular religion or denomination. Matter of Seniority and Reservations in Promotions, and 85th Amendment, 2001 In Ajit singh Januja & others Vs State of Punjab (SC 1996) it was held by the Court that the roster point promotees getting the benefit of accelerated promotion would not get consequential seniority and the seniority between the reserved category candidates and general category candidates in promoted category shall be governed by their panel position. This was overruled in Jagdish Lal and others v. State of Haryana and Others (1997), it was held that the date of continuous officiation has to be taken into account and if so, the roster- point promotees were entitled to the benefit of continuous officiation. This position was again overruled in Ajit Singh Januja & others Vs State of Punjab & others (1999). The Court repeated the decision taken in Ajit Singh case (1996) and in Union of India v. Virpal Singh case (1996) that the State may make provisions for the reservations in promotions. But if a junior candidate is promoted due to reservation prior to a senior candidate, such senior candidate shall regain his seniority over the reserved category candidate notwithstanding that he is promoted after the promotion of the reserved category candidate (catch-up rule). The Court held that roster promotions were meant only for the limited purpose of due representation of backward classes at various levels of service and therefore, such roster promotions did not confer consequential seniority to the roster point promotee. It led to the passing of 85th amendment by the Parliament in 2001. This is one of the smallest amendments of our Constitution as it added only three words in it. But in matters of reservation in promotions its consequences are far reaching. It nullified the decision of the Supreme Court that the accelerated promotions by virtue of reservation in promotions did not confer the consequential seniority on the junior members. It has empowered the State to make provisions for reservation in promotions with consequential seniority. After this amendment the Article 16 (4A) becomes as following; Art.16(4A) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State. Art.- 17. Abolition of Untouchability- "Untouchability" is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of any disability arising out of "Untouchability" shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law. This Article had not seen any structural change by the mode of an amendment in the Constitution. But as this Article has declared that “Untouchability” shall be an offence to be punishable in accordance with law, to implement this provision the Parliament has enacted the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955. This Act was amended in 1976 and renamed as the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. In 1989 the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was passed by the Parliament to provide for the special courts for the trial of offences against the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and rehabilitation of the victims. Art. 18- Abolition of titles- (1)    No title, not being a military or academic distinction, shall be conferred by the State. (2)    No citizen of India shall accept any title from any foreign State. (3)    No person who is not a citizen of India shall, while he holds any office of profit or trust under the State, accept without the consent of the President any title from any foreign State. (4)    No person holding any office of profit or trust under the State shall, without the consent of the President, accept any present, emolument, or office of any kind from or under any foreign State. This Article forbids the State from conferring any title, and forbids the citizens from accepting any title from any foreign State. For the persons who are not the citizens of India, but are under the service of the State, this Article prohibited the accepting of any title or any of the other benefits from any foreign State without the consent of the President. Since the commencement of the Constitution this Article had not seen any structural change by the way of an amendment. In 1996 in Balaji Raghavan case10 , the five- Judges Bench of the Supreme Court held that the Awards- Bharta Ratna, Padma Vibhusan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri are the National Awards and does not fall in the category of ‘titles’ within the meaning of Article 18 (1). But they are not to be used as suffixes or prefixes and if this is done the defaulter has to forfeit the National Award conferred on him or her. Right to Freedom Article 19 - Protection of Certain Rights Regarding Freedom of Speech, etc. 1.    Every citizen has the right to: (a)    Freedom of speech and expression (b)    Assemble peacefully and without arms (c)    Form associations or unions (d)    Move freely throughout the territory of India (e)    Reside and settle in any part of India (f)    Acquire, hold, and dispose of property (g)    Practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade, or business 2.    Sub-clause (a) of clause (1) does not affect any existing law relating to, or prevent the state from making laws regarding, libel, slander, defamation, contempt of court, or any matter that offends decency or morality, or undermines or threatens the security of the state. 3.    Sub-clause (b) of clause (1) does not affect any existing law that imposes, or prevent the state from making laws imposing, reasonable restrictions on this right in the interest of public order. 4.    Sub-clause (c) does not affect any existing law that imposes, or prevent the state from making laws imposing, reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order or morality. 5.    Sub-clauses (d), (e), and (f) of clause (1) do not affect any existing law that imposes, or prevent the state from making laws imposing, reasonable restrictions on these rights in the interest of the general public or for the protection of any Scheduled Tribe’s interests. 6.    Sub-clause (g) of clause (1) does not affect any existing law that imposes, or prevent the state from making laws imposing, reasonable restrictions on the right conferred, particularly regarding the qualifications necessary for practicing any profession, or carrying on any occupation, trade, or business. This includes laws that prescribe or empower authorities to prescribe such qualifications. This Article has provided the rights to the citizens which are required for the free and full development the personality of an individual. But these rights were considered something like as the accessories to the personality of the citizens. While these were regarded as necessary for the full expression of the personality, attention was also given to the fact that these rights did not hinder the construction of a peaceful and egalitarian society, and protection of the security of the State. This is the only Article in the Part III which was made subject to the automatic suspension (Article 358) in case of the proclamation of an emergency under Article 352. As the Constitution started working, some of the provisions of this Article were found as obstructive in the path of construction of a peaceful and egalitarian society. This Article was amended on a number of times, and this process started from the very first amendment. Subsequently the 16th, 44th and 97th amendments has also made some changes in this Article. The major changes made by these amendments are as following; Article 20. Protection in respect of conviction for offences- (1)    No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. (2)    No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. (3)    No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. This is the right available to all the persons, not only the citizens. This right provides the protection to people, and imposed a restriction on the State that no person can be convicted unless breaking of a law which has existed at the commencement of the act. No person can be punished more than once for the same offence, and no person can be compelled to be a witness against himself. This Article has not seen any structural change since the commencement of the Constitution by the way of a Constitutional amendment. But various judicial decisions have thrown light on various facets of the right available under this Article. Like the accused has a right for not to be a witness against himself, but he has no right to conceal any objects which stands as witness against him. No accused person can deny to give his fingerprints required for as evidence16. Further the right of not to become a witness is available only to become a ‘witness against himself’ and not to the other person who is a witness to an act of offence. Though the Article 20 has not been amended by any amendment, yet there is an amendment which has provided the place of primacy to this right along with the right to life and personal liberty. 44th amendment was enacted in 1978 as a reaction to the excesses committed by the parliamentary majority, led by the executive during the emergency and as an antidote to the imbalance created by the 42nd amendment. It has made changes in so many Articles like the 42nd amendment. Article 359 has empowered the President to suspend the enforcement of all or any of the rights mentioned in Part III, when a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation. But recognizing the worth of the right mentioned under Article 20, the 44th amendment excluded this right from the power of the President to suspend it even during the Proclamation of Emergency. Consequently, now after this amendment all the rights except the rights mentioned in Article 20 and Article 21 can be suspended by the President under Article 359, while a Proclamation of an Emergency under Article 352 is in operation. Art.- 21. Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. This is the most sacrosanct right guaranteed by Indian Constitution. Smallest in text, but guarantying the biggest right to all the persons, this Article was never amended by our Parliament by the formal method of amendment. But so many decisions has been delivered by the Judiciary with respect to the scope and application of this right, which has effected far- reaching changes. Some of the decisions of the courts are as following; Right to life is not only right to physical existence In so many cases the courts have declared that the right to life does not constitute right to mere physical existence. It is something much more than it; it includes the right to a humane life, and a right to a dignified life. This Article assures the right to live with human dignity free from exploitation. Right to livelihood In some of the cases the right to livelihood has also been included under this right by the courts. Right not to live- In P. Rathinam v. Union of India the Supreme Court declared that the right to live does not include right to a forced life. Section 309 of Indian Penal Code providing for a punishment for an attempt to suicide violates Art 21, and so it is void and unconstitutional19. But in another case the Supreme Court held that the right to life is a natural right as enshrined in Article 21, but suicide is an unnatural extinction of life, so the right to life does not include the right to die. Euthanasia (mercy killing)- In a case of euthanasia the Supreme Court has recommended to Parliament to consider the feasibility of deleting Section 309 of IPC from the statute, as according to it a person attempts suicide in depression, and hence he needs help, rather than punishment21. The court also lays down norms for passive euthanasia (withdrawal of life support) in case of a person in permanent vegetative state, according to which a High Court could pass suitable orders on the application filed by the near relatives or next friend or the doctors/hospital staff praying for permission to withdraw the life support of a person who is not competent to give his consent for withdrawal of life support. A Public Interest Litigation was filed by an NGO ‘Common Cause’ before the Supreme Court to declare ‘dying with dignity’ a fundamental right for terminally ill patients. The NGO has argued that a terminally ill person should be given the right to refuse the life support system when a medical expert has declared that she/he has reached a point of no return. On February 25, 2014 taking into account of the inconsistent opinions rendered in the Aruna Shanbaug case and the importance of question of law involved the case it was referred to a Constitution Bench for consideration. Suspension of right to life and personal liberty, and 44th Amendment- At the commencement of the Constitution the right to life and personal liberty was subject to suspension by a Presidential Order made under Article 359, when the Proclamation of an Emergency was in operation. This provision came before the courts on several occasions, particularly when internal emergency was in operation. Various High Courts had held that a writ of habeas corpus can be issued on some grounds even during suspension of enforcement of provisions of Art 21. Nine High Courts ruled in favour of the petitioners. Government brought the case before the Supreme Court in the form of an appeal what is known as A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla case. During the arguments Niren De, the Attorney General pleaded that since the right to move any court has been suspended, by the Presidential Order made under Art 359, the detenue had no locus standi under Art 21 and their writ petitions would necessarily have to be dismissed. Justice H. R.Khanna asked the Attorney General that ‘life’ is also mentioned in Art. 21, and would the Government. argument extend to it also? The Attorney General replied, “even if life was taken away illegally, courts are helpless”. The Supreme Court had held by a majority of 4:1 that when enforcement of Article 21 was suspended by the Presidential Order made under Article 359, the person detained lost his right to move the court to regain his liberty, and writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued by a court as it would amount to the enforcement of Article 21 which is under the suspension for the time being. This judgment shocked the conscience of the entire nation. This judgment was criticized worldwide and Justice H.R. Khanna, who alone gave his dissenting judgment was admired by the media throughout the world as an apostle of independence and impartiality of judiciary in India. 44th amendment makes some changes in Article 359, which is related to the suspension of fundamental rights during the Emergency. It makes the provisions of Article 21, along with Article 20 as immune from the power of the President to suspend these fundamental rights, while a Proclamation of an Emergency is in operation. Now after the 44th amendment the provisions of this Article cannot be suspended by the Presidential Order made under Article 359. Art. 21A- Right to education 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. Article 21A was inserted in this Part by the 86th amendment, 2002. Prior to it this provision was not a fundamental right. It was a goal set before the Government under Article 45 to endeavour to provide, within a period of ten years from the commencement of the Constitution, for free and compulsory education for all the children until they complete the age of fourteen years. By this amendment this right got bifurcated into two parts. With respect to the education of the children below the age of six years it remained as a directive principle under Article 45, and for the children within the age group of six to fourteen years it became a fundamental right under this newly inserted Article 21A. ‘Right To Education’ Act was passed by Parliament in 2009 to give effect to the provisions of this Article. This Act came into force from 1st April, 2010. Following are the main features of this Act; 1.    A right to free and compulsory education for all the children between the age of six to fourteen years. 2.    Duty of the Government and local authority to establish the schools within the limits of neighborhood. 3.    Sharing of financial and other responsibilities by the Central Government and the respective State Governments. 4.    Duty of every parent or guardian to admit his or her child or ward to a school for elementary education. 5.    All the recognised schools are bound to share the responsibility of providing elementary education. It includes the schools run by the Government, aided schools, and privately managed unaided schools. Schools in ‘specified category’ under the Act like Kendriya vidyalaya, Navodaya Vidyalaya, Sainik Schools or any other school specified by notification of the Government are also made to share the responsibility of elementary education. But the privately managed unaided schools, established by the minorities under Art. 30(1) were exempted from this responsibility by the Supreme Court in ‘Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India’ case. 6.    No student admitted in a school is to be held back in any class or expelled from school till the completion of elementary education. 7.    No physical punishment or mental harassment to children in school. 8.    Compulsion on the part of all the non-government schools to obtain the certificate of recognition from the prescribed authorities. 9.    An academic authority of the Central Government may prescribe for minimum qualifications for teachers. 10.    Teachers shall not be engaged in any of the non-education functions, except for the purpose of elections, census and disaster management. 11.    Medium of instructions shall be as far as practicable, the mother tongue of children. 12.    No Board examinations till the completion of elementary education. The privately managed un-aided schools are obliged to admit at least 25% of children belonging to the weaker and disadvantaged section of society in class one in each academic year. Various State Governments has issued notifications to give effect to the provisions of the Act. In lieu of this responsibility a private school is reimbursed the fee. The amount of reimbursement is equal to per child expenditure incurred by the State or the actual fee collected by the school from each of the students, whichever is less. Art- 22. Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases 1.    Any person who is arrested must be informed promptly of the reasons for their arrest and has the right to consult and be represented by a legal practitioner of their choice. 2.    Anyone arrested and detained must be brought before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of the arrest, excluding the time needed for transportation. No person can be kept in custody beyond this time without a magistrate's order. 3.    Clauses (1) and (2) do not apply to: (a) A person who is considered an enemy alien; (b) A person arrested or detained under laws related to preventive detention. 4.    No law on preventive detention shall allow detention for more than three months unless: (a) An Advisory Board, comprising individuals qualified to be High Court judges, reports that there is sufficient cause for continued detention before the three-month period ends. However, this cannot extend beyond the maximum period defined by laws made by Parliament under clause (7)(b); (b) The detention is in accordance with laws made by Parliament as specified in clauses (7)(a) and (7)(b). 5.    If a person is detained under preventive detention laws, the authorities must inform them of the reasons for detention and provide an opportunity to make a representation against the order. 6.    Clause (5) does not require the authorities to disclose facts that they believe would be harmful to the public interest. 7.    Parliament may establish laws to specify: (a) The situations and categories where a person can be detained for more than three months without the Advisory Board’s recommendation; (b) The maximum period a person can be detained under preventive detention laws in certain cases; (c) The procedure an Advisory Board must follow in inquiries as per clause (4)(a). This article ensures safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention. It was amended by the 44th Amendment, but Section 3 of this amendment, which pertains to its implementation, has not yet come into effect due to the lack of a required notification. If this section were implemented, the following changes would occur: 1.    The maximum detention period without the Advisory Board's recommendation would be reduced to two months. 2.    The Advisory Board would be constituted based on the recommendation of the Chief Justice of the relevant High Court. 3.    The Advisory Board would be chaired by a serving judge, with two other members, either serving or retired High Court judges. 4.    The provision allowing Parliament to extend detention beyond three months without the Advisory Board’s recommendation would be removed. Right against Exploitation Art.- 23. Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour (1)    Traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited and any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law. (2)    Nothing, in this article shall prevent the State from imposing compulsory service for public purposes, and in imposing such service the state shall not make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class or any of them. This Article providing for prohibition of traffic in human beings and begar has not been amended by any of the Constitutional amendments. But some of the judicial decisions have expanded its scope to child labour, children of prostitutes, devadasi’s and the bonded labour etc. Art.- 24. Prohibition of employment of children in factories, etc. No child below the age of fourteen years shall be employed to work in any factory or mine or engaged in any other hazardous employment. This Article has not undergone any structural change by the mode of an amendment. The Judiciary while interpreting the provisions of this Article has included the building construction work, Match Industries, and Carpet Industries etc. as not fit for the working of the children below the age of fourteen years. Courts have also directed the Government to make provisions for the education, nutrition and periodical medical checkup of the children who were engaged in these industries. Right to Freedom of Religion Art.- 25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion. (1)    Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion. (2)    Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law (a)    regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice ; (b)    providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. Explanation I- The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion. Explanation II- In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly. Balance between religious and national practices This Article has provided the rights related to freedom of free profession, practice and propagation of religion to all the persons residing in India. This Article was never amended by the Parliament. But as there are wider differences in religious beliefs, practices and their interpretations, this Article came before the judiciary on several occasions. One of such cases is Bijoe Emmanuel & Others v. State of Kerala & Others23 case. In this case three children belonging to Jehovah’s Witness community who worship only Jehovah- the Creator and none else were expelled from school. They had refused to sing the National Anthem because according to them it was against the tenets of their religious faith. But they stands up respectfully when the National Anthem was being sung. They were expelled from school under the instructions of Deputy Inspector of Schools. The children filed a Writ Petition in the High Court for restraining the authorities from preventing them from attending School, which was rejected by the Court. The case reached before the Supreme Court and the Petitioners told the Court that they have no particular objection to the language of the National Anthem of India. They do not sing ‘God save the Queen’ in England, the ‘Star-spangled banner’ in the United States and so on. They believe that Jehovah is the Supreme ruler of the universe. Satan was originally part of God’s organisation and perfect man was placed under him. But the Satan rebelled against the God and set up his own organisation through which he ruled the world. All the worldly institutions are creation of the Satan to rule the world. So they (the Jehovah’s) did not participate in political institutions in any of the States of the world. The Court set aside the judgment of the High Court as against the provisions of Art. 19(1)(a) and 25(1) and directed the authorities to readmit the children into the school. Religious Practices- Limitations Another case related to this Article was ‘Church of God (Full Gospell) in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association’, which travelled up to the apex court in the form of an appeal against the decision of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court ruled that “No religion prescribes or preaches that prayers are required to be performed through voice amplifiers or beating of drums and in any case, if there is such practice, it should not adversely affect the rights of others including that of not being disturbed in their activities''. The appeal was made before the Supreme Court on the ground that investigating authorities have found that traffic is the main cause behind the noise pollution in the concerned area. But the Court rejected it by stating that because of urbanization or industrialization, the noise pollution may exceed the permissible limits in an area, but that would not be a ground for permitting others to increase the same by beating of drums or by use of voice amplifiers etc. The Court rejected a plea of the Church that the direction issued by the HC in respect of the `church' (appellant) overlooked its fundamental right to profess and practice its religion as guaranteed under articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Every person has the right to perform religious practices, but which practices are integral part of a religion is open to decide by the courts. Like wearing of kara by the Sikhs is part of their religious practice. Kara being a symbol of the religious wear by the Sikh community, it is a jewellery exempted from the Customs Duty, and it cannot be confiscated. But if the person had admitted that he had purchased gold, converted it into a Kara and brought as such, he necessarily used it. Therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of exemption. Art.- 26. Freedom to manage religious affairs. Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right (a)    to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes ; (b)    to manage its own affairs in matters of religion ; (c)    to own and acquire movable and immovable property ; and (d)    to administer such property in accordance with law. This Article providing the right to manage religious affairs had not undergone any change since the commencement of the Constitution. Some cases appeared before courts under this Article. One of such cases was Sanjib Kumar Chowdhury v. Principal, St. Paul’s College. In this case the College was a Christian College and most of its students were related to Hindu religion. The Hindu students asked the Principal to permit them to celebrate ‘Saraswati Puja’ inside the College compound, which was rejected by him. The case was filed before The Calcutta High Court by the students. The Court rejected the application on the ground that as Christianity does not permit idol worship, so an institution run by Church Missionary Society cannot be forced to allow the practices contrary to its religious beliefs. Right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion is extended to all the practices, rites and ceremonies essential for practising of a religion, which are integral part of religion. These integral parts of religion has to be determined with reference to its doctrines, practices, and historical background etc. Disciplinary measures like ex-communicating a person who defied the fundamental basis of a denomination are also considered by the courts as essential for the continuity of the denomination. Clause (c) has given the right to own and acquire property to the religious denominations. But the Supreme Court has ruled that it is not an absolute right, and is subject to reasonable regulations by the State. The State can acquire the property of a religious denomination, to give effect to agrarian reforms, if it is not within the ceiling limit. Art.- 27. Freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion. No person shall be compelled to pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in payment of expenses of any particular religion or religious denomination. With respect to the freedom as to the payment of taxes for the promotion of any particular religion, the Supreme Court in Jagannath Ramanuj Das v. State of Orissa case held that a fee is different than a tax. A tax is merged in the general revenue of the State to be spent for general public purposes, while the fee is collected for a specific purpose and the collection is kept separate as a fund for that specific purpose. The specific purpose is also not the promotion of a religion as forbidden under Art. 27, rather it is the better management of the religious endowments within the State. Article 27 forbids the State from imposition of a tax, but a fee can be levied to meet the expenses of the staff working for the better administration of religious endowments. Art.- 28. Freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in certain educational institutions. (1)    No religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds, (2)    Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to an educational institution which is administered by the State but has been established under any endowment or trust which requires that religious instruction shall be imparted in such institution. (3)    No person attending any educational institution recognised by the State or receiving aid out of State funds shall be required to take part in any religious instruction that may be imparted in such institution or to attend any religious worship that may be conducted in such institution or in any premises attached thereto unless such person or, if such person is a minor, his guardian has given his consent thereto. Article 28 which deals with the religious instructions in the educational institutions has came before the courts on several occasions, and has been interpreted according to the facts of the cases. In one of the such cases the apex court has ruled that establishment of an institution for the academic study of the life, teachings or impact of any great Indian saint does not constitute religious instructions or promotion of a particular religion. Cultural and Educational Rights Art. 29- Protection of interests of minorities. (1)    Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part' thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same. (2)    No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them. Conciliation between confronting claims In D.A.V. College Jullundur v. The State of Punjab case, validity of sub section (3) of section 4 of Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar Act of Punjab was challenged on the ground that it violates the rights of the Arya Samajis of the State, who are a minority. The said provision of the Act has described as one of the objectives of the University "to promote studies to provide for research in Punjabi language and literature and to undertake measures for the development of Punjabi language, literature and culture". In the petition before the Supreme Court it was contended that the main object of the Act was to promote Punjabi language in Gurumukhi script and that since their (Arya Samaji’s) institutions belonged to a minority based on religion and language their compulsory affiliation to the newly established university violates Articles 29(1) and 30(1) of the Constitution. The Court rejected this notion of the petitioners and held that Sub-Section (3) of Section 4 does not transgress the right granted under Art. 29. The Court held that the linguistic States are a reality of our country, and the purpose of these linguistic States is to provide for the facilities for the development of the people of that area educationally, socially and culturally, in the language of that region. Efforts for the development of a regional language does not mean the strangulation of another language and script of a minority. The impugned provision of the Act does not compel the affiliated Colleges to give instruction in the Punjabi Language so it is not volatile of Article 29. Art. 30- Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions (1)    All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice, (2)    The State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language. This Article had guaranteed the right to establish and administer the educational institutions by the minorities. These minorities could be determined on the basis of religion or language, both the sensitive issues since the birth of the Republic. Who are minorities? Unlike the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the Anglo-Indians, the word ‘minority’ does not find a definition in the Constitution. Attempts had been made by different sections to claim themselves as minorities on different grounds such as on local level, on State level and on National level. In DAV College Jullundur v. State of Punjab case it was held by the Supreme Court that religious or linguistic minorities are to be determined only in relation to a particular legislation which is before the court for consideration. If it is a State Legislation, the minorities are to be determined on the basis of figures of population of the State concerned, and if it is a Union legislation, then the minorities are to be determined on the basis of figures of population of the entire Country. Forty-Fourth Amendment, 1978 The 44th amendment inserted clause (1A) in this Article as a corollary of omission of right to property from the list of fundamental rights. This clause makes an assurance that if the property of an educational institution established by a minority is compulsorily acquired by the State, then the amount fixed for that property shall be as much that the right of the minority to establish and administer an educational institution is not hampered by such an acquisition. Right to Property Article 31 - Compulsory Acquisition of Property 1.    No person shall be deprived of their property except by the authority of law. 2.    No movable or immovable property, including interests in any commercial or industrial undertaking or in a company owning such undertakings, shall be taken for public purposes under any law permitting its acquisition unless the law provides compensation for the acquired property. This compensation must either specify the amount or the principles and manner in which the compensation will be determined and paid. 3.    A law enacted by a State Legislature concerning property acquisition shall only come into effect once it has been reserved for the President’s consideration and has received his assent. 4.    If any Bill, pending when the Constitution commenced, was passed by the State Legislature, reserved for the President's consideration, and received his assent, the law shall not be challenged in court based on its non-compliance with clause (2) of this article. 5.    Clause (2) does not affect: o (a) Any existing law other than those specified in clause (6), o (b) Any new law passed by the State for purposes such as: ■   (i) Imposing taxes or penalties, ■    (ii) Promoting public health or preventing risks to life and property, ■    (iii) In accordance with agreements between the Government of India and other countries regarding evacuee property. 6.    A State law passed within 18 months before the Constitution commenced may be submitted to the President for certification within three months from the commencement. If the President certifies the law through public notification, it shall not be challenged in court, even if it contradicts the provisions of clause (2) of this article or has violated section 299(2) of the Government of India Act, 1935. The main takeaway from this article is that a person can only be deprived of their property under the authority of law. If the property is acquired for public purposes, the law must also provide for compensation. Additionally, if a law is made by the State Legislature, it must receive Presidential assent before it is enacted. Confrontation with Land Reform Laws and the First Amendment, 1951 From the outset of the Constitution’s operation, the Right to Property faced challenges from the government’s social legislation initiatives. Landowners, seeking protection under the Judiciary, managed to get the Patna High Court to declare the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 as invalid due to its conflict with Article 14. The Court ruled that the zamindari abolition laws could be challenged not just on the grounds of compensation but also for other constitutional violations, such as infringing on Article 14. This interpretation created a setback for the government’s social legislation goals. To address this issue, the Parliament passed the First Amendment Act, 1951. The amendment introduced Article 31A to bridge the economic divide in agriculture, offering protection for laws related to the acquisition of estates, even if such laws conflicted with fundamental rights. The text of this article was as follows when it was introduced: Article 31A - Protection of Laws for Acquisition of Estates, etc. 1.    Notwithstanding any other provision in this Part, no law that allows the State to acquire any estate or any rights within it, or that modifies or extinguishes such rights, shall be considered invalid on the grounds that it conflicts with or diminishes any rights guaranteed under this Part. Provided, however, that if such a law is enacted by a State Legislature, the provisions of this article will not apply unless the law has been reserved for the President's consideration and has received his approval. 2.    In this article: o    (a) The term "estate" refers to the meaning assigned to it by the relevant land tenure laws in a particular area, and it also includes any jagir, inam, muafi, or similar grants. o    (b) The term "rights," in relation to an estate, encompasses any rights vested in a proprietor, subproprietor, under-proprietor, tenure-holder, or any intermediary, as well as any rights related to land revenue. Regarding State-made laws, this provision clarifies that the article does not apply to them unless the law has been reserved for Presidential assent. The term "estate" was specifically defined to include various forms of grants like jagir and muafi. Additionally, this amendment introduced Article 31B to provide certain laws with immunity from judicial scrutiny. According to this provision, none of the Acts and Regulations listed in the Ninth Schedule will be considered void or invalid simply because they conflict with any provisions of Part III. The Ninth Schedule, which was added to the Constitution, initially contained 13 laws. The text of this article upon its insertion was as follows: Article 31B - Validation of Certain Acts and Regulations Without limiting the scope of Article 31A, none of the Acts or Regulations listed in the Ninth Schedule, or any provisions within them, shall be deemed to be void or to have ever been void due to inconsistency with the rights conferred under Part III. This holds true even if a court or tribunal has issued a ruling to the contrary. All such Acts and Regulations will remain in effect, subject to any competent Legislature’s power to amend or repeal them. This amendment was passed during an appeal process concerning a decision made by the Patna High Court. The landowners challenged the amendment as unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court rejected all petitions on October 5, 1951, and upheld the amendment's validity. Fixation of Compensation Amount and the Fourth Amendment (1955) In the State of West Bengal v. Bela Banerjee case, the Supreme Court ruled that compensation for property taken must be a fair equivalent of the value lost by the owner. The West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948 allowed the acquisition of land for public purposes but limited compensation to the market value of the land as of December 31, 1946. The Court noted the significant difference in land values between 1946 and the post-partition years, making it unreasonable to base compensation on the 1946 market value. Since the Act was permanent, lands could be acquired years after its enactment, so this fixed ceiling on compensation was deemed arbitrary and incompatible with the requirements of Article 31(2). In response to this interpretation of Article 31, the Fourth Amendment (1955) was enacted to safeguard laws related to property acquisition, even in cases of inadequate compensation. It also clarified the distinction between property acquisition by the State for public purposes and the deprivation of property. This amendment revised Article 31(2) and introduced Clause 2A, which reads as follows: Article 31(2) - Revised No property shall be compulsorily acquired or requisitioned except for a public purpose and under the authority of a law that provides compensation for the property being acquired or requisitioned. The law must either specify the amount of compensation or define the principles and methods for determining and giving compensation. Furthermore, such a law cannot be challenged in court on the grounds that the Acquisition of Land; Protection for Small Landholders, Seventeenth Amendment, 1964 This amendment aimed to ensure that when a law allows the State to acquire an estate, any land that is personally cultivated by an individual cannot be acquired unless the person is compensated at least at the market value of the land. However, this condition only applies to land that falls within the ceiling limit. A new proviso was added to clause (1) of Article 31A, which stated: "Provided further that where a law provides for the State’s acquisition of any estate, and any land within that estate is held by a person under personal cultivation, the State cannot acquire any portion of such land within the ceiling limit, nor any associated building or structure, unless the law governing the acquisition provides for compensation at a rate not less than the market value of the property." Twenty-Fifth Amendment, 1971: Reduction of 'Compensation' to 'Amount' Despite the Fourth Amendment specifying that inadequate compensation could not be grounds for declaring an acquisition act void, the Bank Nationalization Case (1970) raised concerns about the fairness of compensation. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution guarantees a right to compensation that is equivalent to the value of the property acquired. The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1969, which led to the nationalization of major banks, provided compensation based on the assets of the banks but failed to account for important assets, such as goodwill or long-term leases, making the compensation insufficient. The Court held that the Act violated the guarantee of compensation under Article 31(2), as it was based on irrelevant principles. In response to this decision, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment was enacted to neutralize the effects of the ruling. The amendment replaced the term "compensation" with "amount" in Article 31(2) and added Clause 2B to exclude the application of Article 19(1)(f) (which guarantees the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property) to laws made under Article 31(2). However, the amendment still protected the rights of minorities to establish educational institutions by adding a proviso to Article 31(2). Forty-Second Amendment, 1976: Primacy of Directive Principles Over Some Fundamental Rights The Forty-Second Amendment introduced changes to Article 31C, giving precedence to all directive principles over the fundamental rights outlined in Articles 14, 19, and 31. The new text of Article 31C became: "Notwithstanding anything contained in Article 13, no law aimed at fulfilling the State’s policy to secure any of the principles outlined in Part IV shall be deemed void on the grounds that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by Articles 14, 19, or 31." However, the Supreme Court declared this change invalid in the Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India case (1980). Forty-Fourth Amendment, 1978: Right to Property Reduced to a Legal Right The Forty-Fourth Amendment led to a significant change in the status of the Right to Property. It was removed as a Fundamental Right from Part III and placed in Part XII as a legal right. This amendment made the following changes: •    Clause (f) of Article 19(1), which granted the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property, was omitted. •    Article 31, which had undergone numerous amendments and judicial interpretations, was completely omitted, thereby ceasing the Right to Property as a fundamental right. •    The reference to Article 31 was also removed from Article 31C. A new Article 300A was inserted in Part XII, stating: "No person shall be deprived of their property except by the authority of law." This placed the right to property within the framework of legal rights rather than fundamental rights. Courts have affirmed this position, dismissing attempts to reassert the Right to Property as a fundamental right or part of the Constitution’s basic structure. In the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act case, the Supreme Court held that the Act did not violate any fundamental rights or the basic structure of the Constitution. Justice Radhakrishnan noted that the right not to be deprived of property by authority of law is no longer a fundamental right but simply a constitutional right, not forming part of the Constitution’s basic structure. Right to Constitutional Remedies Article 32 - Remedies for the Enforcement of Rights Conferred by this Part 1.    The right to approach the Supreme Court through appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights guaranteed in this Part is assured. 2.    The Supreme Court has the authority to issue directives, orders, or writs, including those in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, to enforce any of the rights granted in this Part. 3.    In addition to the powers granted to the Supreme Court under clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may, through legislation, authorize other courts to exercise within their jurisdiction all or some of the powers that the Supreme Court may exercise under clause (2). 4.    The right guaranteed by this Article cannot be suspended except in the cases specified by this Constitution. This Article is often referred to as the "heart and soul" of the Constitution by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the chairman of the Drafting Committee. It empowers citizens to seek the enforcement of their fundamental rights by moving the Supreme Court. The language of the Article allows for "appropriate proceedings," but the Court has interpreted this to include even informal means, such as a letter sent by a public-spirited individual advocating for the rights of the underprivileged or marginalized. This led to a significant shift in legal practice, where the principle of "Locus Standi" (the right to bring a case) was relaxed, and Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was introduced. However, PIL, despite its progressive impact, has been criticized by the executive, which claims it has contributed to the increasing backlog of cases, leading to calls for imposing restrictions on this practice. Though the Constitution has not amended Article 32 itself, subsequent amendments have affected its application. The 42nd Amendment introduced Article 32A, which restricted the Supreme Court’s power to consider the constitutional validity of state laws under this Article. It stated: Article 32A (42nd Amendment): Restriction on Judicial Review of State Laws Notwithstanding anything in Article 32, the Supreme Court shall not examine the constitutional validity of a state law in any proceedings under this article, unless the constitutional validity of a Central law is also involved in the same case. This amendment also excluded the High Courts from considering the constitutional validity of any Central law. Furthermore, Article 144A, also inserted by the 42nd Amendment, set a minimum of seven judges to hear cases involving the constitutional validity of laws, and a two-thirds majority of those judges was required to declare a law unconstitutional. However, these changes were perceived as an encroachment on citizens’ rights and judicial powers, upsetting the balance between the different branches of government and between the state and citizens. Since the review of Central laws was exclusively the domain of the Supreme Court, it became difficult for citizens in remote areas to challenge such laws. As a result, the 43rd Amendment was passed, removing the provisions of Articles 32A, 131A, 144A, 226A, and 228A, thereby restoring the previous judicial framework. Article 33 - Power of Parliament to Modify Rights Conferred by this Part in Their Application to the Armed Forces, etc. Parliament has the authority to modify the application of the rights guaranteed in this Part to members of the Armed Forces or other forces responsible for maintaining public order, to ensure the proper performance of their duties and the maintenance of discipline. The law passed by Parliament may specify to what extent these rights can be restricted or abrogated. This Article allows Parliament to impose certain limitations on the fundamental rights of military and law enforcement personnel to preserve order and discipline. The law does not require Parliament to specify the degree of restriction; rather, the relevant acts of the respective forces, such as the Armed Forces or Police, contain provisions to ensure discipline. Courts have upheld these provisions as valid under this Article. The 50th Amendment expanded the scope of this Article to include personnel working in intelligence, telecommunications for forces, and other related organizations. The revised text is: Article 33 - Modifying Rights for Armed Forces, Law Enforcement, and Related Personnel Parliament may, by law, determine the extent to which the rights conferred by this Part shall apply to: (a) members of the Armed Forces; (b)    members of forces responsible for maintaining public order; (c)    persons employed in any intelligence or counter-intelligence bureau; (d)    individuals involved with telecommunications for any of the above forces or organizations. Article 34    - Restriction on Rights While Martial Law Is in Force This Article grants Parliament the power to indemnify or validate actions taken by any person or authority during the enforcement of martial law. This includes acts related to maintaining or restoring order in areas under martial law, as well as validating any sentences, punishments, forfeitures, or other actions taken during this period. Martial law, as referenced in this Article, represents a complete breakdown of normal judicial processes and law enforcement. It has not been amended through any other constitutional amendments. Article 35    - Legislation to Implement the Provisions of This Part 1.    Notwithstanding any provisions in the Constitution, Parliament has the exclusive power to make laws concerning: (i) matters under Article 16(3), Article 32(3), Article 33, and Article 34, (ii)    prescribing punishments for offenses under this Part. Parliament is required to make laws for punishments related to the acts referred to in (ii) as soon as possible after the Constitution comes into effect. 2.    Any pre-existing law concerning the matters mentioned above or dealing with punishments for these offenses will remain in force until modified or repealed by Parliament. The purpose of Article 35 is to empower Parliament to legislate on matters related to the enforcement of fundamental rights. State legislatures are excluded from making laws on these topics. This Article has remained unamended throughout the history of the Constitution. Self-Check Exercise-2 Q.1 Under which article, 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? Q.2 Which article concerns with Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion? Q.3 Right to property is a fundamental right. True/False 17.4    Summary If we study the demands of the nationalist leaders of India during the British rule and the discussions of the Constituent Assembly, it can be inferred that the issue of the fundamental rights was taken with utmost care. But as the Constitution started working, there arose some contradictions between the fundamental rights of the citizens and the rights of the society as a whole. It resulted in the clash between the judicial decisions and the acts of Parliament. Due to these contradictions the Part on fundamental rights was amended from time to time, rather it is the Part which has been amended more frequently than any of the other Part of the Constitution. 17.5    Glossary •    Ethnic - connected with or typical of a particular race or religion. •    Residuary power - A residuary power is a power which is retained by a government authority after certain powers have been delegated to other authorities. •    Estates - a large area of land in the countryside that is owned by one person or family 17.6    Answers to self check exercisesSelf-Check Exercise-1 Q.1 True Q.2 Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Self-Check Exercise-2 Q.1 Article 32 Q.2 Article 25 Q.3 False 17.7    References/Suggested Readings 1.    M.V. Pylee; “Constitutional Government in India”, p.92, S. Chand & Company Ltd, New Delhi, 2003. 2.    C. A. D. VII, p. 953. 3.     Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005) 4 SCC 649. 4.     Golaknath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643: (1967) 2SCR 762. 5.    Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461: (1973) 4 SCC 225: 1973 6.    State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan 1951 AIR SC 226. 7.    SOR, 93rd Amendment Act, 2005. 8.    Section 3, the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006. 9.    The Tribune, Chandigarh, April 11, 2008. 10.    Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 770. SOR, 1st Amendment Act, May 10th, 1951. 11.    SOR, 16th Amendment Act, January 18th, 1963. 12.    Communist Party of India (M) v. Bharat Kumar, AIR 1998 SC 184: (1998) 1 SCC 201: (1998) 1 MLJ 99 (SC) 13.    Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, (1986) 3 SCC 615: AIR 1987 SC 748: 1986 KLT 1037. 14.    Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union v. Municipal Corporation Greater Mumbai, AIR 2004 SC 416: (2004) 1 SCC 625. 15.    Pokhar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 Punj         294: 1958 Cri LJ 1084. 16.    Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802. 17.    Dehli Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress AIR 1991 SC 101. 18.    P. Rathinam vs. Union of India, 1994 AIR 1844. 19.    Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC 647. 20.    The Hindu, Delhi, March 8, 2011. 21.    The Hindu, Delhi, Feb. 26, 2014. 22.   Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala 1987 AIR SC 748. 23.   Church of God (Full Gospell) in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association, AIR 2000 SC 2773. 24.    Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 2560. 25.    Sanjib Kumar Chauwdhry v. Principal St. Paul College, 1957 AIR Cal, 524, 61 CWN 717 26.    Saifuddin Sahib v. State of Bombay, AIR 1962 SC 853. 27.    Narendra v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1974 SC 2098. | 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. | Mahant Sri Jagannath Ramanuj Das v. The State of Orissa, 1954 AIR 400. D.A.V. College Jullundur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 1737. Jagdev Singh Sidhanti v. Partap Singh Daulta, AIR 1965 SC 183. D.A.V. College Jullundur v. State of Punjab, 1971 AIR 1737. Ibid. State of West Bengal v. Bela Banerjee AIR 1954 SC 170, 1954 SCR 558. Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 564 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461. The Hindu, New Delhi, Sep. 15, 2010. Section 23, Forty-Second Amendment Act, 1976. SOR, 43rd Amendment Act, 1977. Prithi Pal Singh v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 1413. | |---|---| 17.8    Terminal questions Q1 Discuss the significance and characteristics of fundamental rights. Q2 Why Dr B.R. Ambedkar considered the right to constitutional rights as the most important right. Q3 Why the right to property got deleted from the fundamental rights and converted to a legal right. UNIT-18 DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY IN INDIA Structure 18 Introduction 18.1    Learning Objectives 18.2      Directive Principles & their objectives 18.3    Classification & Value of the Directive Principles 18.4     Summary 18.5     Glossary 18.6     Answer to self-check exercises 18.7     References/Suggested Readings 18.8     Terminal questions 18.0    Introduction Directive Principles of State Policy provide essential guide -lines both for the state as well as the citizens for establishing economic democracy in India. The Constitution makers in India did not force on the people any particular economic system but they only tried to suggest a system which could be most suited to Indian conditions. With the passing of Forty -Second Constitution Amendment Act, it has been provided that India shall be a socialist democracy but socialism is not in the traditional sense but in the sense which suits Indian conditions . According to our Constitution Directive Principles, as against Fundamental Rights, are not justifiable in the courts of law. It is for the first time that a Part of Constitution (Part IV) has been devoted to these Principles. Earlier to this, the Government of India Act, 1935 also contained an Instrument of Instructions to the Governor -General and the Governors, but these instructions were for the executive government. Present Directives are however, for the Parliament and state legislatures. Whereas the Instrument of Instructions had no public opinion behind it, the directives have force of public opinion behind them. Constitution makers in India drew their inspiration from the Irish constitution for incorporating these Directives in the constitution. There are some other countries of the world which have also incorporated directive principles in their constitutions. Thus, Constitution of India is not the first constitution to contain Directive Principles of State Policy. 14.2    OBJECTIVES The Constitution Act of India, 1935, itself provided for ‘Instruments of Instructions’ which were a fruitful idea. Ambedkar said. The above statement of Dr. Ambedkar makes it crystal clear that these principles are not binding upon the Government. The Indian constitution becomes vested with the scope of sanctity essential to its durability, it will be difficult for any public figure to propose any legislative measures without making an appeal to Fundamental Rights or Directive Principles. 18.1    Learning Objectives After studying this lesson, the learner will be able to -    Know the objectives of Directive Principles of State Policy -    Know some of the Directive Principles -    Know the Classification of Directive Principles -    Know the value of Directive Principles 18.2    DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES & THEIR OBJECTIVES The framers of the Constitution sought to grant the people of India the maximum possible rights. However, due to the country's unique social, economic, and political conditions at the time, it was not feasible to provide all of these rights in the form of Fundamental Rights. Therefore, the rights that were deemed achievable were incorporated as Fundamental Rights, while others were placed as Directive Principles, with the hope that, over time, these would evolve into justiciable rights. These principles reflect Gandhian philosophy and socialist ideas. They call on governments to: In more recent years, political and social reformers who disagreed with the Marxist approach to addressing societal issues have advocated for these principles to become the guiding framework of state policy. The ideas of thinkers like Jeremy Bentham, along with the political and social strands of Liberal and Radical parties in Western Europe, major principles of Fabian Socialism, and, to a lesser extent, Guild Socialism, have influenced the development of the Directive Principles in the Constitution. Ivor Jennings notes that the influence of Sidney and Beatrice Webb can be seen in the entire text, describing how the Constitution reflects Fabian socialism without explicitly mentioning the term "socialism," with the only omission being the nationalization of production, distribution, and exchange. However, it would be an exaggeration to credit the Fabian influence too heavily, as other documents and more recent proclamations may have had a stronger influence on the framers of the Constitution. For instance, the Irish Constitution served as one such reference point. The Sapru Committee had recommended classifying fundamental rights into two categories— justiciable and non-justiciable. The Government of India Act of 1935 also included "Instruments of Instructions," which were a fruitful precursor. Ambedkar pointed out that it would be inaccurate to consider the principles embedded in this part of the Constitution as mere borrowings from Western political or social thought. Many of these principles are intrinsically Indian, especially those connected to the foundational ideals of the national movement. Provisions concerning village panchayats, cottage industries, prohibition, protections against cow slaughter, and safeguards for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and other socially and educationally backward classes are all distinctly Indian. Many of these were ideals Gandhi tirelessly advocated for throughout his life. As the name suggests, the Directive Principles serve as guidelines for the various branches of government and government agencies, including village panchayats, to follow in governance. They outline the responsibility of the State to ensure these principles are incorporated into legislative and executive actions. They are intended to guide the lawmakers of India when crafting new laws and set a standard of conduct for the administrators who serve as the agents of national power. In essence, these principles provide the foundation for the realization of the values espoused in the Preamble of the Constitution: justice (social, economic, and political); liberty; equality; and fraternity. A member of the Constituent Assembly proposed that the Directive Principles should be placed immediately after the Preamble, granting them greater sanctity. There was also a suggestion to rename this section as the "Fundamental Principles of State." The Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights had recommended incorporating such a section, asserting that while these directives were not enforceable in court, they should be considered fundamental to the governance of the country. There are nineteen articles in the Constitution addressing the Directive Principles, covering a wide array of state activities, from economic and social matters to education, culture, and international relations. Some of the key principles are: 1.    To promote a social order based on the welfare of the people (Art. 38). 2.    The State's policy should aim at: o Ensuring adequate livelihoods for all citizens. o Equitable distribution of the community's material resources for the public good. o Preventing the concentration of wealth that harms society. o Ensuring equal pay for equal work for men and women. o Safeguarding the health and strength of workers and preventing exploitation, especially in jobs unsuitable for their age or strength. o Protecting children and youth from exploitation and abandonment (Art. 39). 3.    To provide free legal aid to ensure justice is accessible to all, regardless of economic or other barriers (Art. 39A). 4.    To establish village panchayats as units of self-government (Art. 40). 5.    To ensure the right to work, education, and public assistance in times of need, such as unemployment, old age, or illness (Art. 41). 6.    To ensure just and humane working conditions, including maternity relief (Art. 42). 7.    To secure fair wages, decent living standards, and leisure, while also promoting cottage industries (Art. 43). 8.    To involve workers in the management of industries (Art. 43A). 9.    To promote a uniform civil code throughout the country (Art. 44). 10.    To provide free and compulsory education for all children up to the age of fourteen years, as specified in the Constitution (Art. 45). o The 86th Amendment of 2002 updated this to include early childhood care and education for children under six years and mandated parents or guardians to ensure education for children between six and fourteen years. 11.    To focus on the educational and economic upliftment of weaker sections of society, especially Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Art. 46). 12.    To improve public health and prohibit intoxicating drinks and drugs (Art. 47). 13.    To organize agriculture and animal husbandry on scientific principles and preserve and improve cattle breeds, prohibiting the slaughter of cows and other milch and draught cattle (Art. 48). 14.    To protect the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife (Art. 48A). 15.    To preserve monuments of national and historical significance (Art. 49). 16.    To separate the judiciary from the executive (Art. 50). 17.    To work towards: •    Promoting international peace and security. •    Maintaining just and honorable relations between nations. •    Fostering respect for international law and treaties. •    Settling international disputes through arbitration (Art. 51). These principles collectively form the foundation on which a new democratic India will be built. They embody the minimum aspirations of the Indian people, with the goal of achieving these ideals within a reasonable time frame. When these principles are fully realized, India can justly claim to be a Welfare State. Before discussing the Directive Principles of State Policy, it is important to distinguish them from Fundamental Rights. 1.    Justiciability vs. Non-justiciability: Fundamental Rights, which are outlined in Part III of the Constitution, are justiciable, meaning they can be enforced in a court of law. If these rights are violated, individuals can seek legal remedy by approaching the High Court or the Supreme Court. In contrast, the Directive Principles of State Policy, found in Part IV, are not enforceable by the courts. For example, if someone is wrongfully detained, they can seek relief through a writ of habeas corpus. However, if the government fails to implement a Directive Principle, such as the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive, or the provision of universal education, the courts cannot intervene. The Directive Principles do not grant legal rights, and they do not provide for any judicial remedies. As noted in Article 38, the government is required to "strive" to implement these principles. Dr. Ambedkar explained that the term "strive" was chosen intentionally to convey that, despite challenges like adverse circumstances or financial constraints, the government should work towards fulfilling these principles. If the government fails to achieve these objectives, there is no legal recourse available to challenge this in court, as these principles are not legally binding. 2.    Negative vs. Positive Directions: Fundamental Rights primarily impose restrictions on the actions of the state, meaning they are negative in nature. They prevent the government from infringing upon individual freedoms, such as freedom of speech, movement, and worship. If the state violates these rights, the individual has the legal right to challenge the action in court. On the other hand, Directive Principles are positive obligations, meaning they specify what the state must actively do for the welfare of its citizens. They outline the government's responsibility to promote social and economic well-being, such as improving education and healthcare. Gledhill succinctly captures the difference by stating, "Fundamental Rights are restrictions on the government, while the Directive Principles are proactive instructions to the government to take certain actions." (b)    Directive Principles subsidiary to Fundamental Rights. (c)    From a constitutional perspective, the Directive Principles of State Policy are subordinate to the Fundamental Rights. In the case of State of Madras v. Champakan Dorairajan, the Supreme Court of India stated that, "The Directive Principles of State Policy, which are explicitly made unenforceable by a court, cannot take precedence over the provisions in Part III, which are enforceable by appropriate writs, orders, or directions under Article 32." (d)    The section on Fundamental Rights is regarded as paramount and cannot be reduced by any legislative or executive actions, except as specifically allowed by the relevant articles in Part III. While the Directive Principles are important in guiding the government, they must align with and operate within the framework established by the Fundamental Rights. As long as the implementation of Directive Principles does not violate any Fundamental Rights, the state may act according to them. The Supreme Court has reiterated this position in multiple cases, affirming the legal primacy of Fundamental Rights over the Directive Principles, even though the latter remain essential to the governance of the country. Self-Check Exercise-1 Q.1 To organize agriculture and animal husbandry on scientific lines and preserve and improve the breeds and prohibit the slaughter of cows, calves and other milch and draught cattle (Art.48) is a Gandhian principle. True/False Q.2 To protect all monuments of historic interest and national importance enshrined in which article of Indian constitution? 18.3 Classification of the Directive Principles The Directive Principles of State Policy are not arranged in the Constitution according to a specific order, which makes them difficult to categorize. Dr. M.P. Sharma, in his book The Republic of India, groups these principles into three broad categories: Socialistic, Gandhian, and Liberal Intellectualistic. Additionally, we can introduce a fourth category, General, which includes directives that do not fall under any of Dr. Sharma's classifications. (a)    Socialistic Principles A significant portion of the Directive Principles is aimed at establishing a welfare state based on socialistic ideals. For example, Article 38 directs the state to promote the welfare of its people by securing a social order that guarantees justice—social, economic, and political—within all national institutions. Article 39 further guides the state in securing various social and economic objectives, including: ensuring equal rights to livelihood for both men and women, distributing resources to serve the common good, preventing the concentration of wealth, ensuring equal pay for equal work, and protecting the health and safety of workers, particularly children. Additionally, Article 41 provides for the right to work, education, and public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness, and other social needs. Other articles, such as 42, 43, 46, and 47, focus on improving workers' conditions, raising the living standards of the people, promoting education, and ensuring public health. These principles strongly reflect the socialistic vision for society, as noted by Sir Ivor Jennings, who observed that the influence of Sidney and Beatrice Webb is evident throughout Part IV of the Constitution. (b)    Gandhian Principles The Gandhian philosophy is also evident in several Directive Principles, as the ruling party during the formation of the Constitution had been deeply influenced by Mahatma Gandhi’s ideas. Some key principles inspired by Gandhian thought include: organizing village panchayats and granting them self-government powers, promoting the welfare of the Harijans, Scheduled Tribes, and other marginalized communities, encouraging cottage industries in rural areas, preserving and improving livestock, particularly cows and calves, and promoting prohibition, especially the ban on intoxicating substances harmful to health. These provisions reflect Gandhi's lifelong work to uplift the backward communities and his vision of selfsufficiency. (c)    Liberal Intellectualistic Principles This category represents principles that reflect the ideas of liberal intellectuals who have advocated for certain policies for many years. These include: the promotion of a uniform civil code across India, ensuring free and compulsory education for children up to the age of 14 within ten years of the Constitution's commencement, organizing agriculture and animal husbandry on scientific lines, separating the judiciary from the executive, and fostering international peace, security, and cooperation through adherence to international law. These principles reflect the intellectual movements that have influenced the shaping of modern governance. (d)    Miscellaneous or General Principles Finally, some Directive Principles do not neatly fall into the above categories and can be classified as general principles. For instance, Articles 36 and 37 provide definitions and clarify the application of the Directive Principles. Article 36 defines the term "State" in this context, while Article 37 emphasizes that while the Directive Principles are not enforceable by courts, they are fundamental in the governance of the country and should be applied when making laws. Article 49 obliges the state to protect monuments, places, and objects of artistic or historical significance. This category captures more general governance goals not specifically addressed by the other classifications. 14.5 The Significance of the Directive Principles The Force Behind the Principles (a)    Despite some criticism (as mentioned earlier), the Directive Principles are far from insignificant or ineffective. It is incorrect to claim that they lack influence. In a democracy, "vigilant public opinion" plays a crucial role in holding institutions accountable, particularly those that serve the public good. In a parliamentary system, the government is constantly scrutinized by the public and political leaders. If the government adopts policies in line with the principles outlined in the Constitution, the people are likely to accept it; however, if the government deviates from these principles, it risks losing support in subsequent elections. Although the Directive Principles do not have legal enforcement, they are backed by public opinion, which acts as a powerful force. Governments are unlikely to disregard these principles without risking long-term consequences. Their Constitutional Status While the Directive Principles are not enforceable through legal action, their constitutional status is undeniable. Violating these principles is just as problematic as violating legally enforceable constitutional provisions. As Gledhill points out, any legislative proposals that conflict with the Directive Principles are likely to face challenges and opposition, as they are viewed as integral to the Constitution. In the Gopalan v. State of Madras case, Chief Justice Kania emphasized that the Directive Principles are not just temporary mandates but reflect the considered wisdom of the nation, as expressed by the Constituent Assembly. By declaring them fundamental in governance, the Constitution has endowed these principles with inherent sanctity. A Safeguard Against Extremes (b)    The framers of the Constitution understood that in a democracy, the government could shift between conservative and radical ideologies over time. The Directive Principles are designed to guide the government, ensuring that conservatives are pushed to introduce necessary reforms, while preventing radicals from enacting sweeping changes that may not be suitable for the times. They provide a framework that encourages balance, as noted by Dr. Ambedkar, who stated that these principles offer flexibility, allowing different political ideologies to pursue the goal of economic democracy. Raghavachariar also observed that regardless of which party holds power, the government must consider these guiding principles, and be prepared to answer to the electorate in future elections. The Value of Moral Guidance Even if the Directive Principles are regarded as moral guidelines or aspirational objectives, their importance should not be underestimated. As Gledhill argues, moral precepts have historically shaped the course of nations and directed the lives of countless individuals. While documents such as the Magna Carta, the French Declaration of Rights, and the American Constitution may lack direct legal enforceability, their impact on the development of their respective nations has been profound. Similarly, the Directive Principles, although not legally binding, continue to shape the nation’s future and the policies of its government, as they embody crucial values for social and economic governance. Core Social and Economic Principles The Directive Principles were conceived as the foundation for a new social and economic order, one that goes beyond the mere framework of political democracy. The Constitution explicitly states that while these principles are not legally enforceable, they are fundamental to the governance of the country, and the state is responsible for incorporating them into lawmaking. Articles 38 and 39, for instance, aim to secure a just social order by promoting welfare, social justice, and economic equality. The founders of the Constitution recognized that political democracy alone was insufficient and that these social and economic goals were necessary for a truly inclusive democracy. As Dr. Ambedkar noted, despite the challenges governments might face in implementing these principles, they must always strive toward fulfilling them. Addressing Constitutional Ambiguities Through the Directive Principles The Directive Principles have also been instrumental in addressing ambiguities within the Constitution, particularly with regard to the interpretation of certain Fundamental Rights. When there is uncertainty over the meaning of provisions like "reasonable restrictions" under Article 19, the courts have often referred to the Directive Principles to guide their decisions. In cases such as Gopalan v. State of Madras, the Supreme Court has clarified that while the courts cannot uphold a Directive Principle if it directly conflicts with a specific Fundamental Right, the principles can assist in interpreting provisions where restrictions are concerned. Courts have relied on the Directive Principles to determine whether restrictions on Fundamental Rights are reasonable and in the public interest. For example, in State of Bombay v. KM. Balsara, the Court used Article 47 (which relates to prohibition) to support the constitutionality of the Bombay Prohibition Act. Similarly, in Buoy Cotton Mills v. State of Ajmer, the Court upheld the Minimum Wages Act by referencing Article 43 of the Constitution. Preventing Exploitation of the Directive Principles (c)    Some commentators, like D.D. Basu, have raised concerns that the President or Governor might misuse the Directive Principles to veto bills passed by the legislature, potentially leading to deadlocks. However, this concern is mitigated by the reality that the President's and Governor’s veto powers are limited. As Dr. Ambedkar clarified, the Directive Principles cannot be used by the President or Governor to block legislation passed by the legislature. In a parliamentary system, the constitutional leaders are not meant to take an assertive stance, and any attempts to do so would be unacceptable. Self-Check Exercise-2 Q.1 The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India comes under the category of Liberal Intellectualistic right and it is enforceable through courts. True/False Q.2 Article 38 provides that the State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting a social order in which justice, social, economic and political shall inform all the institutions of national life. True/False 18.4    SUMMARY These Directive Principles represent the national goals and collective conscience of the country. Regardless of which party wins the elections, it is not free to disregard them. Mr. Alladi Krishnaswamy Ayyar emphasized that no government, accountable to the people, can afford to dismiss the provisions outlined in Part IV of the Constitution lightly. These principles have consistently served as a framework for both the Union Parliament and state legislatures, and they are frequently cited by the courts in their rulings. Governmental bodies have consistently been guided by these constitutional provisions. When assessing the current government's progress in fulfilling these policies, there is a sense of encouragement. Panchayats are being established in even the most remote villages, restoring them to their original significance. There have been efforts in nationalizing certain industries, setting up public corporations, imposing higher taxes on large incomes, pursuing the recovery of concealed taxes, and taking bold actions to hold large business figures accountable, all of which reflect the state’s commitment to preventing the concentration of wealth. The establishment of shelters for the homeless in the capital marks a significant move to address the issue of begging and ensure adequate livelihoods. With the expansion of state-owned industries and corporations, more employment opportunities are being created. The introduction of laws such as the Employees State Insurance Act and the Workmen’s Compensation Act has been a major step in offering support to workers during times of old age, disability, or other forms of distress. Cottage industries are being promoted, and Minimum Wage Acts have been enacted to improve the living conditions of various labor groups. Efforts are also underway to provide free primary education for children under the age of 14. Moreover, initiatives such as scholarships, fee concessions, and age limit relaxations for job applicants from Scheduled Castes reflect significant measures aimed at uplifting marginalized groups. Agriculture is being organized on modern, scientific lines, and efforts are being made to improve livestock breeds, with the slaughter of cows and calves prohibited in several states. The Ancient Monuments Act is an example of measures to protect national heritage, in line with Article 49 of the Directive Principles. In states such as Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana, Punjab, Kerala, Madras, Mysore, and Maharashtra, the judiciary has been separated from the executive, helping to uphold judicial independence. On the international front, the Prime Minister’s endeavors toward global peace and security, such as the “Panchsheel” Agreement, exemplify these principles in action. Nehru was celebrated worldwide, not only as a leader of India but also as a cultural ambassador of the spiritual East to the material West. However, much remains to be done. Political influences, as well as economic and social inequalities, still persist. The standard of living for many citizens has yet to improve, unemployment remains an issue, and socialism is still a distant goal. Nonetheless, the government's efforts to implement these objectives are praiseworthy and have yielded substantial progress. Several challenges hinder the full implementation of these Directive Principles. One major obstacle is the lack of sufficient financial resources at the state level. Implementing each directive would require substantial funding, which the country cannot always afford. Additionally, with the many issues the country faces, the Directive Principles do not always rank high on the list of priorities. Public outcry against the lack of attention to these directives has been relatively muted. A more significant challenge arises when the implementation of a directive is linked to religious communities. For instance, the proposal for a Uniform Civil Code by the Supreme Court faced strong opposition from religious leaders, highlighting the complexity of addressing religious concerns in the context of constitutional directives. 18.5    Glossary •    Injunction - an official order from a court of law to do/not do something. •    Ideology - a set of ideas which form the basis for a political or economic system. •    Welfare State - a system organized by a government to provide free services and money for people who have no job, who are ill, etc.; a country that has this system 18.6    Answers to self check exercisesSelf-Check Exercise-1 Q.1 True Q.2 Article 49 Self-Check Exercise-2 Q.1 False Q.2 True 18.7    References/Suggested Readings Section 1 : Acts, Reports and other Documents 1.    Constitution of India (Draft – 1949) 2.    Debates in the Assembly (India) 1921 to 1945 3.    Government of India Act,1919 4.    Government of India Act,1935 5.    Indian Independence Act,1947 6.    Montagu -Chelmsford Report,1918 7.    Nehru Committee Report,1928 8.    Report of the All Parties Conference (1928) 9.    Report of the Simon Commission (193 0) 10.    Report of the Federal Structure Committee (1932) 11.    Report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (1934) 12.      Report of the Committee of Parliament on Official Language (1958) 13.      Report of the Commissioner of Linguistic Minorities (1962) Section 2: Books 14.    AGARWAL, P .P., (1959) The System of Grants-in-aid in India 15.    AGGARWALA,OM PRAKASH, Fundamental Rights and Constitutional Remedies (3 Vols.) 1.    AIYER, ALLADI KRISHNASWAMI (1955) The Constitution and Fundamental Rights (Srinivasa Sastri Memorial Lectures,) AIYER, ALLADI K RISHNASWAMI and AIYANGA,N.R., (1928) Government of India Act, 1935 with a AIYER,SIVASWAMY, Indian Constitutional Problems ARCHIBOLD,W.A.J., Outline of Indian Constitutional History (1926) 2.    BAILEY,S.D., (1953) Parliamentary Government in Southern Asia 3.    BANERJEE, A.C., 1939-47 The Making of the Indian Constitution, (extracts from documents) 4.    BANERJEE, A.C., (1947) The Constituent Assembly of India 5.    BANERJEE, A.C.,and BOSE,D.R., (1946) The Cabinet Mission in India 6.    BANERJEE, D.N., Partition or Federation,a Study i n Inadian Constitutional Problems . 7.    BASU, DURGA DAS, (1952) Commentary on the Constitution of India 8.    BASU, DURGA DAS, Cases on the constitution of India (2 Vols) 9.    BOSE, SUBHAS CHANDRA, (1932) The Indian Struggle 10.    COATMAN, JOHN, (1941)India –The Road to Self – Government 11.    Manoj Sharma,( 2005) Indian Constitution Publications Pvt,Ltd, New Delhi. 18.8 Terminal questions Q1 Classify the Directive Principles of State Policy and discuss them in detail. Q2 What is value of the Directive Principles of State Policy as enshrined in the constitution. Q3 Are the Directive Principles of State Policy are inferior to Fundamental rights. Discuss UNIT-19 FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES Structure 19 Introduction 19.1    Learning Objectives 19.2    Introduction 19.3    Origin, Scope, facts, features, need & criticism of fundamental duties Self-Check Exercise-1 19.4    Fundamental Duties and Indian Constitution & Fundamental Duties Case Laws Self-Check Exercise-2 19.5     Summary 19.6     Glossary 19.7    Answer to self-check exercises 19.8     References/Suggested Readings 19.9     Terminal questions 19.0 Introduction As an Indian citizen, certain rights and duties are provided to us. The duty of every citizen is to abide by the laws and perform his/her legal obligations. A person should always be aware of his/her fundamental duties. 11 fundamental duties are laid down by the Indian Constitution. 19.1    Learning Objectives After studying this lesson, the learner will be able to -    Know the origin, scope and facts about fundamental dutiesl -    Know the 11 Fundamental Duties as enshrined in the constitution -    Know the various features of the fundamental duties -    Know the criticism and enforcement of fundamental duties 19.2    19.2 Origin, Scope, facts, features, need & criticism of fundamental duties Origin Following the suggestions of the Swaran Singh Committee, the 42nd Amendment of 1976 incorporated the fundamental duties into the Indian Constitution. Initially, there were 10 fundamental duties, but the 86th Amendment in 2002 expanded the list to 11. The addition of the 11th duty mandated that every parent or guardian must ensure educational opportunities for children between the ages of 6 and 14. These duties were inspired by the Constitution of Japan. Scope There is no direct provision in the Constitution for enforcing these duties, nor is there significant legal sanction to prevent their violation. However, these duties are considered obligatory. The following points highlight the significance of fundamental duties: 1.    A person should give equal respect to both fundamental rights and duties. If the court finds that an individual seeking enforcement of their rights is neglectful of their duties, the court is unlikely to be lenient in their case. 2.    Fundamental duties can help interpret any ambiguous statute. 3.    The court can deem a law reasonable if it aligns with any of the fundamental duties, helping to protect the law from being ruled unconstitutional. The fundamental duties were inspired by the Constitution of the former USSR (Russia). Their inclusion in the Indian Constitution has brought it in line with Article 29(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and similar provisions found in the constitutions of other modern nations. Facts regarding Fundamental Duties in India The Fundamental Duties in the Indian Constitution emphasize the importance of preserving and promoting the country’s diverse cultural heritage, protecting the environment, including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife, and showing compassion for all living beings. They also encourage the development of a scientific mindset, humanism, and a spirit of inquiry and reform, the protection of public property, and a commitment to non-violence. These duties inspire citizens to be disciplined and devoted to the country and its people, while also discouraging anti-social or anti-national activities. In conclusion, the eleven Fundamental Duties outlined in the Indian Constitution play a crucial role in fostering democratic behavior across the nation. These duties can be categorized into two main types: Moral Duties and Civic Duties. Moral duties honor the values that emerged from the freedom struggle, while civic duties focus on citizens' responsibilities to respect national symbols such as the Constitution, National Flag, and National Anthem. Some key points about Fundamental Duties include: •    They represent essential responsibilities vital to the Indian way of life. •    Unlike some Fundamental Rights, these duties apply only to Indian citizens, not to foreigners living or visiting the country. •    Fundamental Duties are non-justiciable, meaning they cannot be enforced by courts. •    There are no legal penalties for failing to observe these duties. •    They are outlined in Part IV-A of the Indian Constitution under Article 51A. •    Initially, there were eight Fundamental Duties, later amended to ten, and a further amendment in 2002 added an eleventh duty (Article 51A(k)) through the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act. •    The concept of Fundamental Duties was inspired by the Constitution of the former Soviet Union (Russia). 11 Fundamental duties •    Part IV-A of the Indian Constitution includes only one article—Article 51A—which addresses the fundamental duties of citizens. It was incorporated through the 42nd Amendment Act in 1976, introducing a set of 11 fundamental duties for the first time. Article 51A outlines the following duties for every Indian citizen: •    Respect for the Constitution, its ideals, and institutions, along with the National Flag and National Anthem – Citizens must honor the Constitution and the values of liberty, justice, equality, and fraternity. They must also respect institutions such as the executive, legislature, and judiciary. Disrespecting the National Anthem or Flag undermines the dignity of a sovereign nation. •    Cherishing the ideals that inspired the national struggle for independence - Citizens should uphold the noble ideas of freedom, justice, equality, non-violence, and unity that guided India’s independence movement, remaining committed to these ideals in daily life. •    Protecting the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India - This essential duty emphasizes the importance of national unity. It is a citizen's responsibility to safeguard the country's sovereignty and integrity, with Article 19(2) of the Constitution placing reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech for this purpose. •    Respect for the nation and readiness to serve when needed - All citizens should be prepared to defend the country and support national interests, even if they are not in the military, when called upon to do so. •    Promoting harmony and the spirit of brotherhood, while renouncing practices harmful to women’s dignity – Citizens must encourage unity among diverse communities and work towards eliminating practices that harm the dignity of women, reflecting national unity through a shared identity. •    Preserving and valuing India's rich cultural heritage - India's diverse cultural heritage is an invaluable legacy, and citizens have a duty to protect it for future generations. •    Protecting and improving the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers, wildlife, and showing compassion for all living creatures – As per Article 48A, citizens should contribute to the preservation of the natural environment and demonstrate empathy towards all forms of life. •    Fostering scientific temperament, humanism, and the spirit of inquiry and reform - In a rapidly changing world, citizens should cultivate a scientific mindset, continuously learning and adapting to new ideas for personal and societal growth. •    Safeguarding public property and renouncing violence - Citizens must protect public property and reject violence, as it causes harm to the nation's resources and goes against the principles of non-violence. •    Striving for excellence in all aspects of life - To help the nation achieve its full potential, citizens should aim for excellence in their work and contributions, fostering collective progress. •    Providing educational opportunities for children aged six to fourteen - Parents or guardians are responsible for ensuring that children between the ages of 6 and 14 receive free and compulsory education, as mandated by the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2002. The features of Fundamental duties 1.    The fundamental duties encompass both moral and civic responsibilities, such as the obligation for Indian citizens to honor the noble ideals of the freedom struggle and show respect for the Constitution, National Flag, and National Anthem. 2.    While fundamental rights apply to both Indian citizens and foreigners, fundamental duties are specifically applicable to Indian citizens only. 3.    Fundamental duties are not enforceable by law. The government cannot impose any legal penalties if these duties are violated. 4.    Some of these duties are linked to traditional Hindu values or mythology, such as showing respect for the nation and fostering a spirit of unity and brotherhood. Self-Check Exercise-1 Q.1 Both moral and civic duties have been laid down under the fundamental duties, like, “the Indian citizens should not only cherish the noble ideas that lead to the freedom struggle but they should also respect the Constitution, the National Flag and National Anthem”. True/False Q.2 One should always provide the opportunity of education to his child or ward between the age of six to fourteen years– Free and compulsory education must be provided to the children who belong to 6 to 14 years of age and this has to be ensured by the parents or guardian of such child. This was provided by the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002. True/False 19.3 Fundamental duties and Indian constitution & Fundamental Duties Case Laws The Indian Constitution was adopted in 1949, but it initially did not include provisions for fundamental duties. Recognizing the need to emphasize the importance of these duties, the Indian Parliament decided to incorporate them into the Constitution. As a result, Part IV-A was added by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976, which outlines the fundamental duties citizens are expected to observe. These duties are considered "directory," meaning they cannot be enforced through a writ of mandamus because they do not impose direct public obligations. Rather, they serve as a reminder of the nation’s goals and political principles. They encourage individuals to develop a sense of social responsibility. The Supreme Court has stated that fundamental duties can be used to interpret ambiguous statutes. These duties also have educational and psychological value, promoting democracy and patriotism. In the case of the Ramlila Maidan Incident, the court explained that the term "fundamental" in the Constitution is used in two different contexts. When referring to rights, "fundamental" means essential, and any law violating these rights will be declared void. However, when the term is used in relation to duties, it takes on a normative sense, establishing goals for the state to strive toward. 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 The 42nd Amendment Act, passed during the Emergency period, is regarded as one of the most controversial amendments to the Indian Constitution. Approved by the Indian National Congress, led by Indira Gandhi, this amendment made several significant changes, with most provisions coming into effect on January 3, 1977, while others took effect from April 1, 1977. Due to its sweeping changes, it is sometimes referred to as the "Mini-Constitution" or the "Constitution of Indira." The 42nd Amendment introduced 11 Fundamental Duties. 86th Amendment, 2002 Few constitutions worldwide explicitly outline the duties of citizens, with countries like Canada and the United Kingdom relying on Common Law and judicial decisions to govern these aspects. It is argued that teaching individuals about their fundamental duties at a young age would eliminate the need for formal enumeration in the Constitution, making it easier to implement these duties effectively. The Unnikrishnan Judgment established that every citizen under the age of 14 has a right to free and compulsory education. Responding to public demand for greater access to education, the government took steps to make education a fundamental right. Consequently, the 86th Amendment of 2002 amended Article 51A by adding Clause (k), which made it a fundamental duty for parents or guardians to ensure that children between the ages of 6 and 14 receive free and compulsory education. Key Case Laws: 1.    M.C. Mehta (2) vs. Union of India: The Supreme Court made several important rulings: o Educational institutions must conduct at least one hour of lessons per week focused on protecting and improving the natural environment. o It is the duty of the Central Government under Article 51-A(g) to introduce this environmental lesson in all educational institutions. o The government is required to distribute free books on environmental topics to educational institutions. o To raise awareness about environmental conservation, the government should organize a "Keep the City Clean" week annually. Fundamental duties committees Swaran Singh Committee o The Swaran Singh Committee, chaired by Sardar Swaran Singh, was tasked with reviewing the Indian Constitution during the period of National Emergency. Following the declaration of the emergency, Indira Gandhi assigned the committee the responsibility of examining the Constitution and recommending necessary amendments based on the circumstances at the time. Several changes to the Constitution were made following the committee’s recommendations. o The need to include fundamental duties in the Constitution became apparent during the emergency period. In response, the committee, formed in 1976, recommended the addition of a separate section titled "Fundamental Duties." This section would inform citizens of their duties while enjoying their fundamental rights. The government accepted this suggestion and incorporated Article 51A into the Indian Constitution, initially listing 10 fundamental duties. The government later acknowledged that the omission of fundamental duties by the original framers of the Constitution had been an oversight. While the committee proposed eight fundamental duties, the 42nd Amendment included ten duties. However, not all of the committee's recommendations were accepted. o Some recommendations that were not adopted include: o Granting the Parliament the authority to impose penalties or punishment for noncompliance with fundamental duties. o Making such penalties or laws immune to challenge in a court of law. o Including the duty to pay taxes among the fundamental duties, which was ultimately rejected. Justice Verma Committee o The Justice Verma Committee was established in 1998 with the goal of developing a strategy to make fundamental duties enforceable across all educational institutions and ensuring these duties were taught in schools. The committee recognized that the non-implementation of fundamental duties was due to a lack of a clear strategy, rather than a lack of interest. o The committee suggested several provisions to ensure the operationalization of these duties: o Under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, no person can disrespect the National Flag, the Constitution of India, or the National Anthem. o Various criminal laws have been enacted to penalize individuals who promote enmity based on race, religion, language, etc. o The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 imposes punishments for offences related to caste and religion. o The Indian Penal Code, 1860 includes provisions that punish actions that undermine the nation's integrity and unity. o The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 was enacted to prevent the declaration of communal organizations as unlawful associations. o Members of Parliament or state legislatures found engaging in corrupt practices, such as using religion to solicit votes, are liable under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. o The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 prohibits the trade of endangered species. o The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 ensures the protection of forests, directly supporting the enforcement of Article 51A(g). Need for Fundamental Duties Rights and duties are inherently linked and interdependent. Fundamental duties serve as a constant reminder to every citizen, emphasizing the need to balance their rights with responsibilities. While the Indian Constitution grants specific fundamental rights to its citizens, it also underscores the importance of certain basic democratic norms and behaviors that citizens must follow. The ruling party at the time, Congress, acknowledged that the framers of the Constitution had overlooked this aspect and rectified the omission by introducing a section on citizens’ duties towards the nation. In India, there has historically been a stronger focus on rights rather than duties. However, this perspective overlooks an essential aspect of Indian culture, where individuals have traditionally emphasized performing duties over asserting rights. From ancient times, the concept of Kartavya (duty) has been central to Indian society—whether towards one’s community, country, or family. The teachings in texts like the Geeta and Ramayana advocate for performing one’s duties selflessly, often placing them above personal rights and privileges. The concept of duties has been constitutionally recognized. A careful examination of the Constitution reveals not only the rights of citizens but also their responsibilities. Those who argue that the Constitution only addresses rights and neglects duties will find that fundamental duties are indeed acknowledged in the document. Fundamental rights, such as liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship, are outlined in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. However, these rights are not absolute, as the state may impose reasonable restrictions on them for the greater good of society. Additionally, the Preamble emphasizes the duties of the state and citizens in promoting justice—social, economic, and political. Importance of fundamental duties The government introduced fundamental duties to establish a strong national character and foundation. These duties not only highlight the importance of human dignity but also foster a sense of unity within the community. Our society can progress only if every citizen contributes towards bridging the gaps within society by fulfilling their duties. Judicial reforms have played a role in reinforcing these duties, as the Indian Constitution does not provide specific provisions for their enforcement. If individuals wish to see their fundamental rights respected, they must also fulfill their corresponding duties. The significance of fundamental duties can be summarized as follows: 1.    Fundamental duties serve as a continual reminder that citizens, while enjoying their fundamental rights, must also be mindful of their responsibilities to the nation. 2.    These duties act as a deterrent, warning citizens against engaging in antisocial behaviors. 3.    They offer individuals the opportunity to actively participate in society, rather than remaining passive observers. 4.    These duties instill a sense of discipline and a strong commitment to the community. 5.    Courts can refer to fundamental duties when determining the constitutionality of laws. If a law is challenged, and it supports any of the fundamental duties, it may be upheld as reasonable. 6.    When fundamental rights are protected by law, the Parliament has the authority to impose penalties or punishment in the event of their violation. A notable example of the importance of fundamental duties was the Supreme Court's directive for cinema halls to play the National Anthem when displaying the National Flag. This decision highlighted the significance of promoting national consciousness and the fulfillment of fundamental duties. Criticism of fundamental duties There have been several criticisms regarding the inclusion of fundamental duties in the Constitution. Some of the key concerns are as follows: 1.    Critics argue that the list of fundamental duties is not comprehensive. They believe that many important duties, such as paying taxes and voting, which were recommended by the Swaran Singh Committee, should have been included. 2.    The language used in the fundamental duties, such as "composite culture," is often difficult for the average person to comprehend. This lack of clarity makes it challenging for citizens to fully grasp the true meaning of these duties, leading to confusion and ambiguity. 3.    Since these duties cannot be enforced by the courts, some critics question their value and effectiveness in the Constitution, believing they hold little practical significance. 4.    Certain duties, such as showing respect for the National Flag and National Anthem, are already ingrained in the behavior of citizens, and critics feel that these obligations did not need to be explicitly stated in the Constitution. 5.    The fundamental duties are located in Part IV-A of the Constitution, which follows the Directive Principles of State Policy. Critics contend that they should have been included in Part III, alongside the Fundamental Rights, to give them greater prominence and importance. Fundamental duties case laws 6.    Bijoe Emmanuel vs. State of Kerala (National Anthem Case) In this case, three children from the Jehovah’s Witnesses community were expelled from their school for refusing to sing the National Anthem, citing religious beliefs that prohibited participation. The school had issued a directive mandating that all students sing the National Anthem. The children, however, stood in respect but did not sing. They were expelled on grounds of violating the Prevention of Insult to National Honours Act, 1971. The court overturned the expulsion, ruling that the children had not violated the law, as their act of standing was a gesture of respect, not disrespect. 7.    M.C. Mehta (2) vs. Union of India The Supreme Court ruled that educational institutions must allocate at least one hour per week for teaching about the protection and improvement of the natural environment, as outlined in Article 51A(g) of the Constitution. The Court also directed the government to distribute relevant educational materials and promote awareness through initiatives like an annual 'keep the city clean' week. 8.    AIIMS Students Union vs. AIIMS In this case, the Supreme Court held that fundamental duties carry equal importance to fundamental rights. The Court struck down a reservation policy at AIIMS that violated Article 14 of the Constitution, emphasizing that fundamental duties should not be overlooked and must be equally upheld. 9.    Aruna Roy vs. Union of India The Supreme Court upheld the National Curriculum Framework for School Education (NCFSE) when challenged on the grounds of violating Article 28 and being anti-secular. The Court ruled that the NCFSE does not involve religious instruction, thus aligning with the secular nature of the Indian Constitution. 10.    Rangnath Mishra vs. Union of India A petitioner, concerned about balancing fundamental rights with duties, urged the President to direct the State to educate citizens about their fundamental duties. The National Commission reviewing the Constitution submitted recommendations for creating public awareness and consciousness regarding these duties, following the guidelines suggested by the Justice Verma Committee. The Court disposed of the writ petition but encouraged the government to take necessary steps based on these recommendations. 11.    Government of India vs. George Philip In this case, the Supreme Court ruled on the case of a government employee who overstayed his leave for advanced research and was subsequently disciplined. The Court invoked Article 51A(j), emphasizing that individuals must strive for excellence and maintain discipline in all spheres of life for the collective good of the nation. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision, which had allowed the employee to return without penalty, arguing that it undermined the essence of the constitutional duty to strive for excellence. 12.    Dr. Dasarathi vs. State of Andhra Pradesh The Supreme Court held that citizens must fulfill their duties to strive for excellence in all aspects of life, contributing to the collective advancement of the nation. It clarified that the state has a role in facilitating excellence through constitutional methods. 13.    Charu Khurana vs. Union of India The Supreme Court ruled that the state should focus on providing opportunities for citizens rather than restricting them. The Court noted that fundamental duties extend beyond individual responsibilities to include collective duties that the state must support. 14.    These cases reflect the judicial interpretation of fundamental duties, demonstrating their significance in shaping the behavior of citizens and institutions in India, while highlighting the ongoing balance between rights and responsibilities. Enforcement of Fundamental Duties Fundamental duties play an important role in guiding not only citizens but also the actions of legislative, executive, and various other institutions, organizations, and local governing bodies. These duties are effectively observed when they are either mandated by law or influenced by role models, making it essential to establish appropriate laws to ensure citizens fulfill their responsibilities. Such duties should be enforceable only when directed by the legislature and judiciary, especially in cases where they are violated. If existing laws are insufficient to enforce these duties, legislative gaps must be addressed. The legal significance of fundamental duties is comparable to that of directive principles. While fundamental duties apply to citizens, directive principles are directed at the state, and neither carries legal consequences for non-compliance. However, failure to observe fundamental duties can be viewed as a reasonable limitation on corresponding fundamental rights. The 42nd Amendment incorporated fundamental duties into the Constitution, categorizing them as statutory duties enforceable by law. If these duties are neglected, the Parliament has the authority to impose penalties. The effectiveness of this provision depends on how well these duties are communicated to the public and the manner in which enforcement is carried out. A lack of awareness among citizens, often due to illiteracy and a lack of political consciousness, can hinder the enforcement process. To overcome this, educational institutions and other public spaces should serve as platforms for raising awareness and educating citizens about their responsibilities. Fundamental duties complement fundamental rights The Constitution of India not only grants fundamental rights but also outlines fundamental duties. While the fundamental rights were incorporated into the Constitution long before the fundamental duties, and are enforceable by the courts, the 42nd Amendment of 1976 introduced the concept of fundamental duties. These duties, however, are not legally enforceable and are considered moral obligations of responsible citizens. It is important for these duties to complement the fundamental rights. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to education, while Article 51A(k) requires parents and guardians to provide free and compulsory education to children aged 6 to 14 years. This highlights the interconnectedness between fundamental rights and duties. However, in contemporary society, there is often a tendency for people to demand their rights while neglecting their duties. For instance, a recent incident at Jawaharlal Nehru University involved individuals exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression by raising anti-national slogans. In doing so, they violated their fundamental duty under Article 51A(c), which mandates citizens to protect the country's sovereignty, unity, and integrity. Similarly, political leaders sometimes use religion to garner votes, violating their fundamental duty under Article 51A(c) to safeguard the nation’s unity and integrity by promoting social division along religious or caste lines. For democracy to flourish, citizens must balance their fundamental rights with their fundamental duties. In exercising their rights, they should also fulfill their duties to uphold the values enshrined in the Constitution. Relationship between the fundamental rights, directive principles and fundamental duties The relationship between fundamental rights, directive principles, and fundamental duties can be understood as follows: When there is a conflict between the constitutional validity of legislation and the fundamental rights, the Directive Principles of State Policy have been used to support the constitutional validity of such legislation. Article 31C, added by the 25th Amendment in 1971, states that any law enacted to implement the directive principles mentioned in Articles 39(b) and 39(c) will not be invalidated simply because it may conflict with fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 31. The 42nd Amendment sought to extend Article 31C to all Directive Principles, but the Supreme Court struck down this provision, asserting that it violated the Constitution’s basic structure. Thus, both fundamental rights and directive principles have been used together to form the basis for laws related to social welfare. After the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case, the Supreme Court concluded that fundamental rights and directive principles are not only complementary but also mutually supportive. Together, they aim to establish a welfare state through social change. The Court has upheld the constitutional validity of various laws that promote the objectives laid out in the fundamental duties. These duties, though not directly enforceable in court, can still be supported by legislation. The Court has directed the government to take necessary steps for the effective implementation of these duties. While fundamental duties are not enforceable through the courts, fundamental rights are enforceable under Article 32 of the Constitution, which grants the Supreme Court the power to issue writs, and under Article 226, which gives the High Courts similar powers. When interpreting fundamental rights or any limitations on them, the courts take into account the fundamental duties and directive principles outlined in Part IV of the Constitution. In the case of Javed vs. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court affirmed that fundamental rights must be read in conjunction with fundamental duties (Article 51A) and the directive principles in Part IV, stating that these provisions cannot be interpreted in isolation. In State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur, the Supreme Court noted that the directive principles and fundamental duties (Article 51A) play a crucial role in testing the constitutional validity of statutory provisions or executive actions. The Court emphasized that the reasonableness of any restrictions on fundamental rights imposed by law must be assessed with consideration of both the fundamental duties and the directive principles. In the Ramlila Maidan Incident, the Court highlighted the importance of maintaining a balance between fundamental rights, restrictions on those rights, and the fundamental duties. Giving undue emphasis to either fundamental rights or duties would create an imbalance. The Court acknowledged that duties such as protecting the sovereignty and integrity of the nation and safeguarding public property are significant. In N.K. Bajpai vs. Union of India, it was noted that there is a common thread running through Parts III, IV, and IV-A of the Indian Constitution. Part III guarantees fundamental rights, Part IV lays down the guiding principles for state governance, and Part IV-A outlines the fundamental duties of citizens. The Court emphasized that when interpreting any provision, it is crucial to consider all these constitutional elements together. Self-Check Exercise-2 Q.1 The 25th amendment in 1871 added Article 31C which states that any law enforced which was to give effect to the directive principles that were provided in Article 39(b)-(c) would not be held invalid on the grounds that they derogated from the fundamental rights that are present in the Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Indian Constitution. True/False Q.2 Fundamental duties are not enforceable through courts but fundamental rights are enforceable through the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution and the High Court has the power to issue writs for the enforcement of the fundamental rights under Article 226. True/False 19.4    Summary The fact that fundamental duties are not legally enforceable does not diminish their significance. These duties play a crucial role in a democratic society by not only enabling citizens to enjoy their rights but also reminding them of their responsibilities to the nation. The term "fundamental" underscores the importance of these duties, making it essential for all individuals to adhere to them. Although some duties are backed by separate laws that make them enforceable, this does not reduce the importance of the other duties outlined in Article 51A. It is not solely the government's responsibility to provide for everything in the Constitution; citizens must also be aware of their role in society. Duties such as paying taxes and voting are vital and must be carried out by every citizen. These duties foster a sense of social responsibility and are always considered when interpreting fundamental rights. 19.5    Glossary •    Imputation- a charge or claim that someone has done something undesirable; an accusation.. •    Secular - not concerned with religion. 19.6    Answers to self check exercises Self-Check Exercise-1 Q.1 True Q.2 True Self-Check Exercise-2 Q.1 True Q.2 True 19.7    References/Suggested Readings 19.8    Terminal questions Q1 Bring out the relationship between Fundamental Principles, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties. Q2 Discuss the various committees convened on the issue of Fundamental Duties. UNIT-20 SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO CERTAIN CLASSES Structure 20 Introduction 20.1    Learning Objectives 20.2    Dalits, Linguistic Minorities in Indian Society, Constitutional Provisions for SCs’/STs’ 20.3    Protection of linguistic minorities in the Constitution, Commissioner & NCBC 20.4    Summary 20.5     Glossary 20.6    Answer to self-check exercises 20.7     References/Suggested Readings 20.8     Terminal questions 20.0    INTRODUCTION The framers of the Indian Constitution recognized the need for specific protections for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST), as well as other marginalized communities. To fulfill these constitutional commitments, both the Central and State Governments have implemented various welfare and development programs aimed at helping these communities achieve social, economic, political, and cultural advancement alongside other groups in India. However, it is concerning that the benefits of these efforts have not reached the intended communities to the expected degree. Despite numerous initiatives to improve their socio-economic conditions, SC/ST communities continue to face significant challenges and vulnerabilities across various aspects of life in India. This article reviews the importance and effectiveness of constitutional provisions for SCs/STs in India, drawing on a thorough examination of existing literature. 20.1    Learning Objectives After studying this lesson, the learner will be able to -    Know about dalits in Indian Society -    Know the Constitutional Provisions for SCs’/STs’ -    Know about protection of linguistic minorities -    Know Anglo-Indians and their current status in the Constitution 16.2 Dalits, Linguistic Minorities in Indian Society, Constitutional Provisions for SCs’/STs’ Dalits India, a diverse society, encompasses all major religions of the world. Over the centuries, the caste system was established to maintain the social and economic monopoly of the upper castes, denying basic human rights such as property, education, freedom, and equality to the weaker sections of society. As a result, the lower castes, particularly Dalits, faced numerous disadvantages and were systematically excluded from mainstream social, cultural, and economic practices. India, being the second-largest country globally, has approximately 25% of its population belonging to Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). These groups have historically been marginalized, living on the periphery of society and often deprived of basic rights. After gaining independence in 1947, India adopted its Constitution, which guarantees human rights and specific safeguards for these communities. The Constitution of India enshrines several provisions aimed at improving the conditions of SCs and STs, addressing their social, economic, political, and educational needs. These safeguards can be broadly classified into four categories: 1.    Social safeguards 2.    Development and economic safeguards 3.    Political safeguards 4.    Other protective measures As Srivastava notes, the social system in India has long perpetuated social and economic injustices against these groups. The caste system enforced a hierarchical structure that concentrated privileges in the hands of the higher castes, leaving the lower castes with limited access to resources, opportunities, and rights. This segregation continued for generations, with these communities often excluded from educational, economic, and social advancements. The Constitution of India, recognizing this historical injustice, provided provisions aimed at uplifting these communities. However, despite various welfare and development programs launched by the government, the intended progress has been slow, and the SC/ST communities continue to face significant barriers. These communities remain vulnerable and marginalized in many areas, hindering their full integration into mainstream society. Scholars and advocates have argued that for India to become a truly inclusive and welfare-oriented society, the constitutional provisions for SCs and STs must be fully implemented, and all social, economic, and educational disparities must be addressed. The struggle for the rights and betterment of these communities continues, as they still face social and economic disadvantages that prevent them from reaching their full potential in a rapidly changing India. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS FOR SCs’/STs’ The Constitution of India includes several protections and provisions designed to uplift the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), which are central to the nation's legal framework. These provisions are meant to safeguard the interests of these communities and foster their socio-economic advancement. The inclusion of such safeguards is largely attributed to Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Indian Constitution, who was deeply committed to the welfare of marginalized groups. Dr. Ambedkar's efforts ensured that these provisions were incorporated into the Constitution, reinforcing his vision for the empowerment of historically disadvantaged groups. As Thorat observes, the founding fathers of the Constitution recognized the deep social, economic, and political disparities in Indian society and sought to address these inequities. They understood that these disparities had created systemic disadvantages for the weaker sections of society. This understanding led to provisions such as Article 46, which embodies a new policy to provide hope and relief for marginalized communities, including SCs and STs. Article 46: Promotion of Educational and Economic Interests of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Article 46 mandates that the State promote the educational and economic interests of weaker sections of society, particularly SCs and STs, and protect them from social injustice and exploitation. This constitutional commitment reflects India’s dedication to achieving social justice for historically oppressed groups. The Constitution, which came into effect on January 26, 1950, establishes India as a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, and Democratic Republic. It is the supreme law of the land, ensuring justice, liberty, and equality for all citizens, including SCs and STs. This focus on inclusion is evident in the special provisions made for these groups, aimed at addressing centuries of deprivation. Challenges and the Continuing Role of Reservations The main objective of the constitutional safeguards for SCs and STs has been to reduce social and economic disparities and level the playing field as quickly as possible. However, despite more than five decades of implementation, the policy of reservation has faced challenges and has not fully achieved its intended outcomes. Still, reservations have become an entrenched part of India’s social fabric, and the question remains: how can the system be made more effective to truly elevate SCs and STs to the same level as other sections of society? The Preamble of the Constitution articulates the core philosophy of the nation, vowing to secure justice, liberty, and equality for all citizens. This foundational document has been instrumental in establishing safeguards for SCs and STs, recognizing their historical marginalization. Key Constitutional Articles for SCs/STs •    Article 340: This article allows the President to appoint a commission to investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes and recommend measures to improve their situation. •    Article 341: This article allows the President to specify, through a public notification, which castes, races, or tribes will be deemed as Scheduled Castes in any given State or Union Territory. •    Article 342: Similarly, this article provides for the President to identify tribes or tribal communities as Scheduled Tribes, and also empowers Parliament to amend the list. •    Article 366: This article defines the terms “Scheduled Castes” and “Scheduled Tribes,” as outlined in Articles 341 and 342, providing clarity on the scope of these categories. The constitutional provisions for SCs and STs are designed to promote their education, economic welfare, and social inclusion. These safeguards are meant to protect these groups from exploitation and ensure their participation in the nation's growth and development. The implementation of these provisions is vital to achieving the constitutional vision of justice and equality for all, especially the historically marginalized sections of society. SOCIAL SAFEGUARDS Equality Before the Law: Under the Constitution of India, no person shall be denied equality before the law or the equal protection of the law within the territory of India. Article 15:    Prohibition of Discrimination Article 15 of the Constitution ensures that discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or any combination thereof is prohibited. Specifically: •    Section 1 : The State shall not discriminate against any citizen solely based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. •    Section 2: No citizen shall face any disability, liability, restriction, or condition concerning access to public facilities, such as shops, restaurants, hotels, bathing ghats, wells, or public places maintained by the State. •    Section 3: This article allows the State to create special provisions for women and children. •    Section 4: It also permits the State to make provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, including SCs and STs. Article 16:    Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment Article 16 ensures that all citizens have equal opportunities in employment or appointments under the State. This article prohibits discrimination on grounds such as religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth, and guarantees equality in access to public employment. It also provides for: •    Section 4: Provisions for the reservation of appointments or posts for backward classes, including SCs and STs, in areas where they are underrepresented. •    Section 4(A): Provisions for reserving promotions in government services for SCs and STs when they are inadequately represented in those services. Article 17:    Abolition of Untouchability Article 17 of the Constitution abolishes untouchability and forbids its practice in any form. It considers the enforcement of any disability arising from untouchability an offense punishable by law. Rights Against Exploitation: •    Article 23(1): Prohibits traffic in human beings, beggary, and all forms of forced labor. Violations of this provision are punishable by law. •    Article 25(2)(b): Calls for the opening of Hindu religious institutions to all classes and sections of Hindus, ensuring social welfare and reform. Untouchability and Atrocities Before the passage of the Untouchability (Offences) Act in 1955, there was no uniform Central law addressing untouchability across India. The Act was later amended in 1976 and renamed the Protection of Civil Rights Act (PCR Act). This Act introduced stricter punishments and non-compoundable offenses to combat untouchability. It also mandated the creation of special cells and courts to enforce these laws, although its implementation has been insufficient. Special courts and mobile squads to address untouchability offenses have not been adequately established, and the enforcement of the Act is not always effective. Additionally, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was enacted to address crimes against these communities. However, despite special provisions, the Act’s implementation has been less than effective, requiring a more sensitive approach and rigorous enforcement. Bonded Labour Article 23 of the Constitution prohibits trafficking in human beings, beggary, and forced labor, and sets punishments for violations. The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, aimed to end bonded labor, which predominantly affects SCs and STs. Despite this, the Act's implementation has been inadequate, particularly in tribal areas. In response, the government launched the Centrally Sponsored Programme (1978-79), which provides financial aid for the identification, liberation, and rehabilitation of bonded laborers. However, the Act still requires amendments to increase penalties for offenses and improve its efficacy in eradicating bonded labor across the country. These safeguards reflect the government's commitment to ensuring social justice and equality for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, though challenges in their enforcement remain. ECONOMIC SAFEGUARDS FOR SCs/STs Various economic safeguards for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) are provided under several provisions in the Indian Constitution. These include Article 15(4), Article 16(4), Article 29(2), Article 46, Article 330, Article 332, Article 334, Article 335, and Article 338. Below is an overview of these provisions: Article 15(4): This article allows the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, including Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It ensures that such communities are given special consideration for their upliftment in educational and social fields. Article 16(4): This provision empowers the State to reserve appointments or posts for any backward class of citizens who are not adequately represented in public services. It aims to ensure equitable representation for SCs, STs, and other backward classes in government services. Article 29(2): This article prohibits discrimination in admission to educational institutions maintained by the State or receiving State funds. It ensures that no individual shall be denied admission based on their religion, race, caste, or language, providing equal educational opportunities to all citizens, including SCs and STs. Special Grants under Article 275: Article 275(1) allows the Central Government to provide grants from the Consolidated Fund of India to states for promoting the welfare of Scheduled Tribes or improving administration in Scheduled Areas. This financial assistance supports state schemes aimed at enhancing the living standards of SCs and STs. For example, significant sums were released to state governments under this provision during the Eighth Five Year Plan and in subsequent years. Article 330: Reservation of Seats in the House of the People: This provision ensures the reservation of seats in the Lok Sabha for SCs and STs, which is intended to ensure their political representation in the national legislature. The number of reserved seats is proportional to the population of SCs and STs in each state, except for the autonomous districts of Assam. Article 332: Reservation of Seats in Legislative Assemblies of States: Similar to Article 330, Article 332 reserves seats for SCs and STs in the Legislative Assemblies of states. The number of reserved seats is determined based on the population of these communities within each state. For Assam, special provisions are made for the autonomous districts. Article 334:    Duration of Reservation and Representation: This article specifies that the reservation of seats for SCs and STs in the House of the People and in State Legislative Assemblies will cease after sixty years from the commencement of the Constitution. However, this provision does not affect the representation of SCs and STs until the dissolution of the current House or Assembly. Article 335:    Consideration of SCs and STs for Services and Posts: This provision ensures that the claims of SCs and STs are considered for appointments to services under the Union or State, while maintaining the efficiency of administration. It allows for relaxation of qualifications or other provisions to facilitate their inclusion in public services. Article 338: National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes: Originally, Article 338 provided for a Special Officer, the Commissioner for SCs and STs, to report on the working of the safeguards provided under the Constitution. However, it was later amended in 1990 to establish a high-level five-member Commission for SCs and STs, which is tasked with ensuring the effective implementation of constitutional safeguards for these communities. The Commission works to protect the welfare, socioeconomic development, and advancement of SCs and STs across India. These provisions and safeguards are designed to address the economic disparities faced by SCs and STs, ensuring their social, educational, and political inclusion in the mainstream of Indian society. The goal is to provide them with equal opportunities and improve their socio-economic conditions. Linguistic Minorities India is home to over 1,369 languages, yet many of these face the risk of disappearing in the near future. In light of this, P Avinash Reddy examines both the constitutional safeguards and the challenges that minority languages face, as well as how affirmative action could play a role in their preservation. Language is a vital part of individual identity. It is not only a means of communication but also a vessel for culture and knowledge systems. One's language is a gateway to understanding the surrounding world, as it carries accumulated knowledge that has been evolving for generations. The 2011 Census data revealed a total of 19,569 languages, which, after classification, were narrowed down to 1,369 distinct mother tongues. However, nearly 400 of these languages are at risk of vanishing within the next 50 years. This highlights the need for urgent measures to protect the linguistic diversity in India. Constitutional Protections for Linguistic Minorities The Indian Constitution recognizes the importance of safeguarding linguistic minorities. Under Article 30(1), linguistic minorities are granted the fundamental right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. At the same time, Article 351 directs the Union to promote Hindi as a national language, which can sometimes overshadow regional languages. The promotion of Hindi, alongside English, can marginalize minority languages, with these communities bearing the brunt of this imposition. Article 350A ensures that every state provides primary education in the mother tongue, while Article 350B mandates the appointment of a ‘Special Officer’ to investigate and report on matters related to linguistic minorities. However, the Constitution does not specifically define what constitutes a linguistic minority. In the 1971 case of DAV College v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court of India defined a linguistic minority as a group that speaks a language, even if it does not have its own script. The court further clarified in the TA Pai Foundation case that the status of a linguistic minority is determined at the state level, rather than nationally. The protections granted in the Constitution are crucial, but the continued survival of linguistic minorities in India depends on concerted efforts to preserve these languages and promote their use in education and public life. Affirmative action and other supportive measures could be key to ensuring that these languages are not lost to history. The protection of linguistic minorities: commissions The National Commission for Religious and Linguistic Minorities report outlines that a community's status as a linguistic minority is determined by its numerical inferiority, non-dominant position within a state, and distinct identity. The report further claims that exclusive reliance on a minority language contributes to socio-economic disadvantages and that this issue can be remedied by teaching the majority language. However, the Commission should have focused on creating systems and structures that support linguistic minorities, ensuring they are not economically marginalized simply because of the language they speak. Rather than addressing the deficiencies in the education system that fail to recognize the languages of linguistic minorities, the report suggests that these individuals and communities learn the majority language to progress. This recommendation reflects a systemic form of state discrimination based on language. It is the state's duty to provide equal opportunities for all citizens, regardless of whether they belong to the majority or a minority group, yet it falls short in fulfilling this obligation. In 2006, the National Commission for Religious and Linguistic Minorities held a workshop on linguistic minorities, during which recommendations were made, including the need for a clear definition of linguistic minority status. This definition could then inform laws designed to provide affirmative action for those facing socio-economic disadvantages. Although the criteria for identifying socio-economic backwardness in linguistic minorities is similar to those used for other backward communities, it suggests that a lack of knowledge of the majority language is a key factor. This addition is problematic. The criteria for assessing the backwardness of a linguistic minority should focus on the risk of language extinction and the lack of institutional support for its development, rather than the ability to speak the majority language. It is crucial to note that merely knowing the majority language does not address the socioeconomic challenges faced by linguistic minorities. True progress can only be achieved by incorporating minority languages into the education system. This approach not only aids in preserving these languages and their associated cultural knowledge but also makes learning easier for students from linguistic minority groups. While the workshop recommendations acknowledge the importance of teachers being proficient in the minority language, they fall short by not recommending that the medium of instruction should be in the minority language for these students. Ultimately, this reflects an effort to assimilate linguistic minorities rather than supporting the integration of their languages into the education system. Affirmative action and language Tribal communities, particularly those belonging to linguistic minorities, are among the most vulnerable groups in India. Despite the critical risk of their languages disappearing, there are very few government initiatives or systems that aim to incorporate these languages into the educational framework. Many of these linguistic minorities are indigenous groups, and they can access reservations in higher education institutions under the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category. However, this situation reflects linguistic discrimination, as these students are compelled to assimilate through education in the dominant language, which often marginalizes their own. This dynamic not only threatens the survival of their languages but also forces individuals to integrate into the majority culture at the expense of their native tongues. The government's promotion of the majority regional language or English as a way out of backwardness creates a conflict between maintaining one's language and striving for social mobility. The use of a foreign language as the medium of instruction for these students often leads to high dropout rates. Those who continue their education often do so at the expense of their native language, further perpetuating cultural assimilation. The High-Level Committee on the Socioeconomic, Health, and Educational Status of Tribal Communities in India highlights that low literacy rates among Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups are due to inadequate educational infrastructure, unqualified teachers, the lack of instruction in tribal languages, and a curriculum that is irrelevant to their needs. Similarly, the Draft National Policy on Tribal Groups recognizes that the shift toward English-medium instruction in schools for tribal communities could contribute to the extinction of many tribal languages, emphasizing the importance of primary education in the mother tongue. With the increasing adoption of English as the medium of instruction, students from indigenous linguistic minorities are struggling to understand the curriculum while simultaneously losing touch with their languages. As a result, these students are unable to fully benefit from affirmative action programs in higher education. It is crucial that the government addresses the gaps in the education system that impact these communities. To effectively use affirmative action, the medium of instruction must be the students' native language, with English or the majority language taught as a secondary language. This approach would not only preserve their languages but also provide these students with a more holistic education, better preparing them for both their cultural identity and future opportunities. What Defines a Linguistic Minority? A linguistic minority refers to a group of individuals whose mother tongue differs from that of the majority population in a state or region. The Indian Constitution guarantees the protection of the rights and interests of linguistic minorities. According to the 2011 Census, approximately 36.3 million people in India, out of a total population of 1.2 billion, speak a language that qualifies as an “absolute minority.” These languages are considered minority languages across all of India’s 28 states. Role of the Special Officer for Linguistic Minorities •    To ensure equal opportunities for the inclusive development and national integration of linguistic minorities. •    To increase awareness among linguistic minorities about their rights and the protections in place for them. •    To monitor and promote the effective implementation of constitutional safeguards for these groups. Appointment of the Special Officer for Linguistic Minorities Initially, the Constitution of India did not mention the position of the Special Officer for Linguistic Minorities. However, the States Reorganization Commission (1953-55) recommended the establishment of this position. Following this, the Seventh Constitutional Amendment Act of 1956 introduced Article 350-B in Part XVII of the Constitution, which outlined the creation of the Special Officer role. According to this provision, the President of India is responsible for appointing the Special Officer. This officer’s duties include investigating matters related to the constitutional protections for linguistic minorities and submitting reports to the President at regular intervals. These reports are then presented before Parliament and shared with the state governments concerned. It is important to note that the Constitution does not define the qualifications, term length, salary, or removal procedure for the Special Officer. Powers, Functions, and Responsibilities Under Article 350-B of the Constitution, the position of the Special Officer for Linguistic Minorities was officially established in 1957, and the officer is referred to as the Commissioner for Linguistic Minorities. The Commissioner operates from New Delhi and oversees three regional offices located in Belgaum (Karnataka), Chennai (Tamil Nadu), Kolkata (West Bengal), and Prayagraj (Uttar Pradesh), each led by an Assistant Commissioner. At the national level, the Commissioner is supported by a Deputy Commissioner and an Assistant Commissioner at headquarters. The Commissioner maintains communication with state governments and Union Territories through designated officers and submits annual or other reports to the President via the Union Minister for Minority Affairs. ANGLO-INDIANS The term "Anglo-Indian" refers to individuals in India with mixed Indian and European ancestry, typically through the paternal side. Historically, the term was used to describe British nationals residing in India from the 18th to early 20th centuries. Over time, the definition of "Anglo-Indian" has evolved. It wasn’t until the 1911 Indian census that the term came to be used as a category for people of mixed ethnic backgrounds. The Government of India Act of 1935 formalized the term by defining an Anglo-Indian as "a person whose father, or any male ancestor in the male line, is of European descent but who is a native of India." This definition was maintained when Anglo-Indians were recognized as an official minority in India’s 1950 Constitution. As the community spread across the world, it has become increasingly difficult to pinpoint their exact numbers or identify them clearly. The Anglo-Indian community is primarily urban and Christian, with roots tracing back to the early interactions between India and Europe, particularly from 1498 when the Portuguese navigator Vasco da Gama landed on the Malabar Coast. Following this, the Portuguese established settlements, and in 1510, Governor Alfonso de Albuquerque conquered Goa, encouraging Portuguese men to marry local Indian women. Their offspring, known as Luso-Indians, marked the beginning of the community. As Portuguese influence waned, these Luso-Indians integrated with the local population, particularly in Goa, Mumbai, and along India’s western coast. Many of these Luso-Indians retained European cultural traditions while blending with other communities of mixed British and Indian descent, ultimately leading to the creation of the Anglo-Indian identity. When the British took control of much of India in the 17th century, many English men came to assist in the administration, and their children with local women were known as "Eurasian" or "halfcaste" until they were later categorized as Anglo-Indians in the early 20th century. After India's independence in 1947, the Anglo-Indian population was around 300,000. However, with the decline in their social status post-independence, many Anglo-Indian families emigrated, primarily to countries like the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, and the United States. Due to their dispersion across the world, there is a broad range of estimates regarding the current population of Anglo-Indians in India, with numbers varying from 30,000 to 150,000. Removal of Anglo-Indians Reservation in Legislative Bodies the Union Cabinet has approved the removal of reservation for Anglo-Indians in legislative bodies. ■    Anglo-Indians were provided two nominated seats in the Lok Sabha and one nominated seat in the State Legislative Assemblies to ensure adequate representation of the community in elected legislative bodies. ■    Anglo-Indians constitute a religious, social, as well as a linguistic minority. Being numerically an extremely small community, and being interspersed all over India, the Anglo-Indians were provided reservations in legislative bodies. ■    The reservation for the Anglo-Indian community was extended till the year 2020 through the 95th Amendment, 2009. Originally,this provision was to operate till 1960. Constitutional Provisions for Anglo-Indians •    Article 366: Defines an Anglo-Indian as a person whose father or male ancestors in the male line were of European descent but who resides in India and was born in the country to parents who were habitual residents and not temporarily residing there. •    Article 331: Allows the President to nominate two members of the Anglo-Indian community to the Lok Sabha if they are underrepresented. •    Article 333: Authorizes the Governor of a state to nominate one Anglo-Indian member to the State Legislative Assembly if the community is not adequately represented. •    Article 334(b): This provision extended the reservation for Anglo-Indians in legislative bodies for 40 years, starting from 1949. •    National Commission for Scheduled Castes (Article 338): This commission investigates matters relating to the constitutional and legal safeguards provided for the Anglo-Indian community and submits reports to the President regarding their implementation. 104th Constitutional Amendment Act The 104th Constitutional Amendment Act, passed in 2019, ended the reservation of seats for Anglo-Indians in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies, while continuing reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for an additional ten years. The amendment bill was introduced by the Minister of Law and Justice, Ravi Shankar Prasad, in the Lok Sabha on December 9, 2019. It was passed on December 10, 2019, with 355 votes in favor and none against. After passing in the Rajya Sabha on December 12, 2019, with 163 votes in favor, it received the assent of President Ram Nath Kovind on January 21, 2020, and became effective on January 25, 2020. Reason for the Amendment Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad explained that although Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes had made significant progress over the last 70 years, the provisions for their representation in the legislature were still relevant. Therefore, the amendment was seen as maintaining the inclusive character of the Constitution, as intended by the framers. The minister also stated that the issue of extending Anglo-Indian reservations had not yet been addressed, although it could be revisited in the future. Criticisms of the Amendment One significant criticism of the amendment was the discontinuation of the reservation for Anglo-Indians, while extending it for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The statement of objects and reasons for the 104th Amendment justifies the extension of SC and ST reservations but does not clarify the decision not to extend the reservation for Anglo-Indians. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Prashar v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas (1963) emphasized that the statement of objects and reasons for a law cannot be used to interpret the law's provisions if the language of the law is clear. However, it can help understand the intent behind the legislation and identify the issues it aims to address. The amendment’s approach to Anglo-Indians, based on the 2011 Census data, contrasts with the spirit in which the Constitution’s drafters intended to address the community’s needs. The 2013 Ministry of Minority Affairs report highlights significant challenges faced by Anglo-Indians, including cultural loss, identity crisis, unemployment, educational disadvantages, and inadequate housing. This broader context, reflected in the parliamentary debates of June 16, 1949, shows that the welfare and representation of Anglo-Indians should have been considered in a more comprehensive manner rather than merely relying on their census numbers. This unequal treatment raises concerns about Parliament's commitment to addressing the unique challenges of the Anglo-Indian community. Self-Check Exercise-1 Q.1 The Constitution of India (Article 350 A) provides that every state must provide primary education in a mother tongue and also provide for the appointment of a ‘Special Officer’ for linguistic minorities (Article 350 B), who is responsible to investigate matters relating to linguistic minorities and report them to the President.True/False Q.2 Seats shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, [except the Scheduled Tribes in the autonomous districts of Assam], in the Legislative Assembly of every State. True/False 16.3 National Commission for Backward Classes The National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) was established on August 14, 1993, under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, as a constitutional body created by the National Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993. Its purpose is to examine the conditions and challenges faced by socially and educationally disadvantaged communities and make suitable recommendations for their upliftment. 1.    The creation of the NCBC was a direct result of the Indra Sawhney case (commonly known as the Mandal Commission case) of 1992. 2.    Following the Supreme Court's decision in the Mandal Commission case, the Court emphasized the formation of NCBC as a statutory body to address the concerns related to backward classes. 3.    The NCBC, headquartered in Delhi, was officially established on August 14, 1993, as per the provisions outlined in the NCBC Act of 1993. 4.    In 2015, the NCBC recommended that individuals with an annual family income of up to ₹15 lakhs, who belong to the Other Backward Classes (OBC), should be recognized under a minimum income ceiling for OBCs. 5.    The Commission also proposed the categorization of OBCs into three subgroups: ‘backward’, ‘more backward’, and ‘extremely backward’. According to NCBC's findings, the number of backward castes in the Central OBC list increased to 5013 by 2016. Structure of NCBC The National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) is comprised of five members, including a Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, and three other members. Each member serves a tenure of three years. The specific members of the NCBC can be found in the table provided below. Constitutional Provisions •    Article 340 outlines the responsibility to identify "socially and educationally backward classes", assess their conditions of backwardness, and provide recommendations to address their challenges. •    The 102nd Constitutional Amendment Act introduced new Articles 338B and 342A. •    Article 338B grants the NCBC the authority to examine grievances and welfare measures concerning socially and educationally backward classes. •    Article 342A gives the President the power to designate socially and educationally backward classes in various states and Union Territories in consultation with the respective state governors. However, any amendment to the list of backward classes requires an act of Parliament. The Other Backward Classes While the Indian Constitution specifically provides reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), the provision for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) has been more general. There is no nationwide list of OBCs, but both the Ministry of Education and State Governments have created their own lists, often leading to discrepancies. To address this, the Backward Classes Commission was formed in 1953 under Kaka Kalekar to establish criteria for identifying socially and educationally backward classes. The Commission prepared a detailed list based on factors such as social hierarchy, literacy rates, and representation in services and industries. However, the recommendations of the Commission were not fully accepted, leading to further reliance on state criteria for identifying OBCs. Some states, like Karnataka, established special commissions to identify backward classes, while others introduced laws to provide reservations or special facilities for these communities. In regions where such provisions were weak or absent, movements for reservations began to gain momentum. As the demand for OBC reservations became a national issue, the Mandal Commission was formed to study the situation. Though it submitted its report in 1980, its recommendations were implemented in 1990 by the V.P. Singh government, leading to the reservation of 27% of posts in central government services for socially and educationally backward classes. This decision sparked widespread protests from middle and upper castes. Criteria for Identifying Backward Classes 1.    Economic Status: Since 1961, the central government has emphasized using economic criteria to define backwardness. While some states have resisted this due to political pressure from powerful castes, many have now adopted this criterion for awarding scholarships and other benefits to OBCs. 2.    Caste and Class Dynamics: The core of the OBC population consists of peasant castes that occupy a lower position in the caste hierarchy but are often above untouchables. These groups have historically lacked access to education and government jobs. In some areas, these dominant castes have exerted significant control over local economies and politics, leading to debates about their continued status as backward classes to maintain access to government benefits. Through these measures, both the central and state governments aim to address the educational and social disadvantages faced by these communities, though the issue remains a complex and evolving one. NCBC- Powers and Functions 1.    To investigate and monitor all the matters of the socially and educationally backward classes under the Constitution or under any other law that are related to the proper working of the safeguards provided. 2.    To participate and advise actively on the socio-economic development of the socially backward classes along with evaluating the progress of their development. 3.    It annually presents the reports based on the working of the safeguards to the President. If any of those reports relate to any matter which is concerned with the State Government, a copy of that report is forwarded to the State Government. 4.    NCBC is responsible for the protection, welfare, development and advancement of the socially and educationally backward classes. Benefits of the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) •    The NCBC ensures justice for socially and educationally disadvantaged communities. •    It works to address the issues of backward classes and promote social equality in society. •    The Commission helps members of backward communities seek justice for atrocities committed against them. •    The inclusion of a female member from backward classes in the proposed Commission is a positive step. •    The creation of the NCBC does not infringe upon the authority of state governments, as they can maintain their own backward class commissions. •    The NCBC is placed on an equal footing with the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST). Challenges Faced by the NCBC •    Several states have yet to implement the 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs). •    Legislation alone has not been sufficient to address the issue, as the impact has not reached the grassroots level. For example, recent data shows that only 7 out of every 100 teachers in central universities belong to the SC/ST and OBC categories. •    OBC representation in high judicial bodies such as the Supreme Court and state high courts remains minimal. •    There is disproportionate representation of OBCs in various government bodies, including committees, commissions, and boards. •    The recommendations made by the commissions are not legally binding on the government. •    Critics argue that the scope of reservation is limited, especially given the current push for public-private partnerships and privatization, as promoted by NITI Aayog. Way Forward for the NCBC •    It is crucial to ensure proper representation of backward classes, helping them integrate into the national mainstream. •    The government must release the results of the caste census and adjust reservation policies accordingly. •    Sub-categorizing OBCs could facilitate better access to reservations in education and government jobs, particularly for the less dominant subgroups. •    Political parties need to prioritize social justice over vote bank politics to create meaningful change for backward communities. Self-Check Exercise-2 Q.1 Many states have not implemented 27 per cent reservation to the OBCs. True/False Q.2 Article 338B provides authority to NCBC to examine complaints and welfare measures regarding socially and educationally backward classes. True/False 20.4    SUMMARY The founders of the Indian Republic and framers of the Constitution recognized the importance of implementing specific protections for the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) to ensure their upliftment. The Constitution of India incorporates several provisions aimed at safeguarding the rights and welfare of these communities, making it a distinctive feature of the nation’s legal framework. One such measure is reservation, which involves reserving a certain percentage of seats in educational institutions, government jobs, and legislative bodies for the members of these marginalized groups. Advocates and scholars have long supported the concept of affirmative action and protective discrimination as essential tools for empowering these communities. Both the Central and State Governments have introduced various welfare programs and initiatives to fulfill their constitutional commitments and help SCs and STs progress socially, economically, politically, and culturally. Numerous Centrally Sponsored Schemes have been launched to support these communities in the post-independence period. However, the full realization of these constitutional safeguards has often been hindered by a lack of organized advocacy from Dalit groups and a lack of political commitment from those in power. Progressive Dalit thinkers and activists in India continue to advocate for a more robust and equitable system, often referring to the need for a "Bhim Rajya" to ensure true empowerment and justice for these communities. 20.5    Glossary •    Vulnerable- weak and easy to hurt physically or emotionally. •    Descent - a person’s family origins. 20.6    Answers to self-check exercises Self-Check Exercise-1 Q.1 True Q.2 True Self-Check Exercise-2 Q.1 True Q.2 True 20.7    References/Suggested Readings 20.8    Terminal questions Q1 Discuss the current status of provisions for Anglo-Indians in the Constitution of India. Q2 Discuss the Structure and functions of NCBC. Q3 Discuus various provisions to minimise the atrocities on SCs’/STs’. 111