i) In India, the Doctrine of Waiver is inapplicable to Fundamental Rights. In the case of Behram Khurshid Pesikaka v. State of Bombay and later in Basheshar Nath v. CIT, the Supreme Court held that a citizen cannot waive their Fundamental Rights because they are not just for individual benefit but are a matter of public policy. This is a key difference from the USA, where some rights can be waived.
ii) Part III contains both types of rights. Self-executory rights (like Article 14 or 19) are operative on their own. Non-executory rights (like Article 17 - Untouchability or Article 23 - Forced Labour) require specific legislation (under Article 35) to become effective and prescribe punishments.
iii) In the landmark Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978) case, the Supreme Court rejected the "Exclusive Chambers" theory (established earlier in the A.K. Gopalan case). It ruled that Fundamental Rights are not isolated islands but an integrated whole (the "Golden Triangle" of Articles 14, 19, and 21).
iv) Fundamental Rights in India are not absolute. They are subject to reasonable restrictions (like public order, security of the state, morality, etc.) as mentioned in the Constitution itself.
v) Under Articles 358 and 359, the President can suspend the right to move courts for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights during an Emergency. However, the 44th Amendment Act (1978) stipulated that the enforcement of rights guaranteed by Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended even during an emergency.
