Constitutional and Human Rights

Abstract

India’s Constitutional and human rights framework, rooted in the 1950 Constitution, has evolved through dynamic judicial interpretations, legislative amendments, constitutional amendments and global influences and give individual freedoms and state interests. This article examines landmark case and landmark judicial decisions, such case like Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Kesavananada Bharti v. State of Kerala and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India which expanded article 21 to including dignity, privacy and socio-economic rights like health and education. It analyzes the interplay between constitutional amendments and fundamental freedoms, and it highlighting amendments like the 42nd and 44th amendments that protect rights protections. It evaluates the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional morality, as seen in progressive rulings on same-sex marriage, LGBTQ+ rights, and temple entry, while questioning the limits of judicial intervention to avoid overreach. Key issues like hate speech regulation, digital-era free expression under Article 19(1)(a), and the CAA-NRC’s impact on citizenship are addressed and along with socio-economic rights, environmental protection via PILs and corporate accountability in climate litigation.

Introduction

The Constitution of India, adopted in 1950, is a visionary document that lays the foundation for a democratic, secular, and inclusive society. At its core lies a robust framework of fundamental rights that guarantee civil, political, economic, and social freedoms to all individuals. Over the decades, this framework has evolved significantly through judicial interpretation, constitutional amendments, and global human rights influences. Indian courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have played a transformative role in expanding the scope of fundamental rights, ensuring that the Constitution remains a living document capable of responding to new societal challenges.

Judicial Interpretations and Fundamental Rights

In Indian Judicial system the most important feature is Fundamental Right given to our citizen and it is adopted form the Constitution of the USA. In India the fundamental Rights deals with the Part III of the constitution of India under. These rights are guaranteed against state action and are enforceable but the judiciary under Article 32 and Article 226. Some Case are A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) Issue of this case stand preventive detention and Article 21. In this case the Hon’ble Supreme court held that adopted a narrow view, holding that each fundamental right is distinct and must be considered separately. Impact in our society Marked a restrictive interpretation of fundamental rights.

The interplay between constitutional amendments and fundamental freedoms

Indian Constitution allows parliament to amend the constitution under article 368. But not give the power to amend the fundamental right part III of the Constitution of India that violent the Fundamental rights. The Constitutional provisions involved Under Article 13(2) The state shall not make any law that takes away or abridges the rights conferred by Part III. and Under article 368 which deals with parliament to amend the constitution. The most Landmark case is Kesavananda Bharti V. State of Kerala case in 1973. In this case The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Parliament can amend any part of the constitution, including fundamental rights but not a basic structure that violent the Fundamental rights of the citizens of India. In this case Introduced the Basic structure of the constitution.

The global influence on India’s human rights jurisprudence

In world human right is the most important in many Countries. Some origination in world like UDHR. In Indian Constitution Article 51(c) with “The state shall endeavor to foster respect for international law and treaty obligations. Some landmark case that influences globally are

Vishaka V. State of Rajasthan (1997) issue Sexual harassment at the workplace. PIL challenge in the Hon’ble Supreme Court by an NGO. In this case The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in absence of specific Indian legislation, the Court frame guidelines for the women sexual harassment at the workplace act. Impact global demonstrated the use of international conventions as enforceable in the absence of domestic law.

Surveillance laws and the right to privacy: Where do we draw the line

In India mass digital surveillance is there so the limits of state power and the protection of individual privacy in India. The state’s obligation to ensure national security. There is fundamental right Under article 21 of the part III under Indian constitution of India that deals with right to privacy. One of the landmark cases is Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) the landmark judgment by 9-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that say’s Right to Privacy as a part of the Article 21. Privacy say’s that informational privacy, bodily autonomy. Data protection, and freedom from surveillance.

The judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional morality over social conventions

In a Constitution, Constitution democracy is supreme in our constitution, not tradition or majority beliefs or caste, customs and religious. The conflict creates between social morality and constitutional morality both are different. Social Morality is a set of values and norms that exist in society. These are the rules that govern the members of a society on how they should behave with each other for their welfare and well-being. Social Morality does not have an exact definition as it varies from culture to culture depending on various beliefs, practices, traditions, or customs prevalent in society.

The term Constitutional morality hasn’t been defined in the Constitution anywhere. Hence, it has been subjected to different interpretations by the Judges. Indirectly, the concept has been enshrined in the Constitution itself in the Part III-Fundamental Rights (Article 12-35), Part IV- Directive Principles of State Policy (Article 36-51), Preamble, and Fundamental Duties.

Same-sex marriage, LGBTQ+ rights, and progressive legal developments

In India Same-Sex Marriage is not legally recognized in India and LGBTQ+ rights have some legal right. Same-Sex Marriage is not legally recognized in India because it has many demerits like it stop the pollution of a county and it is also not mention in India religions or customs etc. and it is western transitional not Indian tradition. In the case of Navtej Singh Johar V. Union of India (2018) issue Constitutionality of Section 377 IPC, which criminalized consensual Same-Sex relations. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Section 377, as it applied to consensual acts between adults, was unconstitutional. This judgment laid the foundation for future claims to equal legal recognition of same-sex relationships. LGBTQ+ STAND for Lesbian, gay, Bisexual, Transgender and queer, plus which have some legal right it as erectly case law of NALSA v. Union of India (2014) Recognized transgender persons as a third gender, affirmed their right to self-identify, equality, and protection from discrimination, directed government to provide reservations, legal protections, and welfare schemes.

Key judgments that have shaped India’s constitutional landscape

In India some cases that shaped India’s constitutional landscape in the cases of Kesavananda Bharati V. State of Kerala 1973 Basic Structure Doctrine of fundamental rights. The Hon’ble Supreme court ruled that parliament can amend the constitution, but cannot alter its basic structure of the constitution. Under Article 358 and another Case Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 Expanded interpretation of article 21 of the constitution. The Hon’ble Supreme court held that “procedure established by law” must be just, fair, and reasonable. After the case of kesavananda Bharti case another similar to the Golak Nath V. State of Punjab 1967. The Hon’ble Supreme court that parliament cannot amend the fundamental rights under article 368.

Examining the limits of Article 19(1)(a) in the digital era

Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian constitution guarantees to all the citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression. It includes:

• Freedom of press
• Right to express opinions freely
• Artistic and creative freedom
• Right to information
• Online speech and digital content in the modern context

Article 19(2) say’s those reasonable restrictions in the interests of sovereignty, integrity, security, public order, morality and contempt of court.

Caste-based vs. economic reservations: Evaluating the policy framework

In India reservation system was designed as a tool for social justice, aiming to uplift historically disadvantaged communities. Traditionally, reservations were based on caste

Scheduled Castes (SC)

Scheduled Tribes (ST)

Other backward Classes (OBC)

After this growing of discourse on economic inequality, the government introduced Economic weaker section (EWS) reservations in 2019.

Caste-Based Reservations

Article 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4): Allow for special provisions for SCs, STs and socially and educationally backward classes. In this article give right to education and reservation.

Economic-Based Reservation (EWS)

Introduced in 103rd Constiutuional amendment act,2019. Provides 10% reservation for economically weaker sections in education and public employment outside the SC/ST/OBC categories. Constitutional protected by inserting Articles 15(6) and 16(6).

In the case of Jan hit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022). The Hon’ble Court upheld that 103rd amendment by 3:2 majority and held the economic criteria can be used as a basis for reservation. Not including SC/ST/OBC form EWS quota is not discriminatory, as they already have benefit of caste-based quotas.

The role of PILs and judicial activism in environmental law

In India’s environmental jurisprudence much so its development to the judiciary, especially through the tool of public Interest Litigation (PIL). With growing industrialization, Pollution, and ecological degradation, the supreme court and high court have actively protected the environment. This has led to the rise of judicial activism, where courts have interpreted Fundamental Rights (especially Article 21) to include the right to a clean and healthy environment. And Article 48A of directive principles of state policy that say’s Duty of the state to protect and improve the environment. And Article 51A(g) fundamental duty say’s that Duty of every citizen to protect the environment. Now meaning PIL a legal mechanism allowing any person or group to approach the court in the interest of the public, even if they are not directly affected. Especially useful in environment cases, where harm affects large, often voiceless sections of society. Like in the case of McMath V. Union of India (1986-Oleum Gas Leak Case) this case recognized as the right to a safe environment under article 21.

The debate over personal laws and the Uniform Civil Code

India legal system recognized personal laws based on religion, governing matters like marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption and succession. The idea of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) seeks to replace religion-based personal laws with a common set of civil laws applicable to all citizens, promoting equality and secularism. According to some Constitution Article 44 of Directive Principles of State Policy say’s that “The State shall endeavor to secure for the citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India”. And Article 25 to 28 Guarantee freedom of religious, allowing communities to manage their own religious affairs. And Article 14 Ensures equality before law and equal protection of laws. And article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. Some case that related to UCC are Shah Bano Case in 1985 A Muslim women sought maintenance under section 125 CrPC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court granted it, that need for a UCC. Leading to the Muslim women Act,1986, which ruling.

Religious freedom and gender rights: The case of temple entry and hijab bans

India’s Constitution guarantees both religious freedom under Articles 25-28 and gender equality under article 14,15,21. Sometime conflict arise when religious customs are discriminatory towards women and when gender rights appear to challenge religious autonomy. The two major controversies that most highlight this conflict are:

1. The Sabarimala temple entry case (Women’s right to entre a temple)
2. The Karnataka hijab ban case (Muslim girl’s right to wear hijab in classrooms)

According to the Constitution some article that deals with it are: –

Article 14 of part III of the Indian Constitution means Right to equality before the law

Article 15(1) of part III of the Indian Constitution means Prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, sex, etc.

Article 19(1)(a) of part III of the Indian Constitution means Freedom of expression

Article 21 of part III of the Indian Constitution means Right to life and personal liberty (includes dignity and autonomy).

Article 25(1) of part III of the Indian Constitution means Freedom of conscience and religious, subject to public order, morality, and health.

In case of Sabarimala Case- Indian Young Lawyers Association V. State of Kerala in 2018 in this case. In the case women of menstruating age of 10-50 were barred form entering the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, based on the celibate nature of the deity, Lord Ayyappa. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that struck down the ban by a 4:1 majority, holding it unconstitutional.

In case of Hijab Ban Case- Fathima Bushra V. State of Karnataka & Others in 2022. A Students in Karnataka were prohibited from wearing hijabs in classrooms under a uniform dress code. The Court held that Hijab is not an essentials religious practice under Islam and Upheld that state’s authority to enforce dress codes in public institutions.

The impact of CAA-NRC on citizenship and human rights

In India Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) and the implementation of a nationwide National Register of Citizens (NRC) one of the most intense debates in recent Indian history. CAA-NRC framework mat violates the principles of equality, secularism, and fundamental rights.

CAA

Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019.Grants fast-track Indian citizenship to non-Muslim immigrants (Hindu, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jian, Christians) from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan, who arrived in India on or before December 31,2014 Excludes Muslims.

NRC

National Register of Citizens (NRC) is intended

Identify illegal immigrants residing in India. In Assam, where NRC was conducted in 2019. 19 lakh people were excluded from the register and Many were unable to prove citizenship due to lack of documents, despite living in India for decades.

The legal status of refugees and asylum seekers under Indian law

Refugee and asylum seeker are international norms they come in large number of refugees and asylum form various countries like Afghanistan, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Tibet (China), and Bangladesh despite having no domestic law on the subject. They come in India for home, shelter, education etc. In case of NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh in 1996 The Hon’ble Supreme court held that prevented the expulsion of Chakma refugees, reinforcing their right to life and protection under article 21. 

In Indian Constitution there is no specific law for refugees, but Indian courts extended certain Fundamental rights to them as long as in Indian territory

Article 21 of part III of the Indian Constitution say’s Right to life and liberty that applies to all persons, including non-citizens

Article 22 of part III of the Indian Constitution means Right against arbitrary detention applies refugees can challenge illegal detention

Article 14 of part III of the Indian Constitution means Equality before law applies ensure fair treatment, even for non-citizens.

Article 25 and 26 of part III of the Indian Constitution means Freedom of religious and movement applies Limited application; subject to restrictions.

Right to speedy trial and bail jurisprudence

Right to speedy trial is a fundamental right under article 21 of the constitution India. Article 21 guarantees that No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. In case of Hussaini Khatoon V. State of Bihar 1979 Justice P.N. Bhagwati held that the right to speedy trial is implicit in Article 21. This case highlighted the plight of undertrial poisoners in Bihar and led to reforms in criminal justice And Bail in India means that bail is the release of a person form custody, with or without sureties, by the police or court, pending trial or investigation. And in India there are many types of Bail Regular bail, Anticipatory Bail and Interim Bail and the Regular Bail means someone already arrested and to get bail under section 437 and 439 of CrPC and Anticipatory Bail means that Pre-arrest bail for those fearing arrest bail under section 438 CrPC. The last bail is Interim Bail is Temporary bail granted till the hearing of the main bail application. Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception.

The global shift towards economic and social rights as fundamental rights

In India Constitutional Systems Civil and political rights like Free speech, equality and liberty as enforceable fundamental rights, while economic and social rights such as health, education and work these all deals with directive principles. Some economic and social rights including Right to Education, Right to Health, right to food, right to housing, Right to Work and livelihood, right to social security, right to clean environment they are positive rights requiring state action, funding and policy making. In India these rights are deal with the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) Under article 38 to 51 part IV of the Indian Constitution. These are non-justiciable, but have been judicially read into fundamental rights. In case of Unni Krishnan V. State of Andhra Pradesh 1993 recognized right to education as implicit under article 21. But later on, it makes under 86th Constitutional Amendment act under article 21-A.

Transnational human rights movements and their impact on India

Transnational human rights movements are global networks of activists, NGOs, legal experts, and international organizations that work across national borders problem to promote and protect human rights. Transnational human rights movements like Mobilize global attention on local issues. Pressure governments via international norms and forums (e.g. UN, ICC) and promote legal reforms aligned with international human rights standards. Impact areas in India are Women’s Rights that transnational feminist movements influenced that domestic violence Act, 2005 and Sexual Harassment at workplace Act, 2013 these are ongoing legal debates. LGBTQ+ Rights activism supported by global rights movements case law like Navtej Singh Johar v. union of India 2018 decriminalized homosexuality under section 377 IPC. Dalit and Minority Rights in later period Dalit have not right to study and go in temple etc.

The role of constitutional courts in protecting human rights in the 21st century. A constitutional court is a high-level court specializing in constitutional interpretation. In India, the Supreme Court and High Courts perform this function. Their powers include judicial Review Article 13, 32, 226, Writ jurisdiction, striking down unconstitutional laws and expanding the scope of fundamental rights

Expanding Horizons of Human Rights in the 21st Century. Constitutional courts are addressing modern challenges are Digital privacy and surveillance, Gender and LGBTQ+ rights, Environmental protection, Rights of refugees, migrants, and minorities and in last Right to health, education, food, and housing

Conclusion

India’s Constitutional and human rights framework stands as a dynamic and evolving structure shaped by judicial innovation, legislative change, and international influence. The judiciary has played a critical role in transforming the constitutional vision into lived realities for citizens by interpreting fundamental right most through landmark judgments such as Maneka Gandhi, Kesavananda Bharti, and K.S. Puttaswamy. Right life and liberty under article 21. Amendments like the 42nd and 103rd have tested the boundaries of state power, prompting debates on the balance between parliamentary sovereignty and fundamental freedoms. In the 21st century, constitutional courts are the guardians of democracy, tasked with not only preserving rights but adapting them to modern realities. To ensure India’s legal framework continues to reflect its pluralistic, democratic ethos, sustained judicial activism, legislative reform, and citizen engagement are imperative. As India confronts emerging challenges like artificial intelligence, data protection, and refugee crises, the Constitution must remain a living document—resilient, inclusive, and fundamentally committed to justice for all.