Debunking the Myths: Unpacking Constitutional Law for CLAT UG

As a law student, you've probably heard people saying "Article 21 is the ultimate savior of human rights" or "The Supreme Court has given a blanket judgment that everything is a fundamental right." But is that really true? The aim of this guide is to debunk some of these myths and give you a more nuanced understanding of Constitutional Law.

Myth 1: The Fundamental Rights are Absolute

The Fundamental Rights, as enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution, are indeed sacrosanct. However, they are not absolute. Article 19(2) lists various clauses that restrict the exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression, such as public order, decency, and contempt of court. Similarly, Article 21, which is often cited as the gold standard of human rights, is not a free pass to do whatever you want. The Supreme Court has consistently held in cases like Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) that the right to life and liberty cannot be exercised in a manner that infringes upon the rights of others.

"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" - Thomas Jefferson

Myth 2: The Supreme Court Can Do Anything

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, but it's not a super-legislature. While it has the power to interpret the laws and strike down laws that are unconstitutional, it cannot make new laws or create new rights out of thin air. The Court's role is to interpret the Constitution and the laws made by the Parliament and the State Legislatures. In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Court famously said, "We are not a law-making body."

Myth 3: The Constitution is a Static Document

The Indian Constitution is a living document that has evolved over time. While its basic structure and framework remain the same, the interpretations and applications of its provisions have changed significantly over the years. The Court has used its power of judicial review to expand the scope of certain Fundamental Rights, such as the right to freedom of speech and expression, and the right to life and liberty. In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the Court struck down Section 377 of the IPC, recognizing the right to individual autonomy and dignity.

Myth 4: The Parliament is Omnipotent

The Parliament has the power to make laws, but it is not above the Constitution. The Parliament must act within the limits of the Constitution and cannot make laws that are in conflict with it. The Court has consistently held that the Parliament's powers are not absolute and that it must act in accordance with the Constitution. In I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), the Court struck down a law that was made by the Parliament, holding that it was in conflict with the Fundamental Rights. In conclusion, the Indian Constitution is a complex and dynamic document that requires a nuanced understanding.