Criticisms Of Fundamental Rights

There are a lot of areas in the fundamental rights of India that lack in terms of conviction, real-life importance, recognition, or actual impact of any significant proportions in the country. They are as follows:

The fundamental rights do not include important social and economic rights that are also important for individuals to lead a quality life. The Constitution does not consider the right to social security, the right to labor, and the right to employment as fundamental rights. Other countries like China provide such rights.

2. Lack of Clarity:

Many experts have found that certain terms and phrases used to define the various fundamental rights lack clarity as their explanation is not given in the constitution of India. This creates some confusion or vagueness in understanding the scope of these rights.

3. Subject to Changes or Abolishment:

The government of India has the authority to change, curtail, or abolish any fundamental rights. There are apprehensions and criticism against this because of the political motivations that may enjoy majority support in the parliament.

4. Suspension During Emergencies:

Fundamental rights can be suspended during a national emergency, with some exceptions.
Rights under Articles 20 and 21 remain unaffected even during an emergency.
This suspension can lead to citizens being temporarily deprived of certain rights.
National emergencies are usually declared in cases of serious threats to the nation.
The suspension of rights aims to provide the government with necessary powers for crisis management.
Balancing citizens’ rights with the state’s need for control is a critical aspect of emergency provisions.

5. Preventive Detention:

Provisions for preventive detention allow the state to limit fundamental rights under certain circumstances.
Criticism of this concept arises due to concerns about its impact on individual rights.
Critics argue that it gives the state excessive discretionary power.
Such provisions are seen as potentially undermining the essence of fundamental rights.
The balance between security concerns and safeguarding individual liberties is a key point of contention.
Discussions about preventive detention often revolve around finding a balance between state authority and citizen rights.

6. Expensive Judicial Process:

Ordinary people often don’t have the experience or financial means to go through the judicial processes to have their fundamental rights enforced by the law. The judicial process is also expensive and complex and sometimes beyond the reach of ordinary people.

7. Restriction of Laws:

The parliament can restrict the application of fundamental rights to the members of armed forces, paramilitary forces, police forces, and intelligence agencies.

NCRWC (National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution) recommendations :

The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution has recommended taking the following steps to effectuate Fundamental Duties:

The first and foremost step required by the Union and State Governments is to sensitise the people and to create a general awareness of the provisions of fundamental duties amongst the citizens on the lines recommended by the Justice Verma Committee on the Subject.
We must jealously guard the right to freedom of religion and other freedoms, while also respecting the rights of minorities and fellow citizens.
The immediate and significant need is to reform the entire education process, along with freeing it from governmental or political control. Education is the key to instilling the willpower to uphold citizens’ Fundamental Duties.
Article 51A should include the duty to vote in elections, actively participate in the democratic governance process, and pay taxes.