Fundamental Rights in India: 75 Years Post-Independence Case for Extension"

The Constitution of India, enacted on 26 November 1949 and effective from 26 January 1950, embeds Fundamental Rights in Part III (Articles 12 to 35), safeguarding individual liberties against state actions. These rights form the bedrock of India's democratic framework, justiciable via courts unlike Directive Principles. Over 75 years post-1947 independence and 106 amendments (up to 106th in 2023, reserving seats for women), no changes impose explicit affirmative state duties to prevent rights violations. Executive instruments like SOPs and guidelines heavily influence implementation, often filling legislative voids.[1][2]

This expanded analysis neutrally examines Fundamental Rights' negative thrust, executive roles, judicial expansions, and affirmative extension pathways—including privacy against state atrocities and individual cultural preservation rights. It incorporates historical cases, recent data (e.g., 52.5 million pending cases in 2025), NHRC functions, and global models for robust arguments. Sources include constitutional texts, judgments, and reports for objective depth.[1][2][3]

Historical Evolution

Fundamental Rights drew from the 1935 Act and UDHR, 1948, with Constituent Assembly debates (11 volumes) balancing freedoms and sovereignty—Ambedkar stressing justiciability. Early amendments like the First (1951) restricted speech for public order (Shankari Prasad, 1951), while Golaknath (1967) challenged rights' amendability, resolved by the 24th (1971). The Emergency-era 42nd (1976) boosted state power, rolled back by 44th (1978); yet, no preventive mandates emerged, with Article 32 reactive (Romesh Thappar, 1950).[1]

The "golden triangle" (Articles 14, 19, 21) expanded via Maneka Gandhi (1978), but amendments remain negative-focused. Recent ones, like 101st (GST) and 106th (women's reservation), sidestep affirmative rights, highlighting persistent gaps amid 106 total changes.[2]

Negative vs. Affirmative Obligations

Rights mainly prohibit state harms—e.g., no discrimination (Article 15), no exploitation (Article 23). Affirmative rarities like Article 21A (86th Amendment, RTE Act 2009) required statutes for rollout. Article 21 judicially grew: dignity implying needs (Francis Coralie, 1981), free education precursor (Unni Krishnan, 1993)—yet remedial, not preemptive.[1]

Directives (36-51) urge positives like wages (43), non-justiciable (37) but harmonized (Minerva Mills, 1980). This split avoids binding positives, straining resources without budgets; contrasts with PIL-driven duties (e.g., Vishaka, 1997).[1]

Executive Instruments' Role

Articles 73/162 empower orders filling gaps (B.K. Industries, 1993), e.g., COVID SOPs curbing Article 19 (Supreme Court Observer, 2021). Scrutinized for arbitrariness (Tulsiram Patel, 1985; Anuradha Bhasin, 2020 proportionality), they enable flexibility but risk unchecked discretion—RTI (2005) discloses unless exempt.[1][4]

Administrative law (Kraipak, 1970 natural justice) curbs excesses, yet potency persists, as in internet shutdowns, underscoring needs for constitutional overrides.[4]

Judicial Interpretations

Kesavananda (1973) basic structure protects 14/21; PILs affirm duties (Vishaka sexual harassment guidelines, codified 2013; Common Cause euthanasia, 2018). Courts limit to text (Umed Ram, 1986), using writs reactively. Enforcement lags with 52.5 million pending cases (2025 estimate, up 2% from 2024), delaying remedies.[1][3]

Comparative Perspectives

South Africa mandates housing/healthcare progress (Grootboom, 2000); Germany dignity drives welfare (Grimm, 2016). U.S. negative base (DeShaney); Ireland state-protection duties. India's covenants inform PILs (PUCL, 2003), showing amendment viability.[1]

Extension: Privacy Protections

Puttaswamy (2017) rooted privacy in Article 21 via legality/necessity/proportionality tests, barring undue state invasions. Affirmative extension could mandate preventive duties against atrocities—e.g., surveillance (Aadhaar challenges), custodial torture (DK Basu guidelines, 1997), cyber leaks (Star Health/Airtel breaches affecting millions). NHRC inquiries into violations support this; new Article could require oversight boards, data audits, aligning with MeitY orders (Kolkata case, 2024 victim privacy).[5][6][7][8][9]

Extension: Cultural Heritage Rights

Article 29(1) lets "any section" conserve language/culture, but judicially minority-focused (TMA Pai, 2002)—not explicitly individual. Extension to every person's mother tongue/ancestral heritage counters assimilation, e.g., via state-funded schools/archives (Schedule VIII languages). Builds on Article 21 dignity, 51A(f) duties; prevents majority dilution (e.g., Hindi imposition debates), promoting pluralism amid diversity (22 languages).[10][11][12]

Extension: Property and Bureaucracy

Article 300A post-44th bars arbitrary deprivation (Jilubhai, 1995); affirm via LARR (2013) timelines (Indore, 2020 delays). Article 21B for bureaucracy: 90-day decisions, tribunals, anti-corruption (Lokpal 2013 lacks bite), from Hussainara undertrials (1979).[1]

Extension Mechanisms and Challenges

Article 368 special majority (101 successes); federal ratification if needed. Bolster NHRC (1993 Act: suo motu probes, custodial deaths, non-binding recs) or new authority, budgeted (RTE model). Challenges: resources (Paschim Banga, 1996), proportionality (Modern Dental, 2016), federalism (List III, Article 254), 52.5M cases (UP 117L).[2][13][8][3]

These targeted amendments enhance protections feasibly, leveraging precedents without core overhaul.[1][2]

Citations:

[1] Fundamental rights in India - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_rights_in_India

[2] List of amendments of the Constitution of India - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_of_the_Constitution_of_India

[3] Pending Court Cases in India: 2025 Overview https://indiadatamap.com/2025/10/18/pending-court-cases-in-india-2025/

[4] Rule by Executive Decree: Constitutional Concerns in India https://journals.law.harvard.edu/hrj/2020/10/rule-by-executive-decree-constitutional-concerns-in-india/

[5] Puttaswamy v. Union of India - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Privacy_verdict

[6] Puttaswamy v. Union of India - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puttaswamy_v._Union_of_India

[7] JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY VS. UNION OF INDIA https://translaw.clpr.org.in/case-law/justice-k-s-puttaswamy-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-privacy/

[8] National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Powers and Functions https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/national-human-rights-commission-nhrc/

[9] Supreme Court orders for removal of name, photos, videos of ... https://ssrana.in/posh-law/articles/supreme-court-orders-for-removal-of-name-photos-videos-of-deceased-in-kolkata-hospital-case-from-all-media/

[10] Article 29 of Indian Constitution: Protection of interests of minorities https://testbook.com/constitutional-articles/article-29-indian-constitution

[11] Article 29: Protection of interests of minorities - Constitution of India https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-29-protection-of-interests-of-minorities/

[12] Cultural and Educational Rights: Articles 29-30 Under Indian ... https://blog.ipleaders.in/cultural-and-educational-rights/

[13] Constitutional Amendments - Bills Track https://prsindia.org/billtrack/category/constitutional-amendments

[14] Indian Constitution Amendments, List, Procedure, Limitations https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/indian-constitution-amendments/

[15] Total Amendments In Indian Constitution 2025, Updates List https://pwonlyias.com/amendments-in-indian-constitution/

[16] Legal Cases on Privacy Breaches in India | PDF | Cybercrime - Scribd https://www.scribd.com/document/824399727/Gazal

[17] IJETIR https://iciset.in/Paper2727.pdf

[18] NJDG-National Judicial Data Grid https://scdg.sci.gov.in

[19] National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) - Drishti IAS https://www.drishtiias.com/important-institutions/drishti-specials-important-institutions-national-institutions/national-human-rights-commission-nhrc

[20] India Justice Report 2025 https://indiajusticereport.org

[21] [PDF] Cases-Materials-on-SC-ST-Prevention-of-Atrocities-1989.pdf - CLPR https://clpr.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Cases-Materials-on-SC-ST-Prevention-of-Atrocities-1989.pdf

[22] “Role of the National Human Rights Commission in Safeguarding ... https://law.shodhsagar.com/index.php/j/article/view/126