John Locke's Social Contract Theory is particularly reflected in the Constitution of India. As indicated by Locke's hypothesis, man in the 'state of Nature' wanted to secure their property and with the end goal of protection of their property, men went into the "Social Contract". Under the agreement, individuals met up and made two unison - Pactum Unionis and Pactum Subjectionis. The Preamble to the Constitution of India begins with the phrase “WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN…” This shows the people of India coming together to form a sovereign authority i.e., the Sovereign of India. This can aptly be related to the Pactum Unionis as described in Locke’s theory. The Preamble ends with “…
…show more content…
The individual held with them alternate rights i.e., ideal to life, freedom and domain in light of the fact that these rights were viewed as characteristic and basic privileges of men. Subsequently, we see that Locke advocates a constrained surrendering of rights by the general population. The Constitution of India contains a considerable rundown of Fundamental Rights (Articles 14 to 35) in Part III. These rights are viewed as crucial on the grounds that they are most fundamental for the accomplishment of full scholarly, good and otherworldly status of the person. Under Article 21 the Constitution of India guarantees to each individual the assurance of life and personal. It is supplemented by Articles 20 and 22 which gives the important protections to anticipate against unjust and unlawful conviction and confinement of a man. In the historical case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, Justice Bhagwati, observed, “The Fundamental Rights represent the basic values cherished by the people of the country (India) since the Vedic times and they are calculated to protect the dignity of the individual and create conditions in which every human being can develop his personality to the fullest extent. They weave a ‘pattern of guarantee’ on …show more content…
Be that as it may, with the 44th Amendment, the Right to Property was expelled from Part III and embedded in Article 300A. This was done with a specific end goal to guarantee a economic welfare design. However, in case the statutory authority deprives an individual from his personal property for the sake of public interest, there has to be a fair compensation made to that individual for his loss of property thereby withholding Locke’s view of ‘fair compensation’. In any case, if individuals are given finished and outright freedom with no social control, the outcome would be demolished. Freedom must be restricted. For freedom of one must not offend freedom of others. In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, Patanjali Shastri J., observed, “Man as a rational being desires to do many things, but in a civil society his desires have to be controlled, regulated and reconciled with the exercise of similar desire by other individuals.” Thus, the fundamental rights ensured under Article 19(1) (a), 19(1) (b), 19 (1) (c), 19 (1) (d), 19 (1) (e) are limited by the Article 19 (2), 19 (3), 19 (4), 19 (5) and 19 (6). Additionally Article 21 however can't be suspended yet regardless, it can be restricted by the system built up by law. Notwithstanding, such confinements ought to be simply and sensible. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, it was held that the request
The individual held with them alternate rights i.e., ideal to life, freedom and domain in light of the fact that these rights were viewed as characteristic and basic privileges of men. Subsequently, we see that Locke advocates a constrained surrendering of rights by the general population. The Constitution of India contains a considerable rundown of Fundamental Rights (Articles 14 to 35) in Part III. These rights are viewed as crucial on the grounds that they are most fundamental for the accomplishment of full scholarly, good and otherworldly status of the person. Under Article 21 the Constitution of India guarantees to each individual the assurance of life and personal. It is supplemented by Articles 20 and 22 which gives the important protections to anticipate against unjust and unlawful conviction and confinement of a man. In the historical case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, Justice Bhagwati, observed, “The Fundamental Rights represent the basic values cherished by the people of the country (India) since the Vedic times and they are calculated to protect the dignity of the individual and create conditions in which every human being can develop his personality to the fullest extent. They weave a ‘pattern of guarantee’ on …show more content…
Be that as it may, with the 44th Amendment, the Right to Property was expelled from Part III and embedded in Article 300A. This was done with a specific end goal to guarantee a economic welfare design. However, in case the statutory authority deprives an individual from his personal property for the sake of public interest, there has to be a fair compensation made to that individual for his loss of property thereby withholding Locke’s view of ‘fair compensation’. In any case, if individuals are given finished and outright freedom with no social control, the outcome would be demolished. Freedom must be restricted. For freedom of one must not offend freedom of others. In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, Patanjali Shastri J., observed, “Man as a rational being desires to do many things, but in a civil society his desires have to be controlled, regulated and reconciled with the exercise of similar desire by other individuals.” Thus, the fundamental rights ensured under Article 19(1) (a), 19(1) (b), 19 (1) (c), 19 (1) (d), 19 (1) (e) are limited by the Article 19 (2), 19 (3), 19 (4), 19 (5) and 19 (6). Additionally Article 21 however can't be suspended yet regardless, it can be restricted by the system built up by law. Notwithstanding, such confinements ought to be simply and sensible. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, it was held that the request