Debunking the Myths of Fundamental Rights

**Unpacking the Constitution's Hidden Gems** As law students, we've all been there - staring at the Indian Constitution, feeling like we're drowning in a sea of provisions, schedules, and amendments. But amidst all the complexity, lie some fascinating myths and misconceptions about our Fundamental Rights. Let's take a closer look at some of these misconceptions and see if we can debunk them.

The Myth of Absolute Liberty

One common myth is that our Fundamental Rights are absolute and unqualified. However, Article 19(2) of the Constitution explicitly states that these rights can be restricted by the state in the interests of national security, public order, decency, or morality. This means that our right to freedom of speech and expression, for example, is not absolute and can be curtailed if it poses a threat to national security or public order. Let's take the landmark case of Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950) to illustrate this point. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to freedom of the press can be restricted if it is being used to promote enmity or hatred towards any group or community. This decision highlights the importance of balancing individual rights with the need to maintain public order and national security.

The Myth of State Neutrality

Another myth is that the state has no role to play in promoting or favoring any particular religion or ideology. However, Article 28(1) of the Constitution explicitly prohibits any educational institution or board from requiring a student to attend religious instruction or worship. This provision has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1995) to mean that the state has a duty to ensure that all citizens have equal access to education, regardless of their religion or caste. However, this does not mean that the state can remain completely neutral. In the case of St Xavier's College v. State of Maharashtra (1974), the Supreme Court ruled that the state can provide financial assistance to educational institutions that promote a particular ideology or religion, as long as this assistance is not discriminatory or biased.

The Myth of Judicial Activism

Finally, some people believe that the judiciary has become too activist and is overstepping its boundaries by striking down laws and policies that are deemed to be unconstitutional. However, the Constitution itself explicitly grants the judiciary the power to declare laws as void if they are inconsistent with the Constitution (Article 13). In fact, the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the importance of judicial review in ensuring that the government does not overstep its powers. In the landmark case of Minerva Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (1980), the Supreme Court struck down several provisions of the 44th Amendment to the Constitution, which had made it more difficult to challenge laws in court. This decision highlights the crucial role that the judiciary plays in ensuring that the government remains accountable to the people. **What Students Often Get Wrong** When it comes to Fundamental Rights, students often get it wrong by assuming that these rights are absolute and unqualified. They also tend to think that the state has no role to play in promoting or favoring any particular religion or ideology.