# How is fundamental right significant in the lives of common people of india
## Introduction
The Constitution of India, in Part III, enshrines a set of Fundamental Rights that are considered the cornerstone of Indian democracy. These rights, enforceable in a court of law, are not merely abstract constitutional guarantees but have a profound and tangible significance in the daily lives of the common people of India. This essay will argue that the significance of Fundamental Rights lies in their function as a protective shield against arbitrary state power, their role in promoting human dignity and quality of life, and their use as a tool for achieving social justice for marginalised communities. While acknowledging that challenges in their practical enforcement exist, this essay will demonstrate that these rights have fundamentally empowered ordinary citizens by providing them with a legal basis to demand accountability, equality, and a life of dignity.
## A Shield Against State Power
A primary function of Fundamental Rights is to protect individuals from the excesses of the state. Article 13 of the Constitution declares that any law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights is void, thereby establishing the principle of judicial review and placing a firm limit on legislative and executive power (Constitution of India 1950, Art 13). For the common person, this translates into concrete protection against arbitrary and discriminatory actions by the government and its agencies.
The Right to Equality, enshrined in Articles 14 to 18, is a key example. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws, preventing the state from acting arbitrarily. In *D.S. Nakara v Union of India* [1983] AIR SC 130, the Supreme Court struck down a government policy that created an arbitrary distinction between pensioners based on their date of retirement, holding it to be violative of Article 14. This decision had a direct, positive impact on the lives of many retired government employees, ensuring they were not unfairly deprived of their pensionary benefits. Furthermore, Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth, ensuring a common person’s access to public places like shops, restaurants, and wells without prejudice.
Similarly, the freedoms guaranteed under Article 19, such as the freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to assemble peaceably, are vital for the common person. These rights enable citizens to voice dissent, criticise government policies, and organise for social or political causes without fear of reprisal, which is a fundamental aspect of a functioning democracy. These protective rights ensure that the relationship between the citizen and the state is not one of a ruler and a subject, but one governed by the rule of law.
## Expanding the Horizons of Life and Dignity
Perhaps the most significant impact of Fundamental Rights on the common person has come through the expansive judicial interpretation of Article 21, which states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law” (Constitution of India 1950, Art 21). Initially interpreted narrowly, the Supreme Court’s decision in *Maneka Gandhi v Union of India* [1977] AIR SC 597 revolutionised its meaning. The Court held that ‘procedure established by law’ must be fair, just, and reasonable, not arbitrary.
Following this landmark judgment, the judiciary has interpreted the ‘right to life’ to mean more than mere animal existence; it encompasses the right to live with human dignity. This has led to the inclusion of several unenumerated rights within the scope of Article 21, which directly affect the quality of life of ordinary people. For instance, in the *M.C. Mehta* series of cases concerning environmental pollution, the Supreme Court recognised the right to a clean and healthy environment as a facet of Article 21. In *Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation* [1986] AIR SC 180, the court held that the right to livelihood was an essential component of the right to life, providing a measure of protection to slum dwellers facing eviction. More recently, in *K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India* (2017) 10 SCC 1, the right to privacy was affirmed as a fundamental right, protecting the common person’s personal autonomy from state intrusion in the digital age. This judicial creativity has transformed Article 21 into a powerful tool for citizens to demand basic necessities and a dignified existence from the state.
## A Tool for Social Justice and Empowerment
Fundamental Rights have also been instrumental in addressing deep-rooted social inequalities. Provisions such as Article 17, which abolishes ‘Untouchability’ and forbids its practice in any form, and Article 23, which prohibits forced labour, are aimed directly at protecting the most vulnerable sections of society from exploitation and historical injustices (Jain, 2018).
The significance of these rights has been magnified by the procedural innovation of Public Interest Litigation (PIL). PIL relaxed the traditional rule of *locus standi* (the right to bring an action), allowing any public-spirited individual or organisation to approach the courts on behalf of the poor, oppressed, or marginalised who may not have the means or awareness to do so themselves. This has made the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court under Article 32, a forum for social change. In *Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India* [1984] AIR SC 802, a PIL brought the plight of bonded labourers in stone quarries to the Supreme Court, which led to their release and rehabilitation, enforcing their rights under Articles 21 and 23. Through PIL, Fundamental Rights have moved beyond the realm of individual disputes and have become a collective instrument for enforcing the rights of entire communities, giving a voice to the voiceless.
## Challenges in Realisation
Despite their profound significance, it is important to recognise the challenges that hinder the full realisation of Fundamental Rights for every common person. First, these rights are not absolute and are subject to ‘reasonable restrictions’ by the state on grounds like public order, security, and morality. The interpretation of what constitutes a ‘reasonable’ restriction can sometimes be contentious and may lead to the curtailment of rights. Second, a significant portion of the Indian population remains unaware of their constitutional rights due to illiteracy and lack of legal awareness, preventing them from seeking remedies when their rights are violated. Finally, the process of seeking justice can be long, expensive, and complex. Although PIL has improved access, the judicial system is overburdened, leading to significant delays which can be a major barrier for a common person seeking to enforce their rights (Shukla, 2017). The gap between the rights guaranteed in the Constitution and their effective implementation on the ground remains a persistent challenge.
## Conclusion
In conclusion, Fundamental Rights are of immense significance in the lives of the common people of India. They act as a crucial check on state power, ensuring that citizens are governed by law and not by the arbitrary whims of those in authority. Through the dynamic interpretation of the judiciary, particularly concerning Article 21, these rights have expanded to guarantee a life of dignity, encompassing rights to a clean environment, livelihood, and privacy. Moreover, as tools for social justice, amplified by mechanisms like Public Interest Litigation, they have empowered marginalised communities to fight against centuries of discrimination and exploitation. While practical hurdles such as lack of awareness and judicial delays persist, the constitutional framework of Fundamental Rights provides an indispensable legal and moral foundation for the common person to assert their dignity, demand justice, and hold the state accountable.
## References
- Jain, M.P. (2018) Indian Constitutional Law. 8th edn. LexisNexis.
- Shukla, V.N. (2017) Constitution of India. 13th edn. Eastern Book Company.
- The Constitution of India 1950.
- Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India [1984] AIR SC 802.
- D.S. Nakara v Union of India [1983] AIR SC 130.
- K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1.
- Maneka Gandhi v Union of India [1977] AIR SC 597.
- Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation [1986] AIR SC 180.
