Fundamental Rights in India: Articles 12 to 35, Landmark Cases and Judiciary Exam Notes

By Advocate Jyoti Saxena | LLB, LLM, CS | Practising Advocate, Rajasthan High Court

Fundamental Rights in India | Fundamental Right Indian Constitution | Articles 12 to 35 | 6 Fundamental Rights | Landmark Cases | RJS GJS UP PCS J Judiciary Exam

Fundamental rights in India sit in Part III of the Constitution — Articles 12 to 35 — and they are the section of the Constitution that generates the most litigation, the most landmark cases, and the most Mains examination questions. The reason is straightforward: these provisions are directly enforceable. A citizen can walk into the Supreme Court under Article 32 or a High Court under Article 226 and ask for a writ if a fundamental right has been violated. That enforceability — not present in Directive Principles, not present in Fundamental Duties — is what makes Part III the engine of constitutional litigation in India.

For judiciary exam preparation — RJS, GJS, UP PCS J and all other states Judiciary exams— fundamental rights questions appear in two very different forms. In the Prelims, they appear as MCQs testing which article covers which right, whether a particular right applies against private parties, and which writs are available for which violation. In the Mains, they appear as problem questions — a fact situation where a citizen’s rights have been affected by state action, and you must identify which article is violated, what test applies, and which writ gives the appropriate remedy. Getting both formats right requires more than reading a list of articles. It requires understanding how courts have read and expanded these provisions over seventy years of interpretation.

What Are Fundamental Rights — And Why Article 12 Comes First

Article 12 does not list a right. It defines ‘the State’ — and that definition determines who is bound by fundamental rights. Under Article 12, the State includes Parliament, the State Legislatures, the Government and Cabinet of India, all State Governments and their Cabinets, and all local or other authorities within Indian territory or under the control of the Government of India.

That last phrase — ‘other authorities’ — has been the subject of sustained judicial interpretation. The question of whether a corporation, a university, or a regulatory body qualifies as ‘the State’ under Article 12 has been decided case by case, and the test that emerged from Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1981) remains the standard: if a body is so substantially financed and controlled by the government that its actions are in effect government actions, it qualifies. Merely having statutory recognition does not make a body part of the State.

Article 12 — The Threshold Question for Every Fundamental Rights Problem:     Before you can argue that a fundamental right has been violated, you must   establish that the violating entity is ‘the State’ under Article 12.     Test from Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1981):   • Is the entity created by a statute?   • Does the government hold the entire share capital?   • Is the entity heavily financed by government funds?   • Does the government exercise pervasive and deep control over management?   • Does the entity perform a public function or carry out a government activity?     In a judiciary Mains problem question, if the entity acting against the   petitioner is a private company with no government connection, your Article 12   analysis should conclude that it does not qualify as State — and the fundamental   rights argument therefore does not arise against it directly.

The 6 Fundamental Rights in India — Articles 13 to 35

The original Constitution had seven fundamental rights. The Right to Property under Article 31 was removed by the 44th Amendment in 1978 and relocated to Article 300A as a legal right — enforceable by law, but no longer a fundamental right enforceable by writ. What remains are six fundamental rights.

Fundamental Right	Articles	Core Guarantee	Key Exceptions
Right to Equality	Articles 14-18	Equality before law (Art 14), no discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth (Art 15), equality of opportunity in public employment (Art 16), abolition of untouchability (Art 17), abolition of titles (Art 18)	Reasonable classification permitted under Art 14. Reservations for backward classes under Art 15(4), 15(5), 16(4). Special provisions for women and children.
Right to Freedom	Articles 19-22	Six freedoms under Art 19(1): speech and expression, assembly, association, movement, residence, profession. Right against ex post facto laws and double jeopardy (Art 20). Right to life and personal liberty (Art 21). Right to education (Art 21A). Protection against arbitrary arrest (Art 22)	Reasonable restrictions under Art 19(2) to 19(6). Art 22 protection not available to enemy aliens or persons detained under preventive detention laws.
Right Against Exploitation	Articles 23-24	Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour (Art 23). Prohibition of employment of children in factories, mines, or hazardous occupations below age 14 (Art 24)	Art 23 permits the State to impose compulsory service for public purposes without discrimination.
Right to Freedom of Religion	Articles 25-28	Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion (Art 25). Freedom to manage religious affairs (Art 26). No compulsion to pay taxes for religious promotion (Art 27). No religious instruction in State-funded institutions (Art 28)	Subject to public order, morality and health. State can regulate secular activities associated with religion.
Cultural and Educational Rights	Articles 29-30	Right of minorities to conserve language, script, culture (Art 29). Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions (Art 30)	State aid cannot be denied to minority institutions on grounds of religion or language alone under Art 30(2).
Right to Constitutional Remedies	Article 32	Right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights — Dr. Ambedkar called this the heart and soul of the Constitution. Five writs: habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, quo warranto	Article 32 itself is a fundamental right. It cannot be suspended except during Emergency under Article 359.

Article 13 — The Anti-Inconsistency Provision That Makes Fundamental Rights Enforceable

Article 13 is the provision that makes the rest of Part III work. It declares that all laws inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights are void to the extent of the inconsistency. This means any pre-constitutional law that contradicts a fundamental right becomes void from the date the Constitution came into force, and any post-constitutional law that violates a fundamental right is void from the date of enactment.

Article 13(2) bars the State from making any law that takes away or abridges the rights conferred by Part III — and any such law is void to the extent of the contravention. The word ‘law’ under Article 13(3) includes ordinances, orders, bye-laws, rules, regulations, notifications, customs and usages having the force of law. The debate about whether ‘law’ includes constitutional amendments — a question that drove the Golaknath and Kesavananda Bharati cases — was settled by holding that constitutional amendments under Article 368 are not ‘law’ under Article 13, but are still subject to the basic structure doctrine.

Right to Equality — Articles 14, 15, 16 in Judiciary Exam Context

Article 14 — Equality Before Law and Equal Protection of Laws

Article 14 contains two distinct guarantees — equality before law (a negative concept borrowed from English law, meaning no one is above the law) and equal protection of laws (a positive concept borrowed from the American 14th Amendment, meaning equals should be treated equally). The two are not the same.

Article 14 — The Reasonable Classification Test (Most Examined MCQ in Prelims):     Article 14 does not prohibit all classification. It prohibits arbitrary classification.   Classification is permissible if it satisfies TWO conditions:     1. The classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia — a real,      discernible distinction between those included in the class and those excluded.     2. The differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved      by the law — the basis of classification must be rationally connected to the      purpose of the law.     If either condition fails, the classification is arbitrary and the law is void   under Article 14.     Source: State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) — foundational case   on Article 14 classification.

Article 15 — Non-Discrimination and the Reservation Provisions

Article 15(1) bars the State from discriminating against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. The word ‘only’ is significant — discrimination on one of these grounds combined with another legitimate reason may not violate Article 15(1).

Article 15(3) permits the State to make special provisions for women and children — the basis for laws like the Maternity Benefit Act and special protective provisions for women in criminal law. Article 15(4) and 15(5) permit reservations for socially and educationally backward classes and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in educational institutions. Article 15(6), added by the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, introduced the 10% EWS reservation for economically weaker sections among the general category.

Article 16 — Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment

Article 16 applies specifically to matters of employment or appointment to any office under the State. Article 16(4) permits the State to make reservations in favour of backward classes that are not adequately represented in State services — this provision has generated more litigation than almost any other in the Constitution, including the Mandal Commission cases and the 50% cap established in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992).

Article 19 — The Six Freedoms and the Reasonable Restriction Framework

Article 19(1) originally guaranteed seven freedoms. The right to property under Article 19(1)(f) was deleted by the 44th Amendment in 1978. The six freedoms that remain are speech and expression, peaceful assembly, forming associations or unions, moving freely throughout India, residing in any part of India, and practising any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business.

Each freedom has its own set of reasonable restrictions in Articles 19(2) to 19(6). The restrictions are different for different freedoms — sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, and incitement to an offence can restrict free speech under Article 19(2). But these same grounds cannot restrict freedom of profession under Article 19(6). Knowing which restriction grounds apply to which freedom is a specific MCQ-tested fact in judiciary Prelims.

Freedom	Article	Restriction Grounds	Key Case
Speech and Expression	19(1)(a)	Sovereignty and integrity of India, State security, friendly foreign relations, public order, decency/morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to offence	Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950) — public order must be proximate to security of State
Peaceful Assembly	19(1)(b)	Sovereignty and integrity of India, public order	Only ‘peaceful’ assembly protected — armed assembly not covered
Forming Associations or Unions	19(1)(c)	Sovereignty and integrity of India, public order, morality	Trade unions protected, but right to strike is not a fundamental right
Movement throughout India	19(1)(d)	Reasonable restrictions in interests of general public or protection of Scheduled Tribes	Movement to restricted tribal areas can be controlled
Residence anywhere in India	19(1)(e)	Same as 19(1)(d)	Applies to citizens only — not foreigners
Profession, occupation, trade or business	19(1)(g)	Restrictions in interests of general public, State can prescribe professional qualifications	Bar Council’s right to regulate legal practice falls under 19(6)

Article 21 — The Most Litigated Fundamental Right in India

No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. That is the text of Article 21. Twelve words. The volume of rights that courts have read into those twelve words over seventy years has made Article 21 the largest single source of rights jurisprudence in India.

How Article 21 Expanded — The Maneka Gandhi Moment

The critical turning point was Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978). Before this case, the dominant understanding of Article 21 was that any procedure established by law — even an unfair or arbitrary one — satisfied the article’s requirements, as long as it was legally enacted (A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950). Maneka Gandhi changed this. The Supreme Court held that the procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable — not merely formal compliance with a statute. Article 21 was also held to be connected to Articles 14 and 19, not to be read in isolation. A procedure that is arbitrary fails Article 14. A procedure that unreasonably restricts freedom fails Article 19. A procedure that is unfair fails Article 21.

Rights Read Into Article 21 by the Supreme Court

• Right to live with human dignity — Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981)
• Right to livelihood — Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
• Right to health and medical care — Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996)
• Right to education — Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992), later codified as Article 21A by 86th Amendment
• Right to privacy — K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) — nine-judge bench unanimously held privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21
• Right to speedy trial — Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979)
• Right to legal aid — M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra (1978)
• Right against handcuffing without justification — Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980)
• Right to die with dignity — Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) — passive euthanasia and living will permitted
• Right to be forgotten — Kaushal Kishore v. State of UP — emerging right in digital context

Article 32 and Article 226 — Writs and the Difference That Matters for Mains

Article 32 gives every person the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights. Article 226 gives High Courts the power to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and also for any other purpose. These are not mirror provisions. The difference matters in a Mains answer.

Point of Difference	Article 32 (Supreme Court)	Article 226 (High Court)
Who can invoke it	Any person whose fundamental right is violated	Any person — for FR violation and for other legal rights too
Scope	Only for enforcement of fundamental rights	Wider — FR enforcement plus any other purpose
Nature of the right	Article 32 itself is a fundamental right	Article 226 is a constitutional power, not a fundamental right
Territorial jurisdiction	Across India	Within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court
Discretion	Supreme Court has discretion but generally cannot refuse if FR is violated	High Court has wider discretion — can decline on grounds like availability of alternative remedy
Writs available	Habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, quo warranto	Same five writs — but for wider purposes

Five Writs — Quick Reference for Judiciary Prelims MCQs:     Habeas Corpus: ‘You shall have the body’ — issued to produce a detained person   before court and to challenge the legality of detention.     Mandamus: ‘We command’ — issued to a public authority to perform a public   duty it has refused to perform. Cannot be issued against private individuals   or against the President/Governor in exercise of discretionary powers.     Prohibition: Issued to an inferior court or tribunal to stop proceeding beyond   its jurisdiction. Issued BEFORE judgment — unlike certiorari.     Certiorari: Issued to quash the order of an inferior court or tribunal   that has acted without jurisdiction or with jurisdictional error. Issued AFTER   the order — unlike prohibition.     Quo Warranto: ‘By what authority’ — issued to enquire into the legality of   a person’s claim to a public office. Cannot be issued for private office.

Can Fundamental Rights Be Amended and Can They Be Suspended?

Amendment of Fundamental Rights — The Basic Structure Doctrine

Parliament can amend fundamental rights under Article 368 — the Golaknath case (1967) initially held it could not, but Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) reversed that position by a 7:6 majority and held that Parliament can amend fundamental rights, but cannot destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. Fundamental rights themselves form part of the basic structure — particularly Articles 14, 19, and 21. An amendment that destroys the essence of any of these is unconstitutional.

Suspension of Fundamental Rights During Emergency

Fundamental Rights and Emergency — What Can and Cannot Be Suspended:     Under Article 358: During a National Emergency under Article 352, Article 19   stands automatically suspended for the duration of the Emergency.     Under Article 359: The President can suspend enforcement of ALL fundamental   rights except Articles 20 and 21 during a National Emergency.     Articles 20 and 21 CANNOT be suspended even during Emergency — this is   absolute. No detention order can override the right against self-incrimination   (Article 20) or the right to life (Article 21).     The 44th Amendment (1978) added this protection after the Emergency of 1975-77,   during which the ADM Jabalpur case (1976) had held that even Article 21 could   be suspended — a ruling widely criticised and effectively overruled by   K.S. Puttaswamy (2017).

Fundamental Rights in Judiciary Mains — How to Write the Answer

A Mains problem question on fundamental rights follows a predictable structure — every step carries independent marks under step marking. Missing any step costs marks even if the substantive law analysis is correct.

Step	What to Do	Common Error
Step 1 — Issue Identification	State clearly which fundamental right is at stake and under which article	Stating a broad principle without identifying the specific article
Step 2 — Article 12 Analysis	Establish that the party violating the right qualifies as ‘the State’ under Article 12 and the Ajay Hasia test	Skipping this step when the violating party is a corporation or statutory body
Step 3 — Prima Facie Violation	Show how the state action on the given facts prima facie violates the stated fundamental right	Not connecting facts to the specific guarantee of the article
Step 4 — Apply the Exception/Restriction	If a restriction applies (e.g., Article 19(2) on free speech), apply the test — is the restriction for a permissible purpose? Is it reasonable?	Citing the exception without applying the reasonableness standard
Step 5 — Proportionality	For Articles 14, 19, 21 post-Maneka Gandhi, apply proportionality — is the restriction proportionate to the aim?	Ignoring proportionality review, which is now a standard tool
Step 6 — Writ Remedy	State which writ is appropriate and from which court (Article 32 or Article 226)	Naming the wrong writ for the wrong remedy

Landmark Cases on Fundamental Rights — Exam Frequency Table

Case	Year	Article	Ratio — What Was Decided	Exam Frequency
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala	1973	Article 368 + FR	Parliament can amend FR but cannot destroy basic structure. FR are part of basic structure.	Very High
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India	1978	Article 21	Procedure must be fair, just, reasonable. Articles 14, 19, 21 are interlinked.	Very High
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India	1992	Article 16(4)	50% cap on reservations. Creamy layer exclusion. No reservation in promotions.	Very High
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India	2017	Article 21	Right to privacy is a fundamental right. ADM Jabalpur effectively overruled.	Very High
Golaknath v. State of Punjab	1967	Article 368 + FR	Parliament cannot amend FR (overruled by Kesavananda Bharati)	High
Minerva Mills v. Union of India	1980	Articles 31C, 368	Balance between FR and DPSPs is basic structure. Parliament cannot destroy FR to implement DPSPs.	High
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib	1981	Article 12	Test for ‘other authorities’ — government control test for State under Article 12.	High
State of WB v. Anwar Ali Sarkar	1952	Article 14	Reasonable classification test — intelligible differentia + rational nexus.	High
Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar	1979	Article 21	Right to speedy trial is part of right to life and personal liberty.	Medium-High
IR Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu	2007	9th Schedule + FR	Laws under 9th Schedule can be challenged if they violate basic structure including FR under Articles 14, 19, 21.	Medium-High

Fundamental Rights and the New Criminal Codes — BNS, BNSS, BSA

The replacement of IPC, CrPC, and the Indian Evidence Act by BNS, BNSS, and BSA from 1 July 2024 has created direct intersections with fundamental rights provisions that are now examined in judiciary Mains questions.

Fundamental Right	Old Code Provision	New Code Provision	Exam Relevance
Article 20(1) — No ex post facto punishment	IPC applicability to pre-July 2024 offences	BNS applies only to offences after 1 July 2024 — old offences tried under IPC/CrPC	Exam question: Can BNS be applied to a 2023 offence? Answer: No — Article 20(1) bars it.
Article 20(2) — Double jeopardy	Section 300 CrPC	Section 337 BNSS — same protection retained	Article 20(2) is the constitutional basis; BNSS is the procedural expression
Article 20(3) — Right against self-incrimination	Section 161(2) CrPC	Section 180 BNSS — same protection for accused	Police cannot compel an accused to be a witness against himself
Article 21 — Right to life and BNSS bail	Section 436, 437, 438 CrPC	Sections 478-484 BNSS — bail as rule for non-heinous offences; 7-day decision timeline	Satender Kumar Antil case now given statutory backing in BNSS
Article 22 — Protection against arbitrary arrest	Section 41 CrPC — Arnesh Kumar guidelines	Section 35 BNSS — codified arrest guidelines, mandatory written reasons	BNSS Section 35 is now the primary provision where Arnesh Kumar used to be

Frequently Asked Questions — Fundamental Rights in India

How many fundamental rights are there in India?

There are six fundamental rights in India, guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution (Articles 12 to 35): the Right to Equality (Articles 14-18), the Right to Freedom (Articles 19-22), the Right Against Exploitation (Articles 23-24), the Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-28), Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29-30), and the Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32). The original Constitution had seven fundamental rights — the Right to Property was removed from Part III by the 44th Constitutional Amendment in 1978 and relocated to Article 300A as a legal right.

Can fundamental rights be suspended in India?

During a National Emergency under Article 352, Article 19 stands automatically suspended under Article 358. The President can additionally suspend the enforcement of other fundamental rights under Article 359 — but Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended under any circumstances. No detention, no emergency, no presidential order can take away the right against self-incrimination (Article 20) or the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21). The 44th Amendment of 1978 added this protection specifically in response to the abuses of the 1975-77 Emergency.

What is the difference between Article 32 and Article 226?

Article 32 gives every person the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights — Article 32 itself is a fundamental right. Article 226 gives High Courts the power to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and also for any other purpose — it has a wider scope than Article 32. A High Court under Article 226 can issue writs to enforce ordinary legal rights, not just fundamental rights. Article 32 applies only to fundamental right violations. Additionally, High Courts have wider discretion under Article 226 to refuse writs — for example, on grounds that an alternative remedy is available — whereas the Supreme Court’s power under Article 32 is more protective of the petitioner.

Is the right to property a fundamental right?

No. The Right to Property was removed from the list of fundamental rights by the 44th Constitutional Amendment in 1978. It was originally Article 31 under Part III. After the amendment, it was moved to Article 300A under Part XII, where it now stands as a constitutional right — enforceable by ordinary legal remedies — but no longer a fundamental right enforceable by writ under Article 32 or Article 226 specifically for right to property violations.

Can fundamental rights be amended by Parliament?

Yes — Parliament can amend fundamental rights under Article 368, as held in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). However, Parliament cannot destroy the basic structure of the Constitution, and fundamental rights — particularly Articles 14, 19, and 21 — form part of the basic structure. Any amendment that eliminates or abrogates the essence of these rights would be unconstitutional. The Golaknath case (1967) had held the opposite — that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights at all — but Kesavananda Bharati overruled that position by a 7:6 majority.

What is the basic structure doctrine and how does it protect fundamental rights?

The basic structure doctrine was established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). The Supreme Court held that while Parliament has wide amending power under Article 368, it cannot use that power to destroy the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution. Among the elements identified as part of the basic structure are the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, separation of powers, judicial review, and fundamental rights — particularly the right to equality under Article 14, the freedoms under Article 19, and the right to life under Article 21. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) reinforced this by holding that the balance between fundamental rights and directive principles is itself part of the basic structure.

Related Articles — Constitutional Law and Judiciary Exam Preparation

→  The Case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1981) — Article 12 and Definition of State  — Full case analysis — test for ‘other authorities’ under Article 12

→  The Case of Minerva Mills vs Union of India (1980)  — Basic structure doctrine and balance between FR and DPSPs

→  The Case of IR Coelho vs State of Tamil Nadu (2007)  — 9th Schedule and judicial review of fundamental rights

→  The Golaknath Case Summary  — Parliament’s power to amend fundamental rights — the foundational case

→  The Case of RC Cooper vs Union of India (1970)  — Effect test for Article 14 and fundamental rights analysis

→  The Case of Kaushal Kishore vs State of UP  — Article 21 expansion — right to dignity, right to be forgotten

→  BNSS vs CrPC: Complete Section-Wise Comparison for Judiciary Exam  — New criminal procedure and its Article 21 and Article 22 connections

→  BSA vs Indian Evidence Act: Complete Comparison for Judiciary Exam  — Article 20(3) self-incrimination and BSA Section 63 electronic evidence

→  RJS Mains Answer Writing: Format, Word Limit and Mistakes to Avoid  — How to structure fundamental rights answers in judiciary Mains

→  RJS Online Coaching: Live Classes and Verified Results  — Constitutional law preparation for RJS Prelims and Mains

→  Best UP PCS J Coaching Online — UP Judiciary Exam 2026  — Constitutional law covers 200 marks in UP PCS J Mains Law Paper I

→  Best Gujarat Judiciary Coaching — GJS Results  — Constitutional law preparation for GJS Prelims and Mains

All the best — from Jyoti Judiciary Coaching

Written by Advocate Jyoti Saxena — LLB, LLM, CS, Bar Council of Rajasthan, practising at Jaipur Family Court, Jaipur District Court, and the Rajasthan High Court. The fundamental rights analysis and case law discussion in this article draw from the bare text of the Constitution, Supreme Court judgments, and twelve years of preparing RJS, GJS, and UP PCS J candidates for constitutional law questions at Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, Jaipur. Contact: +91 99290 96546 | jyotijudiciary.com

All case law citations are based on Supreme Court judgments available on SCC Online and the Supreme Court website. Always verify current legal positions from official sources before examination.