When few months are left for UPPSC Prelims 2021, it becomes very important for every aspirant to be on their toes and follow an organized plan which will help them clear this exam and keep them at ease during the preparation phase.
UPPSC Target PT in 90 Days Planner will provide you with a daily time table, which will comprise of the following:
Fundamental Rights, DPSPs, and Fundamental Duties
The Constitution offers all citizens, individually and collectively, some basic freedoms. These are guaranteed in the Constitution in the form of six broad categories of Fundamental Rights, which are justiciable. Article 12 to 35 contained in Part III of the Constitution deal with Fundamental Rights. These are:
The concept of Rule of Law is that the state is governed, not by the ruler or the nominated representatives of the people but by the law. The Constitution of India intended for India to be a country governed by the rule of law. It provides that the constitution shall be the supreme power in the land and the legislative and the executive derive their authority from the constitution.
The origins of the Rule of Law theory can be traced back to the Ancient Romans during the formation of the first republic; it has since been championed by several medieval thinkers in Europe such as Hobbs, Locke, and Rousseau through the social contract theory. Indian philosophers such as Chanakya have also espoused the rule of law theory in their own way, by maintaining that the King should be governed by the word of law.
The formal origin of the word is attributed to Sir. Edward Coke, and is derived from French phase ‘la principe de legalite’ which means the principle of legality. The firm basis for the Rule of Law theory was expounded by A. V. Dicey and his theory on the rule of law remains the most popular.
Dicey’s theory has three pillars based on the concept that “a government should be based on principles of law and not of men”, these are:
The Supreme Court held that the ‘Rule of Law’ as embodied in Article 14 is a ‘basic feature’ of the constitution. Hence, it cannot be destroyed even by an amendment.
Article 32 confers the right to remedies for the enforcement of the fundamental rights of an aggrieved citizen.The Supreme Court has power to issue directions or orders or writs for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights. The writs issued include habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari and quo-warranto. Further, Parliament can empower any other court to issue directions, orders and writs of all kinds. However, this can be done without prejudice to the above powers conferred on the Supreme Court. Any other court here does not include high courts because Article 226 has already conferred these powers on the high courts.
These writs are borrowed from English law where they are known as ‘prerogative writs’. The writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court differs from that of a high court in three respects:
There are certain other rights contained in other parts of the Constitution. These rights are known as constitutional Rights or Legal Rights or Non-Fundamental Rights. They are:
Part III and Part IV of the Constitution are the Cornerstone and the ‘Conscience of the Constitution’.
The Constitution lays down certain Directive Principles of State Policy, which though not justiciable, are 'fundamental in governance of the country', and it is the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws.
These lay down that the State shall strive to promote the welfare of people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may, a social order, in which justice-social, economic and political-shall form in all institutions of national life.
The justiciability of Fundamental Rights and non-justiciability of DirectivePrinciples on the one hand and the moral obligation of State to implement directives Principles, on the other hand, have led to a conflict between the two since the commencement of the Constitution. In the Champakam Dorairajan case (1951), the Supreme Court ruled that in caseof any conflict between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles,the former would prevail. That is, the Directive Principles have to conform to and run as subsidiary to the Fundamental Rights.
As a result, the Parliament made the First Amendment Act (1951), the Fourth Amendment Act (1955) and the Seventeenth Amendment Act (1964) to implement some of the Directives.
Then in the Golaknath case (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that the Parliament cannot take away or abridge any of the Fundamental Rights, which are ‘sacrosanct’ in nature. That is, the Fundamental Rights cannot be amended for the implementation of the Directive Principles.
Against the ruling, the Parliament enacted 24th Amendment Act (1971) and the 25th Amendment Act (1971). The 24th Amendment Act declared that the Parliament has the power to abridge or take away any of the Fundamental Rights by enacting Constitutional Amendment Acts. The 25th Amendment Act inserted a new Article 31C which contained the following two provisions:
Supreme Court in the KesavanandaBharati case (1973) ruled the second provision of Article 31C as unconstitutional and invalid on the ground that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution. However, the above first provision of Article 31C was held to be constitutional and valid.
Later, the 42nd Amendment Act (1976) extended the scope of the first provision of Article 31C by including within its protection any law to implement any of the Directive Principles and not merely those specified in Article 39 (b) and (c). Thus, the 42nd Amendment Act accorded the position of legal primacy and supremacy to the Directive Principles over the Fundamental Rights conferred by Articles 14, 19 and 31.
This was declared as unconstitutional and invalid by the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case (1980). The Directive Principles were once again made subordinate to the Fundamental Rights but the Fundamental Rights conferred by Article 14 and Article 19 were accepted as subordinate to the Directive Principles specified in Article 39 (b) and (c).
In the Minerva Mills Limited v/s Union of India case (1980), the Court observed that the constitution was founded on the bed-rock of balance between part III and part IV. To give absolute primacy to one over the other was to disturb the harmony of the constitution. This harmony and balance between fundamental rights and the directive principles is an essential feature of the basic structure of the constitution. Both the fundamental and directive principles of the state policy are embodying the philosophy of our constitution, the philosophy of justice social economic and political.
The framers of the Constitution did not feel it necessary to incorporate the fundamental duties of the citizens in the Constitution. However, they incorporated the duties of the State in the Constitution in the form of Directive Principles of State Polity.
By the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution, based on the recommendation of the Swaran Singh Committee, adopted in 1976, Fundamental Duties of the citizens have also been enumerated. Article 51 'A', contained in Part IV A of the Constitution deals with Fundamental Duties.
Day 2 Polity 2