Fundamental rights are the basic rights that are essential for the development of human personality and the overall well-being of individuals. These rights are considered to be the bedrock of democracy and are protected by the Constitution of India. The significance of fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution can be discussed in the following points:

• Protection of individual rights: Fundamental rights provide protection to individuals from the arbitrary exercise of power by the state. These rights ensure that the state cannot infringe on an individual’s rights without due process of law. For instance, the right to life and personal liberty, right to freedom of speech and expression, and right to equality before the law are some of the fundamental rights that protect the individual’s interest against the state’s power.
• Promotes social justice and equality: The fundamental rights outlined in the Indian Constitution encourage social justice and equality. They ban discrimination based on religion, race, caste, gender, or birthplace. They ensure that all citizens have equal opportunities in education, employment, and public services. The Constitution has provisions for affirmative action to uplift the marginalized sections of society, such as scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, and other backward classes.
• The right to constitutional remedies: The Constitution of India provides for the right to constitutional remedies to enforce fundamental rights. The right to constitutional remedies is a fundamental right in itself, and it ensures that the individual can approach the judiciary for redressal of grievances arising out of the violation of fundamental rights. This provision is vital to ensure that the state is accountable and responsible for the protection of an individual’s rights.
• Promotes the rule of law: Fundamental rights promote the rule of law by providing a framework for the exercise of state power. They ensure that the state’s actions are governed by the principles of law, and any infringement of an individual’s rights must be justified on reasonable grounds. This ensures that the state cannot act arbitrarily and must follow the principles of justice and fairness in its actions.
• Protects the minority: Fundamental rights protect the interests of the minority against the will of the majority. The Constitution recognizes that the majority’s power may result in the infringement of the minority’s rights, and fundamental rights are the safeguards against such a situation. They ensure that the majority cannot infringe on the minority’s rights and that the minority can enjoy the same rights and opportunities as the majority.
• Protects against exploitation: Fundamental rights protect individuals against exploitation by the state or any other individual or entity. They provide for the right against forced labor. They also prohibit child labor, trafficking in human beings, and other forms of exploitation. These rights ensure that individuals are not exploited for the benefit of others.
• Ensures human dignity: Fundamental rights ensure that human dignity is protected and respected. They provide for the right to life, personal liberty, and the right against torture and inhuman treatment. They also ensure that individuals are not subjected to degrading treatment or punishment. These rights recognize the inherent worth and dignity of every human being and ensure that they are treated with respect and dignity.
• Promotes democracy: Fundamental rights serve as the foundation of democracy. They ensure that individuals are free to express their opinions, form associations, and participate in the governance of the country. They provide for the right to know about the functioning of government and its agencies and the right to participate in the democratic process. These rights are essential for the functioning of a democracy and ensure that the government is accountable to the people.

Criticism of Fundamental Rights 

The Fundamental Rights articulated in Part III of the Constitution have encountered a broad range of criticism. The critics argue that: 

• Excessive Limitations: These rights are subjected to countless exceptions, restrictions, qualifications, and clarifications. Thus, critics claim that the Constitution offers Fundamental Rights with one hand while withdrawing them with the other. 
• Social and Economic Rights absent: There is no provision for crucial social and economic rights such as the right to social security, right to work, right to employment, right to rest and leisure, among others. Therefore, the list is not exhaustive as it primarily includes political rights. 
• Lack of clarity: The rights are expressed in a vague, indefinite, and ambiguous manner. Various terms and phrases used in Part III, such as ‘public order’, ‘minorities’, ‘reasonable restriction’, and ‘public interest’, are not clearly defined. The language employed is complex and often beyond the understanding of the average individual. It is said that the Constitution was designed by lawyers for lawyers. 
• No Permanency: These rights are not inviolable or unchangeable since the Parliament has the power to limit or eliminate them, as demonstrated by the abolition of the fundamental right to property in 1978. Consequently, they can become a tool for politicians who hold majority support in Parliament. The judicially crafted ‘doctrine of basic structure’ serves as the only constraint on Parliament’s authority to restrict or abolish fundamental rights. 
• Suspended during Emergency: The ability to suspend the enforcement of these rights during a National Emergency (excluding Articles 20 and 21) undermines the foundations of the democratic system in the country by putting the rights of millions of innocent individuals at ongoing risk. Critics argue that Fundamental Rights should be available under all circumstances—whether during an Emergency or otherwise. 
• Expensive Remedy: The judiciary has been assigned the task of safeguarding and defending these rights from encroachment by the legislature and executive. However, the judicial process is prohibitively expensive and prevents ordinary individuals from enforcing their rights in court. Thus, critics contend that these rights primarily benefit the affluent segments of Indian society. 
• Preventive Detention: Critics argue that the provision for preventive detention (Article 22) grants arbitrary powers to the State and undermines individual freedom. This reinforces the criticism that the Constitution of India focuses more on the rights of the State in opposition to the rights of the individual. Notably, no other democratic nation incorporates preventive detention as a core element of their Constitutions as India does. 
• Lack of consistent philosophy: Some critics assert that the section on fundamental rights lacks a cohesive philosophical foundation. They argue that this inconsistency complicates the task for the Supreme Court and high courts when interpreting fundamental rights

The fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution are essential for ensuring the protection and empowerment of every individual in the country. These rights not only safeguard the dignity, liberty, and equality of citizens but also help to establish a just and fair society. Over the years, the Judiciary has played a significant role in interpreting and upholding these rights, thereby strengthening the democratic fabric of the nation.

It is worth noting that the protection of fundamental rights is not only the responsibility of the state but also the duty of every citizen. We must ensure that we respect the rights of others while exercising our own, and work towards building a society that values and upholds these principles.

The Indian Constitution’s fundamental rights serve as a beacon of hope for millions of people in the country, guaranteeing them a life of dignity, equality, and freedom. It is imperative that we continue to cherish and uphold these rights and work towards building a more inclusive and just society for all.