Source: https://samples.edusson.com/human-rights-under-indian-law/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 06:49:27+00:00

Document:
A number of rights are not stated in the Covenant, are not even laid down in part III of the Constitution. In A.D M. Jabalpur V. S. Shukla the Supreme Court by a majority of four to one, held that the Constitution of India did not recognize any natural or common law rights other than that expressly conferred in the Constitution. Though the attitude of the Supreme Court has changed especially after 1978. The courts on many occasions by accepting the rule of judicial construction have held that regard must be paid to International Conventions and norms for constructing domestic law. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, Justice Bhagwati in the Special Bench for the Supreme Court observed that: The expression â€˜personal libertyâ€™ in article 21 is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights, which go to constitute the personal liberty of man and some of them have been raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under Article 19. No person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law made by the State prescribing the procedure for so depriving him; and the deprivation is effected strictly in accordance with such procedure. The following rights are contained in the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. They are available to the citizens of India through judicial decisions, even if and though they are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
Right to privacy (Articles 21 and 19 (1) (d)): This right is stipulated under Article 17 paragraph (1) of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh it was held by the Supreme Court that the â€˜domiciliary visitsâ€™ is an infringement of the right to privacy and is violative of the citizenâ€™s fundamental rights of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21.
This Act is enacted by the Parliament to be extended to all the parts of India, excepting Jammu and Kashmir. This brings our notice to laws and Acts that extends to even Jammu and Kashmir. India is also a signatory to the UNCRC which defines the age of a child i.e. below 18 years. Countries all over the world use this definition. A child between the ages of 0-18 years is not allowed to vote, sign a contract or engage a lawyer. The Juvenile Justice Act enacted in India in 1986 (which was enacted in Jammu and Kashmir too by 1997, and the rules adopted in Jammu and Kashmir by 2007) came as beginning of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)Act 2000. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 is the primary legal framework for juvenile justice. The Act provides for a special approach towards the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency and provides a framework for the protection, treatment and rehabilitation of children in the purview of the juvenile justice system. This law, brought in compliance of Child Rights Convention 1989, repealed the earlier Juvenile Justice Act of 1986 after India signed and ratified Child Rights Convention 1989 in year 1992. This Act has been further amended in year 2006 and 2010. Technically even though this Act talks about Juvenile only , it is nevertheless essential in our study of child trafficking for this age group which according to India, are also highly targeted and disregarding the technical and formal description of age, this age group (16-18) ends up being a vulnerable target to human trafficking. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act is considered to be an extremely progressive legislation and Model Rules 2007 have further added to the effectiveness of this welfare legislation. However the implementation is a very serious concern even in year 2013 and Supreme Court of India is constantly looking into the implementation of this law in Sampurna Behrua Versus Union of India and Bachpan Bachao Andolan Versus Union of India. In addition to Supreme Court, various High Courts in India, specifically Bombay High Court and Allahabad High Courts are also monitoring implementation of JJ Act in judicial proceedings. In order to upgrade the Juvenile Justice Administration System, Government of India launched Integrated Child Protection Scheme (ICPS) in year 2009-10 whereby financial allocations have been increased and various existing schemes have been merged under one scheme.
The non-enforceable rights in Part IV of the Constitution are mainly those of economic and social in nature. However, Article 37 makes it clear that despite being non enforceable it does not weaken the duty of the State to apply them in making laws, due to their fundamental nature. Additionally, the innovative jurisprudence of the Supreme Court has now read into Article 21 (the right to life and personal liberty) many of these principles and made them enforceable. Reading in nutshell we can find that they demarcate the duties of the State, i.e. encompassing securing a social order with justice, social, economic and securing for â€œthe citizens, men and women equallyâ€ the right to an adequate means of livelihood. (Article 38). They directdistribution of ownership and control of community resources to subserve the common good., prevent concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment , secure equal pay for equal work for both men and women, prevent abuse of labor, including child labor , ensure child development , ensure equal justice and free legal aid organize village democracies (Article 39). In Article 40, constitution sates the provision of the right to work, education and public assistance in case of unemployment, old age sickness and disability. Article 41 vests provision of humane conditions of work, whereasArticle 42 entails the living wage and a decent standard of life and so on so forth. Hence it can be witnessed that these directives aim to include the indispensable provisions for development of child and education for children amongst the other essential directives i.e. to provide for human rights and decent standard of living.
India being the largest representative democracy in the world is based on universal adult suffrage, providing every Indian of at least eighteen years of age the right to vote. The Constitution of India provides for direct elections to the House of the People of the Central Parliament, i.e. the Lok Sabha and the State [Provincial) Legislative Assemblies, once in every five years.. The right to vote, the; right to contest elections, and the conduct of elections are all governed by the Constitution (Part XV) as well as special laws like the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 1.8 Judiciary and Human Rights The vanguard of human rights, the Judiciary is one of the three organ of Government in India. It performs this function by innovative interpretation of the constitution with regard to the human rights provisions. The Supreme Court in the case Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib declared that it has a special responsibility, â€œto enlarge the range and meaning of the fundamental rights and to advance the human rights jurisprudence.â€ The Supreme Court of India and the State High Courts have unequivocal powers under the Constitution to enforce the fundamental rights and it has liberally interpreted these powers. The major contributions of the judiciary to the human rights jurisprudence have been two-fold: (a) The substantive expansion of the concept of human rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, and (b) The procedural innovation of Public interest Litigation.
The expression â€œthe procedure established by lawâ€ was interpreted in the case A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras in the year 1950, the very first year of the Constitution, the Supreme Court in, reflecting on the intentions of the Constitution-makers, held that â€œprocedure established by lawâ€ only meant that a procedure had to be set by law enacted by a Legislature. This phrase was deliberately used in Article 21 in preference to the American â€œDue Processâ€ clause.
Three decades later, in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court noted that â€œthe Supreme Court rejected its earlier interpretation and holds that the procedure contemplated under Article 21 is a right, just and fair procedure, not an arbitrary or oppressive procedure.â€ The procedure, which is reasonable and fair, must now be in conformity with the test of article 14 â€” â€œin effect it has become a Due Process.â€ There is no doubt that the experience of National Emergency (1975-1977) prompted the court to go all out for vindication of human rights.
Since Maneka Gandhiâ€™s case, every case of infringement of rights by the Legislature has undergone judicial scrutiny in terms of the new guideline laid down by the Supreme Court of India. Further, this case led to the establishing of the due process norm, which included rights like, right to claim legal aid for the poor and the right to expeditious trial etc.
The judiciary interpreted â€˜the right to life and personal libertyâ€ to comprehend all basic conditions for a life with dignity and liberty.
The judiciary has interpreted the word â€œLifeâ€ to include the right to possession of each organ of oneâ€™s body and a prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment by Police. In the Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union territory of Delhi case, the Supreme Court held that â€œlifeâ€ couldnâ€™t be restricted to mere animal existence, or physical survival. Hence it can be summed up that the right to life means the right to live with dignity and availing the basic necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing, shelter and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself. Many cases in High Courts and the Supreme Court often revealed â€œa shocking state of affairs and portray a complete lack of concern for human values.â€ . Justice Bhagwati held â€œif a person is deprived of his liberty under a procedure which is not â€˜reasonableâ€™, â€˜fairâ€™ or â€˜justâ€™, it would fall foul of Article 21. The following cases will through light that how time and again this Fundamental right has come to the rescue during the violation of Fundamental Rights. In Deoraj Khatri v. State of Bihar case the Police brutality was raised in which 80 suspected criminals were brutally blinded during Police investigation (Bhagalpur Blinding case). The Supreme Court condemned it as a â€œbarbaric act and a crime against mankind.â€ Where as in Sheela Barse, The State of Maharashtra case, the Court was heard the plight of custodial violence against women and in judgment it laid down certain guidelines against torture and ill treatment of women in Police custody and jails. The Supreme Court has held a right to monetary compensation for deprivations of the right to life and liberty suffered at the hands of the State under Article 21. In, Paramanand Katra v. Union of India, The health problems of workers in the asbestos industry led the Supreme Court to rule that the right to life and liberty under Article 21 also encompasses the right of the workers to health and medical aid.
 A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1207 at 1293  A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 597  A.I.R. 1967 S.C. Delhi 1836  A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1295  A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 645 at 733. Justice Sujatha V. Man3har, "Judiciary and Human Rights," Indian Journal of International Law (Vol. 36, Nc1.2, 1996): 39-54.  A.1.R .I981 S.C. 487 at 493.  A.I.R. 1950 S.C 27  A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 597   A.I.R.98.1. S.C . 746.  A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 928  A.I.R. 1989 (4) S.C.C. 286.

References: V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V.