Features of Fundamental Rights скачать в хорошем качестве

Features of Fundamental Rights

#exam #upsc #mppsc #politicalscience This video provides an in-depth analysis of the features of Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution, exploring their significance for both citizens and non-citizens. It delves into various landmark judgments by the Supreme Court and High Courts that have strengthened these rights (0:00). Key features and discussions include: Categories of Fundamental Rights (0:35): The video lists six categories: Right to Equality, Freedom Against Exploitation, Freedom of Religion, Cultural and Educational Rights, Right to Constitutional Remedies. It also notes that the Right to Property was removed from Fundamental Rights by the 44th Constitutional Amendment (0:48). Availability to Citizens and Non-Citizens (1:09): The presenter differentiates between rights available only to citizens (e.g., Articles 15, 16, 19, 29, 30) and those available to all persons, including non-citizens (e.g., Articles 14, 20, 21, 21A, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26). Landmark Judgments (5:37): State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer (5:38): Clarified that a company is not a citizen under Article 19. Bennett Coleman & Co. vs. Union of India (6:51): Ruled that while a company isn't a citizen, its shareholders, editors, and printers are, allowing them to challenge laws infringing on fundamental rights. National Human Rights Commission vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh (7:42): Affirmed the universality of the Right to Life (Article 21), protecting even illegal migrants like the Chakmas. Reasonable Restrictions (8:43): Fundamental Rights are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions. Chintaman Rao vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (9:23): Defined reasonable restrictions as non-arbitrary and non-excessive, striking a balance between individual freedoms and social control. Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (10:17): Struck down Section 66A of the IT Act for being vague and violating freedom of speech and expression. Modern Dental College vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (13:32): Introduced the doctrine of proportionality as a gold standard for testing state interference with fundamental rights. Enforceability Against the State (15:39): Most rights are enforceable against the State, as defined under Article 12. Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (15:56): Established a six-point test to determine if an entity is an "instrumentality of the State." Zee Telefilms Ltd. vs. Union of India (17:36): Ruled that BCCI is not a "State" but can be subject to writs under Article 226 due to its public functions. People's Union for Democratic Rights vs. Union of India (18:27): Held that Article 23 (prohibition of forced labor) is enforceable against everyone, including private individuals. Negative and Positive Characters of Rights (20:42): Fundamental Rights have both negative (restricting the state) and positive (requiring state action) aspects. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (20:54): Expanded Article 21, establishing that any procedure depriving life or liberty must be "just, fair, and reasonable." Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (21:52): Led to guidelines for a safe work environment for women, demonstrating the state's positive duty. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (22:46): Declared the Right to Privacy as intrinsic to Article 21. Justiciable Nature (24:04): Fundamental Rights are enforceable through courts under Articles 32 and 226. Romesh Thapar vs. State of Madras (24:10): Highlighted the importance of freedom of speech and expression. L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India (24:32): Affirmed judicial review as an integral and essential feature of the Constitution's basic structure. Subject to Constitutional Amendment (25:15): Fundamental Rights can be amended. Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (25:31): Established the "Basic Structure Doctrine," stating that Parliament can amend fundamental rights but cannot alter or destroy the Constitution's basic structure. Minerva Mills vs. Union of India (26:23): Emphasized the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy. Suspension During Emergency (27:32): A.D.M. Jabalpur vs. Shivakant Shukla (27:33): Ruled that during an emergency, the right to approach the court for enforcement of fundamental rights could be suspended (later overruled). 44th Constitutional Amendment Act (29:45): Corrected the loopholes from the emergency era, ensuring that Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended during an emergency.