The Preamble to the Constitution provides us insight into the values that embody the Constitution. The Preamble declares India to be a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic, and republic and secures justice, equality, liberty, and fraternity for all its citizens. Though the Preamble does not grant any substantive rights and is not enforceable in courts, a plethora of cases have engaged with the Preamble and considered it to be a guiding light in interpreting the provisions of the Constitution.
Judicial precedents discussing fraternity will aid us in understanding whether fraternity remains to be seen as a beacon promoting togetherness amongst diverse groups or whether it has become more restrictive in its scope over time. The Court has dealt with the idea of fraternity or, at the very least, referred to it in a myriad of case laws. It has consistently held that the term ‘fraternity’ means a sense of common brotherhood of all citizens. Supreme Court has also often reiterated that the ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity should not be treated as separate entities instead, should be viewed as a trinity that secures empowerment and political justice for all citizens.
Additionally, fraternity was interpreted as a principle that afforded the means to achieve national unity and the dignity of the individual.
Supreme Court in Indian Medical Association v. Union of India, addressed multiple petitions that had been filed challenging the exemptions provided under law, which allowed a private, non-aided educational institution to admit the children of army personnel exclusively. While examining the constitutionality of the challenged provision, the Court highlighted the significance of access to education as a means to foster fraternity and further promote social cohesion and unity. In the cited case, the Court determined that the restrictive admission policy was an impediment to achieving fraternity in society. Although not spelt out explicitly in the judgment, it is clear that the Court understood fraternity as encouraging the intermixing of people and one which discourages exclusivity or endogamous social structures.
It was, however, in the seminal case of Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh that Supreme Court, in the course of addressing issues pertaining to the appointment of Special Police Officers (SPOs) for the Salwa Judum in Chhattisgarh, extensively dealt with the aspect of fraternity. For context, the Salwa Judum was a militia formed and deployed to counter Maoist activities in the State of Chhattisgarh. This case brought to the fore several constitutional principles, including the ideals of fraternity, equality, the right to life, and personal liberty.
Supreme Court held that Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Police Act, 2007 which allowed for the appointment of SPOs, violated the Constitution and delved into the relevance of the constitutional principle of fraternity.
In the aforesaid case, the Court interpreted fraternity as a safeguard against unchecked state power and an essential pillar for responsible governance. The Court held that state actions that de-humanized citizens violated the constitutional objective of the welfare of all citizens and would be wholly against the idea of dignity and fraternity, as enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution. The Court further went on to underscore the significance of fraternity in shaping economic policies and stated thus:
“The primary task of the State is the provision of security to all its citizens, without violating human dignity. This would necessarily imply the undertaking of tasks that would prevent the emergence of great dissatisfaction, and disaffection, on account of the manner and mode of extraction, and distribution, of natural resources and organization of social action, its benefits and costs.”
The very scope of fraternity beyond just being an ideal in the Preamble was thus expanded to be a principle that would create checks and balances on the system of governance and state actions.
Having examined the notion of fraternity from various perspectives, it can be deduced that the essence of fraternity, therefore, is fundamentally geared towards fostering interconnectedness among Indians and was envisaged to be a principle for uplifting marginalised sections of society.
Consequently, it might be antithetical to the essence of fraternity to deploy this inclusive constitutional value in a way which deliberately excludes large swathes of the population, who have been duly conferred citizenship through procedure established by law, from the protection of constitutional rights. In fact, our understanding of fraternity, as also applied by Supreme Court in Indian Medical Association v. Union of India (supra), is that it encourages, if not compels, people to fraternise and intermingle with people dissimilar to them.
Our reading of the Constitution and precedents is that fraternity requires people of different backgrounds and social circumstances to ‘live and let live’. The nomenclature of fraternity itself is self-explanatory to the extent that it exhibits the notion of inclusiveness and togetherness, as opposed to restricted applicability.
Reference
In Re: Section 6(a) of the Constitution of India, 1955 (2024)