सं Samvidhan

The Constitution of India

Article 35

Legislation to give effect to the provisions of this Part

Why this exists

The Constitution-makers wanted certain fundamental-rights-related subjects—like special employment rules, enforcement mechanisms, and rights of soldiers or people under martial law—to be governed uniformly across the country, not differently by each state. They also wanted serious rights violations, such as untouchability (made an offence under Article 17), to carry punishments set nationally rather than varying state to state. Article 35 centralizes this lawmaking power in Parliament and preserves pre-existing laws on these subjects so there would be no legal vacuum at the Constitution's start.

How courts read it

Courts have treated Article 35 mainly as a division-of-power provision rather than a rights-creating one, confirming that states cannot legislate on the listed matters even if they wish to. Judicial discussion often arises alongside cases under Articles 16, 17, 32, 33, and 34 themselves—for instance, litigation over the Protection of Civil Rights Act (originally the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955), which Parliament enacted using its exclusive power under Article 35(a)(ii) to punish the offence of untouchability recognized in Article 17.

Common misconceptions
  • Myth: Article 35 itself creates a fundamental right.
    Fact: It does not create any right; it only decides who—Parliament or state legislatures—has the power to legislate on certain rights-related matters.
  • Myth: States can pass their own punishment laws for offences declared under Part III, like untouchability, as long as they're stricter.
    Fact: Article 35 gives that power exclusively to Parliament; state legislatures have no power to legislate on it at all, regardless of strictness.