Rights in the Indian Constitution

Why this chapter matters for UPSC: Part III is the most examined part of the Constitution. Prelims tests Article numbers, the grounds on which each freedom may be restricted, what preventive detention allows, which writ does what, and which rights survive an Emergency; Mains asks how the courts widened Article 21 (privacy in GS2 2017 and 2024; a clean environment in 2015; the "living instrument" in 2023), how equality in India differs from the United States (2021), and whether the human rights commissions have teeth (2021). NCERT's chapter supplies the frame: why rights are written into a constitution, what makes some of them "fundamental", how the judiciary protects them, and why the Directive Principles sit apart. The chapter is unchanged in the rationalised Reprint 2026-27. This page follows NCERT's order, quotes the clause text where the exact words matter, and dates every amendment by its commencement, not only its year.

🧠 First Principles — Read This First

Start with NCERT's two stories. In 1982, contractors building flyovers and stadiums for the Asian Games paid migrant workers less than the minimum wage; social scientists petitioned the Supreme Court, which accepted that paying less than the prescribed minimum "amounts to begar or forced labour" and ordered the wages paid. Machal Lalung of Morigaon, Assam, arrested at 23, was found unfit to stand trial, treated, declared fit in 1967 and again in 1996, and ignored; he was released in July 2005, aged 77, after 54 years in custody, when a team appointed by the National Human Rights Commission inspected undertrials. NCERT's point: the first case shows what a right does when it is enforced; the second shows "what happens when rights granted by the Constitution are not available in practice."

A bill of rights protects against the State and binds it to protect against others. "Such a list of rights mentioned and protected by the constitution is called the 'bill of rights'." Rights may be threatened by another person or private organisation, so the government must be bound to protect them; and the organs of government themselves (legislature, executive, bureaucracy, "or even the judiciary") may violate them.

What makes a right "fundamental". Ordinary legal rights "are protected and enforced by ordinary law" and "may be changed by the legislature by ordinary process of law making"; a Fundamental Right "may only be changed by amending the Constitution itself", "no organ of the government can act in a manner that violates them", and the judiciary can declare executive and legislative action illegal if it violates them "or restrict them in an unreasonable manner". But "fundamental rights are not absolute or unlimited rights. Government can put reasonable restrictions on the exercise of our fundamental rights."

PART 1 — Quick Reference

The Six Fundamental Rights (Part III, Articles 12 to 35)

The Constitution of 1950 also listed the right to property (Articles 19(1)(f) and 31). The 44th Amendment Act, 1978 removed both with effect from 20 June 1979 and inserted Article 300A: "No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law."

Grounds of Restriction, Freedom by Freedom (Article 19(2) to (6))

The 19(2) list applies to speech alone. GS2 2022 asked exactly how movement and residence are restricted "despite being available to citizens": the answer is 19(5).

Writs (NCERT's descriptions, with the legal detail)

Article 226(1) gives every High Court the power to issue the same writs "for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose", which is why the High Court's writ power is wider than the Supreme Court's under Article 32.

Directive Principles (NCERT's chart of what Part IV contains)

Article 37 sets the status: the provisions "shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws." Textbooks (Laxmikanth) also sort the Directives into socialistic (38, 39, 39A, 41, 42, 43, 43A, 47), Gandhian (40, 43, 43B, 46, 47, 48) and liberal-intellectual (44, 45, 48, 48A, 49, 50, 51) groups; the scheme is the author's, not the Constitution's, and Articles 43, 47 and 48 sit in two groups each.

Amendments That Changed Part III and Part IV

PART 2 — Concepts & Narrative

The Importance of Rights and the Idea of a Bill of Rights

NCERT's two opening cases are given above. From them it draws the general rule: a democracy "must ensure that individuals have certain rights and that the government will always recognise these rights", which is why most democratic constitutions list them. The leaders of the freedom movement had demanded this of the British; "the Motilal Nehru committee had demanded a bill of rights as far back as in 1928", so at independence "there were no two opinions on the inclusion and protection of rights in the Constitution."

Right to Equality

NCERT opens with two imaginary but "similar things do happen" cases: a village tea-shop serves a Dalit friend in an earthen cup; four women newsreaders over forty-five are taken off screen while two men of the same age are not. One is caste discrimination, the other gender discrimination. The right to equality "provides for equal access to public places like shops, hotels, places of entertainment, wells, bathing ghats and places of worship" with no discrimination "on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth" (Article 15(2) names shops, public restaurants, hotels, places of public entertainment, wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort), prohibits discrimination in public employment on those grounds (Article 16), abolishes untouchability (Article 17) and bars titles other than military or academic distinctions (Article 18).

Equality of opportunity and reservation. The Preamble "mentions two things about equality: equality of status and equality of opportunity." In a society of social inequalities, NCERT says, "the Constitution clarifies that the government can implement special schemes and measures for improving the conditions of certain sections of society: children, women, and the socially and educationally backward classes", and "Article 16(4) of the constitution explicitly clarifies that a policy like reservation will not be seen as a violation of right to equality." NCERT prints the clause: "Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State." The chapter's "You are the judge" exercise (Hadibandhu's postcard from Puri: Dalit men refuse to wash the feet of upper-caste grooms and guests; four women beaten, one paraded naked) is an Article 17 and Article 21 case: the custom enforces a disability arising from untouchability, and the violence attacks dignity; the order sought would be prosecution under the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, with protection for the complainants.

Case law the exam expects. State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (9 April 1951, seven judges) struck down the Madras Communal G.O. for medical and engineering admissions under Articles 15(1) and 29(2); the First Amendment answered with Article 15(4), in force 18 June 1951. Reservation's later landmarks are on this site's Political Theory page on equality (Balaji 1962, Indra Sawhney 16 November 1992, Janhit Abhiyan 7 November 2022, Davinder Singh 1 August 2024). Equality in India and the United States (GS2 2021): the US Fourteenth Amendment's "equal protection" is a prohibition; India adds enabling clauses (15(3)-(6), 16(4)-(6), 46) that make affirmative action part of equality itself.

Right to Freedom

"Equality and freedom or liberty, are the two rights that are most essential to a democracy." Liberty "does not mean freedom to do anything that one desires or likes", so freedoms "are defined in such a manner that every person will enjoy her freedom without threatening freedom of others and without endangering the law and order situation."

Life and personal liberty (Article 21). NCERT calls it "the foremost right among rights to freedom" and prints the text: "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." It lists the arrest safeguards: grounds of arrest, a lawyer of one's choice, production before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours (these are Article 22(1) and (2)). Then the expansion: the Supreme Court "has ruled that this right also includes right to live with human dignity, free from exploitation", and "that right to shelter and livelihood is also included in the right to life because no person can live without the means of living". The cases behind those sentences: Maneka Gandhi (25 January 1978) made the procedure one that must be "fair, just and reasonable"; Bandhua Mukti Morcha (16 December 1983) on dignity and bonded labour; Olga Tellis (10 July 1985) on livelihood and the pavement dwellers; Unni Krishnan (4 February 1993) on education; Puttaswamy (24 August 2017, nine judges) on privacy; M.K. Ranjitsinh (21 March 2024) on a right against the adverse effects of climate change under Articles 14 and 21. Note NCERT's own slip: it writes "No citizen can be denied his or her life"; Article 21 says "No person".

Preventive detention. NCERT: a person "can be arrested simply out of an apprehension that he or she is likely to engage in unlawful activity", and "this preventive detention can be extended only for three months. After three months such a case is brought before an advisory board for review." The text is more layered. Article 22(3) takes the arrest safeguards away from anyone detained under a preventive-detention law; Article 22(4) bars detention beyond three months unless an Advisory Board of persons who are, have been or are qualified to be High Court judges "has reported before the expiration of the said period of three months that there is in its opinion sufficient cause"; Article 22(7) lets Parliament prescribe the circumstances and classes of cases in which detention may exceed three months without a Board, and the maximum period any law may allow. The 44th Amendment's section 3 (two months; a Board chaired by a serving High Court judge) has never been brought into force. NCERT's verdict stands: the provision "has often been misused by the government", and there is "a clear tension between right to life and personal liberty and the provision for preventive detention." The National Security Act, 1980 is a preventive-detention statute made under this Article; the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 is a penal law (offences, designations, bail conditions) and does not rest on Article 22.

The other freedoms. NCERT's examples: speech and expression is "subject to restrictions such as public order, peace and morality etc."; assembly must be "peacefully and without arms", and the administration may declare an assembly of five or more persons unlawful in an area, a power "easily misused" against genuine protest. The exact grounds are in the table above, clause by clause. In the Constituent Assembly, NCERT notes, "some members had expressed their dissatisfaction about restrictions on rights"; its box quotes Somnath Lahiri on 29 April 1947: "many of these fundamental rights have been framed from the point of view of a police constable... Almost every article is followed by a proviso which takes away the right almost completely". The leading free-speech case of this century is Shreya Singhal (24 March 2015), which struck down section 66A of the IT Act "in its entirety" and separated advocacy from incitement (GS2 2013 and 2014 asked about 66A and hate speech).

Rights of the accused (Article 20). "No one is guilty unless the court has found that person guilty." NCERT's three protections are Article 20's three clauses: no punishment for the same offence more than once (20(2)); no law declaring an act illegal "from a backdate", nor a heavier penalty than the law in force at the time (20(1)); no one compelled to be a witness against himself (20(3)).

Right against Exploitation

Two forms of exploitation are prohibited: begar, "forced labour without payment", and "buying and selling of human beings and using them as slaves". Forced labour "was imposed by landlords, moneylenders and other wealthy persons in the past", and "some form of bonded labour still continues in the country, specially in brick kiln work"; it "has now been declared a crime" (the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976). Article 23(1) is the text; Article 23(2) preserves compulsory service for public purposes without discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class. Article 23 binds private persons as well as the State, which is how the Asiad workers' case was decided against contractors.

Article 24 forbids employing a child below fourteen "in any factory or mine" or "any other hazardous employment". NCERT adds that "with child labour being made illegal and right to education becoming a fundamental right for children, this right against exploitation has become more meaningful." The statute is the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, as amended by Act 35 of 2016 (in force 1 September 2016), which renamed it the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act: "No child shall be employed or permitted to work in any occupation or process" (new section 3), with exceptions for helping the family in a non-hazardous family enterprise and for child artists, and a bar on adolescents aged fourteen to eighteen in hazardous occupations.

Right to Freedom of Religion

"Everyone enjoys the right to follow the religion of his or her choice", a freedom NCERT calls "a hallmark of democracy" after centuries in which rulers persecuted or forcibly converted those of other faiths.

Freedom of faith and worship. Freedom of religion "includes the freedom of conscience" (a person "may choose not to follow any religion") and "the freedom to profess, follow and propagate any religion", subject to "public order, morality and health". The government "can interfere in religious matters for rooting out certain social evils": NCERT's examples are the bans on sati, bigamy and human sacrifice, which "cannot be opposed in the name of interference in right to freedom of religion." Article 25(2)(b) is the textual basis: laws "providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus"; 25(2)(a) covers "economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice". On propagation NCERT is careful: it "includes persuading people to convert from one religion to another", but "the Constitution does not allow forcible conversions. It only gives us the right to spread information about our religion and thus attract others to it." The Supreme Court drew the same line in Rev. Stainislaus (17 January 1977), upholding the Madhya Pradesh and Odisha anti-conversion Acts: Article 25 protects the spreading of one's religion "by an exposition of its tenets", not a right to convert another person.

Equality of all religions. "India does not have any official religion. We don't have to belong to any particular religion in order to be a prime minister or president or judge or any other public official"; State institutions "will not preach any religion or give religious education nor will they favour persons of any religion." In the text: Article 27 (no tax whose proceeds are specifically appropriated to a religion), Article 28(1) (no religious instruction in institutions wholly maintained out of State funds; 28(2) excepts endowment-founded institutions administered by the State; 28(3) protects students in recognised or aided institutions from compulsory attendance), and Article 16(2). NCERT's word for the objective is secularism; S.R. Bommai (11 March 1994) treats it as part of the basic structure, and chapter 10 explains why India's version is "principled distance" rather than a wall of separation. NCERT's own tick-list misprints Article 27 as "Freedom to pay taxes for promotion of any particular religion"; the Article is a freedom from being taxed for that purpose.

Cultural and Educational Rights

"Our Constitution believes that diversity is our strength." Minority status "is not dependent only upon religion. Linguistic and cultural minorities are also included." Minorities are groups that share a language or religion and, "in a particular part of the country or in the country as a whole", are outnumbered; they "have the right to conserve and develop" their culture, language and script (Article 29(1), which speaks of "any section of the citizens", so it is not confined to minorities). "All minorities, religious or linguistic, can set up their own educational institutions" (Article 30(1)), and the government "will not, while granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the basis that it is under the management of minority community" (30(2)). NCERT's margin voice ("I am in minority in my locality but majority in the town...") makes the point that minority status is relative to the unit. Its box quotes Sardar Hukam Singh (26 May 1949): "the only safety for the minorities lies in a secular State... The majority community should not boast of their national outlook."

Right to Constitutional Remedies

"Merely writing down a list of rights is not enough. There has to be a way through which they could be realised in practice and defended." NCERT: "Dr. Ambedkar considered the right to constitutional remedies as 'heart and soul of the constitution'." His words on 9 December 1948, moving draft Article 25 (now Article 32): "If I was asked to name any particular article in this Constitution as the most important, an article without which this Constitution would be a nullity, I could not refer to any other article except this one. It is the very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it." "Heart and soul" is a paraphrase, and this page prints it only as NCERT's.

Article 32(1) guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court; 32(2) the writ power; 32(3) lets Parliament empower other courts; 32(4) says the right "shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution". The exception is Article 359(1): during an Emergency the President may suspend "the right to move any court for the enforcement of such of the rights conferred by Part III (except articles 20 and 21) as may be mentioned in the order" (the exception for 20 and 21 is the 44th Amendment's, w.e.f. 20 June 1979). High Courts act under Article 226 "for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose". L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (18 March 1997, seven judges) held that "the power of judicial review over legislative action vested in the High Courts under Articles 226 and in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution, constituting part of its basic structure", and that tribunal decisions are subject to the High Courts' writ jurisdiction.

Other mechanisms. NCERT names the National Commission for Minorities, the National Commission for Women and the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, and the National Human Rights Commission, "established by law" in 1993 in the background of watchdog groups such as the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and the People's Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR). The Commission was established on 12 October 1993. NCERT gives the 1993 composition (a former Chief Justice of India, a former Supreme Court judge, a former High Court Chief Justice, and two members with experience of human rights); since the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2019 (w.e.f. 2 August 2019) section 3 provides for "a Chairperson who has been a Chief Justice of India or a Judge of the Supreme Court", one member who is or has been a Supreme Court judge, one who is or has been a High Court Chief Justice, and three members with human-rights knowledge, at least one a woman. Its functions: inquiry on its own initiative or on petition, jail visits, research; its complaints run to thousands a year (custodial death and rape, disappearances, police excesses); NCERT credits its interventions on disappeared youth in Punjab and the Gujarat riot cases. The limit NCERT stresses, and GS2 2021 asked about: "The Commission does not have the power of prosecution. It can merely make recommendations to the government or recommend to the courts to initiate proceedings."

Directive Principles of State Policy

The framers knew independent India "was going to face many challenges", foremost "the challenge to bring about equality and well-being of all citizens", and wanted "certain policy direction" without binding future governments. So guidelines were written in "but they were not made legally enforceable": "if a government did not implement a particular guideline, we cannot go to the court asking the court to instruct the government to implement that policy." They are non-justiciable; the framers "thought that the moral force behind these guidelines would ensure that the government would take them seriously", and that people "would also hold the governments responsible for implementing these directives." NCERT's chart (table above) sorts them into goals, non-justiciable rights and policies.

What governments did with them. NCERT lists zamindari abolition, bank nationalisation, factory laws, minimum wages, promotion of cottage and small industries, reservation for SCs and STs, the right to education, panchayati raj "all over the country", "partial right to work under employment guarantee programme" and the mid-day meal scheme. Two of those have moved since the text was written: the Mahatma Gandhi NREGA was repealed on 1 July 2026 when the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act, 2025 came into force with a 125-day guarantee; the mid-day meal scheme has been PM POSHAN since 2021-22. Article 39A (free legal aid) produced the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987; Article 45 (as it stood) became Article 21A and the RTE Act, 2009; Article 48A sits behind the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Article 44's uniform civil code remains a Directive at the Union level; Uttarakhand brought a State UCC into force on 27 January 2025, and Gujarat's Assembly passed the Gujarat Uniform Civil Code Bill on 24 March 2026 (no commencement notification had been found as of 4 October 2026); the 21st Law Commission's consultation paper of 31 August 2018 called a uniform code "neither necessary nor desirable at this stage", and the 22nd Law Commission re-invited views on 14 June 2023.

Fundamental Duties. NCERT's bullets: the 42nd Amendment of 1976 "inserted a list of Fundamental Duties of Citizens. In all, ten duties were enumerated. However, the Constitution does not say anything about enforcing these duties"; citizens "must abide by the Constitution, defend our country, promote harmony among all citizens, protect the environment"; and "our Constitution does not make the enjoyment of rights dependent or conditional upon fulfilment of duties." The eleventh duty, 51A(k) (a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to a child or ward aged six to fourteen), took effect on 1 April 2010. Two clauses are often shortened in notes and should not be: 51A(e) ends "to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women", and 51A(g) ends "and to have compassion for living creatures". The duties were inserted "upon the recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee" of 1976 (as the Union told the Supreme Court in 2022); the Justice J.S. Verma Committee, set up in 1998 to operationalise their teaching, gave its final report on 31 October 1999. In AIIMS Students' Union v. AIIMS (24 August 2001) the Court said the duties, "though not enforceable by a writ of the court, yet provide a valuable guide and aid to interpretation of constitutional and legal issues".

Relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles

NCERT's framing: the two "are complementary". Rights "restrain the government from doing certain things while Directive Principles exhort the government to do certain things"; rights "mainly protect the rights of individuals while directive principles ensure the well-being of the entire society." Conflict arose when governments "sought to pass laws to abolish zamindari system", opposed as violating the right to property. The government "amended the Constitution to give effect to the Directive Principles", and "a long legal battle" followed in which "the government claimed that rights can be abridged for giving effect to Directive Principles", while "the court held the view that Fundamental Rights were so important and sacred that they cannot be limited even for purposes of implementing Directive Principles."

The right to property. NCERT's box: originally a Fundamental Right to "acquire, possess and maintain" property, with the proviso that it could be taken for public welfare; "since 1950, government made many laws that limited this right"; "finally, in 1973, the Supreme Court gave a decision that the right to property was not part of the basic structure" and Parliament could abridge it by amendment; "in 1978, the 44th amendment to the Constitution removed the right to property from the list of Fundamental Rights and converted it into a simple legal right under article 300 A." The amendment took effect on 20 June 1979.

The amendment question. "The government was saying that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution. The court was saying that Parliament cannot make an amendment that violated Fundamental Rights." The sequence, with the records: Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1965) upheld Parliament's power; Golak Nath (27 February 1967, eleven judges, 6:5) held that Parliament could not amend Part III, which asserted the primacy of rights, not of Parliament; the 24th Amendment (w.e.f. 5 November 1971) wrote the constituent power into Article 368, and the 25th inserted Article 31C (w.e.f. 20 April 1972); Kesavananda Bharati (24 April 1973, thirteen judges, 7:6) held that Parliament may amend any provision but may not alter the basic structure, and NCERT says this "settled" the controversy; the 42nd Amendment extended 31C to every Directive (w.e.f. 3 January 1977); Minerva Mills (31 July 1980, five judges: Chandrachud CJ, Bhagwati, Gupta, Untwalia, Kailasam) struck that extension down: "the Indian Constitution is founded on the bed-rock of the balance between Parts III and IV. To give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the Constitution. This harmony and balance between fundamental rights and directive principles is an essential feature of the basic structure." The same judgment is the source of the phrase "golden triangle" for Articles 14, 19 and 21 ("Article 31C has removed two sides of that golden triangle"), not Maneka Gandhi. Article 31C survives "to the extent that it was upheld in Kesavananda Bharati", as a nine-judge bench confirmed in Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra (5 November 2024), which also held that "not every resource owned by an individual can be considered a 'material resource of the community'" under Article 39(b). Laws added to the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 "would not have absolute immunity" and "can be challenged on the touchstone of basic structure" (I.R. Coelho, 11 January 2007, nine judges). Chapter 9 takes the story on. One more statute to date: the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 became the Protection of Civil Rights Act by Act 106 of 1976, with effect from 19 November 1976.

Conclusion

NCERT ends with Jotirao Phuley (1827-1890), "a radical social reformer from Maharashtra", in whose writings "we find one of the earliest expressions of the view that rights include both freedom and equality." The national movement sharpened the idea into constitutional rights; since 1950 "the judiciary has functioned as an important protector of rights", and "judicial interpretations have expanded the scope of rights in many respects." Rights "enforce limitations on the functioning of the government and ensure democratic governance of the country."

PART 3 — UPSC Integration

Applying the Chapter

1. Rights questions follow the right-remedy-restriction structure. State the clause, the writ or forum that enforces it, and the exact ground of restriction (never the generic 19(2) list for every freedom).
2. The FR-DPSP arc is a settled narrative. Champakam (1951) and the First Amendment; the property battles; Golak Nath (1967) and the 24th Amendment; Kesavananda (1973); the 42nd Amendment and Minerva Mills (1980). End with NCERT's word: complementary.
3. Dates, not just years. Act year and commencement differ for the 44th (1978 / 20 June 1979), 86th (2002 / 1 April 2010) and 97th (2011 / 15 February 2012) Amendments; a one-year slip is a lost mark.
4. NCERT's exercises are Mains prompts. Exercise 6 (should Directive Principles be made binding?) and Exercise 8 (the FCI godowns petition: food, livelihood, information, and whether they belong in Article 21) are answer frames in themselves.

Exam Strategy

• Prelims: learn the Article table and the restriction table; know which rights use "person" and which "citizen"; know the three Article 20 protections, the Article 22 structure, and the Article 359 exception.
• Mains: quote the clause rather than paraphrasing it (Article 37's "nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country"; Minerva's "bed-rock of the balance").
• Confused pairs: 29 (any section of citizens) vs 30 (minorities only); 32 (Supreme Court, Part III only) vs 226 (High Courts, Part III "and for any other purpose"); prohibition (before decision) vs certiorari (after); Art 358 (Art 19, war or external aggression only) vs Art 359 (named rights, never 20 and 21); Act year vs commencement.
• Cross-reading: Political Theory chapters 2 (Freedom), 3 (Equality) and 5 (Rights) for the concepts; chapter 9 of this book for Article 368 and the basic structure.

Practice Questions

NCERT's exercises, worked

1. True or false: (a) True. (b) True. (c) False: the United Kingdom has no single entrenched bill of rights. (d) True: Article 32 and Article 226.
2. Best description of Fundamental Rights: (c) "The rights given and protected by the Constitution". Not (d): they can be restricted reasonably.
3. Which right is used or violated: (a) Article 14 and 15(1): sex discrimination in promotion. (b) Article 19(1)(a): the film is an exercise of expression. (c) Article 19(1)(b): peaceable assembly; the demand itself rests on Article 21 (livelihood and shelter). (d) Article 29(1) and 30(1): a linguistic minority conserving its language through its own schools.
4. Cultural and educational rights: (c) is the closest, with the caveat that Article 29(2) bars denying admission on grounds only of language or religion, so the schools are not "reserved" in the absolute sense; (a), (b) and (d) are wrong.
5. Violation of Fundamental Rights: (a) yes, Article 23 (the Asiad case). (b) depends: a ban is a restriction on 19(1)(a) that must fit a 19(2) ground. (c) not a violation: a reasonable restriction in the interests of public order and the right to sleep under Article 21. (d) no: making a speech is the exercise of a right.
6. Should Directive Principles be made binding? Argue both sides with NCERT: the framers chose moral force over enforceability so that future governments were not bound to one policy; but Article 21A shows a Directive can become a right when the State is ready.
7. Manual scavenging communities: Articles 17 (disability arising from untouchability), 23 (forced labour), 21 (dignity), 21A (children's education), 15(1) and 16 (discrimination).
8. The FCI godowns petition: the right to food and livelihood under Article 21, the right to information about entitlements, and equality in access; they are interlinked because one cannot enjoy life with dignity without food or the knowledge of how to claim it. Yes, they belong in Article 21, as the PUCL right-to-food orders held.
9. Somnath Lahiri: agree in part: every freedom has a proviso (19(2)-(6)), preventive detention is inside the rights chapter; disagree in part: the courts have read the provisos narrowly (Shreya Singhal) and widened Article 21.
10. The most important right: NCERT's own candidate is Article 32, without which the Constitution "would be a nullity" (Ambedkar); Article 21 is the other defensible answer.

Practice (UPSC-pattern, not past papers)

11. The grounds on which the State may restrict the freedoms in Article 19(1) differ from freedom to freedom. Set them out and explain why the framers did not use one list. (GS2, 10 marks)
12. "Preventive detention is a hole in the chapter on rights that the Constitution itself provides." Examine Article 22(3) to (7) and the unimplemented change of the 44th Amendment. (GS2, 15 marks)
13. Trace the Supreme Court's position on the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles from Champakam Dorairajan to Minerva Mills. (GS2, 15 marks)
14. NCERT says the NHRC "does not have the power of prosecution". Assess whether that limit, or the Commission's composition, better explains its record. (GS2, 10 marks)

📦 Revision Capsule

Sources

• NCERT, Indian Constitution at Work (Class XI), ch. 2 "Rights in the Indian Constitution", Reprint 2026-27: ncert.nic.in PDF; whole book, Wayback copy of 27 September 2026.
• The Constitution of India, as on 11 November 2025 (Part III, Part IV, Part IVA, Arts. 226, 300A, 358, 359, and amendment footnotes): Legislative Department PDF.
• Constituent Assembly Debates, 9 December 1948 (Ambedkar on draft Article 25): constitutionofindia.net.
• State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, 9 April 1951: Indian Kanoon.
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 24 April 1973: Indian Kanoon.
• Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, 31 July 1980: Indian Kanoon.
• Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 10 July 1985: Indian Kanoon.
• S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, 11 March 1994: Indian Kanoon.
• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, 24 March 2015: Indian Kanoon.
• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, 24 August 2017: Indian Kanoon.
• M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, 21 March 2024 (2024 INSC 280): Indian Kanoon.
• Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act, 2025 in force 1 July 2026 (MGNREGA repealed; revised wage rates notified): All India Radio News.
• Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 17 January 1977: Indian Kanoon.
• L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, 18 March 1997: Indian Kanoon.
• I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, 11 January 2007: Indian Kanoon.
• AIIMS Students' Union v. AIIMS, 24 August 2001: Indian Kanoon.
• Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra, 5 November 2024: Indian Kanoon.
• Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2016 (Act 35 of 2016): PRS copy of the Act; commencement 1 September 2016: PIB, 10 February 2020.
• Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, as amended in 2019: NHRC PDF (s. 3 composition; s. 18 recommendations).
• Law Commission of India, Consultation Paper on Reform of Family Law (31 August 2018): Wayback copy; 22nd Law Commission public notice (14 June 2023): PDF; Gujarat Assembly passes the UCC Bill: All India Radio News, 25 March 2026.
• Attorney General's written note on Fundamental Duties (Swaran Singh and Verma Committees), filed in the Supreme Court, 2022: Supreme Court Observer copy.