Supreme court on several occassions envisoned the concept of basic features of the constitution of India. India, that is, Bharat became a Sovereign Democratic Republic on 26 January 1950.Earlier the Constitution was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on 26 November 1949.
PREAMBLE
Page Contents
And, Preamble to the Constitution of India reads as follows:
WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, DO HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.
By reading the above text we can easily understant that People of India are themselves are Sovereign. And it is very interesting to note that there was a dilemma as to whether the legal process of passage of India Independence Act in British Parliament and transfer of Power by the British to the interim Government was Legal. That is why after in depth discussions by the Constituent Assembly they adopted that above text which is a self declaration of People of India to become a Sovereing Nation with indirectly Elected head of State.
Watch my Videos on YouTube channel
Article 3
Article 3 of Indian Constitution says that Parliament by law –
a) Form a new State ( Union territory ) by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State;
b) Increase the area of any State;
c) Diminish the area of anyState
d) Alter the boundaries of any State ;
alter the name of any State. Provided that no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either House ofParliament except on the recommendation of the President and unless , where the proposal contained in ;the Bill affects the area, boundaries or name of any of the States, the Bill as been referred by the President to the Legislature of that State for expressing its views thereon within such period …
Hence, referring the matter to the State concerned is a prerequisite and mandatory to affect changes in the territorial composition of a State by the Parliament of India. Now we can gauge where KCRs demand to form Telangana State without taking cognizance of Andhra Pradesh Legislature stands . Clearly his demand is against Constitutional provisions.
KCR Who holds responsible political positions should not mislead People with his wrong notions about constitutional arrangements regarding States’ territorial adjustments.
Article 5
Article 5 Reads as follows:
At the commencement of this Constitution , every person who has his domicile in the Territory of India and – a) Who has born in the territory f India; orb) Either of whose parents was born in the territory of India ; or c) Who has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not less than five years Shall be a citizen of India.
Article 10
Article 10 reads as follows:
Every person who is or is deemed to be a citizen of India under any of the foregoing provisions of this Part shall , subject to the provisions of any law that may be made by Parliament, continue to be such citizen.
Article 14, Equality before law
14. Equality before law The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth
Article 15, Prohibition of discrimination
Article 15 envisages that
1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of Religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
2) No citzen shall on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them be subject to any disability , liability, restriction or condition with regard to –
a) Access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment or
b) The use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads, and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of general public.
3) Noting in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.
4) Nothing in this article or in in clause (2) of Art 29 shall prevent the State From making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes
Article 16 – Equality of Opportunity
Article 16 Reads as follows:
1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.
2) No citizen shall on grounds only of religion , race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them be ineligible for or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State.
3) Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from making any law prescribing , in regard to a class Or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the Government of , or any local or other authority within , a State or Union territory, any requirement as to residence within that State or UT prior to such employment or appointment.
ALSO READ
- Fundamental rights
- Freedom Movement
- Nasadiya Sukta
- Atharva veda
- Jawaharlal Nehru 1889-1940
- Mahatma Gandhi 1869-1915
Article 19, Freedom of speech
19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc
(1) All citizens shall have the right
(a) to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;
(c) to form associations or unions;
(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;
(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and
(f) omitted
(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business
(2) Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause ( 1 ) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence
(3) Nothing in sub clause (b) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause
(4) Nothing in sub clause (c) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or morality, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause
(5) Nothing in sub clauses (d) and (e) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights conferred by the said sub clauses either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe
(6) Nothing in sub clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause, and, in particular, nothing in the said sub clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to,
(i) the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business, or
(ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise.
Article 21, Right to Life and Personal Liberty
Article 21 Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
In the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union Of India & Others on 16 December, 1983
Justice Bhagwati observed:
“It is the fundamental right of everyone in this country… to live with human dignity free from exploitation. This right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21 derives its life breath from the Directive Principles of State Policy and particularly clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 and Articles 41 and 42 and at the least, therefore, it must include protection of the health and strength of workers, men and women, and of the tender age of children against abuse, opportunities and facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity, educational facilities, just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief.
“These are the minimum requirements which must exist in order to enable a person to live with human dignity and no State neither the Central Government nor any State Government-has the right to take any action which will deprive a person of the enjoyment of these basic essentials.”
In the case of Kiran Bedi & Ors vs Committee Of Inquiry & Anr on 4 January, 1989, Supreme Court held that “good reputation was an element of personal security and was protected by the Constitution, equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property. The court affirmed that the right to enjoyment of life, liberty, and property. The court affirmed that the right to enjoyment of private reputation was of ancient origin and was necessary to human society.”
In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978, the validity of Sec. 10(3)(c) of the passport Act 1967, which empowered the government to impound the passport of a person, in the interest of the general public was challenged before the seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court.
It was contended that, right to travel abroad being a part of the right to “personal liberty” the impugned section didn’t prescribe any procedure to deprive her of her liberty and hence it was violative of Art. 21.
The court held that the procedure contemplated must stand the test of reasonableness in order to conform to Art.21 other fundamental rights. It was further held that as the right to travel abroad falls under Art. 21, natural justice must be applied while exercising the power of impounding passport under the Passport Act. BHAGWATI, J., observed:
The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence and that It must be “‘right and just and fair” and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive; otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied.