Somnath Lahiri, in the Constituent Assembly, criticised the Fundamental Rights provisions, stating that they were "framed from the point of view of a police constable." He argued that very minimum rights had been conceded and that almost every article was followed by a proviso that took away the right almost completely. He believed that the Constitution should incorporate every right that the people wanted.

I partially agree with Lahiri's position. The context shows that many Fundamental Rights do have restrictions attached to them, which supports his concern about provisos limiting rights. The statement acknowledges that if people are not vigilant about their rights, there can be misuse by the administration.

However, the Constitution has also provided strong protections. For instance, the rights of accused ensure fair trial through three key provisions: no person punished for same offence twice, no law declaring actions illegal from backdate, and no person compelled to give evidence against themselves. These show that rights were not merely framed from a restrictive viewpoint.

Moreover, the judiciary has functioned as an important protector of rights since 1950. The Kesavananda Bharati case established that Parliament cannot amend the basic features of the Constitution, protecting fundamental rights from being easily removed.

Thus, while Lahiri's concerns about restrictions were valid, the Constitution has evolved to protect rights effectively through judicial interpretation.