Fundamental Rights

SUPREME COURT MANDATE ON CITIZENSHIP ADJUDICATION

The Supreme Court mandates that citizenship determination by Foreigners Tribunals must adhere to fair, reasonable procedures, strictly upholding natural justice. Mechanical declarations based on technical errors violate constitutional rights, emphasizing that reverse burden of proof cannot bypass judicial due process.

Click to View More
OVERRIDING EFFECT OF POCSO AND CHILD MARRIAGE LAWS OVER PERSONAL LAWS IN INDIA

The Allahabad High Court ruled that statutory child protection laws, including PCMA and POCSO, universally override religious personal laws. This judicial stance ensures uniform protection against child marriage, criminalizes underage sexual relations, and safeguards constitutional rights across all religions.

Click to View More
VOTING IN INDIA: STATUTORY PRIVILEGE OR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT?

India's voting right remains purely statutory, not fundamental. However, recent Supreme Court rulings protect electoral facets like informed choice. Elevating the ballot to a fundamental right is crucial to prevent arbitrary disenfranchisement and protect vulnerable undertrial prisoners from unjust exclusion.

Click to View More
CAN BAR ASSOCIATIONS REFUSE TO REPRESENT AN ACCUSED?

Bar Associations cannot legally prevent advocates from representing accused individuals. The Supreme Court categorizes collective boycotts as unconstitutional. The Indian Constitution, under Articles 21, 22(1), and 39A, strictly guarantees every citizen the absolute right to legal representation and a fair trial.

Click to View More
RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL IN INDIA: CHALLENGES AND SAFEGUARDS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

The right to a fair and speedy trial is a fundamental guarantee under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Despite robust legal frameworks, systemic delays, limited legal aid, and an overwhelming undertrial population severely threaten justice, requiring urgent technological and procedural reforms.

Click to View More
RIGHT TO WALK ON FOOTPATHS: SUPREME COURT RECOGNISES SAFE PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

The Supreme Court ruled that walking on demarcated footpaths is a fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21, overriding motorized vehicular privileges. It mandates urban bodies to construct accessible pedestrian infrastructure, creating an enforceable duty independent of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Click to View More
COW PROTECTION LAW: BALANCING FAITH, LIVELIHOODS, AND CONSTITUTIONAL VALUES

The ban on cow slaughter in India triggers widespread constitutional debates over Article 48 versus fundamental rights, severely disrupting the agrarian economy, leather, and meat industries, while disproportionately affecting marginalized livelihoods and exacerbating the rural stray cattle menace.

Click to View More
SUPREME COURT ON UAPA: BALANCING NATIONAL SECURITY AND ARTICLE 21

The Supreme Court's UAPA bail jurisprudence highlights the conflict between national security and personal liberty. While Section 43D(5) imposes strict statutory bail restrictions, courts invoke Article 21 to grant relief in cases of prolonged incarceration, ensuring constitutional rights prevail.

Click to View More
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL): MEANING, EVOLUTION, AND SIGNIFICANCE

Public Interest Litigation enables citizens to seek judicial redress for the marginalized. By relaxing locus standi, it strengthens the judiciary, protects fundamental rights, and drives vital social and political changes in India.

Click to View More
Look Out Circulars (LOCs): New Rules and its Impact on Fundamental Rights

The Ministry of Home Affairs revised Look Out Circulars guidelines, requiring statutory bodies like National Human Rights Commission and National Commission for Women to route law-enforcement agencies, preventing misuse and protecting the Article 21-based right to travel abroad.requests through 

Click to View More
Ensuring equality through menstrual health

The recent ruling by the Supreme Court of India recognises access to menstrual hygiene as part of fundamental rights, linking it to equality, dignity, privacy, and the right to education. The Court held that lack of sanitary products and proper school facilities forces many girls to miss classes, which amounts to structural discrimination under Article 14 and a violation of dignity under Article 21. It directed governments to provide free sanitary napkins, functional and private toilets, safe disposal systems, menstrual hygiene support spaces, and awareness through school curricula, making menstrual health a legal and educational priority rather than a welfare issue.

Click to View More
FORCED NARCO TESTS UNCONSTITUTIONAL: SC UPHOLDS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

The Supreme Court's 2025 Amlesh Kumar vs State of Bihar ruling upheld the Selvi precedent: forced narco-analysis violates Articles 20(3) and 21. While test results are inadmissible, evidence discovered through the test may be admissible, emphasizing mental privacy and adherence to rights.

Click to View More
Let's Get In Touch!