Talk:Fundamental rights in India/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Untitled

There does not seem to be any discussion of the current status of much of the population of India in regards to these rights, i.e., that most people are unable to practically realize many or all of these rights. Is that within the scope of this article? — goethean ॐ 17:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. --May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ^{(review me!)} 10:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Basically the issue is that the Indian Languages are feudal and discriminatory. Even though the constitutions does mention equality of status before the law, in practise the different feudal word levels for You, He, She, His, Her, Hers etc. and those connected to various levels of addressing etc. effectively cordon off the average citizen to get equality from the administrative set up. When discussing the issue of Right to equality, this may need mention.

The second thing that needs mention here is about the Right to education. The word compulsory is there in this right, which then more or less transforms it into a compulsory right for the teaching class to take over a child. Since it is a known fact that majority Indian teachers are of the abysmally ignorant class, the compulsory factor in the Right to education actually means Slavery to the education department and its henchmen, the teachers. It is a known thing that teachers are desperate to get students to maintain their jobs.

I can give links to wider discussions on these issues, but then it might seem some sort of advertising. --Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 10:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

GA status

Thigs to work on now:

Please try to bring the lead section closer to the WP:LEAD norm.
Please define begar beside it in parenthesis.
All else is good, well, meets the criteria. Lincher 18:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Review

Factual error???

How many fundamental rights are there? In the introduction it's mentioned 6 but the some 8 rights are listed. I don't think right to informations is defined as fundamental in the constitution of INDIA. Or is it. And also RTE. It is fundamental for children upto a certain age. Can it be included with the rest. Would be nice if some expert looked into it, will try and find some references till then. Jakstat (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Can easily reach A class with some effort. Throughout comments:

The first sentence of the article should contain a brief summary of what is it. In this case - The Fundamental Rights in India enshrined in the Part III of the Constitution of India > The Fundamental Rights in India are... ....enshrined in the Part III of the Constitution of India.
Wiki's aren't reliable sources as they may be edited/vandalized anytime. This might be a better source for the constitution.
The term "State" includes all authorities within the territory of India. It includes the... - The term "State" includes all authorities within the territory of India — ....
I advice formatting all the reference constantly using the cite templates.
The Fundamental Rights have been criticised for many reasons - Unbold "Fundamental Rights". No need for "Child labour" to be bolded earlier in the article as well.
Any reference for the 1919 events?
..the Supreme Court held that "the state - When does the quote end?
The India flag is irrelevant to the "Cultural and educational rights" section and thus confusing.
...religion, caste, creed, colour or sex, ...Articles 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 - Serial comma.
All image captions containing full sentences should have a period per WP:MOS.
Even an unaided minority institution... - POV.
These provisions act as a check both on State action as well as the action of private individuals - "both" shouldn't be followed by "as well as". Michaelas10 ^{Respect my authoritah} 16:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

GA status reviewed — kept

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Ruslik 08:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

"OCI" :
- {{cite web | url = http://rajyasabha.nic.in/legislative/amendbills/XXXIX_2003.pdf | title = ''Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2003'' | format = PDF | pages = 5 | publisher = [http://rajyasabha.nic.in/ Rajya Sabha] | language = English | accessdate = 2006-05-25 }}
- {{cite web | url = http://rajyasabha.nic.in/legislative/amendbills/XXXIX_2003.pdf | title = ''Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2003'' | format = PDF | pages = 5 | publisher = [http://rajyasabha.nic.in/ Rajya Sabha] | accessdate = 2006-05-25 }}

DumZiBoT (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Nehru signing Indian Constitution.jpg

The image Image:Nehru signing Indian Constitution.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Right to bear arms?

I've removed this section [1] (for the second time) - I can't see that it's particularly germane or relevant to the article; it's just a note that the proposal was rejected along with two lengthy quotes, jammed somewhat tangentially into the middle of a discussion about the right to property. This really doesn't seem the place for discussing things that might have been in the constitution but were never included to start with, to me, but I'd be interested to hear other views. Shimgray | talk | 17:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

right to bear amrs is an important right for any country who has fought for independence.Yes it is not a fundamental right but its mere proposal in the constituent assembly by the draft committee warrants at least a sentence in the fundamental right.You can also remove right to property as it is not a fundamental right.i urge you to attest add this. manchurian candidate 16:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs)

Protection of life, etc

From the section on "Protection of life and personal liberty", we have this lengthy discussion - I'm not sure what to do with it, or how to go about incorporating it into the very short overview we have, so I've taken it out for the moment and put it here. Thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 18:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

A little understanding of Article 21 is required here as it says, No Person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. Initially, in A.K.Gopalan v State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27; 1950 SCR 88, as early as 1950, where the validity of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 was challenged, the main question was whether Article 21 envisaged any procedure laid down by a law enacted by a legislature, or whether the procedure should be fair and reasonable. By this case, an attempt was made to win for the detenu better procedural safeguards than were available to him under the relevant detention law and Article 22, and a very important question was raised which required interpretation of Constitution. But the attempt failed as the Supreme Court of India rejected the argument that expression 'procedure established by law' introduces into India the American concept of procedural due process which enables the courts to see whether the law fulfils the requisite elements of a reasonable procedure.

In fact, the draft Constitution of India had contained the words 'due process of law' but these words were later dropped and the present phraseology adopted instead. But as per the Supreme Court of India, this was strong evidence to show that the Constituent Assembly did not desire to introduce into India the concept of procedural due process which was done mainly to avoid the uncertainty surrounding the due process concept in the USA. However, the decision in Gopalan case was a majority decision and Justice Fazl Ali disagreed with the majority view and accepted the due process argument.

Then in 1978, in Maneka Gandhi Case, mentioned above, the Supreme Court re-interpreted Article 21 and practically overruled Gopalan Case and gave a highly creative judicial pronouncement. This case shows how liberal tendencies have influenced the Supreme Court of India in the matter of interpreting Fundamental Rights, particularly Article 21. The leading opinion in this case was pronounced by Justice Bhagwati, who also gave the Doctrine of Absolute Liability and Deep Pocket Theory in the famous Oleum Gas Leak Case. Justice Bhagwati was also the only judge in minority opinion when the Constitutionality of the Death Penalty was challenged on the grounds of being violative of Article 21 (amongst a few others) in Bachan Singh v State of Punjab (for Justice Bhagwati's opinion see AIR 1982 SC 1325, 1350). The Court held that the procedure must satisfy certain requisites in the sense of being fair and reasonable. The procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. According to Justice Bhagwati, Article 21 embodies a constitutional value of supreme importance in a democratic society (Francis Coralie v Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746).

7 -Right to information

There in the 1st paragraph is mentioned that Right to information is a fundamental right, I doubt that. So is it true? Yash t 101 08:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

is there any law or some authorised law kind that a person working in any ferm has authorised government law different for each ferms Or in other words has government laws different for each employe. Vickysakaria (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Preamble to Constitution of India.pdf Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Preamble to Constitution of India.pdf, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Preamble to Constitution of India.pdf)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

RTI

Since when was RTI a fundamental right ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsrikanth05 (talk • contribs)

I asked the same question here: [2]

And got this reply; this Yash t 101 06:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the bad link try this link RTI it mentions Right To Information and has been given the status of a fundamental right under Article 19(1) of the Constitution I am on a restricted network so cannot find more sources but I guess this will also work. I can provide more sources after some time. Thanks --sarvajna (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Both those links are more than enough. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fundamental rights in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Laser and Hologram technologies

I have tried but can't think anything new with this topic. Please develop this topic, I want to know more about this one. Assassin GUY (talk) 06:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Internet access is fundamental right

Hi editors, you may know that in January responding to a plea regarding internet in Jammu and Kashmir, the Supreme Court of India said Internet access a fundamental right here is the reference Internet access a fundamental right, Supreme Court makes it official: Article 19 explained from India Today and there are many more on this. Watch and add this in the article here.— The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri ^{(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)} 22:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.drishtiias.com/to-the-points/Paper2/fundamental-rights-part-1. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Sam Sailor 11:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)