The document discusses the origin and development of fundamental rights in India. It notes that Part III of the Indian Constitution, containing fundamental rights, is described as the Magna Carta of India. It also discusses key cases like Maneka Gandhi and A.K. Gopalan that expanded the scope and interpretation of fundamental rights. The judiciary has taken an expansive view of fundamental rights to protect citizens from encroachment by the government and establish the principles of rule of law.

1. Fundamental Rights
Origin and Development of Fundamental
Rights
Part III
Described as Magna Carta of India
Magna Carta is the written document of
evidence of English people for their success
for liberties (1215)
Bill of Rights (1689) : rights and liberties of
English People
America : The Bill of Rights in Constitution

2.  Need for Fundamental Rights
To protect the rights and liberties of
the people
To prevent encroachment of
Administratives
FR are limitations upon powers of
Government, Legislatives,
Executives
Essential for preservation of public
and private rights

3.  In the Case of Maneka Gandhi,
Bhagwati J., observed
 FR as basic values cherished by the
people of this country since Vedic
times
 FR Weave pattern of guarantee on the
basic structure of human rights
 FR impose negative obligations on the
State not to encroach liberty

4.  Fundamental :
◦ Most essential of attainment by
individual
◦ For his intellectual, moral and
spiritual status
◦ Declaration of FR is a reminder to
Government for protection of liberties
◦ Parliamentary form : Majority party
may encroach citizen’s liberties
◦ FR in Constitutions : sanctity

5.  Object of FR in Constitution:
To establish Government of Law
No tyranny of Majority
Rule of Law
to provide security and equality of
citizenship
to provide certain standards of
conduct, citizenship, justice, and fair

6.  Striking Balance between individual
liberty and social need
 FR not absolute and unrestricted
 States has no absolute power to
determine the extent of liberties
 Reasonable restrictions To prevent
conflict with public welfare or general
morality

7. Widest Interpretation of provision of Part III
:
Correct way to Interpret the provisions
is to expand the reach and ambit of
Fundamental Rights
In Maneka Gandhi’s case court taken
the view that all provisions are
interrelated
The judiciary must view the integral part
as well as basic nature and character

8.  In Gopalan’s case, the Court had
taken the view –
 Every Article dealt with separate rights
 No relation with each other
 Every article is a specific provision
 The Court altered this view in the case
of Maneka Gandhi
 In Gopalan’s case Court held that Art.
21 could not be tested under Art. 19;
overruled this in Maneka Gandhi’s
case

9.  A.K. Gopalan V. UOI
 Petitioner a communist leader was
detained under the Preventive
Detention Act 1950,
 Petitioner challenged the validity of his
detention under the Act on the ground
that it was violative of his to freedom
of movement under Art 19(1)(d)
 Which is the very essence of personal
liberty guaranteed by Art. 21
 Court held that he can not claim for
right to freedom as he was detained
under a valid law of the State

10.  But the Court overruled the view and
also widened the scope of the words
personal liberty in Maneka Gandhi case
 Petitioner’s passport was impounded by
the Central Government u/S 10(3)(c) of
the Passport Act 1967
 Govt. authorised the action in the
interest of general public
 The petitioner challenged the validity of
said order on the grounds that they are
violative Art. 14, Art. 21, Art 19(1)(a) and
(g)
 The Court interpreted that provisions of
FR are interrelated

11.  Natural Justice and due Process
 In Maneka Gandhi’s Case :
 SC held that Procedure depriving a
person of his ‘life or personal liberty
must be just, fair and reasonable’
 It must satisfy the requirement of
natural justice, essential component of
fair procedure under Art. 21
 Principles of Natural Justice

12. Prisoners Rights and Prison Reforms
:
 SC widened the scope of Art. 21
 Held that its protection available for
safeguarding the FR of prisoners
 And for effecting prison reforms
 Convicts are human beings and until
they are hanged; they are entitled to
live in jail as human beings
 Inhuman and barbarous treatment with
prisoners is a constitutional
prohibitions

13.  Expanding Role of writ of Habeas Corpus:
 - releasing a person from illegal detention
 - directing jail authorities to provide
necessary amenities to prisoners
 - to protect them from inhuman and
barbarous treatment
 Sunil Batra Case : (
 Petitioner was beaten and his anus was
pierced with a warder’s baton on refusal to
give money to jail authority. (Tehar Central
Jail)
 Sunil Batra brought this incident to the
knowledge to the Court through a letter

14.  In A.B.S.K. Sangh (Rly) v. UOI AIR 1981
–
 Court held that even an unregistered
association can maintain a petition for
relief u/Art. 32
 -if there is a common grievance
 Public Action Litigation &
 Representative proceedings is the
modern jurisprudence
 The Court held that – any member of the
public having sufficient interest can
approach the Court for enforcing
constitutional or legal rights of such
persons even through a letter

15.  Human Rights Jurisprudence :
 SC – protecting prisoners from various
inhuman and barbarous treatment
 1979 India became party to
International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights
 Art. 10 provides – treatment with
humility and inherent dignity of the
human persons
 Art. 5 of UNDHR – 1948 – prohibits
inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishments