Fundamental and Human Rights

Economic justice is mentioned in both the Preamble (social, economic and political justice) and the Directive Principles of State Policy (Articles 38-43). While Fundamental Rights ensure civil liberties, Economic Justice is not explicitly enumerated as a Fundamental Right but is a directive goal for the state.

The Right to Property was removed from Fundamental Rights by the 44th Constitutional Amendment (1978) and reclassified as a legal right under Article 300A. Right to life (Article 21), Right to equality (Articles 14-18), and Freedom of speech (Article 19) remain fundamental rights.

Article 32 is the right to constitutional remedies, allowing citizens to move the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Dr. Ambedkar called it the 'heart and soul of the Constitution.' Article 19 deals with specific freedoms, Article 34 with martial law, and Article 32 is the correct remedy.

The Parliament has the authority to impose reasonable restrictions on Fundamental Rights under various clauses of Article 19. These restrictions must be reasonable and relate to public order, decency, morality, sovereignty, or security. The Supreme Court can review if restrictions are reasonable, but only Parliament can impose them through legislation. The President has no such power.

The Supreme Court has the constitutional authority to issue various writs including Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto for enforcing Fundamental Rights under Article 32. This is a fundamental protection mechanism for citizens.

Article 23 of the Constitution prohibits traffic in human beings, beggars (forced labor), and similar forms of forced labor. Article 24 prohibits employment of children below 14 years in factories, mines, and other hazardous occupations. 'All of the above' correctly encompasses these prohibitions.

Habeas Corpus (meaning 'you may have the body') is the primary writ protecting individual liberty against unlawful detention. It directly safeguards personal freedom by requiring authorities to justify detention. While other writs serve important purposes, Habeas Corpus is the most direct protection of personal freedom.

Article 12-35 of the Constitution grant Fundamental Rights, while Articles themselves specify that Parliament can impose reasonable restrictions on these rights in public interest. The balance between rights and restrictions is maintained, with Parliament having the legislative authority to define reasonable limitations.

 The Fundamental Rights of Indian citizens have been criticised on the grounds that they are hemmed in by too many restrictions and they are couched in language beyond the comprehension of ordinary citizens

Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) are explicitly made non-justiciable by Article 37 of the Constitution. This means citizens cannot approach courts for their enforcement, unlike Fundamental Rights which are justiciable. The government cannot be sued for not implementing DPSPs.

The 42nd Amendment (1976) accorded precedence to Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights. This was highly controversial as it weakened Fundamental Rights. The 44th Amendment (1978) later restored the supremacy of Fundamental Rights over Directive Principles, reverting this change.

Currently, Fundamental Rights are superior to Directive Principles. The 44th Amendment restored this position. However, between 1976-1978 (during 42nd Amendment), Directive Principles had precedence. The question likely refers to the present constitutional position where FR enjoys primacy over DP in case of conflict.

The 42nd Amendment (1976) added several new Directive Principles including Article 43A which specifically promotes workers' participation in the management of industry. This was part of the amendment's emphasis on socialist principles. Other options like environmental protection and legal aid were added later through different amendments.