Indian Constitution: Fundamental Rights & Landmark Judgments

Article 12: Defining "The State"

Key Principles of Article 12

• Inclusive Definition: Encompasses Government, Parliament, State Legislatures, local authorities, and other authorities.
• Purpose: Defines entities bound by Fundamental Rights in Part III of the Constitution.
• Judicial Evolution: Interpretation has evolved from narrow to broad.

The "Other Authorities" Test

Pradeep Kumar Biswas Test (2002)

• Focuses on Deep & Pervasive Control (DPC).
• Requires examination of cumulative facts showing financial, functional, and administrative domination.
• Control must be pervasive, not merely regulatory oversight.
• Refines the Ajay Hasia factors, emphasizing control.

Structuralism vs. Functionalism Debate

• Structuralism: Emphasizes formal links and control focus (dominant in the Pradeep Kumar Biswas test).
• Functionalism: Considers the nature of the action and its public importance (advocated by Justice Mathew in Sukhdev Singh).
• Current Position: The Pradeep Kumar Biswas test exhibits a structuralist bias.

Key Cases on Article 12

Zoroastrian Co-operative Housing Society (2005)

• Private bodies and contracts are generally not directly subject to Fundamental Rights.
• Upholds Article 19(1)(c) freedom of association regarding membership rules.

Ramakrishna Mission (2019)

• Distinguishes the Article 12 definition of "State" from "Public Function" under Article 226.
• For Article 226, the function must be closely related to a sovereign function OR involve significant state control.
• Aid, land, or regulation alone are insufficient without management control.

Article 13: Constitutional Supremacy of Fundamental Rights

Key Principles of Article 13

• Declares laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights (FRs) as void.
• Protects FRs by making them justiciable.
• Defines "law" and "laws in force" for constitutional scrutiny.

Temporal Effects of Article 13

Pre-Constitution Laws (Article 13(1))

• Keshava Madhava Menon (1951): Such laws are void prospectively, not ab initio.
• Doctrine of Eclipse: Laws become dormant but can revive if the relevant Fundamental Right changes.

Post-Constitution Laws (Article 13(2))

• CBI v. RR Kishore (2023): These laws are void ab initio ("stillborn").
• The Doctrine of Eclipse does not apply to post-Constitution laws.
• Voidness operates retrospectively by default.

Scope of "Law" and "Laws in Force"

• Narasu Appa Mali (1952): Initially held that personal laws were NOT "laws in force" under Article 13(1).
• Indian Young Lawyers Association (Sabarimala, 2019): Overruled Narasu, affirming that personal laws ARE subject to constitutional scrutiny.
• Flavia Agnes: Highlights personal laws as colonial constructs that often eroded women's rights.

Article 14: Right to Equality

Two Doctrinal Approaches to Equality

Classification Doctrine (Traditional Approach)

• Chiranjit Lal Chaudhary (1950): Established the reasonable classification test.
• Requires:
  • Intelligible Differentia (ID): A clear basis for distinction.
  • Rational Relation (RR): The classification must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.
• Kathi Raning Rawat (1952): Permitted classification by offense or territory.
• Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952): Ruled that unguided executive power violates Article 14.
• Indian Hotels (2013): Held that classification based on stereotypes or class is invalid.

Arbitrariness Doctrine (Modern Approach)

• E.P. Royappa (1974): Declared that arbitrariness is antithetical to equality.
• Vikash Kumar (2021): Emphasized substantive equality and reasonable accommodation.
• Electoral Bonds (2024): Highlighted political equality and manifest arbitrariness.

Critique by Tarunabh Khaitan

• Classification Doctrine: Criticized as too formal, deferential, and for ignoring actual impact.
• Arbitrariness Doctrine: Seen as vague, not truly comparative, and carrying a risk of overreach.
• Proposed Need: A richer classification test, more closely tethered to the concept of equality.

Article 15: Prohibition of Discrimination

Key Principles of Article 15

• Prohibits discrimination solely on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
• Historically focused on formal equality.
• Modern jurisprudence shows a shift toward substantive equality and indirect discrimination.

Jurisprudential Evolution of Article 15

Anuj Garg (2008)

• Rejected outdated stereotypes about sex.
• Emphasized the State's duty for empowerment and security, not prohibition based on sex.

Nitisha (2021): Indirect Discrimination Doctrine

• Introduced a 3-Part Test for indirect discrimination:
  1. Disproportionate Impact: On a protected group.
  2. Exacerbation: Of historical or systemic disadvantage.
  3. Justification: State must prove necessity (burden shifts to the State).

Supriyo (2023)

• CJI's minority opinion suggested "sex" in Article 15(1) includes sexual orientation.
• Non-recognition of same-sex relationships could constitute indirect discrimination.

Disability Rights Constitutionalism

• Rajive Raturi (2024): Linked accessibility to Articles 14, 15, and 21.
• Lack of accessibility is considered discrimination.
• The State has a mandatory duty to ensure accessibility.

Article 16: Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment

Reservation Framework under Article 16

Indra Sawhney (1993) - Mandal Commission Case

• Article 16(4) is NOT an exception to 16(1), but an instance of classification.
• "Backward Class" primarily refers to social backwardness.
• Caste can be an indicator (but not the sole criterion) for Hindus.
• "Creamy Layer" exclusion is mandatory.
• A 50% cap on total reservation was established as a rule of prudence.
• Initially, no reservation in promotion was allowed under Article 16(4).

Constitutional Amendments & Judicial Response

• M. Nagaraj (2006): Upheld amendments allowing reservation in promotion but required quantifiable data for backwardness and inadequacy of representation.
• Jarnail Singh (2018): Modified Nagaraj, stating that backwardness data is not required for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST).
• Janhit Abhiyan (2022): Upheld the 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS).

Key Principles of Public Employment Reservation

• Reservation must be based on backwardness and inadequate representation.
• Mandatory exclusion of the creamy layer.
• General 50% ceiling (with the EWS reservation being an exception).
• Consideration for administrative efficiency (Article 335).

Articles 17 & 18: Abolition of Untouchability and Titles

Article 17: Abolition of Untouchability

• Safai Karmachari Andolan (2014): Ruled that manual scavenging violates both Article 17 and Article 21.
• Prathvi Raj Chauhan (2020): Affirmed that provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are necessary to enforce Article 17.

Article 18: Abolition of Titles

• Balaji Raghavan (1996): Held that national awards (e.g., Bharat Ratna) are not "titles" under Article 18(1).
• Awards must not be used as suffixes or prefixes to names.

Article 19: Protection of Certain Rights Regarding Freedoms

Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of Speech & Expression

• Includes freedom of the press, right to information, and the right not to speak.
• Sakal Papers (1962): Introduced the Direct vs. Incidental Effect Test.
• Bennett Coleman (1973): Subjected executive action to Article 19 scrutiny.
• Madhyamam Broadcasting (2023): Applied the Proportionality Test for Article 19 restrictions.

Article 19(1)(b): Freedom of Assembly

• Amit Sahni (2020): Ruled that the right to protest is limited in public spaces.
• Vrinda Grover: Offers a critique of restrictive laws and practices concerning assembly.

Article 19(1)(g): Freedom of Trade & Business

• Chintaman Rao (1951): Established the reasonable restriction test.
• Cellular Operators (2016): Held that regulation must be reasonable, not arbitrary.

Article 20: Protection in Respect of Conviction for Offences

Article 20(1): Protection Against Ex Post Facto Laws

• CBI v. RR Kishore (2023): Protects only against conviction or sentence under retrospective laws, not procedural changes.

Article 20(3): Protection Against Self-Incrimination

• Selvi v. Karnataka (2010): Ruled that involuntary narco-analysis or polygraph tests violate Article 20(3).
• Nandini Satpathy: Extended protection against self-incrimination to the investigation stage.
• Ritesh Sinha: Held that a voice sample is not testimonial evidence and thus not protected under Article 20(3).

Article 21: Protection of Life and Personal Liberty

Jurisprudential Evolution of Article 21

• A.K. Gopalan (1950): Initially, a narrow interpretation, offering only procedural protection.
• R.C. Cooper (1970): Established that Fundamental Rights overlap and are not to be interpreted in silos.
• Maneka Gandhi (1978): Mandated that any procedure depriving life or liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable.

Modern Applications of Article 21

• X v. Principal Secretary (2022): Affirmed reproductive autonomy and access to Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP).
• Puttaswamy (2017): Declared the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right.

Article 21A: Right to Education

• Society for Unaided Private Schools (2012): Upheld the Right to Education (RTE) Act's validity for non-minority schools.
• Pramati (2014): Ruled the RTE Act invalid for minority schools, citing protection under Article 30.

Article 22: Protection Against Arrest and Detention

Preventive Detention under Article 22

• A.K. Roy (1982): Affirmed that preventive detention is constitutionally permissible, but with limited rights for the detenu.
• Ujjwal Kumar Singh: Offers a critique of extraordinary laws related to preventive detention.

Articles 25-30: Religious and Cultural Rights

Articles 25-28: Freedom of Religion

• Shirur Mutt (1954): Established the autonomy of religious denominations.
• Venkataramana Devaru (1958): Advocated for harmonious construction of Article 25(2)(b) and 26(b).
• Rev. Stainislaus (1977): Clarified that the right to propagate religion does not include the right to convert.
• Bijoe Emmanuel (1986): Upheld protection of conscience, including the right not to sing the national anthem.
• Acharya Jagdishwaranand (2004): Developed the Essential Religious Practice (ERP) test.

Articles 29-30: Cultural & Educational Rights

• TMA Pai (2003): Defined the rights of educational institutions.
• Aligarh Muslim University (2024): Ruled that establishment by a minority is necessary for Minority Educational Institution (MEI) status.

Exam Success Tips for Constitutional Law

• Structure Answers Clearly: Utilize appropriate headings and subheadings.
• Focus on Principles: Identify the core constitutional principles at stake in each question.
• Cite Leading Cases: Demonstrate knowledge of landmark judgments and their significance.
• Balance Depth and Breadth: Cover key points comprehensively without excessive detail.
• Connect to Constitutional Framework: Link individual articles and doctrines to broader constitutional values.