The Supreme Court of India has played a pivotal role in protecting and expanding fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. Through landmark judgments, it has ensured that the State and other authorities do not violate citizens’ rights, and it has interpreted the Constitution progressively to meet evolving needs. Here are the key ways in which the Supreme Court has protected fundamental rights: 1. Judicial Review The Court uses judicial review to strike down any law, executive action, or amendment that violates fundamental rights. Example: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) – Held that Parliament cannot destroy the basic structure of the Constitution, including fundamental rights. 2. Expansive Interpretation of Rights The Supreme Court has interpreted fundamental rights broadly and liberally, especially Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). Examples: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) – Expanded Article 21 to include fairness, justice, and reasonableness. Olga Tellis v. BMC (1985) – Right to livelihood is part of the right to life. 3. Right to Privacy Recognized as a Fundamental Right Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) – Declared that right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21. 4. Protection Against Arbitrary Arrest and Detention The Court has repeatedly emphasized that personal liberty cannot be taken away arbitrarily. Example: ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) – Though initially denying the right to life during Emergency, this decision was later overruled. 5. Enforcement of Rights through PILs (Public Interest Litigations) The Supreme Court allowed PILs to enable poor and disadvantaged citizens to access justice. Examples: Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) – Recognized the right to free legal aid and speedy trial. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) – Focused on bonded labor and human rights. 6. Gender Justice and Equality The Court has upheld women’s rights and gender equality as part of the right to equality (Article 14) and dignity (Article 21). Examples: Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) – Laid down sexual harassment guidelines at the workplace. Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) – Struck down instant triple talaq. Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) – Struck down adultery law as discriminatory. 7. Decriminalization and Minority Rights The Court has upheld dignity and rights of sexual and religious minorities. Examples: Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) – Decriminalized homosexuality (Section 377 IPC). Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) – Allowed women’s entry into Sabarimala temple. 8. Right to Environment as a Fundamental Right Right to a clean and healthy environment has been read into Article 21. Examples: Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) MC Mehta cases – Enforced environmental safeguards. 9. Fundamental Rights vs. Directive Principles Supreme Court has harmonized Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles to promote social justice. Example: Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) – Balanced Part III and Part IV of the Constitution. Conclusion: The Supreme Court acts as the guardian of the Constitution and protector of fundamental rights. Through progressive interpretation, judicial activism, and PILs, it has ensured that these rights are real, meaningful, and accessible to all.

How the Supreme Court of India Safeguards Fundamental Rights The Apex Court has positioned itself as the Constitution’s “sentinel-on-the-qui-vive.” Articles 32 and 136 give it direct jurisdiction to redress breaches of fundamental rights and to supervise every forum below, ensuring that no instrumentality of the State erodes constitutional guarantees. 1. Judicial Review & the Basic-Structure shield. Starting with Kesavananda Bharati (1973), the Court held that Parliament may amend the Constitution, but it may not destroy its basic structure—fundamental rights, separation of powers, secularism, etc. Subsequent benches have invoked this doctrine to strike down “colourable” amendments and ordinances, thereby keeping core liberties beyond transient political majorities. 2. Expanding the meaning of “life and liberty.” From Maneka Gandhi (1978) onward, Article 21 has been read purposively to include dignity, due-process, speedy trial, legal aid, clean environment (M.C. Mehta line of cases), education (Unnikrishnan), reproductive autonomy, and—after the nine-judge decision in K.S. Puttaswamy (2017)—a robust fundamental right to privacy. This living-instrument approach ensures rights keep pace with technology and social change. 3. Equality, dignity and non-discrimination. The Court has dismantled colonial-era and patriarchal laws that violated Articles 14 and 15: decriminalising same-sex relations (Navtej Singh Johar 2018), invalidating the adultery offence (Joseph Shine 2019), opening Sabarimala temple to women (2018, pending review), and prescribing workplace safeguards against sexual harassment (Vishaka 1997). Each ruling affirms that formal equality is meaningless without substantive dignity. 4. Procedural fairness & digital freedoms. Guidelines in D.K. Basu (1997) protect citizens from custodial abuse; Selvi (2010) outlawed involuntary narco-analysis; Anuradha Bhasin (2020) declared indefinite Internet shutdowns unconstitutional, recognising access as integral to free speech and livelihood. These decisions translate abstract liberties into enforceable protocols. 5. Checking executive and legislative overreach. In 2024 the Court quashed the Gujarat government’s remission of the Bilkis Bano convicts, branding the action a rule-of-law violation and ordering the men back to prison . A month later it struck down the Electoral-Bonds scheme, holding anonymous corporate political funding incompatible with the voter’s right to information under Article 19(1)(a) . In March 2025 a seven-judge bench overruled the P.V. Narasimha Rao precedent, clarifying that parliamentary privilege cannot cloak bribery, thereby fortifying probity in public life . 6. Strengthening institutions that protect rights. The 20 May 2025 decision in All India Judges Association reaffirmed judicial independence by insisting on minimum practice criteria for civil-judge recruitment and by reiterating fair service conditions as facets of Article 14 . Conclusion Through purposive interpretation, vigilant review, and readiness to invalidate executive or legislative excess, the Supreme Court has continuously recalibrated the fundamental rights architecture to contemporary realities, ensuring that constitutional promises remain “rights in action,” not mere parchment. — By Adv. Sudhakar Kumar