Armed Forces Rights: Fundamental Rights (Part-5)

Armed Forces Rights!!! We have discussed Right to Equality, Right to Freedom, Right against exploitation, Rights to Constitutional Remedies etc. So, now we are left with Armed Forces Rights. In this post, we shall be discussing Armed forces rights.

Armed Forces Rights

Article 33

This article empowers the parliament to restrict or repeal the fundamental rights of members of,

  • Armed forces,
  • Paramilitary forces,
  • Polices forces and
  • Intelligence Agencies.

So, the objective of this provision is to ensure the proper discharge of the duties and maintenance of discipline among armed forces.

Guys, one should not forget that these superheroes never shout for their fundamental rights rather they fight for other’s fundamental rights.

Armed Forces Rights: We should always show gratitude to the Armed Forces
Armed Forces Rights: We should always show gratitude to the Armed Forces

The Parliament enacted the Army Act (1950), the Navy Act (1950), the Air Force Act (1950), the Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act 1966, the Border Security Force Act 1968 etc.

So, these impose a restriction on their freedom of speech, the right to form associations, the right to be members of trade unions or political associations, the right to communicate with the press, right to attend public meetings etc.

In the past years, the separatist leaders of Jammu and Kashmir use these acts as a shield to their inhuman activities. And Guys, because of Armed Forces Rights (Or Restricted Rights), our Armed Forces enjoys limited rights but serve the nation to the fullest.

So, let’s come to some concluding part of Fundamental Rights. There are many incidences where so-called intellectuals criticise the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution.

So, in the next heading, we will see some criticism of Fundamental Rights.

Criticism of Fundamental Rights

Excessive Limitation

Fundamental Rights comes with innumerable exceptions, restrictions, qualified and not absolute, etc.

So, the critics remarked that the Constitution grants Fundamental Rights with one hand and takes them away with the other. (Though we have rights to Constitutional Remedies🤔)

No Social and Economic Rights

People also criticise that fundamental rights consist of mainly political rights.

It makes no provision for important social and economic rights like,

  • The right to social security,
  • Right to work,
  • Right to employment and
  • The right to rest and leisure.

No Clarity

This is a very obvious fact about our whole Indian Constitution.🥺It’s very difficult to understand the Indian Constitution. (Maybe due to the fact, many law personnel were there in the Constituent Assembly) 🤔🧐

So, the language used to describe these rights is very complicated. Actually, it is not easy for the common man to understand the legal language.

The various phrases and words used in the chapter like ‘public order’, ‘minorities’, ‘reasonable’, ‘reasonable restriction’, ‘public interest’ and so on are not clearly defined.

No Permanency

They are not sacrosanct as Parliament can abolish them.

For example, the abolition of the fundamental right to property in 1978. So, they can become a tool in the hands of politicians having majority support in the Parliament. 

Suspension During Emergency

The suspension of their enforcement during the operation of National Emergency (except Articles 20 and 21) cuts at the roots of the democratic system in India. So, the National Emergency suspends all the fundamental rights except article 20 and 21.

Expensive Remedy

The judiciary has been made responsible for defending and protecting these rights. However, the judicial process is too expensive and time consuming benefitting the rich. (Writ Jurisdiction).

Preventive Detention

The provision of Preventive Detention (Article 22) takes away the spirit of fundamental rights. It gives arbitrary powers on the State and negates individual liberty.

So, it justifies the criticism that the Constitution of India deals more with the rights of the State against the individual than with the rights of the individual against the State. 

No consistent Philosophy

According to some critics, Fundamental Rights are not the product of any philosophical principle. So this creates difficulty for the Supreme Court and the high courts in interpreting the fundamental rights.

So, Congrats Guys, here we are done with the Part-III of Indian Constitution, Fundamental Rights. Guys, If you have any questions regarding the fundamental rights, you can comment down below. This is a very important topic for UPSC prelims and mains.

Thanks and Stay Civilised. 😊