The Constitution of India provides several rights that empower the individual, yet it balances these freedoms with reasonable restrictions in the larger public interest. Discuss how constitutional restrictions on fundamental rights strike a fine balance between individual interests and societal interests. Also, mention the principles that are considered in evaluating the reasonableness of restrictions.

Indian constitution in Part III, from Article 14 to 32, provides for fundamental rights that help empower the individual, but also have reasonable restrictions. PROMOTING INDIVIDUAL INTERESTS (1) Article 15 and 16 prevent discrimination under caste, gender, place of birth, religion, etc providing equal treatment by the state. eg VISHAKA case to protect women from workplace harassment, Babita Puniya case for permanent commission in Army for some. (2) Article 19 protects freedom of expression eg Shuya Dighal case. (3) Article 25 - 28 protect freedom of religion, and upheld individual's choice eg Hadiya/Akhila case of Kerala. (4) Article 21 protects right to life and includes many aspects eg Menaka Gandhi Case.

RESTRICTIONS FOR SOCIETAL INTERESTS (1) Article 15 & 16 do not prevent discrimination on legitimate criteria eg Kerala Electricity Board case allowed specifying gender if the job demands that. (2) A Reservations under Article 16 & 15 are restricted by creamy layer provision eg Omee Samthyay case. (3) Freedom of expression is limited on ground of national security, public order, relations with another country, etc eg UAPA construed constitutionally valid. (4) Freedom of religion is restricted by public health, morality & security eg Stamedaus case - forced conversion not allowed, Hijab case in Karnataka - high court said govt can put restrictions. (5) Right to life & personal liberty cannot harm other's interest or societal well-being.

PRINCIPLES FOR REASONABLENESS (1) Proportionality law eg restriction should be in proportion to the need [eg KS Puttaswamy adjacent]. (2) Recent Kolkala Municipal Corporation case on right to property - reasonable reason for acquisition needed, mere application of doctrine of eminent domain not enough. (3) Should posit actual harm/violence threat in cases of freedom of speech restriction. (4) She balance between rights & restrictions forms the communion of rights of individual & other's equality.