Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution 

 

Introduction

The Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution (Articles 12-35) form the cornerstone of Indian democracy, ensuring liberty, equality, and justice for all citizens. Modeled partly on the US Bill of Rights, these rights are enforceable by the judiciary and protect individuals from state oppression.

This guide covers:

• Six Fundamental Rights under Part III of the Constitution
• Detailed analysis of Articles 12-35
• Landmark Supreme Court judgments
• Enforcement through writ petitions (Article 32)
• Comparison with Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP)
• Suspension during emergencies
• Relation with RTI and Privacy Rights

Let’s dive in!

---

1. What are Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution?

 

Fundamental Rights are basic human freedoms guaranteed to all citizens, enforceable by courts. They are enshrined in Part III (Articles 12-35) and include:

1. Right to Equality (Articles 14-18)
2. Right to Freedom (Articles 19-22)
3. Right Against Exploitation (Articles 23-24)
4. Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-28)
5. Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29-30)
6. Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32)

These rights ensure individual liberty, dignity, and justice.

---

2. Article 12-35: Detailed Breakdown

 

A. Right to Equality (Articles 14-18) as Fundamental Rights

 

Article 14: Equality before law & equal protection of laws , states:

“The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”

Key Aspects:

• Equality Before Law: No one is above the law (including government officials).
• Equal Protection of Laws: Laws must apply equally to all in similar circumstances.
• Permits Reasonable Classification: The state can classify groups for welfare (e.g., reservations for SC/STs) but arbitrary discrimination is prohibited.

🔹 Landmark Case:

• E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) – Equality is a dynamic concept ensuring fairness in state actions.

 

Article 15: Prohibition of discrimination (religion, race, caste, sex, etc.)

Article 15(1) prohibits discrimination based on:

• Religion, Race, Caste, Sex, Place of Birth

Exceptions (Positive Discrimination):

• Article 15(3): Special provisions for women & children.
• Article 15(4): Reservations for SC/STs & OBCs in education.
• Article 15(5): Allows private educational institutions to implement reservations.

🔹 Landmark Cases:

• Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) – Upheld 27% OBC quota but set 50% cap on reservations.
• Navtej Singh Johar v. UoI (2018) – Decriminalized homosexuality (under Article 15).

 

Article 16: Equality in public employment guarantees:

• Equal opportunity in government jobs.
• No discrimination based on religion, race, caste, etc.

Exceptions:

• Reservations for SC/ST/OBCs (Article 16(4)).
• Residence requirements for certain jobs (e.g., state govt. jobs).

🔹 Landmark Cases:

• M. Nagaraj v. UoI (2006) – States must prove backwardness before granting promotions (reservation in promotions).
• Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018) – SC/STs don’t need fresh backwardness proof for promotions.

Article 17: Abolition of Untouchability  in any form:

• “Untouchability” is punishable under the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955.
• Converts untouchability into a criminal offense.

🔹 Landmark Case:

• State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale (1993) – Reinforced strict punishment for untouchability practices.

Article 18: Abolition of titles (except military & academic)

• State-conferred titles (e.g., “Raja,” “Maharaja”).
• Exceptions: Military (e.g., Param Vir Chakra) & academic honors (e.g., Bharat Ratna).

🔹 Significance:

• • Prevents feudal privileges and promotes meritocracy.

🔹 Landmark Case: Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (Mandal Commission – Reservation Policy)

 

B. Right to Freedom (Articles 19-22) as Fundamental Rights

 

 

Article 19: 6 Freedoms (Speech, Assembly, Movement, etc.)

1. Freedom of Speech and Expression (19(1)(a))
   
   This fundamental right allows citizens to freely express their views through speech, writing, printing, or any other medium. The Supreme Court has expanded this to include:

• Freedom of the press (Bennett Coleman v. Union of India, 1972)
• Right to information (Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, 2002)
• Right to criticize government policies
• Right to remain silent (National Anthem case, 1986)

Reasonable Restrictions:

• Sovereignty and integrity of India
• Security of the state
• Friendly relations with foreign states
• Public order
• Decency or morality
• Contempt of court
• Defamation
• Incitement to offense

2. Freedom to Assemble Peacefully (19(1)(b))
   Citizens can gather for meetings, demonstrations, and processions. However:

• Must be unarmed
• Subject to public order considerations
• Police can impose reasonable restrictions under Section 144 CrPC

3. Freedom to Form Associations/Unions (19(1)(c))
   This includes:

• Right to form political parties
• Trade unions
• Social organizations
• Business associations

Restrictions: The state can impose limits in interests of sovereignty, public order, or morality.

4. Freedom of Movement (19(1)(d))

• Right to move freely throughout India
• Important for national integration
• Exceptions: Protected areas, tribal zones

5. Freedom of Residence (19(1)(e))

• Right to settle in any part of India
• J&K had special provisions before Article 370 abrogation

6. Freedom of Profession/Occupation/Trade/Business (19(1)(g))

• Right to choose any lawful profession
• Subject to professional licensing requirements
• State can impose reasonable restrictions

Article 20: Protection in Criminal Matters

Article 20 provides three crucial protections:

1. Protection against Ex-post-facto laws (20(1))
   • No punishment for acts that were legal when committed
   • Applies only to criminal laws
2. Protection against Double Jeopardy (20(2))
   • No person can be prosecuted/punished twice for same offense
   • Based on doctrine of “autrefois convict”
3. Protection against Self-incrimination (20(3))
   • No accused can be compelled to be witness against themselves
   • Includes protection from narco-analysis without consent (Selvi v. State of Karnataka, 2010)

 

Article 21: Right to Life & Personal Liberty (includes Privacy)

The most expansive fundamental right, interpreted to include:

• Right to live with human dignity
• Right to privacy (Justice K.S. Puttaswamy case, 2017)
• Right to health and medical care
• Right to clean environment
• Right to education (led to insertion of Article 21A)
• Right to speedy trial
• Right against custodial violence
• Right to legal aid

Article 21A: Right to Education (Free & compulsory for 6-14 yrs)

Provides procedural safeguards:

1. For ordinary arrests (22(1)-(2))
   • Right to be informed of arrest grounds
   • Right to consult and be defended by a lawyer
   • Must be produced before magistrate within 24 hours
2. For preventive detention (22(3)-(7))
   • Maximum initial detention: 3 months without advisory board approval
   • Right to know detention grounds (except when against public interest)
   • Right to make representation against detention

🔹 Landmark Case: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (Due Process of Law)

 

C. Right Against Exploitation (Articles 23-24) as Fundamental Rights

 

 

• Article 23: Prohibits human trafficking & forced labor

Article 23(1) states:
“Traffic in human beings and begar (forced labor) and other similar forms of forced labor are prohibited and any contravention of this provision shall be an offense punishable in accordance with law.”

This comprehensive prohibition covers:

1. Human Trafficking:

• Includes all forms of buying and selling of human beings
• Covers sex trafficking, child trafficking, and organ trade
• Implemented through laws like:
  • Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956
  • Trafficking of Persons (Prevention, Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill, 2018

2. Forced Labor (Begar):

• Prohibits work without remuneration
• Bans bonded labor systems
• Includes all forms of compulsory service

Exceptions:

• Article 23(2) allows compulsory service for public purposes (e.g., military conscription)
• Must apply equally to all citizens without discrimination

Landmark Cases:

• People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982):
  • Expanded definition of “forced labor” to include work below minimum wages
  • Held that non-payment of minimum wages amounts to forced labor
• Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984):
  • Recognized bonded labor as violation of Article 23
  • Directed states to identify, release, and rehabilitate bonded laborers

Article 24: Bans child labor (<14 years)

Article 24 states:
“No child below the age of fourteen years shall be employed to work in any factory or mine or engaged in any other hazardous employment.”

Key aspects:

1. Scope of Protection:

• Absolute prohibition in hazardous occupations
• Applies to factories, mines, and other dangerous jobs
• Complimented by:
  • Child Labor (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (amended in 2016)
  • Right to Education Act (Article 21A)

2. Implementation:

• 2016 Amendment completely prohibited employment below 14 years
• Allows family enterprises after school hours (non-hazardous)
• Permits work in entertainment industry with conditions

Judicial Interpretation:

• M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996):
  • Directed elimination of child labor in hazardous industries
  • Ordered creation of welfare fund with employer contributions
• Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993):
  • Paved way for recognizing education as fundamental right
  • Strengthened case against child labor

Contemporary Challenges:

1. Implementation Gaps:

• Continued prevalence of child labor in informal sectors
• Difficulties in monitoring small workshops/home-based industries

2. New Forms of Exploitation:

• Digital slavery in fraudulent call centers
• Domestic worker exploitation
• Forced begging rings

3. Rehabilitation Issues:

• Inadequate support systems for rescued workers
• Lack of alternative livelihood options

Government Initiatives:

• National Child Labor Project (NCLP)
• Platform for Effective Enforcement for No Child Labor (PENCIL)
• Integrated Child Protection Scheme (ICPS)

D. Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-28) as Fundamental Rights

 

• Article 25: Freedom of conscience & religion

Article 25(1) guarantees:

“All persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion.”

Key Aspects:

• Applies to all persons (citizens & non-citizens).
• Includes three rights:
  1. Freedom of conscience (inner belief).
  2. Right to profess (declare one’s faith).
  3. Right to practice & propagate (spread religion, but not forcibly convert).

Restrictions (Article 25(2)):

• Public order, morality, and health (e.g., banning loudspeakers at night).
• Social welfare reforms (e.g., banning Sati, allowing temple entry for Dalits).

🔹 Landmark Cases:

• Shirur Mutt Case (1954): Defined “essential religious practices” doctrine.
• Sabrimala Case (2018): Held that banning women (10-50 yrs) was unconstitutional.

Article 26: Manage religious affairs

Article 26 grants religious denominations the right to:

1. Establish and maintain religious institutions.
2. Manage their own religious affairs.
3. Own and acquire movable/immovable property.
4. Administer property as per law.

Conditions:

• Must be a recognized religious denomination (e.g., Sikhs, Muslims, Hindus).
• Subject to public order, morality, and health.

🔹 Landmark Cases:

• Shirur Mutt Case (1954): Upheld autonomy of religious institutions.
• ISKCON v. UoI (2004): Recognized ISKCON as a separate religious denomination.

Article 27: No taxes for religious promotion

“No person shall be compelled to pay taxes for promotion of any particular religion.”

Key Points:

• Government cannot use taxes to fund religious activities.
• Exceptions: State can maintain historically significant religious places (e.g., ASI-protected monuments).

🔹 Example: The Haj subsidy was scrapped in 2018 as it violated secular principles.

Article 28: No religious instruction in govt. schools

1. Religious instruction in wholly state-funded schools.
2. Compulsory religious worship in any educational institution.

Exceptions:

• Minority institutions (Article 30) can teach religion.
• Private schools may offer voluntary religious classes.

🔹 Landmark Case:

• Aruna Roy v. UoI (2002): Upheld value education in schools but barred religious indoctrination.

E. Cultural & Educational Rights (Articles 29-30)

 

Article 29: Protects minority language & culture
states:

“Any section of citizens residing in India having a distinct language, script, or culture shall have the right to conserve the same.”

Key Aspects:

• Applies to all citizens, including religious, linguistic, and cultural minorities.
• Protects traditional practices, languages, and scripts (e.g., Tamil, Urdu, tribal dialects).
• Prevents cultural assimilation by majority dominance.

Article 29(2) prohibits discrimination in state-funded educational institutions based on:

• Religion, race, caste, or language.

🔹 Landmark Cases:

• State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951): Led to the 1st Constitutional Amendment introducing reservations (Article 15(4)).
• P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005): Held that private unaided minority institutions are exempt from state reservation policies.

Article 30: Minority-run educational institutions

“All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.”

Key Rights Under Article 30:

1. Autonomy in administration (e.g., hiring teachers, setting fees).
2. No discrimination in state aid (Article 30(2)).
3. Exemption from certain regulations (e.g., reservation quotas).

Who Qualifies as a Minority?

• Religious minorities: Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis.
• Linguistic minorities: Groups with a distinct language (e.g., Marathi speakers in Karnataka).

🔹 Landmark Cases:

• TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002):
  • Upheld minority institutions’ autonomy in admissions & fees.
  • Allowed reasonable state regulations for education standards.
• St. Stephen’s College v. University of Delhi (1992):
  • Permitted 50% minority quota in admissions.

F. Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32)

• “Heart & Soul of the Constitution” – Dr. B.R. Ambedkar
• Allows 5 Writs for enforcement:
  1. Habeas CorpusHabeas Corpus, Latin for “you shall have the body,” is a fundamental legal remedy that protects individuals from unlawful detention. Enshrined in Article 32 and Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, this writ empowers courts to demand that a detained person be brought before them to examine the legality of their imprisonment. Often called the “Great Writ,” it serves as the cornerstone of personal liberty in democratic societies.
     

     Legal Provisions in India

      

     In India, habeas corpus is governed by:

     1. Constitutional Provisions:
        • Article 32: Right to move Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights
        • Article 226: High Courts’ power to issue writs
     2. Statutory Backing:
        • Section 491 of CrPC (1898, now repealed)
        • Relevant provisions in the Constitution itself
     3. Types of Detention Challenged:
        • Police custody
        • Judicial custody
        • Preventive detention
        • Private illegal detention (e.g., kidnapping)

     The writ can be filed by:

     • The detained person
     • Relatives/friends on their behalf
     • Any public-spirited individual in cases of public importance
       

       When Can Habeas Corpus Be Filed?

        

       1. Illegal detention without charges
       2. Procedural violations in arrest (e.g., not informing grounds of arrest)
       3. Detention beyond permissible period
       4. Mala fide detention (for ulterior motives)
       5. Preventive detention without proper justification

       Exceptions:

       • When detention is by competent court
       • When detention is under valid law (e.g., NSA, UAPA)
       • When the person is already released

     Landmark Judgments 

     1. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976)
        • During Emergency, SC controversially ruled habeas corpus suspended
        • Later overruled in spirit by KS Puttaswamy (Privacy) judgment
     2. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978)
        • Extended habeas corpus to prison conditions and inmate rights
     3. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)
        • Applied habeas corpus in custodial death cases
     4. Arnab Goswami v. State of Maharashtra (2020)
        • SC granted interim bail via habeas corpus, criticizing arbitrary arrests
     5. P. Nalla Thampy Terah v. Union of India (1985)
        • Established that even private illegal detention can be challenged
          

          Procedure for Filing

           

          1. File petition before HC or SC
          2. State facts of illegal detention
          3. Court examines prima facie case
          4. Issues rule nisi (show cause notice)
          5. Conducts hearing
          6. Orders release if detention illegal

     Contemporary Relevance

      

     In modern India, habeas corpus remains crucial for:

     • Checking police excesses
     • Preventing unlawful preventive detentions
     • Protecting against forced disappearances
     • Challenging illegal immigration detention

     Recent trends show courts using habeas corpus creatively:

     • To examine COVID-19 quarantine facilities
     • To protect interfaith couples from harassment
     • To address illegal rehabilitation home detentions

     ---

     2. Mandamus

      

     Nature and Purpose 

     Mandamus is:

     • A discretionary writ issued by higher courts (Supreme Court/High Courts)
     • A command directing performance of ministerial/statutory duties
     • A negative order preventing misuse of power
     • Not available against:
       • Private individuals
       • Discretionary functions (unless abused)
       • President/Governors
       • Legislative bodies making laws

     Its primary purpose is to enforce public duties where:

     • A legal right exists
     • A corresponding legal duty is neglected
     • No adequate alternative remedy exists
       

       Essential Conditions
       

       For mandamus to issue, petitioners must prove:

       1. Legal right in their favor
       2. Public duty owed by respondent
       3. Demand and refusal of duty performance
       4. Absence of alternative remedy
       5. Good faith (no suppressed facts)

       Examples of applicable cases:

       • Non-payment of salaries to government employees
       • Failure to issue passports/license renewals
       • Refusal to provide public information (RTI)
       • Inaction on statutory complaints

     Types of Mandamus 

     1. Alternative Mandamus: Initial show-cause notice
     2. Peremptory Mandamus: Final absolute order
     3. Continuing Mandamus: For ongoing supervision (environmental cases)
     4. Anticipatory Mandamus: Prevents future violations

     Special Applications:

     • Environmental protection (M.C. Mehta cases)
     • Public health emergencies (COVID-19 management)
     • Election duties (timely conduct of polls)
       

       Landmark Judgments 

       1. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981)
          • Established “public interest litigation” basis for mandamus
          • Allowed judicial review of judicial appointments
       2. Common Cause v. Union of India (2018)
          • Directed government to implement palliative care rules
       3. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984)
          • Issued mandamus to eradicate bonded labor
       4. Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1997)
          • Ordered CBI autonomy reforms
       5. Rajiv Suri v. DDA (2021)
          • Used continuing mandamus for Central Vista project oversight

       Recent Trends:

       • Monitoring COVID-19 oxygen supply
       • Enforcing pollution control measures
       • Ensuring disaster management compliance
         

         Procedure for Seeking Mandamus 

         1. File writ petition before HC/SC
         2. Establish standing (personal/public interest)
         3. Prove respondent’s duty breach
         4. Court examines prima facie case
         5. Issues rule nisi (show cause)
         6. Conducts hearing
         7. Grants/denies writ based on merits
            

            Limitations 

            Mandamus cannot:

            • Create new duties
            • Control policy decisions
            • Direct legislative action
            • Interfere with judicial discretion
            • Enforce contractual obligations

            Exception: When contractual duty involves public element

            Contemporary Relevance 

            In modern governance, mandamus remains crucial for:

            • Environmental protection: Enforcing clean air/water standards
            • Right to education: Ensuring RTE Act implementation
            • Healthcare access: Monitoring hospital infrastructure
            • Digital rights: Enforcing data protection

            Emerging Applications:

            • Monitoring Aadhaar privacy safeguards
            • Ensuring EVM/VVPAT compliance
            • Directing disaster relief distribution
            • Enforcing cybercrime investigations

 

3.  Prohibition

Prohibition is a preventive writ issued by superior courts (Supreme Court/High Courts) to stop lower courts/tribunals from exceeding their jurisdiction. Rooted in English common law and enshrined in Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution, this extraordinary remedy maintains judicial discipline by preventing unauthorized exercise of power. Unlike mandamus which commands action, prohibition forbids judicial overreach before it occurs, making it a crucial check on quasi-judicial authorities.

 

Essential Characteristics 

1. Preventive Nature: Issued before final judgment to prevent jurisdiction abuse
2. Jurisdictional Remedy: Only against judicial/quasi-judicial bodies (not administrative/legislative)
3. Available When:
   • Tribunal lacks jurisdiction
   • Violates natural justice
   • Acts under unconstitutional law
4. Not Available For:
   • Correcting errors within jurisdiction
   • Completed proceedings (use certiorari instead)
   • Purely administrative acts

Key Difference from Certiorari:

• Prohibition = preventive (before decision)
• Certiorari = corrective (after decision)
  

  Legal Foundations 

  Constitutional Basis:

  • Article 32: Supreme Court’s power
  • Article 226: High Courts’ power

  Statutory Recognition:

  • Section 115 CPC (limited supervisory jurisdiction)
  • Various tribunal statutes

  Grounds for Issuance:

  1. Excess of jurisdiction (acting beyond legal authority)
  2. Absence of jurisdiction (no legal competence)
  3. Violation of natural justice (no fair hearing)
  4. Unconstitutional proceedings (under void law)
  5. Patent legal error (apparent on record)

Landmark Judgments 

1. S. Govinda Menon v. UoI (1967)
   • Established prohibition applies when authority acts under invalid law
2. Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque (1955)
   • Clarified distinction between prohibition and certiorari
3. Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992)
   • Held Speaker’s decisions under 10th Schedule subject to judicial review
4. L. Chandra Kumar v. UoI (1997)
   • Affirmed High Courts’ power over tribunals
5. Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002)
   • Recognized limited prohibition against SC’s own judgments

Recent Applications:

• Restraining NCLT from hearing non-commercial matters
• Preventing consumer forums from deciding complex IP disputes
• Stopping arbitration when agreement is invalid

Procedure for Seeking Prohibition 

1. File Writ Petition: Before HC/SC with verified facts
2. Establish Standing: Show direct legal injury
3. Prove Jurisdictional Error: Demonstrate tribunal’s overreach
4. Interim Relief: Seek stay of proceedings
5. Court Examination:
   • Prima facie jurisdictional defect
   • Irreparable injury balance
6. Final Order: Either:
   • Issue rule absolute (grant prohibition), or
   • Discharge rule (deny writ)

Remedial Limitations:

• No monetary compensation
• Cannot create jurisdiction
• Doesn’t decide merits of case
  

  Contemporary Applications 

  1. Corporate Law: Restraining NCLT from non-company matters
  2. Tax Disputes: Preventing GST authorities from recovery beyond period
  3. Environmental Law: Stopping NGT from exceeding statutory powers
  4. Election Disputes: Halting EC from violating model code
  5. Arbitration: Restraining invalid arbitration proceedings

  Emerging Trends:

  • Checking quasi-judicial overreach in digital governance
  • Preventing parallel proceedings in cross-border disputes
  • Controlling tribunalization of justice
    

    Strategic Advantages 

    • Faster remedy than appeal
    • Prevents wastage of judicial resources
    • Maintains institutional hierarchy
    • Preserves natural justice standards
    • Avoids multiplicity of litigation

 

 

4. Certiorari

Certiorari (Latin for “to be certified”) is a corrective writ issued by superior courts to quash illegal orders of lower courts, tribunals, or quasi-judicial bodies. Enshrined in Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution, this extraordinary remedy serves as a post-decisional check on judicial and quasi-judicial authorities. Unlike prohibition which prevents overreach, certiorari corrects jurisdictional errors after they occur, making it indispensable for maintaining rule of law and due process in India’s multi-layered justice system.

Essential Characteristics 

1. Curative Nature: Annuls completed actions with legal flaws
2. Jurisdictional Scope: Targets:
   • Judicial/quasi-judicial bodies
   • Administrative authorities exercising judicial functions
3. Grounds for Issuance:
   • Excess/lack of jurisdiction
   • Violation of natural justice
   • Error apparent on record
   • Fraud or collusion
4. Not Available Against:
   • Purely administrative/executive actions
   • Legislative proceedings
   • Private arbitrators (unless statutory)

Key Difference from Prohibition:

• Certiorari = quashes completed proceedings
• Prohibition = prevents ongoing proceedings
  

  Legal Foundations 

  Constitutional Basis:

  • Article 32: SC’s power for fundamental rights enforcement
  • Article 226: HC’s wider supervisory jurisdiction

  Statutory Recognition:

  • Section 115 CPC (limited revision)
  • Specific tribunal statutes (e.g., Consumer Protection Act)

  Conditions for Grant:

  1. Judicial/quasi-judicial order exists
  2. Jurisdictional defect (beyond authority)
  3. Patent illegality (not mere factual errors)
  4. Resulting prejudice (substantial injustice)
  5. No adequate alternative remedy 
     

     Landmark Judgments 

     1. R v. Electricity Commissioners (1924)
        • Established certiorari against quasi-judicial bodies
     2. Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque (1955)
        • Differentiated certiorari from prohibition
     3. Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai (2003)
        • Allowed certiorari against HC interlocutory orders
     4. L. Chandra Kumar v. UoI (1997)
        • Affirmed certiorari over tribunal decisions
     5. Whirlpool Corp. v. Registrar of Trademarks (1998)
        • Held alternative remedy no bar for jurisdictional errors

     Recent Applications:

     • Quashing NCLT orders violating IBC timelines
     • Annulling arbitral awards with bias (Perkins Eastman case)
     • Overturning environmental clearances granted illegally
     • Setting aside election tribunal malpractices

      

     Procedure for Seeking Certiorari 

     1. File Writ Petition: Before HC/SC with:
        • Impugned order copy
        • Grounds of jurisdictional error
     2. Establish Standing: Show affected legal rights
     3. Prove Jurisdictional Defect:
        • Excess of authority
        • Violation of natural justice
        • Irrational decision-making
     4. Court Examination:
        • Records called from lower body
        • Hearing on merits
     5. Final Order:
        • Quash impugned order (rule absolute), or
        • Dismiss petition

     Remedial Scope:

     • May include remand to competent authority
     • Can be combined with mandamus for fresh hearing
       

       Contemporary Applications 

       1. Corporate Governance: Reviewing SEBI/SAT illegal orders
       2. Tax Administration: Quashing retrospective GST demands
       3. Environmental Law: Annulling faulty ECs/FCs
       4. Arbitration: Setting aside biased arbitral awards
       5. Election Disputes: Correcting election tribunal errors

       Emerging Trends:

       • Reviewing algorithmic decision-making by regulators
       • Checking NCLT’s resolution plan approvals
       • Overseeing crypto-regulation enforcement
       • Scrutinizing media censorship orders
         

         Strategic Advantages 

         • Broad curative power beyond appeals
         • Flexible remedy for diverse authorities
         • Prevents perpetuation of jurisdictional errors
         • Maintains institutional accountability
         • Faster than regular appeals

 

5. Quo Warranto

Quo Warranto (Latin for “by what authority”) is a judicial writ that challenges illegal occupation of public offices. Unlike other writs that protect individual rights, Quo Warranto safeguards public interest by ensuring only legally qualified persons hold substantive government positions. Enshrined in Article 226 (High Courts) and implied in Article 32 (Supreme Court), this extraordinary remedy acts as a constitutional sentinel against usurpation of public offices, maintaining institutional integrity in India’s democratic framework.

 

Essential Characteristics 

1. Public Office Focus: Only applies to substantive public offices (not private/contractual posts)
2. Remedial Nature: Removes unauthorized holders; doesn’t appoint successors
3. Key Conditions:
   • Office must be created by statute/Constitution
   • Current holder must lack legal qualification
   • Office must have public duties
4. Not Available For:
   • Purely ministerial posts
   • Completed terms
   • Private corporate positions
5. Standing: Any public-spirited citizen can petition (no personal injury required)

Distinct Feature: Only writ that directly protects institutional legitimacy rather than individual rights.

Legal Foundations 

Constitutional Basis:

• Article 226: High Courts’ power to issue
• Article 32: SC’s implied jurisdiction (rarely used)

Statutory Recognition:

• Section 9 of CPC (civil nature suits)
• Specific statutes defining office qualifications

Grounds for Issuance:

1. Usurpation (holding office without legal right)
2. Disqualification (post-assumption)
3. Procedural defects in appointment
4. Term expiration with continued occupation
5. Violation of constitutional conditions (e.g., office-of-profit cases)

Limitation Period: No strict limitation, but courts consider delay.

Landmark Judgments 

1. University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao (1965)
   • Established “public office” must have sovereign functions
2. G.D. Karkare v. Shevde (1952)
   • Clarified distinction between permanent and contractual posts
3. P.L. Lakhanpal v. Ajit Nath Ray (1975)
   • Allowed challenge to CJI appointment (though dismissed)
4. R.K. Jain v. Union of India (1993)
   • Upheld scrutiny of tribunal appointments
5. Ashok Pandey v. State of WB (2022)
   • Removed MLA for post-election disqualification

Recent Applications:

• Challenging illegal appointments in PSUs
• Testing eligibility of elected representatives
• Scrutinizing judicial appointments
• Examining regulatory body compositions
  

  Procedure for Seeking Quo Warranto

  1. File Writ Petition: Before HC with:
     • Office particulars
     • Holder’s alleged disqualification
     • Supporting documents
  2. Establish Standing: Show public interest (not personal grievance)
  3. Prove Unlawful Occupation:
     • Lack of qualifications
     • Defective appointment
     • Ongoing violation
  4. Court Examination:
     • Determines office’s nature
     • Verifies legal requirements
  5. Final Order:
     • Ousts unauthorized holder (rule absolute), or
     • Validates occupancy (discharges rule)

  Effects:

  • Declares office vacant
  • Doesn’t award damages
  • May trigger fresh appointment process
    

    Contemporary Applications 

    1. Political Offices: Testing MLA/MP eligibility (anti-defection, dual membership)
    2. Judicial Appointments: Scrutinizing tribunal member qualifications
    3. Bureaucratic Posts: Challenging irregular IAS/IPS postings
    4. Regulatory Bodies: Examining SEBI/RBI appointments
    5. Academic Positions: Verifying VC/professor appointments

    Emerging Trends:

    • Monitoring private entities performing public functions
    • Checking Aadhaar/UIDAI authority appointments
    • Scrutinizing election commission appointments
    • Testing eligibility of arbitration council members
      

      Strategic Importance 

      • Prevents institutional capture
      • Maintains meritocracy in public service
      • Cost-effective remedy
      • Deters illegal appointments
      • Ensures constitutional compliance

 

 

🔹 Landmark Case: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (Basic Structure Doctrine)

---

3. Fundamental Rights vs Directive Principles (DPSP)

Fundamental Rights	Directive Principles (DPSP)
Justiciable (enforceable)	Non-justiciable (guidelines)
Negative obligations (restrict state)	Positive obligations (welfare)
Individual-centric	Society-centric

🔹 Conflict: Golaknath Case (FRs cannot be amended) → Overruled by Kesavananda Bharati Case (Basic Structure applies)

---

4. Can Fundamental Rights Be Suspended?

• During Emergency (Article 359): FRs (except Article 20-21) can be suspended.
• Example: 1975 Emergency (Indira Gandhi govt.)

---

5. Landmark Supreme Court Cases

1. AK Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) – Narrow interpretation of Article 21
2. Maneka Gandhi Case (1978) – Expanded “Life & Liberty”
3. Shreya Singhal Case (2015) – Struck down Section 66A (IT Act)
4. Puttaswamy Case (2017) – Right to Privacy as Fundamental Right

---

6. How RTI & Fundamental Rights Connect

• Right to Information (RTI Act, 2005) strengthens Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech) & Article 21 (Right to Life).
• Ensures government transparency.

---

Conclusion

Fundamental Rights (Articles 12-35) are essential for democracy, ensuring justice, liberty, and equality. While they can be amended (Article 368), the Basic Structure Doctrine protects their core.

For enforcement, Article 32 empowers citizens to approach the Supreme Court via writ petitions.

---

Sources & References

1. The Constitution of India – legislative.gov.in
2. Supreme Court Judgments – judis.nic.in
3. Books:
   • Indian Constitutional Law by M.P. Jain
   • The Indian Constitution by Granville Austin

Useful Links

Supreme Court of India
Anti Corruption Branch
E-Courts of India
National Crime Records Bureau