Article 33 of the Costitution of India with Case law
๐งพ Article 33 โ Constitution of India
Title: Power of Parliament to modify the rights conferred by this Part in their application to Forces, etc.
๐ Text of Article 33
Parliament may, by law, determine to what extent any of the rights conferred by this Part (Part III - Fundamental Rights) shall, in their application to โ
(a) the members of the Armed Forces; or
(b) the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order; or
(c) persons employed in any bureau or other organization established by the State for purposes of intelligence or counterintelligence; or
(d) persons employed in, or in connection with, the telecommunication systems set up for the purposes of any Force, bureau or organization referred to in clauses (a) to (c),
be restricted or abrogated so as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline among them.
๐ง Purpose of Article 33
To ensure discipline, efficiency, and loyalty within the Armed Forces and related services.
To allow the Parliament to curtail or modify Fundamental Rights (like freedom of speech or association) for security personnel, ensuring military discipline and national security.
It does not automatically restrict rightsโonly enables Parliament to do so by law.
๐ Examples of Laws Made Under Article 33
Army Act, 1950
Navy Act, 1957
Air Force Act, 1950
Border Security Force Act, 1968
Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949
The Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966
These Acts restrict rights like:
Right to form associations (e.g., trade unions),
Right to speech (e.g., against superior officers),
Right to strike.
โ๏ธ Important Case Laws on Article 33
1. ๐๏ธ O.K. Ghosh v. E.X. Joseph (AIR 1963 SC 812)
Facts: The case involved the validity of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, which restricted civil servants' right to form associations.
Held:
The right to form associations can be restricted for discipline in service.
Article 33 was invoked to justify the restriction.
The Supreme Court upheld the restrictions as valid, recognizing the need to balance discipline with rights.
2. ๐๏ธ Ram Sarup v. Union of India (AIR 1965 SC 247)
Facts: A military personnel was court-martialed under the Army Act and challenged it under Article 21 (Right to Life).
Held:
The Army Act is a law made under Article 33.
The Court held that procedures laid down under military law override general constitutional guarantees, as long as they are within Article 33's framework.
Rights of armed personnel can be curtailed lawfully under properly enacted statutes.
3. ๐๏ธ Union of India v. Ex. Gnr. Ajeet Singh (2013 SC)
Held:
Article 33 allows restriction of rights only by parliamentary law.
Executive orders or departmental rules cannot be used to restrict fundamental rights under Article 33.
Reinforced that only Parliament (not state legislatures or departments) can curtail rights under this Article.
๐งพ Summary Table:
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Applies to | Armed Forces, police, intelligence, and telecom personnel involved with these forces |
| Rights Affected | Freedom of speech, association, expression, etc. (from Part III) |
| Law Required | Parliamentary law only (not executive orders) |
| Purpose | Maintain discipline, duty, and national security |
| Judicial Review | Yes, but limitedโcourts defer to Parliament's discretion if purpose is valid |
๐งญ Final Note:
Article 33 is a restriction on fundamental rights, not their violation.
It balances national interest and constitutional liberty in special sectors like defense and intelligence.
Judicial scrutiny is minimal, as long as there is legal backing and a legitimate objective.
RELATED Blog
0 comments