Definition and Nature 

Fundamental Rights are basic human rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) to protect individual dignity and freedom. These rights are enshrined in Part III (Articles 12-35) of the Constitution and form the foundation of India's democratic system. They are called "fundamental" because they are essential for the all-round development of individuals and cannot be taken away by any government through ordinary legislation. 

Constitutional Protection and Enforcement 

• Fundamental Rights are justiciable, meaning they can be enforced through courts of law. Article 32, known as the "Heart of the Constitution," guarantees citizens the right to directly approach the Supreme Court when their fundamental rights are violated. 
• The Supreme Court and High Courts have the power to issue writs (legal orders) such as habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto to protect these rights.  
• This judicial protection ensures that no authority - whether government, legislature, or executive - can violate these rights without facing legal consequences. 

Scope and Categories on Fundamental Rights 

• Fundamental Rights covers six main categories that protect different aspects of human life and dignity.  
  • The Right to Equality (Articles 14-18) ensures equal treatment before law and prohibits discrimination.  
  • The Right to Freedom (Articles 19-22) protects basic liberties like speech, movement, and personal liberty.  
  • The Right against Exploitation (Articles 23-24) prevents human trafficking and child labor.  
  • The Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-28) guarantees religious freedom and tolerance.  
  • Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29-30) protect minority interests and educational freedom.  
  • Finally, the Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32) provides the mechanism to enforce all other rights. 

Limitations and Reasonable Restrictions on Fundamental Rights 

• While Fundamental Rights are supreme, they are not absolute and can be subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, morality, health, and national security.  
• The Constitution allows the state to impose limitations on these rights when necessary for the welfare of society as a whole.  
• For example, freedom of speech does not include the right to defame others or incite violence.  
• These restrictions must be "reasonable" and proportionate - they cannot completely destroy the essence of the right.  
• The balance between individual freedom and social responsibility is maintained through judicial review, where courts determine whether any restriction on fundamental rights is justified and constitutional. 

Important Case Laws on Fundamental Rights  

• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): 
  • Expanded the meaning of 'right to life' under Article 21 by introducing the concept of 'due process of law'. The Supreme Court ruled that any procedure depriving life or liberty must be fair, just and reasonable. 
• Mohammed Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985): 
  • Upheld a divorced Muslim woman's right to maintenance from her former husband, challenging personal religious laws. This case brought the debate on Uniform Civil Code to the forefront of national discourse. 
• Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992): 
  • Upheld the constitutionality of reservations for OBCs while introducing the 'creamy layer' concept. The Court capped reservation quota at 50% and limited it to initial appointments, not promotions. 
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): 
  • Established guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at workplace in absence of legislation. The Court relied on international conventions like CEDAW and provided the first authoritative definition of sexual harassment in India. 
• Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011): 
  • Passive euthanasia is recognized as constitutional, allowing withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for terminally ill patients. Later in 2018, the concept of 'living will' was also accepted by the Supreme Court. 
• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): 
  • Established the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21. The Court laid down the proportionality test for any state action restricting privacy rights and upheld the validity of Aadhaar scheme. 
• Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): 
  • Decriminalized homosexuality by striking down parts of Section 377 of IPC. The Court held that criminalizing consensual sexual conduct between same-sex adults violated fundamental rights to privacy, equality, and life. 

Conflict between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy DPSP 

• The conflict between Fundamental Rights (FR) and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) arises when the state attempts to implement DPSPs, which may violate the fundamental rights of citizens. This represents a broader conflict between individual rights and state policy objectives. 
• While DPSPs are not enforceable by law and serve as directives to the state, implementing them can sometimes restrict fundamental rights like equality (Article 14) or freedom of speech (Article 19). The Supreme Court has consistently upheld individual rights over state directives, establishing that fundamental rights generally take precedence. 
• Through landmark cases like Champakam Dorairajan v. State of Madras (1952), Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), and Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980), the courts have evolved a nuanced approach. The current position grants precedence to DPSPs under Articles 39(b) and 39(c) over Articles 14 and 19, while maintaining the supremacy of fundamental rights over other DPSPs 
• The constitutional balance between protecting individual liberties and enabling the state to pursue social and economic justice goals.