Open Access Research Article
JUDICIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE RECENT DEVELOPMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN INDIA
Published Paper
Article Details
JUDICIAL
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE RECENT DEVELOPMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN INDIA
AUTHORED BY -
PROF. T. MURUGESH, (B.Sc. M.L.)
Assistant
Professor, Government Law College, Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu - 620023.
CO-AUTHOR - PROF. S. KALIRAJ, (B.A.,M.L.)Assistant Professor, Government Law College, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu -641046
Abstract
Human rights can be described as fundamental entitlements that are
universally applicable to all individuals, and are indispensable for our
existence as human beings. When it comes to maintaining national peace and
order and safeguarding human rights, judicial review is a crucial concept. The
ability of judges to oversee and regulate the actions and rulings of various
governmental entities, tribunals, and courts is at the heart of this matter.
All individuals are inherently entitled to these rights, without any kind of
discrimination based on factors like as race, gender, nationality, religion,
language, and so on. This study examines
the significant role played by the court in safeguarding human rights in
India. This article aims to examine
justice along with judicial action’s part in safeguarding human rights.
Following its independence, India assumed a highly significant role in
safeguarding fundamental rights. The Indian judiciary serves as the guardian of
democracy and diligently preserves the principles of Indian constitutionalism.
Hence, the Court assumes the role of interpreting, safeguarding, and upholding
the Indian Constitution. The judiciary's active and reliable activity
establishes it as the sole institution in the country that enjoys a widespread
national consensus in terms of its legitimacy. This study explores the concept
that judicial activism is a component of judicial review and does not
contravene the separation of powers principle. Rather, it safeguards and
advances constitutionalism. Moreover, this research demonstrates that judicial
activism has been crucial in safeguarding and advancing human rights in India.
Keywords: Human rights,
Judiciary, Indian Constitution, recent developments.
Introduction
Regardless of other factors, everyone should have the right to oppose
the state, and this is a fundamental human right. It is an inherent human right
that no one can be denied without seriously violating the principles of
fairness. As a result, the conventional wisdom holds that disregarding human
life as valuable constitutes a breach of human rights. It was in 1948, under
the banner of the UDHR[1], that this right was
initially acknowledged worldwide by the General Assembly. Affirming the inherent worth of each person, irrespective
of gender or colour, the proclamation laid forth the national and international
benchmarks for success.
Judiciary’s Contribution in Upkeep of Human Rights
(HRs)
Along with other nations, India acknowledges that
all people, irrespective of their concerns or reservations, have the
fundamental rights outlined in the Indian Constitution. Judicial initiative,
engagement, inventiveness, and care for the acknowledgment of the basic Right
are shown in the Human Rights that are safeguarded by India’s Supreme Court. There is no rationale to limit the Supreme
Court's ability to take any action or provide any instructions to the state,
since it has the broadest powers to defend the fundamental and HRs of everyone,
regardless of citizenship status. The Indian Supreme Court asserted in the A.K.
Gopalan v. Madras State[2] case that judicial review
is indeed a distinctive aspect of written constitutions. Judgmental review[3] is tacitly recognised
under Article 13(1)[4]
along with Article 13(2)[5] of the Indian Constitution
(IC), which grants the ability to the Supreme Court to declare a statute to be
in breach of limits. Within this framework, this document endeavours to define
the function of the judiciary in ensuring the acknowledgement and safeguarding
of HRs.
Judicial activism is not in conflict with the
separation of powers, according to this paper's conceptualization. Judicial
scrutiny and judicial independence are crucial to safeguarding democratic
norms, as this doctrine is applied in the Indian Constitution. Additionally,
the article argues that the Indian judiciary, as seen by the Constitution's
framers, delivers justice and has become the protector of basic rights through
judicial activism.
The judiciary was instrumental in establishing free
and compulsory public education as a basic human right. Also, the right to
education has been established as a fundamental HR as a result of multiple
legal pronouncements. For example, Anand Vardhan Chandel v University of Delhi
& Ors.[6]
In Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission and Ors[7]., When it came to handicap rights, the Indian
Supreme Court was a trailblazer both domestically and internationally. The
petitioner, who suffers from a writing condition, was involved in a legal
dispute because the Union Public Service Commission, which administers civil
service exams, refused to provide him with a scribe. As a result of this
denial, the court ruled that the RPwD Act of 2016 was violated.
Independence of Judiciary and International
Perspective
A country's Rule of Law supremacy may be influenced
by the independence of its judiciary. The UN Charter places great emphasis on
the Rule of Law. To ensure justice along with respect for duties resulting from
treaties along with sources of international law, the Charter’s Preamble declares,
"We, the people of the United Nations are determined..." In addition,
the UN’s efforts were bolstered by a plethora of other substantial
international instruments. This is illustrated by the following provision from
the 1948 UDHR: "Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public
hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his
rights and obligations and any criminal charge against him."[8] In addition, the right to
seek effective remedy before the competent adjudicative authority in the event
of a violation of one's rights is warranted by Article 8[9] of the UDHR. It is crucial
to have an impartial judiciary in order to effectively enforce such basic
rights.
Latest legislation
enacted through judicial activism
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) &
Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.[10],
For Indian "Right to Privacy" law, this case is foundational. In this
case, the nine-judge bench firmly upheld the HR to privacy as a basic right warranted
by the IC. As an essential component of respect, independence, and liberty, the
right to privacy is, according to the Court, a cornerstone of the freedoms
secured by the UDHR.
These rulings show that the judiciary has been
quite active and has helped society a lot.
As stated in "Independent thought v. Union
of India,"[11] Having sexual relations
with a wife who is less than 18 years old is now illegal according to the
Supreme Court. Afterwards, it will be considered a rape. Specifically, the
protection afforded to the husband by Article 375[12], IPC’s paragraph 2, which
permitted him to engage in sexual relations with his underage wife as long as
she was younger than fifteen years old, was quashed by the judgement.
In Shayara Bano v. Union of India[13],
the SC ruled 3:2 that Muslims' barbaric Talaq-e-biddat or Tripal Talaq was
unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that Triple Talaq infringed Muslim
women's rights by irreparably ending marriages and contradicting the Koran's
intent, asking, "What's wrong with the Koran?" The law is bad”.
Union of India v. Common Cause (Reg. Society)[14], the Supreme Court
declared passive euthanasia and the HR to die while having dignity a
fundamental HR in a landmark ruling. The Supreme Court allows pre-death “wills”
and passive euthanasia. Chief Justice Dipak Misra's five-judge Constitutional
Court upholds the right to end life support if a person has a medically
incurable terminal illness. Passive euthanasia was declared legal and effective
nationwide.
Shakti Vahini v. Union of India & Ors[15], was a significant Supreme Court decision. The
Chief Justice of India, which is Mr. Dipak Misra, along with Justice AM
Khanwilkar, along with Justice DY Chandrachud ruled and decided. It is
prohibited for Khap Panchayats or anybody else to prevent two consenting adults
from marrying. Finally, the Supreme
Court clarified that Articles 19[16] and 21[17] of the IC grant people
the HR to choose their life partners and marry.
Union of India v. Shreya Singhal[18] The SC determined that Article 66A[19] of the ITA enables the
arrest of objectionable Internet content since it violates the constitution,
thus the harassed part would be punished.
In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union Of India[20],
Sec. 377[21]
(rights for transgenders) of the IPC criminalised consensual sexual contact across
same-sex partners as “against the order of nature”. The Naz Foundation (India)
Trust (“Naz”) challenged Sec. 377's constitutionality in 2009 in the Delhi HC
for violating Articles 14[22], 15[23], 19[24], and 21[25]. Section 377's punishment
of sexual behaviour between consenting adults breaches their right to equality,
along with privacy, along with personal liberty, the court said. In 2013, the SC
overturned the Naz verdict in Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr. v. Naz Foundation
& Ors.[26]
(“Koushal”). It said only Parliament could decriminalise homosexuality. Five
LGBTQ people—Navtej Singh Johar, along with Ritu Dalmia, along with Ayesha
Kapur, along with Aman Nath, along with Sunil Mehra—filed a new writ suit disputing
Sec. 377's constitutionality.
Kundan Singh v The State Govt of NCT
Delhi[27] A
fundamental right of a convict, protected per the IC’s Article 21[28], is the freedom to
procreate and parenthood, according to the Delhi High Court. A fair and
reasonable approach must be taken to maintain the precarious balance between
individual rights and larger societal considerations, as Justice Swarana Kanta
Sharma explained, taking into account aspects like the prisoner's age and parental
status. This right is not absolute, but rather context dependent.
D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal[29] (2010), This
case established specific guidelines for the Indian Supreme Court to follow
when deciding whether an adult couple's relationship falls under the definition
of a "relationship in the nature of marriage" and hence falls under
the purview of the PWDVA, 2005[30].
Conclusion
The judiciary bears tremendous responsibility and
the public have high expectations in a country that upholds the Rule of Law. In
India, the judiciary is protecting people's basic human rights, particularly
those of marginalised groups, when the executive and legislative branches fail
to live up to public expectations. Both indirect and direct subversion by other
parts of government have been met with resistance by the courts. It has
safeguarded the fundamental human rights of the people by overturning arbitrary
laws that violated Fundamental Rights. The Indian judiciary is also doing its
part to safeguard citizens' rights by providing interpretations of sections III
and IV of the country's constitution and, in situations where domestic laws are
silent, by drawing on international treaties.
References
Laws and Statutes
1.
United Nations General Assembly. The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). New York: United Nations General Assembly,
1948.
2.
Article 13 of the Constitution of India states that
the state shall make no law that takes away or abridges the fundamental rights
3.
Article 13(1) of the Constitution of India states that
the state shall make no law that takes away or abridges the fundamental rights
4.
Article 13(2) of the Constitution of India states that
the state shall make no law that takes away or abridges the fundamental right
5.
Art. 10 of the UDHR, 1948.
6.
United Nations, 1948, art. 8
7.
Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code
8.
Article 19 of the Indian Constitution
9.
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
10. Section 66A
of the IT Act, 2000
11. The Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (Section 377)
12. The Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (Section 377), Article 14.
13. The Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (Section 377), Article 15.
14. The Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (Section 377), Article 19.
15. The Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (Section 377), Article 20.
16. Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
17. Article 21
in The Constitution Of India 1949
Cases
1.
AIR 1950 SC
2.
(2017) 10 SCC 800
3.
(2017) 9 scc 1
4.
(2018) 13 SCC 440
5.
(2018) 7 SCC 192
6. AIR 2015 SC
1523
7. WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 76
OF 2016
8.
Civil Appeal No. 10972 of 2013
9.
AIR 1978 Del 308
10. (2017) 10
SCC 1, AIR 2017 SC 4161
11. Special
Leave Petition (C) No. 1882 of 2021.
18. Kundan
Singh vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) on 16 November, 2021
12. D. VELUSAMY
v. D. PATCHAIAMMAL, (2010)10 SCC 469
[1] United Nations General Assembly.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). New York: United Nations
General Assembly, 1948.
[2] AIR 1950 SC
[3] Article 13 of the Constitution of
India states that the state shall make no law that takes away or abridges the
fundamental rights
[4] Article 13(1) of the Constitution
of India states that the state shall make no law that takes away or abridges
the fundamental rights
[5] Article 13(2) of the Constitution
of India states that the state shall make no law that takes away or abridges
the fundamental rights
[6] AIR
1978 Del 308
[7] Special Leave Petition (C) No.
1882 of 2021.
[8] Art.
10 of the UDHR, 1948.
[9] United Nations, 1948, art. 8
[10] (2017) 10 SCC 1, AIR 2017 SC 4161
[11] (2017) 10 SCC 800
[12] Section 375 in The Indian Penal
Code
[13] (2017) 9 scc 1
[14] (2018) 13 SCC 440
[15] (2018) 7 SCC 192
[16] Article 19 of the Indian
Constitution
[17] Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution
[18] AIR 2015 SC 1523
[19] Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000
[20] WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 76
OF 2016
[21] The Indian Penal Code, 1860
(Section 377)
[22] The Indian Penal Code, 1860
(Section 377), Article 14.
[23] The Indian Penal Code, 1860
(Section 377), Article 15.
[24] The Indian Penal Code, 1860
(Section 377), Article 19.
[25] The Indian Penal Code, 1860
(Section 377), Article 20.
[26] Civil Appeal No. 10972 of 2013
[27] Kundan Singh vs State (Govt Of Nct
Of Delhi) on 16 November, 2021
[28] Article 21 in The Constitution Of
India 1949
[29] D. VELUSAMY v. D. PATCHAIAMMAL,
(2010)10 SCC 469
[30] Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Article Information
JUDICIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE RECENT DEVELOPMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN INDIA
Authors: PROF. T. MURUGESH, PROF. S. KALIRAJ
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/01/16
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.