Constitutions and Law

In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court held that secularism is a basic structure of the Constitution and the only permissible approach in a pluralistic society like India. While Kesavananda Bharati established the basic structure doctrine, and I.C. Golaknath dealt with property rights, it was Bommai that specifically articulated secularism as a fundamental constitutional principle.

The Fundamental Duties were added to the Indian Constitution by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976. They were added on the recommendation of the Swaran Singh Committee and are contained in Article 51A (Part IVA of the Constitution).

UDHR Article 23(1) guarantees the right to just and favorable work conditions. In the Indian Constitution, this corresponds to Article 41 which directs the state to secure the right to work and education, and to public assistance in cases of unemployment. While multiple DPSP articles relate to labor, Article 41 is the closest match to the UDHR provision.

The term 'dignity of the individual' appears explicitly in the Preamble to the Constitution of India ('...dignity of the individual...'). While Article 21 is the operational guarantee of life and personal liberty that embodies this principle, the specific phrase 'dignity of the individual' is Preamble language. However, Article 21 is often cited as the substantive manifestation of this dignity.

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court held that 'reasonableness' runs like a golden thread through fundamental rights, particularly Article 21's 'procedure established by law'. This case transformed Article 21 by requiring procedures to be fair, just, and reasonable, not merely arbitrary. The golden thread metaphor is specific to this landmark judgment.

The 86th Constitutional Amendment Act (2002) added Article 51-A(k) as the eleventh fundamental duty. This duty imposes a responsibility on parents and guardians to provide education opportunities to their children aged 6-14 years. The amendment also made free and compulsory education a fundamental right under Article 21-A.

In Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, the Supreme Court held that bodies which are agencies or instrumentalities of government can be considered 'authorities' under Article 12 of the Constitution, making them subject to fundamental rights writ jurisdiction. This case established the test for determining when a body qualifies as a state instrumentality.

In P. Nulla Thampi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that subjecting a woman to a virginity test to prove her character amounted to violation of her right to privacy under Article 21. The Court ruled that such tests are unconstitutional as they violate a woman's bodily integrity, privacy, and dignity. This case established important protections for women's rights against invasive medical procedures used for moral policing.

A.V. Dicey, the influential British constitutional theorist, articulated this dual character of constitutions in his work 'Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution'. By 'matter of fact', Dicey meant the actual political practices and conventions that operate in practice, while 'matter of law' refers to the formal legal rules and judicially enforceable provisions. This distinction between 'constitutional conventions' (political facts) and 'constitutional law' (legal rules) is central to Dicey's framework.

This statement about secularism as the basic structure of the Constitution was made by the Supreme Court of India in Aruna Roy Vs. Union of India (2002). In this case, the Court was examining the constitutional validity of the National Curriculum Framework for School Education. The Court observed that complete secularism requires the state to be neutral in matters of religion, and that the working experience of the Constitution for over 50 years demonstrated that secularism is indeed part of the basic structure. The reference to 'complete apathy for all kinds of religious teachings' reflects the Court's analysis of the secularism debate in educational institutions.

In People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2004), the Supreme Court upheld POTA's constitutional validity, stating that mere possibility of abuse cannot invalidate a law and that preventive policy decisions are for the government, not courts. The Court rejected the challenge to POTA on these grounds.

Public Health, Agriculture and Police are the subjects that come under the State List. It should be noted that the Centre is only responsible for the recruitment of police (through UPSC), not for its maintenance.

Prof. K. C. Wheare remarked that the Indian Constitution provides a system of government which is quasi-federal, a unitary state with subsidiary unitary features.