Talk:Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 12, 2006.
WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
This article is maintained by the Indian politics workgroup.
More information about this article...

Contents

[edit] A couple of observations

Should not the title be "Fundamental rights, fundamental duties and directive principles of state policy"? btw, the child labour image is from a US photographer - I doubt if it is from India. The article is good, though pedantic, but it cannot be helped given the nature of the topic. Good show!! --Gurubrahma 05:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Directive principles and DPSP's can be used interchangeably cause no other directives are given in the indian constitution. The img has been added cause it's a FP and I couldn't find any other imgs already on WP (though could probably find more on search on net).--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 11:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Politics Infobox

I don't see a need for the infobox on this article. It is just taking up space. More specific infobox would be one that lists articles related to the Indian constitution. Please feel to free to put it back if you feel otherwise - Ganeshk (talk) 09:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures needed

I tried searching in vain for a image of the Fundamental Rights on the Part III. Could not find any. Would be a nice addition to the article - Ganeshk (talk) 10:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we add this picture from pib.nic.in? - Ganeshk (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. I think nic.in site images are in public domain.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 11:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I've added the img in the lead, though it looks awkward and irrelevant there. Please move it to a more appropriate place.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 12:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


One suggestion, Why not add "Chuhiya" the girl who was UN poster girl and is still in news be used, I guess under fair-usage policy it wouldnt' be objectionable. It would also suit the context. Hope it would also highlight the actual factual situation | excerpt from times of india —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.18.55.34 (talk) 04:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Suggestions for improvement

Can the following changes be made before we start copyediting?

  • The tone shows the author as an obvious admirer of our constitution, we need to make it more neutral.
  • There are minor sections which have little "flesh". Either merge them or add more flesh. e.g.,

Freedom to form associations or unions The State can impose reasonable restrictions on this freedom in the interest of public order, morality and the sovereignty and integrity of India.

  • The whole article has a legal tone to it. Though difficult to avoid, we may need to bring other perspectives to it.

May be, as Political integration of India clears the FAC, people will come back to this article. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 11:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Maybe you should remove the giant pictures of a caucasian penis.

[edit] "region"? or religion?

universally apply to all citizens, irrespective of race, region, caste, creed, colour or sex;

Region? or Religion?--Nemonoman 18:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

both. people of all religions as well as regions are guaranteed the rights.May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)
When you say both, you are politically correct, but as per what is mentioned in the Preamble, it is religion and not region. --Andy123(talk) 14:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The question is this:

  • Is this a quote?
  • If it's a quote, is the quoted passage region or religion?

--Nemonoman 18:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not a quote, because definitions of the righs are not given in the Constitution explicitly, but it is implied that it is universally applied. Therefore, I have changed it to relect both region as well as religion.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 08:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Region, here should be changed to Place of birth. I have also noticed redunancy in mentioning this. If you can run a find text on this article, the same thing has been mentioned thrice on this page. --Andy123(talk) 10:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Done.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 15:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent copyedit

I have extensively copyedited the article. It was mostly to remove spelling/grammatical mistakes as well as to remove poetry from the prose like "The independence of Ireland and the development of the Irish constitution would provide an ideal model for Indians seeking independence and their own government." Please go through me edits to see if I have at any place inadvertently changed the meaning of the sentence or changed a sentence to a poorer form. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constitution of India, Part IV-A, Fundamental Duties

See the Link below in Hindi and English for citizens.
http://lawmin.nic.in/coi/PartIVA.pdf vkvora 04:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Next steps

I've done some refactoring and condensing. We need to condense the sections on "Genesis" and "criticisms". Also, the "fundamental rights" section could use some summary style. Once these are done, we could seek peer review before nominating it at WP:FAC. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sundar, I saw that you've removed most of the content from DPSPs and Fundamental Duties sections, and this has left them at a measly one para each. With that short sections, it will defintely be commented upon at PR and FAC, since Fundamental Rights dominates over the article. Do you think, we should create a separate article for rights, and then elevate it to FA status, or restore the text?--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 08:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Shreshth. I've condensed the text by removing too-detailed paragraphs in the interest of Wikipedia:Summary style. Much of what I removed was a repetition of the "non-justicibility" in different flavours. :-) New daughter articles on each of the sections need to be created and there shall not be many subsections. We can retrieve the deleted paragraphs and use it in the daughter articles. What do you say? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 09:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, what remains is not "measly", but is a good summary. We need to condense genesis, fundamental rights, and critical analysis sections as well. As it is, the article is 46KB long, that too of legal language. It'd be difficult for peer reviewers to read and comment. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 09:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Shreshth, I've copied the stuff from ==Fundamental rights== to a separate article, Fundamental Rights in the Constitution of India. What we need to do now is to condense the text in that section here. For a start, let's summarise the individual rights into one or two paragraphs of prose rather than subsubsections. For example, ===Right to Freedom=== can be written as a summary of the different parts of it. For details, the readers can always go to the main article linked from the section. What do you say? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 12:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I've moved the article to Fundamental Rights of India. I'm working on reducing the text. Check back in 10 minutes.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91(review me!) 12:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Oops. Sorry that I didn't check that. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 12:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, it could take more time than that :D Just keep checking back regularly.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91(review me!) 12:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I've made some edits recently, though not resulting in significant condensation. Please follow it up. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 12:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think what needs to be done is further summarizing of Fundamental Rights and expanding Duties and DPSP. Currently, there appears a lot of bias for Fundamental rights as it is getting major coverage while other sections are nearly stubs. Should we include the details of (the more important) fundamental duties. The reader should at least get an overview as to what *kind* of duties are mentioned. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've done some condensing. Please see. BTW I've removed 13252 characters per CryptoDerk's Vandal Fighter :D --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91(review me!) 13:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks good though your edit effectively overwrites some copyediting that I did. :-( I've cascaded the copyedit to Fundamental Rights in the Constitution of India. Check out if some of it needs to be effected in the latest version. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 13:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I've done some work on the "Critical Analysis" section. Please look over it. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91(review me!) 09:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Peer review/Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India/archive3. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91(review me!) 15:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kirpan

I vaguely remember some issue about an Akali Dal member being objected to carrying his Kirpan inside the Lok Sabha. Does that merit a mention in the critical analysis? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I assume becoz it posed a security risk. Frankly no, becoz its a one-off, specific political issue where the security people might have made a boo-boo. If there was a case of general prohibition, only then would it be an important enough issue. This Fire Burns Always 06:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I buy your argument. That particular MP was contesting this decision from a philosophical standpoint though. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign titles

I don't think the statement on Indian citizens not being allowed to accept foreign titles is accurate, because Dilip Kumar got the Nishan-e-Imtiaz from Pakistan, and Om Puri was recently knighted. This Fire Burns Always 11:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You can check out Article 18(2) of the Const. Part III. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 16:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Om Puri was not knighted but conferred OBE (Honorary) In any case Dilip Kumar and Om Puri could be free to receive foreign honours but not use them as titles in India.--Hydman 04:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Review

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • is considered
    • are considered
...might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - "some", "a variety/number/majority of", "several", "a few", "many", "any", and "all".

Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 12:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of your comments are not applicable. The lead cannot be shortened; it seems to be the perfect lenght for a 50kb article. Most weasel words in the article are cited; in fact, the whole article could be cited, as it is derived from a particular book. However, some copyediting is required; I concur! That will be taken care of soon. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 15:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I can't fix everything, but here's what I see. It's still quite choppy in places. Stacatto fact after fact, with no transitions smoothing it out. Part of that comes from many cited statements, but it is still possible to create smoothly flowing prose. The 'Criticism and analysis' section misses a lot of the needed analysis. What has been the real impact of the rights, principals, and duties? Are these provisions widely followed or mostly ignored? There's a lot of detail in those sections without really ever answering those most basic and important questions. Doing so may require additional research. - Taxman Talk 20:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyediting, as I said, will be taken care of. IMO, most of the Critical analysis section deals with how they've been implemented, where the government has failed, and what should be included in the providions, but isn't.
  • Legislation like the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (1975) was strongly criticised for giving then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi the authority to arrest opposition leaders and activists following the declaration of emergency in 1975. The Prevention of Terrorism Act (2002), enacted with the aim of fighting terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism has been criticised as targeting the Muslim community.[34] The freedom to assemble peacably and without arms is exercised, but in some cases, these meetings are broken up by the police through the use of non-fatal methods.
  • Employment of child labour in hazardous environments has been reduced, but their employment in non-hazardous jobs, including their prevalent employment as domestic help violates the spirit of the constitution in the eyes of many critics and human rights advocates, as more than 16.5 million children are employed and working in India.
  • The Directive Principles talks only about their implementation.
  • Fundamental Rights cannot actually be enforced as they are non-justiciable. But still, there are some examples. As the duties carry no penal provisions and cannot be enforced in courts, their relevance to practical affairs is questioned. However, actions damaging public property and showing disrespect to the National Flag are offences punishable by law, and generally observed.[77][58] Similarly, people may be called upon to defend the country. They may be compulsorily recruited for the armed forces of the country through conscription,[58] even though this provision has not yet been enforced.
--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 15:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Right, that's what I mean. There are a number of specific criticisms and examples, etc, but nothing overall to synthesize and simply tell the reader what overall impact and importance they have had or whether they are more or less ignored. That's more important than many smaller examples. More general impact analysis is needed. - Taxman Talk 17:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I see it can use some formatting, but other than that, not too bad :) user:wossi

Formatting isn't a requirement form FA, so I'm not too worried on that front ;) --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 15:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for the lede:

The ... are those parts of the Constitution of India that define the relationship between the state and its individual citizens.

or perhaps:

The ... are sections of the Constitution of India that prescribe the fundamental obligations of the state towards its citizens and also defines the duties of the citizens towards the state. As such, these sections are a constitutional bill of rights.

The third sentence of the present lede (the one that begins with "A change in these provisions ...") is not really particularly relevant to this article if it applies to any change of the Indian Constitution.
On the other hand, Supreme Court decisions that touch on fundamental rights ought to be mentioned somewhere in the article (i.e. the basic structure doctrine and perhaps Kesavananda Bharati vs. The State of Kerala).
My two cents. -- Fullstop 13:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. The lead has been changed. The Supreme Court decisions were already there. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 15:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a small problem with the beginning of the history section: the first few sentences are discontinuous, i.e.: it begins with "inspired by other constitutions" (first sentence) to the 1918 Rowlatt Acts (second/third sentence) to 1928 Nehru commission (fourth sentence). I suggest changing the order as follows:

In 1928, an 'All Parties Conference' of representatives from Indian political parties proposed constitutional reforms for India. This 11-member committee, led by Motilal Nehru, had been called into existence (in part) as a formal instrument to complement the widespread civil disobedience campaigns of the 1920s. These mass campaigns had originally been a response to the Rowlatt Acts, which in 1919 had given the British colonial government the powers of arrest and detention, conducting searches and seizures without warrants, restricting public gatherings, and censorship of the press.
Inspired by historical documents such as England's Bill of Rights, the United States Bill of Rights and France's Declaration of the Rights of Man, [1] the Nehru Report demanded dominion status and elections under universal suffrage, and called for guarantees of rights deemed fundamental, representation for religious and ethnic minorities, and limitations on government powers.

Note that there is (historically) no such thing as the Nehru Commission (which is what the text presently says) - the All Parties Conference was led by Motilal Nehru, and the Report issued by the Conference is named after him, but 'Nehru Commission' is a misnomer. -- Fullstop 10:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Done --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 11:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shady vandalism

Someone is somehow overlaying images that are not germane over the content of this article. I'm sure you all know, but now it's in the historical record.

Seek an end to this as soon as possible for our gracious Allah. eszetttalk 02:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A number of administrators have taken care of this now. Peace. --HappyCamper 03:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to correct it from my home and had a pretty embarrassing moment. Can anybody explain what happened exactly and how to remedy it?. Leotolstoy 05:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Vandals are adding images to the templates used in the article. Catchpole 07:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I found it better to remove the link for the start, as I can't change the photo at the moment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.156.180.250 (talk) 09:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Picture?

Is there any reason that anon editors keep doing drive by removals of the picture? shotwell 05:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

They really like poo sex. I don't blame them. 72.29.211.18 14:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] comment

This article is well-written and informative. I particularly like the fact that the paragraphs are moderate in length, which makes it much easier to read and digest. The "Wikification" is well-placed and led me to read more.

Specifically, I read more about "the Fundamental Rights of India" and began to compare and contrast this document to the "Bill of Rights" in the United States. I also read more about article 19, and considered it's use and misuse with respect to some of our own provisions in United States - specifically, the Homeland Security Act.

In my opinion, one criticism of the Fundamental Rights of India is well-meaning, but the only true way for an historically oppressed population to gain economic parity is through education. This includes not only a general or workforce-based education, but a fundamental understanding of one's own rights with respect to the laws and provisions in his/her Country of origin.

Excellent work on the part of the writers and editors. I learned much.

Sincerely, NinaEliza 15:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Nina, for your kind words. I'm glad you liked the article. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 16:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
My pleasure. It's my favorite featured article so far (and I try to read most of them). This one was so readable - I've said enough.
I only wish that I hadn't been so off-topic - I didn't realize I would be posting on the talk page!NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 18:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

In the fundamental rights section, it is written that meneka gandhiv. union of india laid down that an act of the parliament violative of basic structure is void. i dont think the case says so. all that meneka did was read just,fair and reasonable into procedure established by law. there are a couple of other doctrines from meneka, which are not relevent here.. the pont is , the test of basic structure is used to determine the constitutional amendment under Article 368. the test of constitutionality for an ordinary law is found in article 13. but in the recent udgement of I.R Coelho v. state of T.N, the court said that even if you put a statute in 9th schedule, if it violates basic strcture, it is void.probably if it is right to say that a law can be struck down if it violates "basic structure" but meneka didnt say that, coelho did.

Hi, I created an account to report that there has been some more vandalism (I thought there used to be a report vandalism button, but I didn't see one).

Someone wrote "mega cock-suckers" for the title of the first section of this article. "Featured Wikipedia Articles" should probably be locked while they are featured.

Rajeev D. Majumdar 19:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Free and compulsary education

This article says that the directive on free and compulsary education was added in 2002 under an amendment. However, i remember this being in the directive principles when we were in school and that was as far nack as 1983. i checked the wikisource. it just shows the current state of the directive principles and not the amendments --Hydman 04:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see this. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 08:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)