Fundamental Rights are enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution, covering Articles 12 to 35. The framers of the Constitution drew inspiration from the United States Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights. Part III of the Constitution is often referred to as the “Magna Carta of India” due to its comprehensive and detailed list of justiciable rights.
These rights are considered more extensive than those found in the constitutions of many other countries, including the U.S. Fundamental Rights are guaranteed to all individuals regardless of discrimination, promoting the equality of all, preserving individual dignity, and supporting the public interest and national unity.
The purpose of these rights is to uphold the principles of political democracy and prevent the establishment of authoritarian rule. They safeguard individual liberties and freedoms against violations by the state, acting as checks on potential executive tyranny and arbitrary laws enacted by the legislature. Essentially, they aim to establish “a government of laws and not of men.”
The term “Fundamental Rights” reflects their guaranteed protection by the Constitution, which serves as the fundamental law of the land. These rights are also termed “fundamental” because they are crucial for the all-round development of individuals—material, intellectual, moral, and spiritual.
Initially, the Constitution recognized seven Fundamental Rights:
However, the Right to Property was removed from the list of Fundamental Rights by the 44th Amendment Act in 1978, and is now recognized as a legal right under Article 300-A in Part XII of the Constitution. As a result, there are currently six Fundamental Rights in the Constitution.

The Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution are characterized by several key features:
These features highlight the significance of Fundamental Rights in protecting individual liberties while also allowing for the governance necessary to maintain social order and public interest.

The definition of “State” is thus broad and inclusive, ensuring that all agencies and bodies acting on behalf of the government are encompassed within this term. Actions taken by these agencies can be contested in court if they are believed to violate Fundamental Rights.
Additionally, the Supreme Court has clarified that even private bodies or agencies functioning as instruments of the State fall under the definition of “State” as outlined in Article 12. This broad interpretation allows for comprehensive protection of Fundamental Rights against various forms of authority.
Article 13 of the Indian Constitution states that any law that contradicts or undermines any Fundamental Rights shall be declared void. This article explicitly establishes the principle of judicial review, granting the Supreme Court (under Article 32) and the High Courts (under Article 226) the authority to declare laws unconstitutional and invalid if they violate Fundamental Rights.
The definition of “law” in Article 13 includes a broad range of legal provisions, encompassing the following:
As a result, not only legislative enactments but also the aforementioned types of laws can be challenged in court for violating Fundamental Rights and can, therefore, be declared void.
Moreover, Article 13 specifies that constitutional amendments do not fall within the definition of “law” and, as such, cannot be challenged. However, in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Supreme Court ruled that a constitutional amendment may indeed be subject to challenge if it infringes upon a Fundamental Right that is considered part of the “basic structure” of the Constitution, thus making it void.
This ruling underscore the significance of Fundamental Rights in the constitutional framework and affirms the judiciary’s role in protecting those rights against any potential infringement through legislation or constitutional amendments.
Here is an overview of the Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution, categorized by their respective articles:


4. Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25–28)



This overview elucidates the fundamental rights that safeguard individual freedoms and liberties in India, ensuring equality, justice, and protection from exploitation.
The Fundamental Rights in India primarily apply to citizens, but certain rights are also accessible to foreigners (excluding enemy aliens). Below is a summary of Fundamental Rights categorized into those available only to citizens and those available to both citizens and foreigners:
(i) Speech and expression
(ii) Assembly
(iii) Association
(iv) Movement
(v) Residence
(vi) Profession (Article 19).

Freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion (Article 25).
Freedom to manage religious affairs (Article 26).
Freedom from taxation for the promotion of any religion (Article 27).
Freedom from attending religious instruction or worship in certain educational institutions (Article 28).
This categorization illustrates the distinct framework for Fundamental Rights in India, highlighting the privileges afforded to citizens while ensuring some protections extend to non-citizens as well.
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution states that the State shall not deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. This provision applies to all individuals, including both citizens and foreigners. The term “person” encompasses legal entities such as statutory corporations, companies, and registered societies.
The principle of “equality before law” has its roots in British law, while the concept of “equal protection of laws” is derived from the American Constitution. The former means:
(a) There are no special privileges for any person.
(b) All individuals are subject to the ordinary laws of the land as administered by regular courts.
(c) No individual, whether rich or poor, high or low, official or non-official, is above the law.
Conversely, “equal protection of laws” entails:
(a) Equal treatment in similar circumstances, both concerning privileges and legal liabilities.
(b) The same laws must apply to all persons in similar situations.
(c) Similar cases should be treated alike without discrimination.
Thus, while the first concept emphasizes the absence of privileges, the second focuses on equality of treatment. Both aim to establish a foundation of legal equality and justice.
The Supreme Court has determined that Article 14 does not apply when equals and unequals are treated differently. While it prohibits class legislation, it allows for reasonable classification of persons, objects, and transactions. However, this classification must not be arbitrary or artificial; it should be based on an intelligible criterion and a substantial distinction.
The concept of “equality before law” is a fundamental aspect of the Rule of Law, as articulated by British jurist A.V. Dicey. His doctrine includes three essential components:
(i) Absence of Arbitrary Power: No individual can be punished without a breach of law.
(ii) Equality Before the Law: All citizens (rich or poor, high or low, official or non-official) are equally subject to the ordinary laws administered by regular courts.
(iii) Primacy of Individual Rights: In Dicey’s view, the Constitution arises from individual rights as defined and enforced by courts, rather than being the source of these rights.
In the Indian constitutional framework, the principles of “equality before law” and “equal protection of the laws” (as embodied in Article 14) are applicable and form an essential part of the legal system. However, the notion of a “primacy of individual rights” as a separate concept is not applicable in the same way. Instead, in India, the Constitution itself serves as the foundation for individual rights.
The Supreme Court has affirmed that the “Rule of Law,” as encapsulated in Article 14, constitutes a “basic feature” of the Constitution. This designation means that the principles of equality under the law cannot be altered or removed even through constitutional amendments. Therefore, the integrity of this fundamental aspect of governance is preserved, ensuring that all individuals are treated equally and justly under the law.
While the principle of equality before the law is fundamental in the Indian Constitution, it is not absolute and is subject to certain constitutional exceptions. Below are the key exceptions outlined:
1. Immunities for the President and Governors (Article 361):
(i) The President and the Governors are not answerable to any court for actions taken during the exercise of their official duties.
(ii) No criminal proceedings can be initiated or continued against the President or Governor in any court during their term of office.
(iii) Courts cannot issue processes for the arrest or imprisonment of the President or Governor while they hold office.
(iv) No civil proceedings can be instituted against the President or the Governor in relation to actions taken in their personal capacity during their term, unless a two-month notice has been given.
These exceptions illustrate that while equality before the law is a core principle, there are specific provisions in the Constitution that protect certain individuals and roles from legal accountability in order to maintain the functioning of government and legislative processes.
The second provision of Article 15 states that no citizen shall face any disability, liability, restriction, or condition based solely on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth regarding:
(a) Access to shops, public restaurants, hotels, and public entertainment venues, or
(b) Use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads, and other places of public resort maintained wholly or partly by state funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.
This provision prohibits discrimination not only by the State but also by private individuals, whereas the first provision restricts discrimination only by the State.
There are specific exceptions to the rule of non-discrimination under Article 15, allowing the State to create special provisions:
Overall, these exceptions to Article 15 highlight the Constitution’s aim to address inequalities and promote social justice within the framework of equality.

The provision for reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in educational institutions was incorporated into the Constitution by the 93rd Amendment Act of 2005. To implement this provision, the Central Government enacted the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, which allocates a quota of 27% for OBC candidates in all central higher educational institutions, including the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and the Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs).
In April 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of both the 93rd Amendment Act and the OBC Quota Act, while directing the Central Government to exclude the ‘creamy layer’ (the more advanced sections) among OBCs when enforcing the law.
The ‘creamy layer’ is defined to include the following categories of individuals, who will not benefit from the reservation:

The 103rd Amendment Act of 2019 introduced a provision for the reservation of 10% for Economically Weaker Sections (EWSs) in educational institutions. This reservation applies to individuals who are not already covered under any existing reservation schemes for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and OBCs. The eligibility criteria for EWS status are outlined as follows:
These provisions reflect India’s commitment to addressing economic disparities and ensuring that marginalized sections of society receive equitable access to education and opportunities.
Article 16 of the Indian Constitution guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens regarding employment or appointment to any office under the State. It stipulates that no citizen should face discrimination or be declared ineligible for any position based solely on religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, or residence.
However, there are four exceptions to this general rule of equality of opportunity in public employment:
These provisions ensure that while equality of opportunity is upheld, certain exceptions allow for the consideration of social and economic inequalities, promoting a more equitable workforce within the Indian public sector.
In 1979, the Morarji Desai Government established the Second Backward Classes Commission, chaired by B.P. Mandal, pursuant to Article 340 of the Indian Constitution. The commission’s mandate was to investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes and recommend measures for their advancement. In 1980, the commission submitted its report, identifying 3,743 castes as socially and educationally backward, which constituted nearly 52% of the population, excluding Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
The Mandal Commission recommended a reservation of 27% of government jobs for Other Backward Classes (OBCs), which would increase the total reservation for SCs, STs, and OBCs to 50%. This recommendation was implemented a decade later, in 1990, when the V.P. Singh Government officially declared a 27% reservation in government jobs for OBCs.
In 1991, the Narasimha Rao Government introduced two significant changes:
(a) Preference would be given to the poorer sections within the OBC quota, thereby adopting economic criteria for granting reservations.
(b) An additional 10% reservation was allocated for economically backward sections of the higher castes not covered by any existing reservation schemes.
The landmark Mandal case (1992) saw the Supreme Court thoroughly examining the scope and extent of Article 16(4), which provides for job reservations for backward classes. The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 27% reservation for OBCs but rejected the additional 10% reservation for economically backward higher castes. The Supreme Court placed several conditions on the OBC reservation:
The Mandal Commission and the subsequent developments played a pivotal role in shaping the policies regarding reservations for backward classes in India, influencing social dynamics and political discourse.Top of Form
The 103rd Amendment Act of 2019 introduced an exception that allows for a 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWSs) in civil posts and services within the Government of India. This reservation is specifically for EWSs who are not already benefiting from existing reservation schemes for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). The eligibility criteria for this provision are detailed under Article 15.
There are specific scientific and technical posts that may be exempt from this reservation, provided they meet all the following criteria:
Article 17 of the Indian Constitution abolishes ‘untouchability’ and prohibits its practice in any form. Any enforcement of disability resulting from untouchability is considered an offense punishable by law. In 1976, the Untouchability (Offences) Act of 1955 was amended and renamed the Protection of Civil Rights Act of 1955 to expand its scope and strengthen its penalties. This Act defines ‘civil right’ as any right arising due to the abolition of untouchability by Article 17. Although the term ‘untouchability’ is not explicitly defined in the Constitution or the Act, the Mysore High Court clarified that Article 17 addresses the historical practice of untouchability, relating to social disabilities based on caste, rather than a literal or grammatical interpretation. The Supreme Court has also affirmed that rights under Article 17 apply against private individuals, and the State has a duty to uphold this right.
(a) Resist the execution of any law or legal process,
(b) Forcibly occupy someone else’s property,
(c) Commit mischief or criminal trespass,
(d) Coerce someone into committing an illegal act, or
(e) Threaten the government or its officials while exercising lawful powers.
(a) Set professional or technical qualifications required for practicing any profession or carrying out any occupation, trade, or business.
(b) Undertake any trade, business, industry, or service, either exclusively (completely or partially) or in competition with citizens.
Consequently, there is no basis for objection when the State operates a trade, business, industry, or service either as a monopoly or in competition with individual citizens. The State is not obligated to justify its monopoly. However, this right does not extend to engaging in professions, businesses, trades, or occupations that are considered immoral (such as trafficking in women or children) or dangerous (such as dealing in harmful drugs or explosives). The State has the authority to completely prohibit these activities or regulate them through licensing.(a) No Ex-Post-Facto Law: No individual shall be convicted of any offense except for violating a law that was in effect at the time the act was committed, nor shall they be subjected to a penalty greater than what was prescribed by that law at that time. An ex-post-facto law imposes retroactive penalties on acts already committed or increases penalties for such acts. This prohibition applies specifically to criminal laws and does not extend to civil or tax laws, meaning civil liabilities or taxes can be applied retroactively. However, this provision protects against conviction or sentencing under an ex-post-facto criminal law but does not prevent a trial based on such laws. Furthermore, this protection does not apply in cases of preventive detention or when demanding security from an individual.
(b) No Double Jeopardy: No person shall be prosecuted or punished more than once for the same offense. This protection is applicable only in court or judicial tribunal proceedings, and does not apply to trials before departmental or administrative bodies, as they are not judicial in nature.
(c) No Self-Incrimination: No person accused of an offense shall be forced to be a witness against themselves. This protection encompasses both oral and documentary evidence. However, it does not extend to (i) the compulsory production of material objects, (ii) the requirement to provide thumb impressions, specimen signatures, or blood samples, and (iii) the mandatory exhibition of the body. Additionally, this protection is limited to criminal proceedings and does not apply to civil cases or non-criminal proceedings.
| Parameter | Procedure Established by Law | Due Process of Law |
| Origin | British Constitution | United States Constitution |
| Scope | Does not assess whether laws are fair, just, or non-arbitrary; only checks if the procedure is followed. | Examines both the procedural and substantive aspects to ensure the law is fair, just, and non-arbitrary. |
| Role of Judiciary | Judiciary evaluates only the procedure used to enact the law. | Judiciary assesses both the procedure and the fairness of the law’s content. |
| Protection | Protects citizens’ rights against arbitrary actions of the executive. | Protects citizens’ rights against arbitrary actions of both the executive and the legislature. |
| Constitutional Provision | Explicitly provided under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. | Not explicitly mentioned in the Indian Constitution, but interpreted and enforced through judicial activism. |
– Beyond 3 months report of advisory board needed
– Board to consist Judges of High court
Article 23 upholds the dignity of individuals and reinforces the right to freedom and equality enshrined in the Constitution. It empowers the State to legislate against trafficking and forced labour, leading to landmark laws such as:
Right to Freedom of Religion (Article 25 to 28)
It makes provisions for religious instruction in different categories of educational institutions, as described below:
It provides that:
As noted by the Supreme Court, the use of the phrase ‘section of citizens’ in the Article means that it applies to minorities as well as the majority. Thus, the scope of this article is not necessarily restricted to minorities only.
It is to be noted that the protection under this provision is confined only to minorities (religious or linguistic) and does not extend to any section of citizens (as under Article 29).
It confers the right to remedies for the enforcement of the fundamental rights in case of violation of the same. It makes the following provisions regarding the same:
It confers the right to remedies for the enforcement of the fundamental rights in case of violation of the same. It makes the following provisions regarding the same: