CHAPTER 6

Fundamental Rights

(Articles 12-35)

The Fundamental Rights are enshrined in Part III of the Constitution from articles 12 to 35. In this regard, the framers of the
Constitution derived inspiration from the Constitution of USA (i.e., Bill of rights).

Part III of the Constitution is rightly described as 'magna carta' of India. It contains a long and comprehensive list of
justiciable Fundamental Rights. Fundamental Rights were deemed essential to protect the rights and liberties of the people
against the encroachment of the power delegated by them to their Government. The Fundamental Rights are meant for
promoting the ideal of political democracy. They prevent the establishment of an authoritarian and despotic rule in the
country and protect the liberty and freedom of the people, against the invasion by the State.

The Fundamental Rights are named so because they are guaranteed and protected by the Constitution, which is the
fundamental law of the land. They are fundamental also in the sense that they are most essential for the all-round
development of the individuals. The Constitution provides for six Fundamental Rights viz.

1. Right to equality (Articles 14-18);

2. Right to freedom (Articles 19-22);

3. Right against exploitation (Articles 23-24);

4. Right to freedom of religion (Articles 25-28);

5. Cultural and educational rights (Articles 29-30);

6. Right to constitutional remedies (Article 32).

Positive and Negative Rights

The negative rights are in the nature of restriction upon exercise of power by the State or private individuals while
the positive rights require some positive action on the part of the State or individuals against whom they are
available. In some constitutions both types of rights have been grouped under 'Fundamental Rights' but the Indian
Constitution followed the pattern set by

Irish Constitution and include positive rights mostly in the charter on Directive Principles of State Policy, because it
was not practicable to make them enforceable by an action in the court of law. Part III includes mainly negative
rights.

Define State

Article 12. Definition.

In this part unless the context otherwise requires, "the State" includes the Government and Parliament of
India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within
the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.

In State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose, MANU/SC/0018/1953 : AIR 1954 SC 92: 1954 SCJ 127: 1954
SCA 65: 1954 SCR 587, Patanjali Sastri, C.J. said - "The whole object of Part III of the Constitution is to
provide protection for the freedoms and rights mentioned therein against arbitrary invasion by the State".

The term 'state' thus include executive as well as legislative organs of the Union and States. It is, therefore,
the action of these bodies that can be challenged before the courts as violating the Fundamental Rights.
Therefore, authorities and instrumentalities not specified in it may also fall within it if they otherwise satisfy
the characteristics of the State as defined in this article. The authorities and instrumentalities specified in
article 12 are-

11-08-2019 (Page 1 of 8) www.manupatra.com NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

 (i) the Government and Parliament of India;

(ii) the Government and the Legislature of each of the States;

(iii) all local authorities.

(iv) other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.

(a) Authorities.-

According to Webster's Dictionary: "Authority" means a person or body exercising power

to command. The term 'authority' means the power to make law, orders, regulations
bye-laws, notifications etc., which have the force of law and power to enforce these
laws.

(b) Local Authorities.-

The expression 'Local Authorities' refers to authorities like municipalities, District Boards,
Panchayats, Improvement Trust, Port Trusts, Mining Settlement Board, etc.

In Rashid Ahmed v. M.B. Kairana, MANU/SC/0005/1950 : AIR 1950 SC 163: 1950 SCJ
124: 1950 SCR 566, the Municipal Board was held to be a local authority under article
12.

In Mohammad Yasin v. Town Area Committee, MANU/SC/0012/1952 : AIR 1952 SC 115:

1952 SCJ 162: 1952 SCR 572: 1952 SCA 237, the Supreme Court held that the bye-law
of a municipal committee charging a prescribed fee on the wholesale dealer was an
order by a State authority which contravened article 19(1)(g).

(c) Other authorities.-

The expression 'other authorities' was given different interpretation in early stage. Some
courts applied the principle of "ejusdem generis" and distinction was made between
State maintained and State aided or private institutions. Later it was held in the case
Ujjambai v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1963) 1 SCC 778: AIR 1962 SC 1621: (1963) 1 SCR
778, that the expression includes constitutional and statutory authorities and a
distinction was made between authorities constituted by an Act and those constituted
under an Act of the Legislature.

In Electricity Board Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal, MANU/SC/0360/1967 : AIR 1967 SC 1857:

(1968) 1 SCA 9: 1968 (1) SCJ 461: (1967) 3 SCR 377, the Supreme Court held that all
authorities created by the Constitution or statute or on whom powers are conferred by
law are included within the expression "other authorities". It is not necessary that the
statutory authority should be engaged in performing governmental or sovereign
functions.

Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram, MANU/SC/0667/1975 : AIR 1975 SC 1331: (1975) 1 SCC

421: 1975 SCC (Lab) 101: (1975) 3 SCR 619. In this case, the question arose whether
statutory corporation such as ONGC, IFC, and LIC created by the Oil and Natural Gas
Commission Act, 1959, the Industrial Finance Act, 1948, the Life Insurance Act, 1956
come within the meaning of State under article 12. By a majority, the Court held that
these corporations were States.

The State being an abstract entity, could undertake trade or business as envisaged
under article 298 through an agency, instrumentality or a juristic person. Statutory
corporation are agencies or instrumentalities of the State for carrying on trade or

11-08-2019 (Page 2 of 8) www.manupatra.com NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

 business which otherwise would have been carried out by the State departments.

R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority, MANU/SC/0048/1979 : (1979) 3 SCC 489:

AIR 1979 SC 1628. The Supreme Court pointed out that the corporation acting as
instrumentality or agency of government would obviously be subject to the same
limitations in the field of constitutional or administrative law as the government itself,
though in the eye of the law they would be distinct and independent legal entities. It
was held that the International Airport Authority constituted under the International
Airport Authority Act, 1971 was an authority and, therefore, State within the meaning
of article 12.

Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, MANU/SC/0498/1980 : AIR 1981 SC 487: (1981) 1 SCC 722:
1981 SCC (Lab) 258: (1981) 2 SCR 79. It has been held that a society registered under
the Societies Registration Act, 1898, is an agency or instrumentality of the State and
hence a 'State' within the meaning of article 12. Its composition is determined by the
representative of the Government. The Court laid down the following tests for
determining whether a body is an agency or instrumentality of the Government:

(i) Financial resources of the State is the chief funding sources i.e., if the entire share
capital of the Corporation is held by the government.

(ii) Existence of deep and pervasive State control.

(iii) Functional character being governmental in essence i.e., if the functions of the
corporation enjoys monopoly which is State conferred or State protected.

(iv) If the department of Government is transferred to a corporation.

(v) If the functions of the corporation are of public importance and closely related to
governmental functions.

Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 212: (1981) 1 SCC 449: (1981) 1 SCWR 173: (1981) 2 SCR 111.
The Supreme Court held that the Bharat Petroleum Corporation is clearly a creature of the statute, a limb of
government, an agency of the State and is recognised and clothed with rights and duties by the statute. The
Supreme Court reached the conclusion that there is enough

material to hold that the Bharat Petroleum Corporation registered as a company under the Companies Act, is State
within the enlarged meaning of article 12.

Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagat Ram, MANU/SC/0667/1975 : AIR 1975 SC 1331: (1975) 1 SCC 421: (1975) 3 SCR 619. The
Supreme Court held that Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Life Insurance Corporation and Industrial Financial
Corporation are authorities within the meaning of article 12 of the Constitution and, therefore, they are State. All
these three statutory corporations have power to make regulations under the statute for regulating conditions of
service of their employees.

Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0059/1975 : (1975) 1 SCC 485: AIR 1975 SC 1329: (1975) 1 SCWR 360:
(1975) 3 SCR 616. The Supreme Court held that the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, a society
registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 was not State within article 12 but this case was analysed and
distinguished in subsequent cases and it stands overruled.

Chander Mohan Khanna v. NCERT, MANU/SC/0010/1992 : AIR 1992 SC 76: 1991 AIR SCW 2749: (1991) 4 SCC 578:
1991 (2) UJ (SC) 747. The Supreme Court held that National Council of Educational Research and Training is not
State within the meaning of article 12 as governmental control is confined to proper utilization of grants.

M. Kumar v. Bharat Earth Movers Ltd., MANU/KA/0406/1999 : AIR 1999 Kant 343: ILR (KANT) 1999 KAR 1715: 1999
(5) Kant LJ 193. Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. and Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. were held to be 'State' under article

11-08-2019 (Page 3 of 8) www.manupatra.com NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

 12 because inspite of disinvestment government holds more than 51 per cent. shares and it has deep and pervasive
control over them.

Assam Small Scale Ind. Dev. Corpn. Ltd. v. J.D. Pharmaceuticals, MANU/SC/1206/2005 : AIR 2006 SC 131: 2005 AIR
SCW 5600: (2005) 13 SCC 19: 2005 (8) SCJ 98. Assam Small Scale Industries Development Corp Ltd. is a statutory
body and so is a State within the meaning of article 12.

Mohan Mahto v. Central Coal Fields Ltd., MANU/SC/7934/2007 : AIR 2008 SC 39: 2007 AIR SCW 6060: (2007) 8 SCC
549: 2007 (6) Supreme 525. The Central Coal Fields Ltd. falls within the definition of State.

Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0074/2005 : AIR 2005 SC 2677: 2005 AIR SCW 2985: (2005) 4 SCC
649: 2005 (2) SCJ 121. BCCI is not financially or administratively dominated by Government nor it is under control of
Government, therefore, is not a State.

Manmohan Singh v. Commissioner, Union Territory of Chandigarh, MANU/SC/0281/1984 : AIR 1985 SC 364: 1985 UJ
(SC) 411: 1984 Supp SCC 540. It has been held that aided schools were held to be covered by the expression 'other
authorities' in article 12 on the ground that 95% of the expenses were received by way of grant from public
exchequer and employees had received statutory protection and they were subject to regulations made by
educational department.

The Judiciary

Though, judiciary is an organ of the State like the executive and legislature, but it is not specifically mentioned as a
State within article 12 but at the same time it can hardly be supported that judiciary is not authority when it has not
been expressly excluded in article 12.

Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, U.P., MANU/SC/0082/1962 : AIR 1963 SC 996: (1963) 2 SCA 125: (1963)
SUPP 1 SCR 885. The Supreme Court invalidated rule 12 of Order 35 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1950 made under
article 145, as violative of fundamental rights of the petitioner under article 32 in so far as it relates to giving of
security in proceedings under article 32.

In Bhudhan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, MANU/SC/0047/1954 : AIR 1955 SC 191: 1955 Cr LJ 374: 1955 SCJ 163:
(1955) 1 SCR 1045, S.R. Das J. who delivered the judgment of the court, observed-

"Judicial decisions must of necessity depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case and what
may superficially appear to be an unequal application of the law may not necessarily amount to denial of
equal protection of law unless there is shown to be present in it an element of intentional and purposeful
discrimination".

Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 1: (1966) 2 SCA 363: (1966) 3 SCR
744. It has been held by the Supreme Court that when a matter is brought before a judge for
adjudication he first decides the questions of facts on which parties at issue and then applies relevant
law to such facts.

Mr. H.M. Seervai is of opinion that the judiciary should be included in the definition of "the State" and
a judge acting as a judge is subject to the
writ-jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Naik, MANU/SC/0002/1988 : AIR 1988 SC 1531: JT 1988 (2) SC 325: (1988) 2
SCC 602: 1988 SCC (Cri) 372. The Supreme Court observed that any decision or order of the court
which violates fundamental rights shall be void though it will remain binding on parties until it is
replaced by proper proceedings.

Article 13. Law Inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights.-

1. All 1aws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, insofar
as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.

11-08-2019 (Page 4 of 8) www.manupatra.com NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

 2. The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any
law made in contravention of this clause shall to the extent of the contravention, be void.

3. In this article, unless the context otherwise requires,-

(a) "law" includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rules, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the
territory of India the force of law;

(b) "laws in force" includes laws passed or made by Legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India
before the commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or
any part thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas.

4. Nothing in this Article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under article 368.

Article 13 declares that all laws that are inconsistent with or in derogation of any of the fundamental rights shall be
void. In other words, it expressively provides for judicial review. This power has been conferred on the Supreme

Court (article 32) and the High Courts (article 226) which can declare a law unconstitutional and invalid on ground of
contravention of any of the fundamental rights.

Article 13 expressly incorporates the doctrine of judicial review. Although American Constitution guarantees a Bill of
Rights, there is no provision in the American Constitution comparable to article 13. A controversy arose there as to
whether an act of congress could be declared invalid for violation of the Constitution. The Controversy was
ultimately settled in Marbury v. Madison, (1803) 1 Cranch 137, Chief Justice Marshall held:

"Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and
paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of each such Government must be that an Act of
the legislature, repugnant to the Constitution is void".

In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, MANU/SC/0012/1950 : AIR 1950 SC 27, Kania, C.J. pointed out that it was only
by way of abundant caution that the framers of our Constitution inserted the specific provisions in article 13. He
observed - "In India, it is the Constitution that is supreme and that a statute law to be valid, must be in all
conformity with the constitutional requirements and it is for the judiciary to decide whether any enactment is
constitutional or not".

His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadgalvaru v. State of Kerala, MANU/SC/0445/1973 : AIR 1973 SC 1461: (1973)
4 SCC 225. It has been held that judicial review is the basic feature of the Indian Constitution and, therefore, it
"cannot be damaged or destroyed by amending the Constitution under article 368 of the Constitution.

L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0261/1997 : AIR 1997 SC 1125: 1997 AIR SCW 1345: (1997) 3 SCC
261: 1997 (3) Supreme 147. The Supreme Court has held that power of judicial review of legislative action as vested
in the High Court under, article 226 and in the Supreme Court under article 32 is part of the basic structure of the
Constitution and cannot be ousted or excluded even by the constitutional amendment.

Clause (1). Existing Laws

Clause (1) deals with pre-constitution or existing law i.e., laws which were in force immediately before the
commencement of the constitution. Under clause (1) of article 13, such existing laws, insofar as they are
inconsistent with the fundamental rights, shall to the extent of the inconsistency become void from the date of the
commencement of the Constitution.

(a) No Retrospective Effect

Fundamental Rights in Part III are meant to have only prospective operation and as such any existing law, which is
inconsistent with the fundamental rights, will be void from the date of the commencement of the Constitution. For
pre-Constitution acts or omissions such inconsistent law will remain a valid law.

11-08-2019 (Page 5 of 8) www.manupatra.com NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

 Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay, MANU/SC/0020/1951 : AIR 1951 SC 128: 1951 SCJ 182: 1951 SCR
228: 52 Cr LJ 860. The Supreme Court observed that all existing laws, insofar as they are inconsistent with the
fundamental rights, shall be void to the extent of their inconsistency. They are not void for all purposes but they are
void only to the extent they come into conflict with the fundamenta

rights. On and after the commencement of the Constitution no existing law will be permitted to stand in the way of
the exercise of any of the fundamental rights.

Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0020/1956 : AIR 1957 SC 397: 1957 SCA 660: 1957 SCR 233. Where the
Income Tax assessment and recovery proceedings were completed before the commencement of the Constitution
and, therefore, they could not be challenged under article 13 for violation of fundamental rights.

(b) The Rule of Severability

Define the rule of severability

Article 13 does not make the whole Act inoperative but only such provisions of it as are inconsistent with or violative
of the fundamental rights. Where the valid parts are clearly dependent upon and so inseparably connected with the
invalid parts that they cannot be separated without defeating the object of the statute they too must fall with
invalid parts.

State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318: 1951 SCJ 478: 52 Cr LJ 1361: 1951 SCR 682. Eight sections of
the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, were held ultra vires on the ground that they infringed the fundamental rights of
the citizens. But the Act minus the invalid provisions, was allowed to stand.

A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, MANU/SC/0012/1950 : AIR 1950 SC 27: 1950 SCJ 174: 51 Cr LJ 1383: 1950 SCR
88. Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act was declared unconstitutional. Chief Justice Kania observed: "The
impugned Act minus this section can remain unaffected. The omission of this section shall not change the nature or
structure or object of the legislation. Therefore, the decision that section 14 is ultra vires does not affect the
validity of the rest of the Act. In my opinion, therefore, Act IV of 1950 except section 14 is not ultra vires".

Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, MANU/SC/0006/1950 : AIR 1950 SC 124: 1950 SCJ 418: 51 Cr LJ 1514: 1950
SCR 594. The Supreme Court observed that "Where a law purports to authorise the imposition of restriction on a
Fundamental Right in language wide enough to cover restriction, both within or without the limits provided by the
Constitution and where it is not possible to separate the two, the whole law is to be struck down. So long as the
possibility of its being applied for purpose not sanctioned by the Constitution cannot be ruled out, it must be held to
be wholly void".

R.M.D.C. v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0020/1957 : AIR 1957 SC 628: 1957 SCJ 593: 1957 SCA 912. Certain provisions
of Prize Competitions Act, 1955 were challenged on the ground that they violated Fundamental Right under article
19(1)(g) as section 2(d) defined prize competition so widely as to include competition in which success depends to a
substantial degree on skill.

M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India, AIR 1955 SC 605: 1994 AIR SCW 4897. The validity of the acquisitions of certain
areas under the Ayodhya Act, 1993 was challenged. The Supreme Court invalidated sub-section (3) of section 4 of
the Act, which provided for an alternative dispute resolving mechanism. The Court held that this was an extinction of
the remedy for resolution of dispute amounting to negation of rule of law.

Kihota Hollohon v. Zachilhu, MANU/SC/0753/1992 : AIR 1993 SC 412: 1992 AIR SCW 3497: (1992) 1 SCR 686: (1992)
Supp 2 SCC 651. It has been held that section 10 of the Tenth Schedule minus para 7 remains valid and
constitutional. Para 7

which has been declared unconstitutional is severable from the main provisions of the Tenth Schedule.

(c) The Doctrine of Eclipse

11-08-2019 (Page 6 of 8) www.manupatra.com NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

 What is doctrine of eclipse?

The doctrine of eclipse is based on the principle that a law which violates fundamental rights is not nullity or void ab
initio but becomes only unforceable, i.e., remains in a moribund condition. It is over-shadowed by the fundamental
rights and remains dormant, but it is not dead. An existing law inconsistent with a fundamental right, though
becomes inoperative from the date of the commencement of the Constitution, it is not dead altogether.

Bhikaji Narain v. State of Madhya Pradesh, MANU/SC/0016/1955 : AIR 1955 SC 781: (1955) 2 SCR 589: 1956 SCJ 48.
In that case provision of C.P. and Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1947 which authorized the State
Government to take up the entire motor transport business in the Province to the exclusion of motor transport
operators was challenged. This provision, though valid when enacted, become void on the coming into force of the
Constitution in 1950 as they violated article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

According to the doctrine of eclipse an existing law i.e., a law made before the commencement of the constitution,
remains eclipsed or dormant to the extent it comes under the shadow of the fundamental rights i.e., is inconsistent
with the fundamental rights, but the eclipsed or dormant parts become operative and effective again if the
prohibition brought about by the fundamental right is removed by an amendment of the Constitution.

Clause (2). Future Law

Article 13(2) deals with the post Constitution laws. It says that State shall not make any law which takes away or
abridges fundamental rights. If the State make such laws then it will be ultra vires and void to the extent of the
contravention.

Sagir Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh, MANU/SC/0110/1954 : AIR 1954 SC 728: 1954 SCJ 819: 1955 SCR 707. In
this case the validity of U.P. Road Transport Act, 1951 was questioned. By this Act, State sought to exclude all
private bus owners from the field of transport business. The act was passed before the Constitution (First
Amendment) Act which permitted State monopoly by adding a sub-clause to article 19(6). The Supreme Court held
that a statute void for unconstitutionality is dead and cannot be vitalized by a subsequent amendment of the
Constitution removing the constitutional objection, but must be re-enacted.

Does the doctrine of eclipse apply to a post-constitutional law

What are the post-constitutional law?

In Deepchand v. State of Uttar Pradesh, MANU/SC/0023/1959 : AIR 1959 SC 648: 1959 SCJ 1069: 1959 SCR Supp
(2) 8, the Supreme Court held that a post-constitutional law which contravenes a fundamental right is nullity from its
inception and a still-born law.

State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills, MANU/SC/0092/1974 : AIR 1974 SC 1300: (1974) 4 SCC 656: 1974 (2) SCJ 211:
(1974) 3 SCR 760. The Court held that the rule that any statute which takes away or abridges fundamental rights is
still born or null and void requires qualifications in certain situations.

Doctrine of Waiver

Define doctrine of waiver with leading cases

Waiver is voluntary relinquishment or renunciation of some known right or foregoing or giving up of some benefit or
advantage which the party would have otherwise enjoyed. Waiver of a right or benefit may be established by the
action of declaration, acquiesence or silence of the party as well as by his express consent and approval.

Basheshar Nath v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi and Rajasthan, MANU/SC/0064/1958 : AIR 1959 SC 149: 1959
SCJ 1207: 1959 SCR Supp (1) 528. The petitioner whose case was referred to the Income-tax Investigation
Commissioner under section 5(1) of the Act was found to have concealed large amount of income. He, thereupon,
agreed at a settlement in 1954 to pay Rs. 3 lakhs in monthly instalments by way of arrears of tax and penalty.

M.P. Sugar Mills v. State of Uttar Pradesh, MANU/SC/0336/1978 : AIR 1979 SC 621: (1979) 2 SCC 409: 1979 (2) SCJ

11-08-2019 (Page 7 of 8) www.manupatra.com NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

 185: (1979) 2 SCR 641. In a non-fundamental right case the Court has held that a person cannot abandon his right
unless he knows of it.

Nar Singh Pal v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0221/2000 : AIR 2000 SC 1401: 2000 AIR SCW 1141: (2000) 3 SCC 588:
2000 (2) Supreme 667. It is held that where a right or privilege guaranteed by the Constitution inheres in the
individual and is primarily intended for his benefit, it can be waived, provided such waiver is not forbidden by law and
does not contravene public policy or public morals. The law is now settled that fundamental rights cannot be waived.

M. Ct. Muthiah v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, MANU/SC/0022/1955 : AIR 1956 SC 269: 1956 SCJ 349:
(1955) 2 SCR 1247. It is clear from the language of article 14 that it is a command issued by the Constitution to the
State as a matter of public policy with a view to implement its object of ensuring the equality of status and
opportunity and no person by his act or conduct relieve the State of this solemn obligation imposed upon the State
by the Constitution.

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, MANU/SC/0039/1985 : AIR 1986 SC 180: (1985) 3 SCC 545: 1986 Cr LR
(SC) 23. In this case the Bench of five Judges of Supreme Court again considered the matter and after due
consideration, the Court held by majority that the fundamental rights cannot be waived.

© Universal law Publishing Co.

11-08-2019 (Page 8 of 8) www.manupatra.com NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL