Answer:

♤ The above statement rests on the theory of inalienable natural rights which can by no means be denied to an individual in a free society. The guarantee of some of those rights in the written constitution cannot render obsolete any right which was available to the individual even before the constitution.

♤ The category of fundamental rights under the Constitution of India is exhaustively enumerated in Part 3 of the Constitution. So, the courts cannot impose any limitation upon the legislature or executive on the basis of natural rights. Any expansion of fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution rests on judicial interpretation and the courts have done so by enlarging the scope of many articles especially article 21.

♤ But the above does not mean that there is no other justiciable right provided by Indian Constitution outside part 3. Limitations upon the state are imposed by other provisions of the Constitution and these limitations give rise to corresponding rights to the individual.

♤ For example, Article 265 says that “no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law”. This gives a right to an individual not to be subjected to arbitrary taxation by the executive. Similarly Article 300A provides that “No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law”.

♤ Though the rights of both the above mentioned classes are equally justiciable, the difference between them lies in the way they can be enforced. The Constitutional remedy by way of an application direct to the Supreme Court under Article 32 is available only in case of fundamental rights mentioned in part 3 of the Constitution.

♤ If the right follows from some other provisions of the constitution like Article 265 or 300A, the aggrieved person may have his relief by an ordinary suit or by an application under Article 226 to the High Court. But an application under Article 32 shall not lie unless the invasion of non-fundamental right involves the violation of some fundamental right as well.