HOW INDIA'S JUDICIARY BECAME YOUR RIGHTS' ULTIMATE DEFENDER

This article is written by Kimaya Anavkar, a T.Y.LL.B. student at Kishinchand chellaram Law College.

Keywords: Human Rights, Indian Constitution, Fundamental Rights, Article 21, Right to Equality, Indian Judiciary, Judicial Activism, National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).

Abstract:

The Indian Constitution is a foundational document for social revolution, placing the protection of Human Rights at its absolute center. This article provides a detailed analysis of the enforceable guarantees within the Constitution, primarily focusing on the Fundamental Rights in Part III. We will explore how these rights, such as the Right to Equality and the Right to Life, were inspired by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The article emphasizes the pivotal role of the Indian Judiciary in transforming the constitutional mandate into a living reality.

Through a deep dive into landmark cases, we will trace the evolution of Article 21 (Right to Life) from a mere textual provision to the heart of human dignity in India. This piece also examines the supportive frameworks of Directive Principles and the institutional mechanism of the NHRC, offering a comprehensive perspective for law students and citizens on our legal safeguards.

INTRODUCTION

Human rights are the most fundamental and inherent rights that belong to every individual, simply by virtue of being human. These are not privileges bestowed by a state or government, nor can they be revoked by them. They are universal, inalienable, and indivisible, forming the essential bedrock for a life of dignity, freedom, equality, and justice. For India, a nation born from a long and arduous struggle against colonial rule—a struggle that was itself a profound fight for these very rights—this concept is not merely a Western import. It is the very soul of our national movement.

When the framers of the Indian Constitution sat down to draft the nation’s supreme law, they were not just creating a political framework for governance. The framers, in drafting a social charter for a new society free from centuries of hierarchy and oppression, were deeply conscious of the global human rights discourse. This led them to draw significant inspiration from the newly adopted Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), 1948.

As a result, they meticulously wove these universal principles into the very fabric of the Constitution, transforming abstract ideals into concrete, legally-protected rights. This article delves deep into this constitutional framework, examining not just the text of the law but the living, breathing reality of human rights in India as interpreted and fiercely guarded by its judiciary.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

The Constitution’s architecture for protecting human rights is a triad, built upon Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles, and Fundamental Duties.

(a) Fundamental Rights (Part III, Articles 12–35): The Enforceable Core

This part is the “Magna Carta” of India and forms the core of our human rights law. These rights are “fundamental” because they are essential for the all-round development of an individual, and “enforceable” (or justiciable), meaning a person can go to court if they are violated.

• Right to Equality (Articles 14–18): This is the foundation of our democracy. It guarantees equality before the law (no one is above the law) and equal protection of the laws (laws must be applied equally). It explicitly prohibits discrimination by the state on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth, and abolishes “untouchability” in all its forms.
• Right to Freedom (Articles 19–22): This cluster of rights is vital for a free society. Article 19(1) alone grants six key freedoms: (a) speech and expression, (b) peaceful assembly, (c) forming associations, (d) moving freely, (e) residing anywhere, and (f) practicing any profession. Article 21 (Right to Life) and Article 22 (protection against arbitrary arrest and detention) are also part of this group.
• Right Against Exploitation (Articles 23–24): This right strikes at the heart of practices that violate human dignity. It explicitly prohibits human trafficking, “begar” (forced labour), and other forms of compulsory service. It also strictly forbids the employment of children under 14 in factories, mines, or other hazardous jobs.
• Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25–28): This establishes India as a secular state. It grants all persons the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate their religion, subject to public order, morality, and health.
• Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29–30): These rights are a crucial safeguard for India’s diverse population. They protect the interests of religious and linguistic minorities by giving them the right to conserve their distinct language, script, and culture, and to establish and administer their own educational institutions.
• Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32): This is the right that makes all other rights effective. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar called it the “very heart and soul” of the Constitution. It grants every individual the right to move the Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of their Fundamental Rights. The Court is empowered to issue “writs” (legal orders) to protect these rights.

(b) Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV): The State’s Conscience

The DPSPs are a set of social, economic, and political principles intended to guide the State in making laws and policies. Unlike Fundamental Rights, they are non-justiciable, meaning you cannot go to court to enforce them. However, they are “fundamental in the governance of the country.” They represent the “welfare state” goals, such as ensuring equal pay for equal work, providing education, securing a living wage, and improving public health. The judiciary has often used DPSPs as a tool to interpret and expand the scope of Fundamental Rights.

(c) Fundamental Duties (Part IV-A): The Citizen’s Role

Added in 1976, this part lists duties for citizens. These are also non-justiciable. They serve as a constant reminder that rights and duties are correlative. These duties include respecting the Constitution and its ideals, promoting harmony, protecting the environment, developing a scientific temper, and striving for excellence. They act as a moral and civic code, and courts can use them to help interpret laws.

THE JUDICIARY AS THE GUARDIAN OF HUMAN RIGHTS

The Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, has been the most powerful and proactive force in protecting and expanding human rights. Through judicial activism, the courts have often stepped in where the legislature or executive has failed.

The judiciary’s most significant contribution has been the dynamic interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). Initially, “procedure established by law” in Article 21 was understood literally—as long as a law was passed correctly, it could limit one’s life or liberty. However, this changed dramatically.

Illustrations & Landmark Case Law Briefs

• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978):
  • Facts: The government impounded Maneka Gandhi’s passport without giving her a reason, claiming it was in the “public interest.” She argued this violated her Right to Personal Liberty under Article 21.
  • Judgment & Impact: The Supreme Court delivered a revolutionary judgment. It overruled its previous, narrower view and held that the “procedure established by law” under Article 21 must be fair, just, and reasonable, not arbitrary or oppressive. It effectively linked Articles 14 (Equality), 19 (Freedom), and 21, creating a “golden triangle” of rights. This case single-handedly transformed Article 21 from a mere “right to survive” into a “right to live with human dignity.”
• Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985):
  • Facts: The Bombay Municipal Corporation decided to forcibly evict thousands of pavement and slum dwellers, claiming they were trespassing. The dwellers argued this would destroy their livelihoods.
  • Judgment & Impact: The Supreme Court held that the Right to Livelihood is an essential part of the Right to Life under Article 21. The Court reasoned that one cannot live without the means of living (i.e., a livelihood). While the Court did not stop the eviction entirely, it mandated that the government must provide alternative accommodation and follow a fair procedure, solidifying the socio-economic dimension of Article 21.
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997):
  • Facts: This case was filed after a social worker, Bhanwari Devi, was brutally gang-raped in Rajasthan for her work in preventing child marriage. The case highlighted the severe problem of sexual harassment at the workplace and the complete absence of any specific law to deal with it.
  • Judgment & Impact: The Supreme Court, in a remarkable act of judicial activism, stepped in to fill this legislative vacuum. It held that sexual harassment at the workplace is a gross violation of the Right to Equality and the Right to Life (with dignity) under Articles 14, 19, and 21. The Court laid down a set of binding guidelines (the “Vishaka Guidelines”) for all employers to prevent and address sexual harassment. These guidelines were the law of the land for 16 years until Parliament finally enacted the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act in 2013.

INSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS: THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION (NHRC)

To create a dedicated body for oversight, Parliament passed the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. This Act established the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) at the central level and State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs) at the state level.

The NHRC is a powerful, independent watchdog. Its functions include:

• Inquiring into complaints of human rights violations by public servants.
• Intervening in any court proceeding involving allegations of human rights violations.
• Visiting jails and other state-run institutions to study the living conditions of inmates.
• Reviewing the safeguards in the Constitution and other laws and recommending changes.
• Spreading human rights literacy and awareness.

While its recommendations are not always binding, the NHRC plays a crucial role in bringing human rights abuses to light and putting pressure on the government to act.

CONCLUSION

The Indian Constitution, in its essence, is far more than a mere legal document; it stands as a profound “social charter” and a blueprint for a continuous social revolution. It boldly enshrines a vision for a society free from traditional hierarchies and built on the pillars of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. Its core, as we have seen, is a robust and comprehensive Human Rights framework. This framework operates through a trinity of provisions: the enforceable “sword and shield” of the Fundamental Rights, which empower the citizen; the “moral compass” of the Directive Principles, which guide the state toward a welfare ideal; and the civic reminder of the Fundamental Duties.

However, the Constitution’s text alone could not have achieved this. The true conscience-keeper of this vision has been the Indian Judiciary. Through decades of progressive and activist interpretation, the courts have breathed life into the document’s pages. They have famously expanded Article 21 from a mere guarantee against the taking of life into a profound “Right to Live with Human Dignity,” encompassing livelihood, a clean environment, and protection from harassment.

Ultimately, while the constitutional safeguards and judicial precedents are powerful, the true realization of these rights for every Indian does not rest in the law books alone. As the conclusion of the original document rightly states, it demands effective implementation by the state and, most crucially, the continuous vigilance and public awareness of an informed citizenry. The Constitution gives us the tools, but the work of building a society that respects the dignity of all remains our collective and ongoing responsibility.

References

1. The Constitution of India.
2. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), 1948.
3. The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
4. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) AIR 597, (1978) 1 SCC 248.
5. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) AIR 1986 SC 180.
6. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQS)

1. What is the main difference between a “Human Right” and a “Fundamental Right”?

A: Think of it this way: Human rights are universal, moral claims you have just by being human (like the right to dignity, respect, and freedom from harm). They exist everywhere, even without a law. Fundamental Rights are the specific human rights that a country’s Constitution formally recognizes and legally protects. In India, Fundamental Rights (in Part III) are the legally enforceable version of these universal human rights. If a Fundamental Right is violated, you can directly take the government to court.

2. What can I do if my Fundamental Rights are violated by the government?

A: You have a very powerful and direct remedy. The Constitution gives you the Right to Constitutional Remedies under Article 32. This means you can file a “writ petition” directly in the Supreme Court of India to get your right enforced. You can also file a similar petition in the High Court of your state under Article 226. This right to go to court is, itself, a Fundamental Right.

3. Are the Directive Principles (DPSPs) useless because I can’t take them to court?

A: Absolutely not. While it’s true you can’t directly sue the government for not following a DPSP, they are far from useless. The Constitution calls them “fundamental in the governance of the country.” They are the goals our nation strives for. Most importantly, the Supreme Court has used DPSPs to interpret and give a broader, more meaningful definition to our Fundamental Rights. For example, the DPSP for “an adequate means of livelihood” was used in the Olga Tellis case to argue that the Right to Life (a Fundamental Right) must include the Right to Livelihood.

4. Why do we have Fundamental Duties?

A: The Constitution includes Fundamental Duties (Part IV-A) to serve as a moral and civic reminder to all citizens. They emphasize that rights and duties are two sides of the same coin. While you can’t be taken to court for violating most duties, they are important. They encourage citizens to uphold the Constitution, promote national harmony, protect the environment, and develop a scientific mindset. Courts can also use these duties to help interpret laws and decide on the “reasonableness” of a restriction on a Fundamental Right.