Role in protecting fundamental rights
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
➤ Issue:
The case challenged the constitutional validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments, which gave Parliament the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
➤ Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament can amend the Constitution, but cannot alter its "basic structure". Fundamental rights form part of this basic structure.
➤ Role in Protecting Fundamental Rights:
Established the "Basic Structure Doctrine", limiting Parliament’s power to curtail fundamental rights.
Protected individual liberties from excessive legislative actions.
Ensured the supremacy of the Constitution over transient political majorities.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
➤ Issue:
The government impounded Maneka Gandhi’s passport without giving her a reason or a hearing, under the Passports Act.
➤ Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the right to travel abroad is part of the right to personal liberty under Article 21, and any law restricting it must be just, fair, and reasonable.
➤ Role in Protecting Fundamental Rights:
Broadened the scope of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
Introduced the doctrine of “procedure established by law” must be just, fair, and reasonable, not arbitrary.
Strengthened due process of law in Indian jurisprudence.
3. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) (and its overruling)
➤ Issue:
Gopalan was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, and challenged it under Article 21.
➤ Judgment:
The Court, in this early judgment, upheld the detention, saying that as long as the law existed, the procedure under it was valid—even if arbitrary.
➤ Role in Protecting Fundamental Rights (Negative Example):
This case showed judicial conservatism, as the Court gave a narrow interpretation of Article 21.
However, it was later overruled in Maneka Gandhi, leading to an expansive interpretation of fundamental rights.
4. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
➤ Issue:
Slum dwellers and pavement dwellers in Mumbai were to be evicted by the municipal authorities. They challenged this action as a violation of their fundamental rights.
➤ Judgment:
The Court held that the right to livelihood is a part of the right to life under Article 21.
➤ Role in Protecting Fundamental Rights:
Recognized socio-economic rights as essential to human dignity and life.
Balanced individual rights with state interests.
Prevented arbitrary eviction, reinforcing that administrative actions must follow due process.
5. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017)
➤ Issue:
The constitutional validity of Aadhaar and concerns over privacy violations.
➤ Judgment:
A nine-judge bench unanimously held that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19, and 21.
➤ Role in Protecting Fundamental Rights:
Elevated privacy to the level of a fundamental constitutional protection.
Protected citizens against state surveillance and data misuse.
Reinforced individual autonomy and digital rights in the modern age.
6. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)
➤ Issue:
Challenged the constitutional validity of Section 377 of IPC, which criminalized homosexual acts.
➤ Judgment:
The Supreme Court decriminalized consensual homosexual acts between adults, stating that Section 377 violated Articles 14, 15, and 21.
➤ Role in Protecting Fundamental Rights:
Upheld the right to equality, dignity, and privacy for the LGBTQ+ community.
Overturned colonial-era laws inconsistent with the Constitution.
Set a strong precedent for anti-discrimination and human rights.
Summary of Role in Protecting Fundamental Rights:
| Case | Key Article(s) | Protection Afforded |
|---|---|---|
| Kesavananda Bharati | Articles 13, 368 | Parliament cannot curtail basic rights |
| Maneka Gandhi | Article 21 | Due process and fairness required |
| A.K. Gopalan (overruled) | Article 21 | Initially limited, later expanded |
| Olga Tellis | Article 21 | Livelihood is integral to life |
| Puttaswamy | Articles 14, 19, 21 | Privacy as a fundamental right |
| Navtej Johar | Articles 14, 15, 21 | LGBTQ+ rights and equality |
Conclusion:
The judiciary serves as the guardian of fundamental rights. Through judicial review, the courts ensure that legislative and executive actions do not violate the Constitution. The Indian legal system has evolved from a narrow interpretation to a progressive, liberal understanding of fundamental rights, protecting not just civil and political rights but also socio-economic and personal liberties.
RELATED Blog
0 comments