Limitations of the Civil Rights

Fundamental duties in India consist of two types of limitations. First is intrinsic limitation, In India each fundamental duty has a "but government can" stipulate in end, according to this government can discriminate them for corroborative action. Before 1974, keshave nanda bharti case, by constitutional revision government could withdraw fundamental rights, as it is a ordained right. But since then supreme Court has designed a basic framework of constitutional set of believes. This is a tool for elucidation and is not a ratification as court does not have the authority to do so. It takes into consideration essential nature of fundamental rights only. So restrictions has been cured to a certain degree.
Post contraption notion is innate in constitution, according to which people not only considered as individuals but also as groups. So, Rather than the kind of distress corroborative action is established on group identities, in which all the persons who have that specific distress shall taken into account. This has to a estranging slavish political custom in India.
In article 19 freedom has been given and can be removed for public order, morality etc, which is a very indefinite norm. It comprises of two facet, one is security and other is censor. On pretense of security withdrawing freedom is characteristic of all systems in all countries. It is mentioned as bureaucratic tyranny in United Kingdom. Some systems authorize it for more inferior rationale, relief of executives, insufficiency of assets (often intentional).
In article 21 life and liberty has been mentioned and they also have their own limitations. Main restriction is that when life and liberty is taken by our cumulative misdeeds, pollution, environmental destruction, death sanction, enhancement in punishment rather than expanding assets, intimidating others by brutally punishing someone. This lively characteristic is most well known in Indian criminal law making.
In article 22 pre-arrestation is also very controversial. Limitation is certainly not following "decent until proven guilty". There are various regulations which precisely claiming it, like Public Security Act (PSA) in Jammu and Kashmir, which is exploited on the regular basis for various political purposes. Due to these reasons judges have to given bails to under trial prisoners unwillingly, under trial prisoners who are unable to pay bail money, jails are filled by them. This is evident cruelty, that without being proven guilty a man has to live for many years in jail.
Freedom of religion section also has some restrictions, in this article court has granted personal laws which are not getting along with fundamental rights. Personal law should be elevated. It has not been done. According to which state has not accomplished it's responsibilities under this article which enabled limitations on religions. We also witnessed "hadiya case" which is poorly managed by Supreme Court.
As we know fundamental rights are essential in day to day life and people should positively aware of all of them. Since these rights also have their own limitations people should make themselves familiar to limitations of these duties. We can also make citizens aware of these limitations by creating various campaigns, including about these limitations in academic curriculum in school and universities and by mass media.