Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights
included in editionWhat does this mean?
Existing and future laws cannot override Fundamental Rights to the extent stated here. Courts can test inconsistent laws, while the relationship between constitutional amendments and judicial review requires Article 368 and the relevant judgments.
Enforceable constitutional rights, their limits, protective exceptions and the courts' remedies.
Why is this provision here?
Rights would be weakened if inconsistent ordinary laws automatically overrode them. This creates a basis for testing such laws against the Constitution.
This Article number belongs to the original constitutional framework, but its present wording may include later amendments or substitutions. A provision-specific original Assembly debate has not been verified here. The explanation of function above is editorial inference from the text, not an attributed single motive of the framers. The original draft-making archive is a research resource, not proof of a particular historical reason. The later amendment records linked below document changes affecting this Article; their Bill statements explain those proposals, not necessarily every original clause or the complete present legal outcome.
The explanation of purpose is an editorial reading of the provision. A drafting motive is attributed only where a linked historical source supports it.
Limits, exceptions & reading carefully
Educational summary of the linked source text. Exceptions, provisos, implementing laws and applicable judgments must be read before applying it to a real case.
Read the official constitutional text
Source-page notes · may concern neighbouring Articles
1. Ins. by the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971, s. 2 (w.e.f. 5-11-1971).
Extracted from the Legislative Department’s May 2026 edition. Page footnotes may refer to neighbouring provisions; check their markers in the PDF. Inclusion in this edition does not by itself establish commencement or judicial effect.