Article 33 of Indian Constitution
Article 33 of the Indian Constitution
1. Text of Article 33
Article 33: Power of Parliament to modify the rights conferred by this Part in their application to Forces, etc.
“Parliament may by law regulate or restrict the exercise of any of the rights conferred by this Part (Part III - Fundamental Rights) to such extent as it may determine to be required in the interests of:
the sovereignty and integrity of India,
the security of the State,
friendly relations with foreign States,
public order,
decency or morality, or
in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
but nothing in this article shall authorize Parliament to abrogate the fundamental rights of any person to be dealt with in accordance with the ordinary law of the land.”
2. Purpose and Significance
Article 33 permits Parliament to restrict or regulate the fundamental rights of certain categories of persons, particularly those in the armed forces, paramilitary forces, police, and intelligence agencies.
It acknowledges that the ordinary enjoyment of fundamental rights may have to be curtailed for members of these services in the interests of national security, discipline, and efficiency.
This Article is a special power granted to Parliament that overrides the general fundamental rights under Part III, but only in a limited and regulated manner.
It reflects the balance between individual rights and the needs of the state, especially the security apparatus.
3. Scope and Application
Primarily applies to members of the Armed Forces, Paramilitary Forces, Police Forces, and Intelligence Agencies.
The rights which can be restricted include freedom of speech, movement, assembly, etc.
Parliament exercises this power by enacting specific laws or regulations (such as the Army Act, Air Force Act, Navy Act, Police Acts).
The restrictions are usually to maintain discipline, ensure security, and safeguard sensitive information.
4. Limitations
Restrictions must be reasonable and necessary.
Parliament cannot completely abrogate fundamental rights; the rights may only be regulated or restricted.
The curtailed rights apply only in the context of official duties and the service framework.
The rights of such personnel as citizens outside their official roles remain intact.
5. Relevant Case Law
A. Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal (1969)
The Supreme Court held that Parliament can regulate fundamental rights of armed forces personnel under Article 33.
Laws enacted by Parliament (such as the Army Act) have overriding effect over fundamental rights in the interest of discipline and security.
B. Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner (1963)
The Court recognized that certain rights may be restricted in the interests of public order and security.
Validated restrictions on freedoms in service conditions.
C. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Though primarily dealing with Article 21, the case stressed that any restriction on rights must be reasonable.
This principle applies to regulations under Article 33 as well.
D. Special Reference No. 1 of 1964 (Presidential Reference)
The Supreme Court examined whether the Army Act violated fundamental rights.
Held that Article 33 empowers Parliament to restrict fundamental rights for armed forces and such laws are constitutionally valid.
6. Examples of Laws Enacted Under Article 33
Army Act, 1950
Air Force Act, 1950
Navy Act, 1957
Police Acts in various states
Intelligence Agencies regulations
These laws impose restrictions on the rights of service members, including restrictions on freedom of speech, assembly, and movement, to ensure discipline and security.
7. Practical Implications
Members of armed forces cannot exercise certain fundamental rights fully, such as the right to protest or form associations.
Courts have upheld that such restrictions are necessary to maintain discipline and operational efficiency.
Article 33 ensures the State’s security interests are prioritized while providing a constitutional basis for these restrictions.
8. Summary
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Purpose | Allows Parliament to restrict fundamental rights of armed forces/personnel |
| Rights affected | Freedom of speech, assembly, movement, etc., but only in the service context |
| Grounds for restriction | Sovereignty, integrity, security, public order, morality, etc. |
| Limits | Restrictions must be reasonable; no complete abrogation allowed |
| Applicable persons | Armed forces, paramilitary, police, intelligence agencies |
| Key laws | Army Act, Navy Act, Air Force Act, Police Acts |
| Judicial stance | Upheld Parliament’s power under Article 33, subject to reasonableness |
Conclusion
Article 33 is a constitutional safeguard allowing Parliament to place reasonable restrictions on the fundamental rights of armed forces and related personnel, balancing individual rights with the collective need for security and discipline. Judicial interpretations affirm the necessity of these restrictions but insist on their reasonableness and necessity, preventing arbitrary curtailment of rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments