PREAMBLE

PART I - UNION AND ITS TERRITORY – [ 1 to 4 ]

PART II – CITIZENSHIP – [ 5 to 11 ]
PART III – FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS – [ 12 to 35 ]
PART IV- DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY – [ 36 to 51 ]
PART IV A – FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES – [ 51 A ]
History
1949 Nov 26th Adopted in Constituent Assembly – Signed by Dr Rajendra Prasad
1950 Jan 26th commencement of Constitution
BR Kapur v State of T N
(Legal Sanctity, sets framework and principles functions of the organs of Gov)
State WB v Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights
(Living Organic document, cannot static must grow with the nation)
Classification of Constitution
• Written and Un Written
• Unitary and Federal
• Flexible and Rigid
Indian constitution is written and Quasi Federal
• We adopt Bill of Rights, Federal system, Judicial Review and constitutional Supremacy from = USA
• Parliamentary democracy from, single citizenship, Rule of law, Legislative speaker & Role = UK
• Ireland =DPSP
• Freedom of Trade between states, Preamble, Concurrent List = Australia
• Quasi Federal, Distribution of powers between the central and state governments = Canada
• Fundamental Duties = Russia
• Emergency = Germany :Weimar Constitution
Salient Features for Indian Constitution ( WLAQ PF DF A SJB)
1. Written Constitution
2. Lengthiest Constitution
a. 395 Article, Divided in to 22 Parts, 8 Schedules
b. At present nearly about 500 articles (although the last numbered article is 395)
c. Its divided in to 25 parts and 12 schedule
3. A sovereign, Socialistic, Secular, Democratic, Republic
a. Socialist and Secular was added in 1976 42nd Amendment
4. Quasi Federal
5. Parliamentary Democracy and Cabinet Form of Government
6. Fundamental Rights
7. Directive principle of State Policy
8. Fundamental Duties
a. 51A – Eleven fundamental duties in 88th amendment 2002
9. Adult Suffrage
10. Single Citizenship
11. Judicial Review and Independence of Judiciary
12. Both rigid and Flexible

Federal or Unitary or Quasi-Federal

Essential Features of Federal [ DSW RAD]
1. Distribution of Powers
2. Supremacy of constitution
3. Written constitution
4. Rigidity
5. Authority of Court
 Three organs of State (Judiciary, Executive, Legislature)
6. Dual Policy
Character defines “it’s Not truly Federal”
1. Appointment of Governors
2. President Veto Power to Veto State Law ( Art 200 & 288(2)- Kerala Education Bill
3. Parliament power to form and alter new state or its boundaries of existing state (Art 3)
4. Emergency Provision Art 352
State WB v Union of India(constitution Is not truly federal)
Ganga Ram Moolchanani v State of Rajasthan ( its basically federal in form)
Preamble [ Justice , Liberty, Equality ] – Can be amended ( Art 368)
Re Berubari Case 1960- SC said “ Preamble is the Key to Open the mind the minds of
constitution makers” Case fact :-Regarding the preamble [Indian Territory , To Pakistan,
violation]

laid down Principle

• Open the mind of makers of constitution
• Shows the general purpose for which the several provisions of the constitution are
made
• Not a part of constitution
• Not source of substantive power
• Not limitation upon granted power
• Ambiguous word meaning can be interpreted from the preamble

Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan 1965 (Preamble not part of constitution)

Kaesavanantha Bharathi v State of kerala 1973 [ Fundamental Right Case]

• Preamble is the part of constitution
• Read constitution in the light of the grand and noble vision expressed in the Preamble
Excel Weaver v Union of India 1979- Explains the important of word Socialist
42nd Amendment added SECULAR and SOCIALIST– No specific religion for a State
Democracy
• Direct
• Indirect (Voting and Representative)
Union and Territory [ 1-4]
Hinsa Virodhak Sangh v Mirzapur Moti Kuresh 2008(India is a union of states)
Babulala v State of Bombay( Union has power to form new state, its major rights , state can
only give suggestions )
Re Berubari Case 1960- laid down Principle regarding the preamble [Territory , To Pakistan]
Pradeep Chaudhary v Union of India 2009 ( Haridhwar to delete from Uthranghat)
Raj Ram Pal V Hon Speker of Lok Sabha ( India is an Indestructable Union of destructible
states)
Jammu & Kashmir Article 370
Citizenship [ 5- 11]
Kinds of Citizenship
• Dual ( USA)
o Federal
o Citizenship of State
• Single

5 to 8 – Deals with citizenship at the commencement of constitution

9- to 11- Deals with mode of acquisition of loss of citizenship
Citizen at the time of commencement classified as
• Citizen by domicile ( permanent house ) [ Art 5]
Moammad Raza V State of Bombay ( Iran for Pilgrimage ,have no domicile in india)
• Citizen Migrated from Pakistan [ Art 6 ]- Permit system implemented to Migrate
o Before ( 19-7-1948)
o After 19-7-1948
• Person Migrated to Pakistan [ Art 7] ( March 1 1947)
• Citizenship of Indians Abroad [ Art 8]

Acquisition of Citizenship under the Act Citizenship Act 1955 ( Power given by Art 11)
1. By Birth
2. By Descent
3. By Registration
4. By naturalisation
5. By incorporation of territory

Termination of Citizenship
• By Renunciation
• By Termination / Acquisition
• By Deprivation
Company or Corporation is a Citizen ?
No, State Trading Corp v Commercial Tax Officer ( not a citizen so cannot claim
Fundamental Rights, It’s a juristic person)
Barium chemicals v Company law board (Art 14 Right to equality, Bank Nationalization
case)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fundamental Rights [ 12- 35 ] [ EFE RER]
Magna Carta – First written document for Fundamental Rights of citizen
France – Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen
Americans were first to give Bill of Rights a constitutional status ( to fundamental rights)

A K Gopalan v State of Madras ( SC said that Right to Life, freedom of speech and expression
should be regarded as inviolable under all conditions)

Maneka Ganhi v Union of India ( dignity of individual, and to develop his personality to full
extend )

State WB v Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights

(Any Law violates, or impact Fundamental rights are void ab initio)
44 amendment abolishes Art 31, Right to Property as fundamental rights
Definition State [ Art 12 ]
University of Madras v Santa Bai , Madras High Court (ejusdem generis , university is not a
state)
Ujjammabai v State of UP , SC rejected ejusdem generis of above case and cannot use ejusdem
generis for “other authorities”

Electricity Board v Mohanlal , SC

 Umesh v V N Singh, Patna High court, University is also a state
Sukhdev Singh v Bhagathram , SC, ONGC and LIC is state
The effect of above decision is that authorities created by constitution and statue is statutes is
state.
RD Shetty International Airport Authority , SC, State if a body is an agency or instrumentality of
government
Test if its state
• Financial source is from state
• If under pervasive state control
• If closely related to public and government functions
• If department of govt transferred to corporation
• If corporation enjoys monopoly then its state
Ajay hasia v Khalid Mujib ( societies registered under act is state)
A R Anthulay v R S Nayak, Seven Judges , SC, Judiciary is also a State
Zee Films ltd v BCCI , SC, Not a state.
Sbhajit Tewary v Union of India ( CSIR is not a state)

Law is Inconsistent with fundamental right shall be void [ Art 13 ] – Judicial Review- Basic Feature

Kaesavanantha Bharathi v State of Kerala 1973 [ Fundamental Right Case]

Law classified in to
• Pre - Constitutional
• Post - Constitutional

Pre- Constitution Law

Keshava Madhav Menon V State of Bombay ( Pamphlet 1949, 1931 Press Act,
Proceedings in 1949)
Doctrine of Severability
Motor General Traders v State of AP
AK Gopalan v State of Madras ( struck down art 14 of Preventive Detention Act 1950)
Doctrine of Eclipse and Pre- Constitution Law
Bikaji Narayan v State of Madhya Pradesh
State of Gujarat v Sri Ambica Mills

Post- Constitution Law – Doctrine of Eclipse is not applied)

Deep Chand v State of UP
State of Gujarat v Sri Ambica Mills

Doctrine of Waiver
Basheer Nath v Income Tax Commissioner ( cannot wave his fundamental rights)
Behram v State of Bombay (accused person cannot give up his constitutional rights and get
convicted)
Law and Law in Force
Dwaraka Nath v State of Bihar (administrative order created by Executive is also law)
Right To Equality [ 14 to 18 ]
Like should be considered alike
Reasonable classification is permitted
• Intelligible differentia
• Rational nexes ( relation) to object
Mithu v State of Punjab ( 302 and 303 was struck down because classification basis on murder was
not rational)

Deepak Sibal v Punjab University ( LLB Evening , Privat and Govt/ Semi Govt, its violation)

Ajay Hasia V Khalid Mujib ( Exam Oral and Written 66% and 33% , Which was not valid and
unconstitutional)

Air India v Nargesh Meerza ( Pregnancy and retirement extended, its violation)

Mewa Ram v A.I.I Medical science ( different pay for doctor )

National Legal Service Authority NLSA v Union of India (Trans Gender as Third Gender )

Taxation law and Article 14 ( its not violation)

Western India Theatre v Contonment Board
Venkateswara Theatre v State of Andhra Pradesh
Indian Express News paper v Union India

Article 15- Prohibition of discrimination based on religion ,caste, place of birth, race and sex.

State of Rajasthan v Prathap Singh (bear cost of additional police station exempted all Harijan
and Muslims)
D P Joshi v State of WB ( capitation fees, non Madhya Bharat residence, not violation, not birth
place)

Women Reservation 15(3)

Dattatraya v State ( education exclusive for women)
Backward Class 15(4)
State of madras v Champakam Dorairajan ( medical seat , violation based on cast, 15(4) was
added and amendment )

Balaji v State of Mysore ( more than 68% is not good, below 50% and its violates)

Indra Sawhney v Union India ( Mandal commission case, 50% backward can be classified o sub
class)

Periakaruppan v State of Tamil Nadu (Once backward will not be considered backward always
)

K S Jayasree v State of Kerala (consider poverty and caste , 10,000 annual income, both caste
and poverty)

AIIMS Student union v AIIMS ( reservation should be less for higher jobs)
Power o create law to regulate admission by state
Ashok Kumar Thakur v Unioin of india ( 27% is ok, and state can create rule or law , not
violation)
Article 16 – Equality of Opportunity in public Employment

Reservation of Residence
Narasimha Rao v State of AP ( violation and the , 1957 public Employment act
unconstitutional)

Reservation of Backward class

Devadason v Union of India ( carry forward rule, violation)

Indra Sawhney v Union India ( Mandal commission case, 50% backward can be classified o sub
class, creamy layer in backward class should be filtered out) 81st amendment

PG Institute of Medical Research v Faculty Association ( no reservation for single seat)

Article 17- Abolition of untouchability

People Union for democratic Rights v Union India ( Asiaad project worker case, available for
private individuals and state should take necessary steps to apply these fundamental rights)

State of Karnataka v Appa Balan Ingale and others ( well water)

Article 18 – Abolition of Titles
Balaji Raghavan v Union of India ( Bharat Ratna, padma shri was not titles , not violation)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19 to 22 - Right to Freedom
Six Freedom of Citizen ( 19 [1]) SAAM RB
a) Freedom of Speech and Expression
b) Freedom to assemble peaceful without arms
c) Freedom to association or union or co-operative society
d) Freedom to Move friendly throughout the territory of India
e) Freedom to reside and stay in any part of India
f) Right to acquire and dispose of property ( 44 Amendment 1978 Strike out)
g) Freedom to practice any profession, trade, business or occupation
Discuss the Scope of Freedom of Speech and Expression
19(2) State can impose reasonable restriction in the following condition (SSFPCDI)
1. In the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India
2. In the interest of security of state
3. Friendly relationship with foreign state
4. Interest of public order, decency or morality
5. In relation to contempt of court
6. Defamation
7. Incitement of an offence

Kameshwar Sigh v State of Bihar ( Picket, Demonstration on street, not violation, if its not violent and
disorderly)
K A Abbas v Union of India ( censorship movie , not violation)
Maneka Gandhi v Union of India ( passport ,freedom of speech and expression)

Bijoe Emmanual v State of Kerala ( National Anthem case , standing, not singing, not violation)
Secretary Ministry of Information Broadcasting v CAB ( cricket Asso Bengal)- No monopoly electronic
media)

CPM (M) V Bharat Kumar and others ( Bandh, un constitutional)

Union of India v Naveen Jindal ( Can use National Flag on his premise)

PUCL v Union of India ( strike down 33B of RP Act- Candidate should mention his Education, asset etc
for election contesting)

Freedom of Press – Article 19 [1] – not expressly mentioned, but its in this group
Brij Bhushan v State of Delhi -( Scrutiny of publication, Delhi commissioner, violation)
Virendra V State of Punjab ( Burning issue, view of newspaper, not violation)
R Rajagopal v State Tamil Nadu ( Auto Shankar, Convicted for murder, public record, not
violation)
State v Charita ( no right to interview an undertrial prisoner in jail, violation)

Restriction on Freedom of Speech SSFPCDI

By Article 19(1) guarantees to all citizen the freedom of speech and expression. By virtue of
Article 19(2) the state can impose reasonable restrictions to this freedom on the following ground
• In the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India
• In the interest of security of state
• In the interest of friendly relations with foreign states
• In the interest of public order, decency or morality
• In relations to contempt of court
o Civil
▪ Wilful breach of any judgement, decree, direction, order, writ
o Criminal
▪ Scandalise or lower or tends to authority of any court
▪ Interfere the judicial proceedings
▪ Obstruct administration of Justice
• Defamation
• Incitement to an offence
Freedom of Press
Romesh Thapper case ( law banned entry of public journal, is violation)
Freedom of Assembly and its Restriction ( CPC 144) 129, 151 IPC
Police Act 1861 – allow direction and route for the assembly, sec 30 mentioned about prior
license.
Sec 151 IPC – its an offence if not disperse after lawful command
Freedom to Form Association Unions and Co-Operative Societies
O K A Nair v Union of India (civil employee union , military, violation they are military staff)
Freedom of Movement and Restriction
N B Khare v State of Delhi ( move away from Delhi, not violation, reasonable restriction )
Freedom of Residence and Restriction
N B Khare v State of Delhi ( move away from Delhi, not violation, reasonable restriction, three
months )
State of UP v Kaushalya ( Prostitute to move away from busy city)
Chief Secretary to Govt V Khalid Mundappilly (public meeting, road block ,no fundamental
rights)
Freedom of Profession Occupation Trade and Business and its Restriction ( 19[g])
 Hathising Mfg Co v Union of India – Right to carry business, but not have absolute right to
close, if its affect public.
Excel Wear v Union India ( industrial dispute act 1947, 25O-Permission close, 25R-penanlt
closing, not reasonable restriction, struck down SC)
Kerala SMT Fed v Kerala TBO Association (Trawling, fish wealth, a reasonable rest , not
violation)
Khoday Distlileres v State of Andhra Pradesh ( cannot start private shop, state has rights to
ban which is injuries to public health)
Sodan Singh v New Delhi Muncipal Committee ( Poor hawkers business on street pavement,
cannot be removed fully, not clear violation state should allocate some measurement to
conduct business, it’s a legitimate mode of earning livelihood)

TM A Pai Foundation case v State of Karnataka (establishment of running educational institute

comes under this section even if it not generating profit, educational institution guaranteed
under this section)

Professional and Technical Qualification

State can by law prescribe professional or technical qualification necessary for any business or
profession. Etc like Advocate Act, Medical Act, CA Act etc
Principle of Proportionality
Article 19 [2-6] are not absolute.. however restriction can be imposed, restriction applied by
administrative section can be tested by applying this Principle.
Constitutional Protection of Accused Person Art 20
• Ex Post Facto law (20 [1])
• Double Jeopardy
• Self-Incrimination

Ex Post Facto law – Criminal law , cannot retrospective/ Civil law applicable
Kedar Nath v State of West Bengal ( amendment ,Punishment enhanced, not
applicable for earlier crime)
T Baral v Henry An Hoe ( Liable for reduced punishment, imprisonment →Three
months)
Double Jeopardy – nemo debet bis vexari 20 [2] – man should not be put twice in peril for the
same offence
• Person must be accused of an offence
• Prosecution must have taken place in court or judicial tribunal
• Accused must have been prosecuted and punished in the previous
proceedings
Maqbool Hussain v State of Bombay ( customs act, FERA, hi claim FERA is violation, but court
said that confiscation under customs act was not punishment and prosecution, so claim will
not withstand )
Venkataraman v Union of India ( Enquiry did not amount to prosecution and punishment,
public service enquiry Act, IPC and prevention corruption act- bribery, not violation )
Self Incrimination 20[3]
MP Sharma v Satish Chandhra ( Finger print, hair etc is violation)
Kathi Kalu Ogad v State of Bombay ( not violation)
Parshadi v State of UP ( Murder evidence, Evidence Act sec 27)
Nandani Sthpathy v PL Pani ( CM Orissa, prosecuted under sec 179 IPC for refusing
answer, SC held that accused need not answer )
V S Kuttan Pilla v Ram Krishna ( document seizure , not violation)
Yusufali v State of Maharashtra ( not violation, tape recorder without his knowledge)
 Selvi v State of Karnataka ( Narcho analysis, BEAP test, violation)

Protection of Life & Personal Liberty Art 21

Maneka Gandhi v Union of India 1978 person can be deprived of his life and personal liberty
only if two conditions are satisfied ( audi altrem partem)
• There must be a law
• That law must prescribe a just, fair, reasonable procedure
Personal Liberty
AK Gopalan v State of Madras
Satwant Singh v Assistant passport office Delhi ( right to travel is personal liberty)
Right to Life Different Shades and Colour
People Union for Democratic Rights v Union of India ( Asiad project, min wages, violation, right
to live with human dignity)
Olga Tellis v Bomba Muncipal Corporation ( pavement dwellers case, right to livelihood)
Chameli singh v State of UP ( Dalit housing colony, right to shelter)
R Rajagopal v Tamil Nadu ( Auto Shankar, right to privacy)
Kirloskar v Employee state insurance corporation ( right to health)
Gain Kaur v State of Punjab ( does not include right to die )
State of Maharashtra v Manubhai Pragaji Vashi ( speedy trial)
Suk Das v Union Teriritory of Arunachal Pradesh ( free legal aid)
Hussainara Khatoon v Home Sec State of Bihar ( speedy trial )
Triveni Ben v State of Gujarat ( delay, death sentence to life imprisonment)
Mohini jain v State of Maharastra ( right to education)
DK Basu v State of Bengal ( guidelines for arrest)
• Name tag
• Memo of arrest
• Inform to friends
• Notify by police in 8-12 hours
• Diary entry
• Hospital check
MC Metha v Union India ( oleium gas company, right to live in pollution free environment)
Murali s Deora v Union of india ( public smoking)
Vaishak v State of Rajasthan (women work place , culture, sexual harassment, dignity)
Compensation for Violation fo Fundamental Rights
Bhim Sing v Jammu and Kashmir ( MLA Arrest, 50,000)
Police Commi Delhi v People Union of Democratic rights ( 75,000, beaten for demand
payment, non-payment)
Right to Education
Mohini Jain v Karnataka
Unnikrishnan v State of AP

Article 22- Protection against Arrest and Detention in certain cases

Joginder Kumar v State UP ( guidelines of arrest during investigation)
1. Inform his friend
2. What arrested for
3. Diary entry and inform other for what arrested
• Arrested under ordinary law
o DK Basu v State of West Bengal
• Arrested under preventive detention law
o MISA, TADA, POTA, NSA, COFEPOSA,SAFEMA
Article 23-24- Right against Exploitation
• Forced labour & Prohibition of Employment of children’s in factories
o People Union for Democratic Rights v Union of India
• Compulsory service
o Dulal Samanta v DH Howrah ( military or social service)
Art 25-28 - Right to Freedom of Religion
Mohd Haniff Quareshi v State of Bihar ( cow slaughter, violation, bakrid , mohammeded
religion)
Acharya Jagadhishwaran v Commissioner of Delhi - Ananda Marga Case ( Thanda Dance,
carrying lethal weapon, skull , its violation)
Satya Ranjan v State of Orissa ( not right to convert, violation)
Freedom to manage Religious Affair Art26
Bramachari Sidheswa Shai v State of WB ( is a Hindu religious denomination, entitled to claim)
Freedom from taxes for the promotion of particular religion
Freedom to attend in religions function or procession in Educational Institution
Right of Minorities to Establish and manage Educational Institution
• Religious
• Linguistic
St Xaviers College v State of Gujarat ( Gujarat university, but independent in proceedings )
Mark Netto v Govt of Kerala ( Boys school, admission for new Girls Student Christian , not violation )
St Johns Teachers training Institute v State of Tamil Nadu (not sufficient facility, so no recognize )
T M A pai foundation case and P A Inamdar Case ( full power for minorities , this was overcome by
amendment as state to make law reserve for backward class in all type institution)

Article 32 -Right to Constitutional Remedies - ubi jus ibi remedium – Where there is a right there is a
remedy
High court – Article 226
• Certiorari
• Mandamus
• Quo warranto
• Habeas Corpus
• Prohibition
Res Judicata – if a matter in issue is heard and finally decided by a competent court a second suit on
the very same cause of action or matter in issue is barred.

M S Sharma v Sinha – cannot be filed in the same court for same cause of action
Daryao v State MP – 226 filed and dismissed ( on merit), will not be once again appeal in SC
under 32

AR Choudhari v Union of India ( if dismissed in HC not on merit then its maintainable in SC)

Metal Corporation v Union of india ( 32 dismissed cannot appeal in 226)

Lallubhai Jogibhai v Union of India ( 226 dismissed can apply move fresh 32 only for Habeas
Corpus)

Locus Standi – needed for public Interest litigation – no need for habeas Corpus
This not compulsory for Quo Waranto also

SQP Gupta and others v President of India and others (Judge transfer case)
 public Interest litigation
People of Union of Democratic Rights v Union of India ( Asian games, worker, child below 14)
MC Mehta V State of Tamil Nadu ( Child labour, match factory)- social activist lawyer
Murali S Deora v Union of India (smoking)- congress leader
B Singh v Union of India ( Public Litigation, take care, not used for any personal benefit)

Habeas Corpus
Kanu sanyal v District Magistrate Darjeeling - Note necessary to produce body, court will issue
nisi ( preliminary order) show legal detention , if not justifiable then issue order

Manadamus- public duty

East India commercials Co v Collector of Customs (cannot against government to enforce an
obligation arising out of contract)
Certiorary – after proceedings, for cure- order made without jurisdiction
Murali v Returning Officer ( cannot issues against legislature )
Prabhodh Varma v State of UP (office not to do any action, its not declaring an act or
ordinance unconstitutional)
Prohibition – only against judicial or quasi judicial authorities- issued before proceedings , prevention
Hari Vishnu Kamath v Ahmad Ishaque ( issued when an inferior court takes decision which it
has no jurisdiction)
Quo Warranto-
Lakhanpal v A N Ray (ANR appointed as chief justice, but the other three resign when the writ
was considered)
Special Leave to appeal Art 136
Lawyers Paradise

Directive Principle of State policy [ 36 – 51] – Ireland

Is to achieve a social and economic democracy in the country
Classification of Directive principles
• Social and Economic Charter
• Social Security Charter
• Community Welfare charter
In the section from 36 to 51 the most important were
1. Social justice Art 38
2. Equal pay for Equal Work Art 39
a. Randhir Singh v Union of India
3. Equal Justice and Free legal Aid Art 39A
a. State Bank v N S Money
4. Uniform Civil Code Art 44
a. Sarala Mudgal v Unioin of India ( Bigamy , 494 IPC)

Relationship Between Fundamental and Directive Principles

Fundamental – Individual Right
Directive Principles – Social Rights

First View – Fundamental Prevails over Directive

• State of Madras v Champakan Dorairajan ( fight between Fundamental rights and
DPSP, then fundamental prevails)
Second View- Directive Prevails over Fundamental
• Mohd Hanif Quareshi v State of Bihar ( slaughter of cow)
 sThird View- Balance (Harmony) between both
• Kerala Education Bill
• Unnikrishnan v State of AP

Fundamental Rights Directive PSP

Negative in Nature Positive in Nature
Justiciable Non-Justiciable
Aim in establishing Political democracy Aim in establishing socio-economic
democracy
No need for Legislation for implementing Need for legislation for implementing
Individual based Community based
Binding on SC Supreme Court is not Bound
Legally Enforceable Not legally enforceable
Essential Rights of citizen Guidelines for making law or policy

Fundamental Duties – Art 51 A – 42 Amendment 1976

RFN SDH RPN DSWC
1. Abide by the constitution and respect its deal and institution
2. Respect national flag and national anthem
3. Cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle and freedom
4. Uphold the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India
5. Defend the country and render national service when called upon to do
6. Promote harmony in religious, regional, sectional and linguistic diversities
7. Renounce practices derogatory to a woman
8. Preserve or value rich heritage of our culture
9. Natural resources protection
10. Develop Scientific temper, humanism and sprint of inquiry and reform
11. Safeguard public property
12. Work for nation
13. Child education

12-13 General
14-18 Right to Equality
19-22 Right to Freedom
23-24 Right to Exploitation
25-28 Right to Religion
29-31 Right to Education
31A-31D Saving Certain Law
32-35 Constitutional Remedies
36 -51 DPSP
51A FD