Page 121 - Constitution

70 Years of Indian
Constitution
that fundamental rights are water-tight compartments was
discarded. This was reiterated in * Para 49 in I.R. Coelho v.
State of T.N., (2007) 2 SCC 1 at page. 80; A. K. Gopalan v.
State of Madras (1950) SCR 88 (1970) 1 SCC 248; Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India' and it was held that the fundamental
right under Article 21 has many attributes and some of them
are found in Article 19.
With the introduction of agrarian reforms, right to property
assumed the center stage. The rigid stand of the Court
as regards the sanctity of the fundamental rights and its
unalterable approach led to an offset in the system of checks
and balances between the Parliament and the Judiciary.
During this period, the words SOCIALIST and SECULAR were
added to the Preamble and several measures in furtherance
thereto were also adopted. Steps taken in furtherance of
such SOCIALIST objects became subject matter of challenge
before the Courts and width and breadth of Articles 14 and
19 were defined. However, the rigid stand as to fundamental
rights was reconciled in the celebrated judgement of
Kesavananda Bharti wherein the Court, while propounding
the doctrine of basic structure, upheld the power of Parliament
to amend the fundamental rights. Yet, this reservation of the
Court's power to review the amendment on the touchstone
of basic structure did not augur well with the government of
the day and resulted in further conflict and also the infamous
supersession episode. With the First Judges' case, the scope
of ‘locus standi’ was substantially expanded, leading to the
evolution of the PIL system in the cases of Sheela Barse v.
Union of India' and Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union 7(1978) 1
The rigid stand of the Court as regards the
sanctity of the fundamental rights and its
unalterable approach led to an offset in the
system of checks and balances between
the Parliament and the Judiciary
SCC 248 (1973) 4 SCC 225 (1983) 2 SCC 96 of India. The
judges started expanding the scope of Article 21 during the
PIL phase to provide justice for those who could not knock at
the doors of justice. Thereafter, Article 21 has been held to
encompass varied rights pertaining to different facets of life –
right to a clean and healthy environment (M.C. Mehta line of
cases), right to food, right to shelter, right to education, right
to reputation, and most recently, right to privacy has is Justice
K.S. Puttaswamy case.
With the evolution of the term “public interesť the
corresponding ‘litigation’ has also undergone a sea change.
In recent years, the Court has been compelled to oversee
and direct implementation of executive and administrative
measures for larger public good. These cases often involve
furtherance of the directive principles outlined in Part IV. For
instance, in Laxmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India", the Supreme
Court laid down guidelines governing adoption of Indian
children. In Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan"?, the Supreme
Court laid down guidelines regarding sexual harassment at
the workplace. More recently, arbitrariness' under Article 14
has been applied to test the validity of legislation (in Shayara
Bano v. Union of India') as opposed to such ground being
available to test executive actions alone. In furtherance of
70 Years of Indian Constitution 121