Fundamental rights, governed under Part III of the Indian Constitution are vital in safeguarding the liberties and freedoms of Indian citizens. These rights form the cornerstone of democratic governance protecting life and personal liberty. However, despite their significance, they are not beyond criticism. The key criticisms include:

1. Limited applicability to State Actions

Article 12 defines “State” to include the Government and Parliament of India, each state’s legislature, and all local and municipal authorities and bodies within the territory of India. Fundamental Rights are primarily enforced against the state and not against private individuals or entities. This limitation leaves individuals without recourse where violations occur in private spheres and by non-state actors.

1. Suspension of Rights during Emergencies

Article 359 of the Indian Constitution permits suspending most fundamental rights during a state of emergency. This has been criticized for potentially enabling an authoritarian governance and regime and undermining civil liberties. This was evident during the emergency of 1975-1977 which led to widespread abuse of power. The Habeas Corpus Case (ADM Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukhla, 1976) was also controversial concerning the emergency, where the right to seek judicial review under Article 21 could be suspended during an emergency.

1. Potential for abuse of Preventive Detention

Preventive detention laws allow the state to detain individuals without trial, which can be misused to suppress political dissent, and target activists and minority groups. This practice undermines civil liberties and fundamental principles of justice and human rights. Moreover, this violates Article 22, where individuals are detained without a fair trial or due process.

1. Absence of Social and Economic Rights

Fundamental rights do not cover social and economic rights and such rights are included under the Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV of the Constitution) and are non-justiciable. This limits their enforceability and reduces the state’s accountability in fulfilling these rights.

1. Other criticisms

There is an inherent tension between Fundamental rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy where balancing individual rights with broader social and economic goals often proves challenging. Additionally, judicial interpretation of Fundamental Rights, though progressive, raises concerns about overreach and potential conflicts with the legislative branch.

Fundamental Rights play a crucial role in safeguarding personal freedoms and upholding democratic principles, yet their boundaries and susceptibility to misuse underline the need for ongoing evaluation and careful interpretation.