Fundamental and Human Rights

Fundamental Rights are not absolute but subject to reasonable restrictions. Articles 19, 21, and other fundamental rights can be limited during emergencies (Article 359, 358) or in public interest (Article 19 clauses). The Constitution itself provides for restrictions, making them restricted rather than absolute or unrestricted.

The Constitution of India does not expressly mention 'freedom of press' as a fundamental right. Press freedom is read into Article 19(1)(a) which guarantees 'freedom of speech and expression,' and the Supreme Court has consistently held that freedom of the press is implicit in this provision. In contrast, rights to form association (Article 19(1)(c)), equality before law (Article 14), and peaceful assembly (Article 19(1)(b)) are expressly enumerated.

Option A is correct. A 'right in stricto sensu' (strict sense) is a right vested in a person for their own benefit, enforceable against specific parties. The right to divorce fits this category - it's a personal right the holder can exercise against their spouse. Liberty is broader freedom, Power is authority to affect others' legal relations, and Privilege is an exemption from duty rather than an affirmative right.

In Daryao v. State of UP (1962), the Supreme Court emphasized that the Fundamental Right to approach the Court is the cornerstone of the democratic structure established by the Constitution. This case established the Court's duty to protect Fundamental Rights vigilantly. The other options are important cases but did not make this specific statement about the cornerstone of democratic edifice.

Fundamental Rights are justiciable rights that can be enforced in courts, while Directive Principles are policy guidelines for the government. In case of conflict, Fundamental Rights prevail over Directive Principles. The Supreme Court has consistently held that Fundamental Rights cannot be violated to implement Directive Principles.

Universal suffrage means all adult citizens have the right to vote regardless of wealth, literacy, gender, or social status. It is a fundamental principle of democratic governance. Options A, C, and D incorrectly associate 'suffrage' with 'suffering' - these are unrelated concepts with similar spelling.

The Minerva Mills case (1980) established the principle of balance between Directive Principles (DPSPs) and Fundamental Rights. The Court held that Fundamental Rights and DPSPs are complementary and must be harmonized. This case invalidated parts of the 42nd Amendment that gave DPSPs primacy.

Fundamental Rights under the Indian Constitution are restricted, not absolute. Articles 12-35 of the Constitution contain these rights, but they are subject to reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order, morality, health, and other state interests. For instance, freedom of speech (Article 19(1)(a)) can be restricted under Article 19(2). The Constitution itself provides mechanisms for restricting these rights during emergencies (Article 352, 358, 359).

The Right to Education became a fundamental right under Article 21A through the 86th Constitutional Amendment (2002). Before this, education was a Directive Principle under Article 45. Article 21A guarantees free and compulsory education to children aged 6-14 years.

Option B is incorrect because Freedom of Conscience (Article 25) does not specifically include the right to wear Kirpans - that protection comes from Article 25(1) which guarantees the right to practice religion, and the Sikh Kirpan case law. The other options correctly match freedoms with their constitutional interpretations.

Under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court has the power to issue writs (habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari) for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. The High Courts have similar power under Article 226, but the question specifically asks about enforcing Fundamental Rights, which is the Supreme Court's exclusive jurisdiction under Article 32.

Article 51A(e) of the Indian Constitution lists the Fundamental Duty to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women. This specific phrasing directly matches the constitutional provision, while other options misstate the wording regarding children or human beings generally.

The Supreme Court, after the judgment in the Kesavananda Bharati case, has adopted the view of the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles being complementary to each other, each supplementing the other's role in aiming at the same goal of establishing a welfare state by means of social revolution.

Protection of environment and safeguarding forests and wildlife is both one of the Directive Principles of State Policy and one of the Fundamental Duties given under the Indian Constitution.

The rights under Part III of the Indian Constitution are called fundamental because of two reasons: