Fundamental rights in India are crucial for protecting individual liberties and promoting democracy, there have been various criticisms and debates surrounding them. It’s important to note that these criticisms do not negate the significance of fundamental rights but highlight areas of concern or areas where improvements might be needed.
- Lack of Social and Economic Rights:
- Critics argue that the Constitution, while providing civil and political rights, does not sufficiently emphasize social and economic rights. The focus on individual freedoms does not adequately address issues of poverty, inequality, and social justice.
- Inadequate Protection of Privacy:
- With the evolution of technology, there are concerns about the adequacy of privacy protection under existing fundamental rights. The right to privacy has gained prominence in recent years, and some argue that it needs explicit recognition and protection in the Constitution.
- Exception Clauses:
- The exceptions and restrictions to fundamental rights, especially under Article 19, have been criticized for being vaguely defined. Critics argue that terms like “public order” and “morality” are subjective and can be misused to curb legitimate expressions and activities.
- Article 21 and Right to Life:
- While Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, there are debates about the scope of this right. Issues such as the death penalty, right to die, and environmental concerns have raised questions about the interpretation and application of Article 21.
- Inequality and Discrimination:
- Despite the existence of fundamental rights, there are challenges related to inequality and discrimination. Critics argue that marginalized communities continue to face social and economic disparities, and effective mechanisms to address these issues are lacking.
- Enforcement and Delay in Justice:
- There are concerns about the delays and inefficiencies in the justice system, making the enforcement of fundamental rights a challenging process. The backlog of cases and slow judicial processes can hinder access to justice.
- Emergency Provisions:
- The provisions allowing for the suspension of fundamental rights during a state of emergency (Article 352) have been criticized for the potential misuse and erosion of liberties during such times.
- Scope of Judicial Review:
- Some critics argue that the scope of judicial review, while significant, may need further clarification and expansion to ensure effective protection of fundamental rights.
- Cultural Relativism:
- There are debates about the cultural relativism of fundamental rights. Some argue that rights should be culturally sensitive and adapted to local contexts, while others emphasize universal principles.
- Access to Justice:
- Limited access to justice, especially for economically disadvantaged sections of society, is a concern. The cost and complexity of legal proceedings can be a barrier to justice.
It’s essential to recognize that the Indian Constitution is a living document, and interpretations of fundamental rights can evolve over time. The criticisms often fuel discussions and legal reforms aimed at enhancing the protection of individual liberties and promoting social justice. Efforts to address these concerns involve ongoing legal and societal discussions, legislative amendments, and judicial decisions that shape the interpretation and application of fundamental rights in India.
By Eminent Personalities
- Dr. B.R. Ambedkar:
- Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the principal architect of the Indian Constitution, expressed concerns about the limitations of political democracy. He highlighted the need for social and economic democracy to address issues of caste-based discrimination and economic inequality. Ambedkar emphasized that political rights alone might not be sufficient for the holistic development of all sections of society.
- Jawaharlal Nehru:
- Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, acknowledged the importance of fundamental rights but also recognized their limitations. He pointed out that political rights might not automatically lead to social and economic equality. Nehru advocated for state intervention in economic matters to achieve social justice and reduce economic disparities.
- M.K. Gandhi:
- Mahatma Gandhi, while supportive of individual rights, was critical of the Western concept of rights divorced from duties and responsibilities. He emphasized the idea of trusteeship and believed that rights come with responsibilities towards society. Gandhi’s philosophy was rooted in the concept of sarvodaya (welfare for all), and he advocated for a balance between individual rights and societal well-being.
- Nani Palkhivala:
- Nani Palkhivala, a prominent jurist and constitutional expert, expressed concerns about the judicial interpretation of fundamental rights. He criticized what he saw as the “judicial adventurism” of expanding the scope of fundamental rights beyond the intentions of the framers of the Constitution. Palkhivala emphasized the importance of striking a balance between judicial activism and respecting the separation of powers.
- Justice Markandey Katju:
- Justice Markandey Katju, a former judge of the Supreme Court of India, has criticized the judiciary for what he perceives as overreach. He has raised concerns about judicial activism and has called for a more restrained approach, arguing that certain policy matters should be left to the elected branches of government.
- Arundhati Roy:
- Arundhati Roy, an author and activist, has been critical of the Indian government’s policies and actions, especially in conflict zones. She has raised concerns about the curtailment of civil liberties in the name of national security and has been vocal about issues related to indigenous rights and environmental justice.
It’s important to recognize that these criticisms reflect diverse perspectives on the implementation and impact of fundamental rights in India. Eminent personalities may have varying views based on their ideological, political, or philosophical standpoints. The ongoing dialogue and debate surrounding fundamental rights contribute to the evolution of legal and constitutional frameworks in the country.
