The Indian constitution was adopted on January 26, 1950. Today, it is known to be one of the most detailed and noteworthy documents in the history of India. It lays down several rights, duties, and framework for good governance of people and for promotion of Social justice. It uses a progressive approach, which ensures a system free from excessive influence of people at certain positions by imposing proper checks and balance.

One such way of ensuring this was "the Golden Triangle of Indian Constitution" which refers to the three pillars namely Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. These are basically the roots of democracy made to protect the rights of the citizen, but this concept has been in debate for a long time now, subjected to various criticisms. Therefore, I have made a study based on the significance and need of this concept.

Research Objectives
The study has aimed to achieve the following objectives, for better understanding of the positive and negative aspects of this concept. It has aimed to gather various instances which led to this idea and opinions of several renowned judges in this matter.

The objectives therefore are:

1. To give an overview of the whole concept, answering what it really means
2. To critically examine the evolution of this concept over years.
3. To explore the articles dealing with it, which would be including relevant case laws.
4. To see the significance of this concept with reference to the Indian democracy and Governance.
5. To evaluate all the criticisms dealing with this concept
6. Identifying the main issues and challenges for better implementation of this concept.
7. Provide recommendations to improve for a more effective Impact on people.
    

Historical Context And Evolution Of The Indian Constitution

The constitution was adopted on January 26, 1950 after undergoing a long process of drafting, committee formations and consultations. It was the result of the India's freedom struggle and the Indian National congress was the first one to demand a constitutional framework for the Independent India guaranteeing the basic democratic rights and welfare of the citizens.

A constitution assembly was then formed, which consisted of various elected representatives from all across the country, with a task assigned to them of drafting a document that would reflect the equal rights and opportunities given to the citizens, the diversity of the land and various aspirations that they aim to achieve. The first meeting of this assembly was held on December 9, 1946 and thereafter an arduous and long process of debating and finalising for over two years the provisions of the constitution were finalised.

Golden Triangle Of Indian Constitution[1]

Explanation
The essential rights established in Articles 14, 19, and 21 collectively are referred to as the "Golden Triangle" of the Indian Constitution. Since they safeguard citizens' fundamental rights and serve as the cornerstone of India's democracy, these three articles are regarded as the most significant ones in the Indian Constitution.

All people have the right to equal protection under the law and equality before the law, according to Article 14. It forbids discrimination based on racial, ethnic, caste, sexual, or geographic origin. This implies that regardless of their social or economic background, all citizens are equal before the law and are entitled to the same rights and protections.

All citizens are guaranteed the following six freedoms under Article 19: freedom of speech and association, of assembly, of movement, of association, of domicile, and of profession. These liberties enable people to engage in public life and express their thoughts without fear of retaliation, which is crucial for a democratic society to function.

Article 21 guarantees everyone the right to life and personal freedom. This means that no one's life or freedom can be taken away from them unless a legal process is followed. The courts have given this clause a broad interpretation, encompassing the right to a fair trial, the right to privacy, and the prohibition against torture and other cruel treatment.


[2]The Golden Triangle of the Indian Constitution is made up of Articles 14, 19, and 21 together. They defend citizens' fundamental rights, advance social justice, and make sure the state upholds the rule of law. The Indian courts have broadened and interpreted the Golden Triangle, resulting in important rulings that have increased the rights offered to citizens. The Golden Triangle is still a tenet of India's democracy and a representation of the country's dedication to upholding the rights and liberties of its people.

Significance
Reading Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution separately may lead to a fragmented understanding of the fundamental rights and protections enshrined in the Constitution. Each article deals with a specific aspect of citizen's rights, but when read together, they provide a comprehensive framework for understanding the basic rights and protections available to Indian citizens.

For example, if one reads Article 14 in isolation, they may understand the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law but may not fully appreciate how this right is linked to the broader context of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. Similarly, if one reads Article 19 in isolation, they may appreciate the freedom of speech and expression but may not fully understand how it relates to other fundamental rights such as the right to equality or the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21.

[3]Furthermore, reading these articles separately may not provide a complete picture of the interplay between different fundamental rights and their impact on the functioning of India's democracy. The Golden Triangle represents a balance of rights that work in conjunction with each other to promote social justice and ensure that citizens are treated fairly and equally before the law.

Therefore, it is essential to read Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution together to gain a comprehensive understanding of the basic rights and protections guaranteed to Indian citizens and their significance in promoting a just and democratic society.

Article 14

All people have the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which forbids discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. The article serves as the cornerstone of the Indian Constitution's commitment to guaranteeing that all individuals, regardless of their background, be treated fairly and equitably before the law.

The Supreme Court's landmark decision in the case of State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952), where the court emphasised the significance of equality before the law, is one of the most important instances pertaining to Article 14. In this instance, the appellant contested the legality of a portion of the West Bengal Special Courts Act that authorised the creation of specialised courts to hear specific crimes.

The applicant claimed that the clause went against the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law found in Article 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellant's claim, holding that all people must be treated equally by the law and that any classifications that are imposed by the law must have a justification.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) is another significant case involving Article 14. The petitioner in this case contested the legality of the government's seizure of her passport. The court determined that Article 21's right to personal liberty included the freedom to travel internationally and that the government's impounding of the petitioner's passport violated Article 14 since it was arbitrary and not in conformity with the law.

Article 14 is also pertinent to the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). The Supreme Court ruled in this case that the Constitution's fundamental principles could not be changed and that Article 14 and other fundamental rights were an essential component of those principles. The court emphasised that Article 14 provided that the state could not classify people arbitrarily and that any categorization must have a valid reason.

One famous quote related to Article 14 is by former Chief Justice of India, P.N. Bhagwati, who stated:
"The Constitution of India is a beacon of light, a symbol of hope and a source of inspiration for those who are fighting against the forces of repression, tyranny and dictatorship." Bhagwati emphasized that Article 14 was the "very heart" of the Constitution and that it ensured that every individual was treated with dignity and equality before the law, regardless of their background or status.

Overall, these cases demonstrate the critical role of Article 14 in ensuring equality before the law and protecting citizens from arbitrary discrimination. The judges in these cases, including Chief Justice H.J. Kania, Justice S.R. Das, Justice K.N. Wanchoo, and Justice H.R. Khanna, among others, emphasized the importance of the right to equality and the need to uphold this fundamental right in a democratic society.

Article 19

Six fundamental freedoms are guaranteed to Indian citizens by Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, subject to reasonable limitations that the state may impose in the interest of public order, morality, or national security. These liberties include

[4]Freedom of speech and expression encompasses the ability to communicate thoughts, feelings, and knowledge using any channel. Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, a landmark decision from 1950, emphasised the importance of freedom of speech and expression for a democratic society and the only circumstances under which it may be restricted.

Freedom to assemble peacefully and without weapons includes the ability to plan and take part in protests and other forms of nonviolent dissent. The Supreme Court ruled in S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989) that the right to peaceful assembly is a crucial component of the right to freedom of expression.

The ability to start and join any type of political, social, or cultural group or organisation falls under the category of the freedom to establish organisations or unions. Cricket Association of Bengal v. Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (1995), the Supreme Court ruled that the right to create associations is a basic right that cannot be restricted unless it is necessary to maintain public order.

Freedom to live and work anywhere in India: This includes the freedom to select where one wants to live and to travel about without restriction. In State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar (1991), the Supreme Court ruled that the right to live and settle is a crucial component of the right to life and to personal freedom.

The freedom to choose and engage in any legal profession or business activity includes the freedom to practise any profession or carry on any occupation, trade, or business. The Supreme Court ruled in Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1985) that the ability to conduct a trade or business is a basic right that can only be limited in certain circumstances.

Article 21

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that:
"No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."

This article provides every person with the right to life and personal liberty, which is considered to be one of the most fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. In this article, we will explain Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and some of the notable case laws that have helped to interpret and clarify its meaning.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978):
This landmark case expanded the scope of Article 21 to include the right to travel abroad. The court held that the right to travel abroad is a part of personal liberty, and any law that seeks to curtail this right must satisfy the test of reasonableness and procedural fairness.

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985):
This case dealt with the right to livelihood, which the court held is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21. The court observed that the right to life does not merely mean the right to breathe and eat but also includes the right to livelihood, which is essential for a dignified life.

Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981):
This case emphasized the importance of the right to privacy, which is considered a facet of personal liberty under Article 21. The court held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right, and any interference with it must be justified by law and must be necessary for the protection of public interest.

People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982):
This case dealt with the right to legal aid, which the court held is a part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The court observed that the right to legal aid is essential to ensure that every person has access to justice and is not denied justice due to economic or other disabilities.

Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1983):
This case dealt with the rights of prisoners and held that the right to live with human dignity is an essential part of the right to life under Article 21. The court observed that prisoners are also entitled to human rights and must be treated with dignity and respect.

Arguments

There are some arguments in for and against the Golden triangle concept. However through the increasing case laws and rulings of the court I've tried to note down a few of them which are as follows:

1. Balancing Of Power:

   The judiciary serves as a check on the executive and legislative branches, ensuring that they do not violate the fundamental rights of citizens. Moreover, the judiciary is a neutral and independent arbiter that can provide a remedy to citizens who feel that their rights have been violated.
   
   Dissenting Opinion: Many Critics speaking against the concept claim that Indian constitution by following this idea has given maximum power to Judiciary, that can ultimately lead to power imbalance between the three branches of the government. This can result in Judicial activism where Judiciary would be interfering more in the matter of executive and legislative branches.
   
   Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978):
   This case expanded the scope of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 to include the right to travel abroad. The court held that any law that seeks to curtail this right must satisfy the test of reasonableness and procedural fairness. However, some critics argue that this case represents an example of judicial activism and overreach, where the judiciary expands the scope of fundamental rights beyond what was originally intended by the framers of the Constitution.
    

2. Clarity:

   The Supreme Court has developed a robust jurisprudence that provides clarity and specificity to the interpretation of fundamental rights. Moreover, the Constitution provides for a system of judicial review, where citizens can challenge laws that they feel violate their fundamental rights. This system ensures that the Constitution remains a living document that evolves with the changing needs of society.
   
   Dissenting opinion:
   While following this concept, the language of constitution might seem to be vague and open to wide interpretation. It can lead to a certain level of inconsistency, there would be no specificity and this might lead to misuse of these rights by the individuals and the government.
   
   A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950):
   This case involved a challenge to the Preventive Detention Act of 1950, which allowed the government to detain individuals without trial. The Supreme Court upheld the law, ruling that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 was limited to procedural safeguards, and did not include substantive rights such as the right to be free from arbitrary detention. This case highlights the lack of clarity and specificity in the language of the Constitution, which can lead to inconsistent interpretations of fundamental rights
    

3. Conflict With Other Rights:

   The Constitution provides for a system of balancing other fundamental rights in a way that ensures that they are not absolute.
   
   For example: the right to free speech may be limited in certain circumstances to protect the rights of others, such as in cases of hate speech or incitement to violence. The Constitution provides for a system of reasonable restrictions that balance the competing interests of different fundamental rights.
   
   Dissenting Opinion: Some argue that the Golden Triangle of the Indian Constitution can conflict with other fundamental rights, such as the right to property or the right to free speech. For example: the right to property is not explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution and can be overridden by the state in the interest of public welfare. This can lead to conflicts with the right to life and personal liberty, which are also part of the Golden Triangle.
    

4. Enforcement:

   This concept highlights the need for stronger accountability mechanisms and better enforcement mechanisms to ensure that these rights are protected. Moreover, the existence of fundamental rights provides a framework for citizens to challenge government actions that violate their rights and hold the government accountable.
   
   Dissenting opinion:
   Some critics also believe that this concept is not enforced or protected by the government and can lead to lack of accountability for those who violate the rights and this can ultimately undermine the effectiveness of the constitution.
   
   ADM Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla (1976):
   In this infamous case, the Supreme Court upheld the government's power to detain individuals without trial during a state of emergency, effectively suspending the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The court held that the Constitution did not provide for judicial review of such detentions, effectively giving the government unchecked power to violate fundamental rights. This case highlights the potential for abuse and misuse of fundamental rights by the government, as well as the importance of accountability and enforcement.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the Golden Triangle of the Indian Constitution is a critical component of India's democratic system and serves as a safeguard against government tyranny and violation of citizens' rights. While there are valid criticisms of this framework, including the potential for conflict between the judiciary and other branches of government and the lack of clarity in the language of the Constitution, the benefits of the Golden Triangle far outweigh its drawbacks.

To strengthen the Golden Triangle and ensure that fundamental rights are protected, there are several recommendations that could be implemented:

1. Strengthen accountability mechanisms:
   The government should establish robust accountability mechanisms to ensure that officials who violate fundamental rights are held accountable for their actions.
    
2. Increase public awareness:
   There is a need to increase public awareness of fundamental rights and the role that they play in protecting citizens' freedoms. Education and outreach programs should be established to inform citizens of their rights and how to access them.
    
3. Strengthen judicial capacity:
   The judiciary should be strengthened to ensure that it has the capacity to adjudicate cases effectively and efficiently. This includes increasing the number of judges and improving the infrastructure of the courts.
    
4. Increase enforcement mechanisms:
   The government should establish stronger enforcement mechanisms to ensure that fundamental rights are protected. This includes ensuring that government agencies are held accountable for enforcing these rights and that citizens have access to effective remedies when their rights are violated.

By implementing these recommendations, the Indian government can strengthen the Golden Triangle and ensure that fundamental rights are protected for all citizens. This will help to promote a more just and equitable society and strengthen India's democratic system for years to come.

End-Notes:

1. Constitution of India. (1950). Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India
2. The Golden Triangle of the Indian Constitution: Article 14, 19 and 21 by Suresh Kumar Sharma
3. Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution" by P. V. Rao.
4. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression: A Critical Review by Vinod D. Shah

Also Read:

• Golden Triangle Of The Constitution Of India: Articles 14, 19 And 21
• The Golden Triangle: An Overview
• Does The Section 124A Of The IPC Satisfies The Golden Triangle Test Under Article 14 19 And 21 Of The Indian Constitution

Award Winning Article Is Written By: Ms.Priyanka Mishra

Authentication No: MY350208186006-16-0523