Exploring the Rights Enshrined in the Indian Constitution

The Indian Constitution does something quietly remarkable in its third part. It draws a line between rights that belong to everyone standing on Indian soil and rights that belong only to those who hold Indian citizenship. This is not an accident or an oversight. The framers deliberately decided that some protections are too fundamental to be denied to any human being, while others are tied to the privileges and responsibilities of being a citizen. Understanding where this line falls, and why, is the key to understanding how the Constitution balances universal human dignity with the specific interests of the nation.

Where these rights come from 🔗

The rights of the people are contained in Part III of the Constitution, running from Article 12 to Article 35. These are the Fundamental Rights, often described as the “Magna Carta” of India because they place enforceable limits on what the government can do to the individual. The original Constitution of 1950 contained seven Fundamental Rights, but the Right to Property was removed by the 44th Constitutional Amendment in 1978, leaving six categories: the Right to Equality, the Right to Freedom, the Right against Exploitation, the Right to Freedom of Religion, Cultural and Educational Rights, and the Right to Constitutional Remedies.

What makes these rights “fundamental” is that they are guaranteed and protected by the Constitution itself, not merely by ordinary law. If Parliament passes a law that conflicts with them, the courts can strike that law down. This power of judicial review flows directly from Article 13, which declares that any law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights is void.

Two kinds of rights: for all persons and for citizens only 🔗

The central distinction is straightforward once you know where to look. Some Fundamental Rights are available to all persons, whether they are Indian citizens, foreigners, or even legal persons like companies and corporations. Other Fundamental Rights are reserved exclusively for citizens of India. The wording of each article gives this away. Where an article says “no person,” it applies to everyone. Where it says “any citizen,” it is restricted to citizens alone.

Rights available to all persons 🔗

The rights that extend to everyone are guaranteed by Articles 14, 20, 21, 21A, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28. These cover the most basic guarantees of a civilised legal order. Article 14 promises equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws to “any person,” meaning a foreign tourist who is cheated or wronged can claim the same legal equality as an Indian national.

Article 21 protects life and personal liberty, declaring that no person shall be deprived of life or liberty except by procedure established by law. Courts have read this expansively to include the right to live with dignity, and it applies to citizens and non-citizens alike. Article 20 shields any accused person, citizen or foreigner, against arbitrary punishment, while Article 22 guarantees that anyone arrested must be informed of the grounds, allowed to consult a lawyer, and produced before a magistrate within twenty-four hours.

The Right to Freedom of Religion under Articles 25 to 28 also belongs to all persons. Every individual, regardless of nationality, has freedom of conscience and the freedom to practise and propagate their faith. The Right against Exploitation, covered by Articles 23 and 24, prohibits human trafficking, forced labour, and the employment of children in hazardous work for everyone.

Rights available only to citizens 🔗

A smaller, deliberately chosen set of rights is restricted to citizens. These are the rights guaranteed by Articles 15, 16, 19, 29 and 30. The logic behind the restriction becomes clear when you examine what these rights actually protect.

Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity in public employment. Article 19 contains the six famous freedoms, which is perhaps the single most important article to remember in this distinction.

The six freedoms under Article 19 are the freedom of speech and expression, the freedom to assemble peaceably and without arms, the freedom to form associations or unions, the freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India, the freedom to reside and settle anywhere in the country, and the freedom to practise any profession or carry on any trade or business. These freedoms are restricted to citizens and are not available to foreigners.

Articles 29 and 30 round out the citizen-only list. Article 29 protects the language, script, and culture of minorities, and Article 30 gives minorities the right to establish and administer their own educational institutions. These cultural and educational rights are tied to the project of nation-building and protecting India’s internal diversity, which is why they are reserved for those who belong to the national community.

Why the line is drawn this way 🔗

The reasoning behind this split is not arbitrary. Rights that flow from being human, such as the right to life, to legal equality, to a fair trial, and to freedom of belief, cannot reasonably be denied to anyone simply because they hold a different passport. A foreigner is still a human being with dignity, and a State that detains people without cause or punishes them arbitrarily would be acting unjustly regardless of whom it targets.

Citizen-only rights, on the other hand, involve participation in the political and economic life of the nation. The freedom to move and settle anywhere in India, the freedom to express political views, the right to compete for government jobs, and the right to shape the country’s cultural future are bound up with membership in the national community. Restricting them to citizens safeguards national interests and public welfare. A foreigner can be expelled from the country, for instance, in a way that a citizen cannot, which is why the freedom of movement and residence under Article 19 logically belongs to citizens.

Protection against the State and against society 🔗

There is a second layer to these rights that is just as important as the citizen-versus-person distinction. Most Fundamental Rights operate as restraints on the State. They tell the government what it cannot do to the individual. Article 21, for example, primarily restrains the executive and the legislature from taking away life and liberty without due process.

However, the framers understood that in India, oppression does not come only from the government. Some of the deepest abuses come from within society itself, from social practices, caste hierarchies, and economic exploitation. So a handful of rights were designed to operate against private individuals as well. Article 15(2), Article 17, Article 18(3-4), Article 23 and Article 24 can be enforced against private persons, not just the State.

Untouchability and the reach into private life 🔗

Article 17 abolishes untouchability and forbids its practice in any form. This was a direct attack on a social evil rooted in custom, not in government policy. The Supreme Court has held that the right under Article 17 is available against private individuals, and it is the constitutional obligation of the State to take action so that this right is not violated. Similarly, Article 23 protecting against forced labour and trafficking extends its protection against private citizens, not only against the State.

This is what makes the Indian Constitution distinctive. It does not pretend that freedom is threatened only by tyrants in power. It recognises that a person can be enslaved by a landlord, excluded by a community, or trafficked by a criminal network, and it builds protections against those abuses directly into the fundamental law. When private individuals violate rights that are available only against State action, the remedy lies in ordinary law rather than in the Constitution. But for these specific social evils, the constitutional shield reaches into private conduct.

How the people enforce these rights 🔗

A right that cannot be enforced is just a promise on paper. This is why the Right to Constitutional Remedies under Article 32 is so vital. It allows any person whose Fundamental Rights have been violated to approach the Supreme Court directly for enforcement. Dr B.R. Ambedkar called Article 32 the “heart and soul” of the Constitution, saying that without it the Constitution would be a nullity.

Under this article, the Supreme Court can issue five types of writs to protect rights: habeas corpus to free a person from unlawful detention, mandamus to compel a public official to do their duty, prohibition to stop a lower court from exceeding its jurisdiction, certiorari to quash an illegal order, and quo warranto to challenge a person’s claim to a public office. High Courts hold a parallel and even wider writ power under Article 226.

These rights are not absolute 🔗

It is worth remembering that Fundamental Rights, whether for citizens or for all persons, are not unlimited. They are qualified rights subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of state security, public order, decency, morality, and friendly relations with foreign states. The six freedoms under Article 19, for instance, can be limited by reasonable restrictions, which is why freedom of speech does not protect incitement to violence.

During a National Emergency, most of these rights can be suspended, with the important exception that the rights under Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended even then. This careful balancing reflects the framers’ view that liberty and order must coexist, and that no freedom can be allowed to destroy the very society that guarantees it.

What do you think? Should the freedom of speech under Article 19 be extended to non-citizens living in India, or is it right to reserve it for citizens alone? And given how many of the deepest injustices in society come from private actors rather than the government, should more Fundamental Rights be made enforceable against private individuals?

References

1. https://www.constitutionofindia.net/parts/part-iii/
2. https://www.clearias.com/fundamental-rights-available-only-to-citizens-of-india/
3. https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/fundamental-rights/
4. https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/to-the-point/ttp-constitution-of-india/fundamental-rights-available-to-citizens-and-non-citizens
5. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-news-analysis/fundamental-rights-of-foreigners
6. https://upscwithnikhil.com/article/polity/classification-of-fundamental-rights
7. https://www.iilsindia.com/study-material/744567_1619890731.pdf
8. https://thelawgist.org/right-against-exploitation-articles-23-and-24/
9. https://theprint.in/theprint-essential/what-is-article-32-which-ambedkar-said-was-heart-and-soul-of-constitution/546050/
10. https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/fundamental-rights/
11. https://www.drishtiias.com/to-the-points/Paper2/fundamental-rights-part-1