The Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution have met with a wide and varied criticism. The arguments of the critics are:
Excessive Limitations
They are subjected to innumerable exceptions, restrictions, qualifications and explanations. Hence, the critics remarked that the Constitution grants Fundamental Rights with one hand and takes them away with the other. Jaspat Roy Kapoor went to the extent of saying that the chapter dealing with the fundamental rights should be renamed as ‘Limitaions on Fundamental Rights’ or ‘Fundamental Rights and Limitations Thereon’.
No Social and Economic Rights
The list is not comprehensive as it mainly consists of political rights. It makes no provision for important social and economic rights like right to social security, right to work, right to employment, right to rest and leisure and so on. These rights are made available to the citizens of advanced democratic countries. Also, the socialistic constitutions of erstwhile USSR or China provided for such rights.
No Clarity
They are stated in a vague, indefinite and ambiguous manner. The various phrases and words used in the chapter like ‘public order’, ‘minorities’, ‘reasonable restriction’, ‘public interest’ and so on are not clearly defined. The language used to describe them is very complicated and beyond the comprehension of the common man. It is alleged that the Constitution was made by the lawyers for the lawyers. Sir Ivor Jennings called the Constitution of India a ‘paradise for lawyers’.
