Understanding the Nature and Scope of Fundamental Rights in India

Every democracy needs a firewall – a set of guarantees that stand between the individual and the potentially overwhelming power of the State. In India, that firewall is Part III of the Constitution, which enshrines the Fundamental Rights under Articles 12 to 35. But what exactly makes these rights “fundamental”? Why are they enforceable in court when so many other constitutional provisions are not? And who, or what, counts as the “State” against which these rights can be invoked? Understanding the nature and scope of Fundamental Rights is the starting point for understanding Indian constitutional law itself.

What makes a right “fundamental”? 🔗

The word “fundamental” is not merely decorative. These rights are called fundamental because they are protected by the highest law of the land – the Constitution itself – and cannot be taken away by ordinary legislation. Unlike statutory rights, which a simple majority in Parliament can modify or repeal, Fundamental Rights can be curtailed only through a constitutional amendment, and even then, as the Supreme Court held in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), Parliament cannot destroy their basic structure.

They are also fundamental in a deeper, philosophical sense. These rights are essential for the all-round development of every individual – material, intellectual, moral, and spiritual. They are the constitutional promise that every person in India can live with dignity, pursue their potential, and be free from arbitrary interference. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the chief architect of the Constitution, described the right to constitutional remedies (Article 32) as the “heart and soul of the Constitution” – a telling indication of how seriously the framers treated these guarantees.

The historical and global foundations 🔗

The framers of the Indian Constitution did not draft the Fundamental Rights in a vacuum. They drew on a rich tradition of rights-based documents from across the world. The United States Bill of Rights (1791) directly inspired the structure and enforceability of Indian Fundamental Rights, while France’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) emphasised liberty, equality, and fraternity as universal values. England’s Magna Carta of 1215, the first written document limiting sovereign power, also contributed to the conceptual framework. After World War II, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) reinforced the global consensus on human dignity and justice – a consensus the Indian Constitution chose to reflect.

Closer to home, India’s own freedom struggle shaped the content of these rights. Decades of colonial rule had demonstrated exactly what happens when a state operates without accountability – arbitrary arrests, suppression of speech, denial of equality. The framers were determined that the new Indian state would be structurally constrained from repeating those abuses. Part III of the Constitution is said to contain the Bill of Rights for the people of India, a necessary consequence of the solemn commitments in the Preamble to secure justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity.

Who are these rights enforceable against? Understanding “the State” 🔗

One of the most critical questions in Fundamental Rights jurisprudence is: against whom can these rights be enforced? The answer lies in Article 12, which defines “the State” for the purposes of Part III. The definition is deliberately broad.

Article 12 states that “the State” includes the Government and Parliament of India, the Government and 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 means that Fundamental Rights are enforceable not just against the Union or State executive – they apply to a wide range of bodies exercising governmental power.

Expanding the meaning of “other authorities” 🔗

The phrase “other authorities” has been the subject of extensive judicial interpretation. In Electricity Board of Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal (1967), the Supreme Court held that any body created by statute whose powers are conferred by law qualifies as “the State” under Article 12 – even if it performs commercial rather than purely governmental functions. In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1981), the Court refined the test further, holding that if the government exercises deep and pervasive control over an entity, that entity is “the State” regardless of its formal structure.

Importantly, the judiciary is considered “the State” only when performing administrative or non-judicial functions – for example, in employment matters or exam administration. When acting judicially, it falls outside Article 12, which is why judicial decisions cannot ordinarily be challenged directly under Article 32.

Horizontal application: a developing frontier 🔗

Traditionally, Fundamental Rights operated “vertically” – that is, they protected individuals from State action, not from actions of other private individuals. However, this is an evolving area. In Kaushal Kishor (2023), the Supreme Court expanded the scope of Fundamental Rights against both State and non-State actors, marking a significant doctrinal shift that legal scholars continue to debate. Meanwhile, certain rights – like the prohibition of untouchability under Article 17 and the ban on forced labour under Article 23 – have always been enforceable against private individuals as well, reflecting the Constitution’s intent to also reform entrenched social inequalities.

The six categories of fundamental rights 🔗

Part III organises Fundamental Rights into six broad categories. These are: the Right to Equality (Articles 14-18); the Right to Freedom (Articles 19-22); the Right against Exploitation (Articles 23-24); the Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-28); Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29-30); and the Right to Constitutional Remedies (Articles 32-35).

Originally, the Right to Property was also a Fundamental Right under Article 31. However, it was removed by the 44th Constitutional Amendment in 1978 because it was seen as an obstacle to achieving equality and equitable distribution of resources. It now exists as a constitutional right under Article 300-A, but without the heightened protection of Part III. Conversely, the Right to Education was added as Article 21-A through the 86th Amendment in 2002, reflecting the Constitution’s capacity to evolve alongside social priorities.

Key features of fundamental rights: what sets them apart 🔗

Several features define the nature of Fundamental Rights and distinguish them from other constitutional provisions.

They are justiciable 🔗

The most defining feature is enforceability. These rights are justiciable – any person whose Fundamental Rights are violated can directly approach the Supreme Court under Article 32, or a High Court under Article 226, for enforcement. This access to constitutional remedies is itself a Fundamental Right, ensuring the system is self-enforcing. The Supreme Court and High Courts can issue writs – habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, and quo warranto – to direct the State to comply.

They are not absolute 🔗

These rights are not absolute but qualified – the State can impose reasonable restrictions on them, and the reasonableness of those restrictions is ultimately judged by the courts. For instance, freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) can be restricted on grounds such as national security, public order, or decency. The Constitution thus builds a balance: maximum freedom compatible with the collective good.

Some rights are for citizens only; others are universal 🔗

Not all Fundamental Rights are available to everyone equally. Some rights are available only to citizens, while others are available to all persons – whether citizens, foreigners, or legal persons like corporations. For example, the six freedoms under Article 19 (speech, assembly, movement, etc.) are exclusively for citizens. The right to equality before law under Article 14 and the right to life under Article 21, however, extend to all persons on Indian soil.

They are both negative and positive in character 🔗

Some Fundamental Rights are negative in nature – they restrict the State from doing something (for example, Article 15 prohibits the State from discriminating on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth). Others are positive – they confer specific privileges or entitlements (for example, Article 16 guarantees equal opportunity in public employment). This dual character reflects a sophisticated understanding of liberty: freedom is not just about being left alone, but also about having real opportunities to participate in society.

Article 13 and the doctrine of judicial review 🔗

Article 13 is the enforcement backbone of Part III. It declares that any law – whether pre-Constitution or post-Constitution – that is inconsistent with or in derogation of any Fundamental Right shall be void to the extent of that inconsistency. This provision formally establishes the power of judicial review in India, allowing courts to strike down legislation that violates Fundamental Rights. Article 13 declares that any law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights is void to the extent of inconsistency and prevents the State from enacting laws that abridge these rights.

How landmark cases have shaped the scope of fundamental rights 🔗

The courts have played a transformative role in expanding what Fundamental Rights mean in practice. The trajectory from A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) – which read each right in isolation – to Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) is one of the most significant shifts in Indian constitutional history.

In Maneka Gandhi, the Supreme Court held that any procedure depriving a person of life or personal liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable – effectively reading due process into Article 21. The Court also ruled that Articles 14, 19, and 21 must be read together as a “golden triangle,” meaning a law cannot satisfy one of these articles while violating the others. This decision dramatically widened the scope of Article 21 beyond mere physical existence to include the right to live with human dignity.

Subsequent decisions continued to expand this scope. The right to privacy was declared a Fundamental Right in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), extending the protections of Article 21 into the digital age. The right to a clean environment, the right to livelihood, and the right to speedy trial have all been read into Article 21 by the Supreme Court, demonstrating that Fundamental Rights are not a static list but a living framework responsive to new realities.

Reasonable restrictions: the constitutional balance 🔗

Freedom without limits is chaos; restrictions without limits are tyranny. The Constitution navigates this tension by explicitly allowing the State to impose reasonable restrictions on several Fundamental Rights, particularly those under Article 19. The grounds for restrictions – which vary depending on the specific right – include sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign countries, public order, decency or morality, and contempt of court.

Crucially, the word “reasonable” is not decorative. Courts scrutinise whether restrictions are proportionate, whether they are necessary, and whether they minimally impair the right in question. An unreasonable or vague restriction will be struck down. This is exactly what happened in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), where the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, finding that its vague and overbroad terms violated freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a).

There are also situations where Fundamental Rights can be suspended altogether – during a national emergency under Article 352, the President may suspend the right to constitutional remedies (except Articles 20 and 21), temporarily narrowing the scope of Part III. Parliament can also restrict the application of Fundamental Rights to members of the armed forces under Article 33 to ensure discipline and operational effectiveness.

Why fundamental rights matter beyond the courtroom 🔗

Fundamental Rights are not just litigation tools. They form the bedrock of the democratic system and facilitate people’s participation in the politico-administrative process. They serve as bulwarks of individual liberty and the rule of law by keeping a check on the authoritarianism of the State. They protect minorities, abolish social inequalities like untouchability, and ensure that no group – however politically marginalised – can be silenced or exploited without constitutional consequence.

They also enable Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Because the Constitution allows any person – not just the aggrieved party – to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights, poverty-stricken individuals who lack the means to litigate can have their rights vindicated through PIL filed by others in the public interest. This has made Fundamental Rights genuinely accessible, not merely aspirational.

What do you think? Given that courts have expanded Article 21 to include rights like privacy, a clean environment, and livelihood – rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution – where should the boundary of judicial interpretation lie? And as private corporations increasingly exercise power that rivals that of the State, should Fundamental Rights be more directly enforceable against them too?

References

1. https://knowindia.india.gov.in/profile/fundamental-rights.php
2. https://www.drishtiias.com/to-the-points/Paper2/fundamental-rights-part-1
3. https://www.nextias.com/blog/fundamental-rights/
4. https://www.studyiq.com/articles/fundamental-rights-of-indian-constitution/
5. https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/article-12-and-13-of-the-constitution-of-india/
6. https://www.hustlinglearning.com/2024/07/article-12-state.html
7. https://sakthisailawacademy.com/2025/11/22/article-12-state-under-the-indian-constitution-most-important-solved-mcqs-descriptive-notes-for-ugc-net-set-aibe-judiciary/
8. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-legal-information/article/abs/ghost-of-article-12-in-the-indian-constitution-the-verticality-v-horizontality-conundrum/202F109021372CA41916F7BD642AFCB3
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_rights_in_India
10. https://vajiramandravi.com/current-affairs/part-3-of-indian-constitution/
11. https://www.ekamiasacademy.com/fundamental-rights-articles-12-35-the-soul-of-the-indian-constitution/