Authored By – Khushi Singh, Himalaya Law College Affiliated with Patliputra University, Patna
INTRODUCTION
Human rights are the foundation of a just society, ensuring that individuals can live with dignity, freedom, and equality. The Indian Constitution, inspired by global human rights principles, provides a strong legal framework to protect and enforce these rights. While Fundamental Rights under Part III of the Constitution act as the backbone of human rights protection, Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) further guide the state in ensuring social and economic justice.
Despite these safeguards, human rights violations continue to be a major concern. Issues like custodial violence, gender-based discrimination, suppression of free speech, and socio-economic inequalities highlight the gaps in enforcement. Recognizing this, the Indian judiciary has played a crucial role in expanding the scope of rights through progressive interpretations and landmark judgments. The introduction of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has further empowered citizens to seek justice against human rights violations.
One of the most powerful mechanisms available for redressal is writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226, allowing individuals to directly approach the courts. Alongside judicial remedies, institutions like the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and various tribunals serve as additional avenues for protection. However, procedural delays, lack of awareness, and inadequate implementation often hinder the effectiveness of these remedies.
This article explores the legal framework, available remedies, landmark cases, challenges, and future implications regarding human rights violations in India.
Keywords:
Human Rights, Fundamental Rights, Constitutional Remedies, Writ Jurisdiction, Public Interest Litigation (PIL), Supreme Court, High Court, NHRC
MEANING OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Human rights are the fundamental freedoms and entitlements that every individual possesses by virtue of being human. These rights are universal, inalienable, and indivisible, meaning they apply to all people regardless of nationality, race, gender, or any other status. They ensure dignity, equality, and freedom in society, protecting individuals from exploitation, discrimination, and injustice.
The concept of human rights is deeply rooted in the principles of natural justice, emphasizing that these rights are inherent and not granted by any authority. They encompass civil, political, social, economic, and cultural rights, ensuring that individuals can lead a life of dignity and self-respect.
DEFINITION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
There is no single universally accepted definition of human rights, but several legal instruments and scholars have attempted to define them:
1. United Nations Definition
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), 1948, describes human rights as:
“Rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status.”
2. Black’s Law Dictionary
Defines human rights as:
“Those rights that are recognized and protected as fundamental freedoms inherent to all human beings.”
3. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer
Described human rights as:
“The basic rights which every individual must have to live with dignity and self-respect, free from oppression and discrimination.”
4. Indian Constitution (Fundamental Rights)
While the Indian Constitution does not define human rights explicitly, it incorporates them under Part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy). The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, defines them as:
“The rights relating to life, liberty, equality, and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in international covenants and enforceable by courts in India.”
EXPLANATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Human rights are categorized into different types based on their nature and scope:
1. Civil and Political Rights
These rights protect individuals from state interference and oppression, ensuring personal freedoms. They include:
- Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21, Indian Constitution)
- Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19(1)(a))
- Right to Equality (Articles 14-18)
- Right to Privacy (Puttaswamy Judgment, 2017)
2. Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights
These rights ensure access to basic necessities like education, healthcare, and employment, promoting socio-economic justice. Examples include:
- Right to Education (Article 21A, Indian Constitution)
- Right to Work (Directive Principles, Article 41)
- Right to Health (Expanded under Article 21 by Judicial Interpretation)
3. Collective or Third-Generation Rights
These rights focus on group-based concerns, including environmental protection, self-determination, and development. Examples include:
- Right to a Clean and Healthy Environment (Article 48A, Directive Principles)
- Right to Development (Recognized in International Law)
CHARACTERISTICS OF HUMAN RIGHTS
- Universality – Applicable to all humans regardless of nationality or status.
- Inalienability – Cannot be taken away except in extreme circumstances (e.g., legal punishment).
- Indivisibility & Interdependence – All rights are connected; deprivation of one affects others.
- Legally Enforceable – Enshrined in constitutional and statutory provisions.
Thus, human rights form the foundation of democracy, justice, and equality, ensuring protection against discrimination, oppression, and state overreach.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The concept of human rights and their protection has evolved over centuries, influenced by philosophical, religious, political, and legal developments worldwide. The idea that individuals possess certain inalienable rights has its roots in ancient civilizations, later gaining momentum through revolutions, international declarations, and constitutional frameworks.
In India, the evolution of human rights and their remedies can be traced through four distinct phases:
1. Ancient & Medieval Era: Natural Justice and Dharma-Based Rights
Before the codification of modern human rights, ancient Indian legal and philosophical traditions emphasized justice, equality, and protection from oppression.
A. Vedic & Dharmic Traditions (1500 BCE – 6th Century CE)
- The Rig Veda and Upanishads emphasized dignity, freedom, and justice.
- The concept of Dharma (moral duty) required rulers to protect the weak and ensure justice.
- Manusmriti and Arthashastra recognized the right to life, protection against torture, and fair treatment by the king.
B. Buddhist & Jain Contributions (6th Century BCE – 3rd Century BCE)
- Emperor Ashoka (3rd Century BCE) promoted non-violence (Ahimsa), religious freedom, and social justice.
- His Edicts emphasized rights against injustice and cruelty.
C. Medieval Period: Islamic & Mughal Influence (12th – 18th Century CE)
- Islamic jurisprudence introduced Sharia-based justice with an emphasis on equality.
- The Mughal Empire (16th-18th Century) provided legal protection through Farmaans (royal decrees) and Qazi courts.
- Akbar’s Reforms promoted religious tolerance and human dignity.
However, these protections were largely dependent on the will of the ruler rather than a structured legal system.
Comparison with Other Countries
Human rights enforcement varies globally based on constitutional provisions, judicial mechanisms, and enforcement agencies. While India has a strong constitutional framework, its enforcement mechanisms face challenges when compared to countries like the United States, United Kingdom, and France.
1. India vs. United States (U.S.)
| Aspects | India | U.S. |
|---|---|---|
| Constitutional Protections | Fundamental Rights (Part III) | Bill of Rights (First 10 Amendments) |
| Writ Jurisdiction | Supreme Court and High Court can issue writs (Article 32 and 226) | No direct writ jurisdiction, enforced through courts |
| Public Interest Litigation (PIL) | Well-developed, allows any citizen to file | Very limited scope, PIL is rare |
| Enforcement Mechanisms | NHRC investigates violations but has no binding power | Strong federal law and agencies ensure enforcement |
Key Takeaway:
India provides direct constitutional remedies but lacks strict enforcement like the U.S., where federal laws ensure strong protection.
2. India vs. United Kingdom (U.K.)
| Aspects | India | U.K. |
|---|---|---|
| Human Rights Law | Constitutionally guaranteed (Part III) | Human Rights Act, 1998 (Based on European Convention) |
| Judicial Review | Strong, courts can strike down unconstitutional law | Limited, Parliament is supreme |
| International Influence | UN treaties are not directly enforceable | Bound by the European Court of Human Rights |
Key Takeaway:
The U.K. has a stronger connection with international human rights law, while India relies more on domestic judicial mechanisms for enforcement.
3. India vs. France
| Aspects | India | France |
|---|---|---|
| Source of Human Rights | Fundamental Rights in the Constitution | Declaration of Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) |
| Religious Freedom | Secularism with religious rights | Strict secularism bans religious symbols in public institutions |
| Judicial Protection | Supreme Court and High Court protect rights | Constitutional Council and Administrative Court enforce rights |
Key Takeaway:
India provides greater religious freedom, while France follows strict secularism, restricting religious symbols in public spaces.
Case Laws / Precedents / Overruling Judgments
The Indian judiciary has played a significant role in interpreting and enforcing human rights protections through landmark judgments. Over time, the Supreme Court and High Courts have expanded the scope of Fundamental Rights, provided remedies against violations, and even overruled previous restrictive interpretations to ensure justice.
Below are some of the most important case laws related to human rights remedies in India.
1. Protection Against Illegal Detention & Custodial Violence
A. Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar (1983)
- Issue: Wrongful imprisonment for 14 years despite acquittal.
- Judgment: The Supreme Court awarded compensation for the first time in a habeas corpus petition under Article 32, setting a precedent for monetary compensation as a remedy for human rights violations.
B. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
- Issue: Rampant custodial torture and police brutality.
- Judgment: The Court laid down detailed guidelines to prevent custodial violence, including:
- Police must maintain an arrest memo and inform a relative of the detainee.
- Magistrates must ensure that detainees are not tortured in custody.
C. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)
- Issue: Custodial death due to police brutality.
- Judgment: The Supreme Court granted compensation to the victim’s family and held that the state is liable for human rights violations committed by its officials.
2. Right to Life & Personal Liberty (Article 21 Expansions)
A. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) – Expanded Scope of Article 21
- Issue: Confiscation of passport without a fair hearing.
- Judgment: The Supreme Court expanded the meaning of “Right to Life” to include:
- Right to live with dignity
- Right to travel freely
- Right to personal liberty beyond mere physical survival
- This case overruled the restrictive interpretation in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) and established the principle of due process in personal liberty cases.
B. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) – Right to Livelihood
- Issue: Eviction of pavement dwellers without rehabilitation.
- Judgment: The Court held that the right to livelihood is part of the right to life under Article 21, preventing arbitrary displacement.
C. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) – Sexual Harassment at Workplace
- Issue: Lack of legal framework to address workplace harassment.
- Judgment: The Supreme Court laid down Vishaka Guidelines, making it mandatory for workplaces to prevent sexual harassment until a proper law was enacted (later codified as the POSH Act, 2013).
3. Right to Free Legal Aid & Fair Trial
A. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979)
- Issue: Thousands of undertrial prisoners were languishing in jails without trial.
- Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that free legal aid is a fundamental right and directed the immediate release of undertrial prisoners who had already spent more time in jail than the maximum sentence for their offense.
B. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985) – Right of Muslim Women to Maintenance
- Issue: Whether a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance beyond the Iddat period under Section 125 CrPC.
- Judgment: The Court ruled that all women, regardless of religion, are entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
- Overruled By: The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which limited maintenance rights under personal law.
4. Landmark Writ Petition Cases (Articles 32 & 226)
A. Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) – Basic Structure Doctrine
- Issue: Whether Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights.
- Judgment: The Supreme Court held that Fundamental Rights cannot be altered in a way that destroys the Constitution’s Basic Structure.
B. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (2003) – Right to Food
- Issue: Starvation deaths despite surplus food stocks.
- Judgment: The Court ruled that Right to Food is a fundamental right under Article 21, directing the government to distribute food to the poor.
C. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) – Decriminalization of Homosexuality
- Issue: Constitutionality of Section 377 IPC, which criminalized homosexuality.
- Judgment: The Supreme Court struck down Section 377, affirming LGBTQ+ rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21.
- Overruled: Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2013), which had upheld Section 377.
5. Right to Privacy & Data Protection
A. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) – Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right
- Issue: Whether the Right to Privacy is protected under the Indian Constitution.
- Judgment: The Supreme Court declared privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.
- Overruled: Earlier judgments like M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1962), which had denied privacy as a fundamental right.
6. Freedom of Speech & Expression (Article 19(1)(a))
A. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) – Striking Down Section 66A IT Act
- Issue: Section 66A of the IT Act criminalized “offensive” online speech, leading to arbitrary arrests.
- Judgment: The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A, calling it unconstitutional for violating freedom of speech.
B. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950)
- Issue: Ban on a newspaper critical of the government.
- Judgment: The Court ruled that freedom of the press is an essential part of free speech under Article 19(1)(a).
Key Trends
- The Supreme Court has expanded Article 21 to include rights to privacy, dignity, and livelihood.
- Writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 & 226 ensures direct remedies for human rights violations.
- Progressive rulings like Navtej Singh Johar (LGBTQ+ rights) and Vishaka (workplace harassment) demonstrate judicial activism.
Doctrines / Theories Related to Remedies Against Human Rights Violations
In India, various legal doctrines and theories have played a crucial role in shaping judicial remedies for human rights violations. These principles, developed through judicial interpretation, help enforce Fundamental Rights, ensure justice, and protect citizens from state excesses.
This section discusses key doctrines and theories that have influenced human rights protection in India.
1. Doctrine of Constitutional Remedies (Article 32 & 226)
Concept:
Recognized by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as the “Heart and Soul” of the Constitution, this doctrine ensures that citizens have a legal right to approach courts when their Fundamental Rights are violated.
Application:
- Article 32 allows individuals to directly petition the Supreme Court for rights violations.
- Article 226 allows the High Courts to issue writs for broader rights protection.
Case Law:
- Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950) – The Supreme Court held that the right to approach courts for remedies is itself a Fundamental Right.
2. Doctrine of Basic Structure
Concept:
This doctrine states that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a way that destroys its essential features.
Application:
- Prevents the government from passing laws that violate Fundamental Rights (e.g., right to equality, liberty, and judicial review).
Case Law:
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) – The Supreme Court ruled that Fundamental Rights form part of the “Basic Structure” and cannot be altered by constitutional amendments.
3. Doctrine of Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
Concept:
Allows any public-spirited person to approach courts for the enforcement of constitutional or legal rights on behalf of disadvantaged groups.
Application:
- Expands access to justice for poor and marginalized communities.
- Courts can take suo motu cognizance of rights violations.
Case Law:
- S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) – Established that locus standi (right to sue) is not required for PILs, allowing NGOs and individuals to file cases for public welfare.
4. Doctrine of Absolute & Sovereign Immunity (Now Limited in Scope)
Concept:
Originally, the state could not be sued for human rights violations committed by its officials.
Change:
- The doctrine has been restricted in modern times through case laws holding the state accountable for wrongful acts.
Case Law:
- Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) – The Supreme Court ruled that sovereign immunity cannot be claimed in cases of custodial violence and human rights abuses.
5. Doctrine of Prospective Overruling
Concept:
The Supreme Court can change the law but apply the new ruling only from a future date, ensuring past actions under the old law are not penalized.
Application:
- Used in cases where a law was constitutionally valid earlier but is now declared unconstitutional.
Case Law:
- Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) – The Court held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights, but applied the ruling prospectively.
Conclusion & Comments
The Indian Constitution provides a strong framework for the protection and enforcement of human rights, ensuring that individuals have access to effective legal remedies against violations. Fundamental Rights (Part III), Writ Jurisdiction (Articles 32 & 226), Public Interest Litigation (PIL), and institutions like NHRC collectively work to safeguard human dignity and justice. Over the years, the Supreme Court and High Courts have played a crucial role in expanding the interpretation of rights and providing progressive legal remedies through landmark judgments.
Key Challenges in Human Rights Enforcement
- Judicial Delays & Backlog – Rights-based cases often take years to resolve, delaying justice.
- Limited Enforcement Power of NHRC – NHRC lacks binding authority, reducing its effectiveness.
- Weak Implementation of Laws – Despite progressive judgments, ground-level implementation remains poor.
- Lack of Awareness & Accessibility – Many victims of human rights violations lack awareness of legal remedies.
- Police Brutality & State Excesses – Cases like custodial torture, wrongful detention, and police violence continue to occur despite legal protections.
Suggestions for Strengthening Human Rights Remedies in India
- Fast-Track Courts for Human Rights Cases – Like the U.S., India should introduce special courts to handle serious human rights violations more efficiently.
- Make NHRC Recommendations Legally Binding – NHRC should have enforcement powers, ensuring state compliance.
- Enhance Awareness & Legal Aid – Strengthening legal education and free legal aid services will improve access to justice.
- Stronger Police Accountability Mechanisms – Reforms must prevent custodial deaths, illegal arrests, and abuse of power.
- Ratify the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) – India should ratify pending international treaties to enhance global human rights credibility.
While India has one of the most comprehensive human rights protection frameworks, there is a significant gap between constitutional guarantees and real-world enforcement. Courts, government agencies, and civil society must work together to ensure that constitutional remedies are accessible, effective, and result in meaningful justice.
By implementing systemic reforms, increasing public awareness, and ensuring strict accountability, India can bridge the gap between legal protections and practical enforcement, truly upholding the spirit of justice and equality enshrined in the Constitution.
References
1. Books / Commentaries / Journals Referred
a. H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, Universal Law Publishing Co.
b. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, LexisNexis.
c. D.D. Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, LexisNexis.
d. V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India, Eastern Book Company.
e. Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation, Oxford University Press.
f. P. Ishwara Bhat, Fundamental Rights: A Study of Their Interrelationships, Eastern Book Company.
2. Online Articles / Sources Referred
a. National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) Official Website – www.nhrc.nic.in
b. Supreme Court of India Judgments – www.sci.gov.in
c. The Law Commission of India Reports – www.lawcommissionofindia.nic.in
d. UN Human Rights Treaties Database – www.ohchr.org
e. Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India – www.legalaffairs.gov.in
f. Articles on human rights law from SCC Online and Live Law.
3. Cases Referred
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), Olga Tellis v. BMC (1986), Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997).
- Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985).
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), PUCL v. Union of India (2003), Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018).
- Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017).
- Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950).
4. Statutes Referred
- The Constitution of India, 1950
- The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
- The Right to Information Act, 2005
- The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015
- The POSH Act, 2013
- The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017
- The IT Act, 2000
- The Transgender Persons Act, 2019
