JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

Faculty of Law

Human Rights Assignment on

Human Rights in India

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Dr. Noor Jahan Momin Mohammad Aazam
B.A.LL.B (Hons.)
5th sem
Roll No.- 32

1
Introduction
Human Rights – Two simple words but when put together they constitute the very foundation of

our existence. Human Rights are commonly understood as “inalienable fundamental rights to

which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being”. There is no

denying that all human beings are entitled to certain ‘basic’ and ‘natural’ rights meant for a

dignified existence as a human being. A dignified living environment with freedom coterminous

with that of others, to one and all is the central tenet of human rights. Human rights are

conceptualized to be certain rights that are inherent or occur naturally to individuals as human

beings, having existed even in the ‘state of nature’ before the development of societies and

emergence of the state. As widely recognized, the State cannot be accepted as the fundamental

source of these rights. They inhere in individuals by virtue of their birth as a human itself. The

State is accepted and understood merely as a recognizer, guarantor and protector of these rights.

The State, as its concept exists today, cannot act to the detriment of the inherent rights of an

individual, or for that matter, the collective conscience of individuals as a community or a

society. Alternatively the natural or human rights are recognized as legal rights, constitutional

rights etc depending upon their assimilation in statutes or constitution of a nation, or, even

fundamental rights as per terminology awarded to them in the statute or the constitution.

2
 DEFINITION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), 1948, defines human rights as “rights

derived fromthe inherent dignity of the human person.” Human rights when they are guaranteed

by a written constitution are known as “Fundamental Rights” because a written constitution is

the fundamental law of the state. Dr. Justice Durga Das Basu defines “Human rights are those

minimal rights, which every individual must have against the State, or other public authority, by

virtue of his being a ‘member of human family’ irrespective of any consideration. Durga Das

Basu’s definition brings out the essence of human rights.

CHARACTERISTIC AND NATURE OF HUMAN RIGHTS

1. Human Rights are Inalienable – Human rights are conferred on an individual due to the very

nature of his existence. They are inherent in all individuals irrespective of their caste, creed,

religion, sex and nationality. Human rights are conferred to an individual even after his death.

The different rituals in different religions bear testimony to this fact.

2. Human Rights are Essential and Necessary - In the absence of human rights, the moral,

physical, social and spiritual welfare of an individual is impossible. Human rights are also

essential as they provide suitable conditions for material and moral upliftment of the people.

3. Human Rights are in connection with human dignity – To treat another individual with

dignity irrespective of the fact that the person is a male or female, rich or poor etc. is concerned

with human dignity. For eg. In 1993, India has enacted a law that forbids the practice of carrying

3
human excreta. This law is called Employment of Manual Scavengers and Dry Latrines

(Prohibition) Act.

4. Human Rights are Irrevocable: Human rights are irrevocable. They cannot be taken away by

any power or authority because these rights originate with the social nature of man in the society

of human beings and they belong to a person simply because he is a human being. As such

human rights have similarities to moral rights.

5. Human Rights are Necessary for the fulfillment of purpose of life: Human life has a purpose.

The term “human right” is applied to those conditions which are essential for the fulfillment of

this purpose. No government has the power to curtail or take away the rights which are

sacrosanct, inviolable and immutable.

6. Human Rights are Universal – Human rights are not a monopoly of any privileged class of

people. Human rights are universal in nature, without consideration and without exception. The

values such as divinity, dignity and equality which form the basis of these rights are inherent in

human nature.

7. Human Rights are never absolute – Man is a social animal and he lives in a civic society,

which always put certain restrictions on the enjoyment of his rights and freedoms. Human rights

as such are those limited powers or claims, which are contributory to the common good and

which are recognized and guaranteed by the State, through its laws to the individuals. As such

each right has certain limitations.

8. Human Rights are Dynamic - Human rights are not static, they are dynamic. Human rights go

on expanding with socio-eco-cultural and political developments within the State. Judges have to

interpret laws in such ways as are in tune with the changed social values. For eg. The right to be

4
cared for in sickness has now been extended to include free medical treatment in public hospitals

under the Public Health Scheme, free medical examinations in schools, and the provisions for

especially equipped schools for the physically handicapped.

9. Rights as limits to state power - Human rights imply that every individual has legitimate

claims upon his or her society for certain freedom and benefits. So human rights limit the state’s

power. These may be in the form of negative restrictions, on the powers of the State, from

violating the inalienable freedoms of the individuals.

DEVELOPMENT OF HUMAN RIGHT

The UN Charter, 1945 The United Nations Charter was drafted, approved and unanimously

adopted by all the delegates of the 51 states, who attended the United Nations Conference at San

Francisco The UN Charter contains provisions for the promotion and protection of human rights.

The importance of the Charter lies in the fact that it is the first official document in which the use

of ‘human rights’ is, for the first time traceable and which also recognized the respect for

fundamental freedom. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 The Universal

Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on

10th December, 1948. The Declaration consists of thirty Articles and covers civil, political,

economic, social and cultural rights for all men, women and children. The declaration however is

not a legally binding document. It is an ideal for all mankind. International Covenants on Human

Rights The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 was not a legally binding document. It

lacked enforcements. This deficiency was sought to be removed by the U.N. General Assembly

5
by adopting in December, 1966, the two Covenants, viz, 1. International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights and 2. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The two

International Covenants, together with the Universal Declaration and the Optional Protocols,

comprise the International Bill of Human Rights. The International Bill of Human Rights

represents a milestone in the history of human rights. It is a modern Magna Carta of human

rights.

LEGAL STATUS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN INDIA

India has had a history of its own, in-so-far human rights of its inhabitants are concerned. Ruled

by despotic rulers/kings and emperors, its public, probably was never aware of the concept of

human rights. While European and other western countries got a taste of real time concept of

human rights with the advent of Magna Carta era, the concept of human rights remained alien, or

at the most, so intermittent that the people of India would have never bothered to think of their

existence with certain rights by the virtue of their being born as humans. The intermittent periods

were those isolated period of history when some benevolent individual had the reigns in their

hand as the ruler/kings and emperors. The colonial rule in India gave much impetus to

recognition of certain rights. The struggle for independence was marked with uprisings for

individual and societal rights. There was mass awakening and recognition of rights that were

inherent to human existence. The end of World War II was a turning point in the history of

struggle for human rights worldwide and the world community rose to the occasion by

endeavouring hard for recognition of human rights that would have universal application. By

virtue of being one of the signatories to the United Nation Declaration of Human Rights on

6
December 10, 1948, India became one pioneering countries of the world to have made a

commitment to respect and protect the human rights declared and accepted by the United Nations

Organizations. Induced by its people's struggle for freedom, India very promptly incorporated

some of the widely accepted human rights as fundamental rights in the Indian Constitution. The

Constitution of India epitomizes the testament of the people of India to protect and promote the

fundamental freedoms and rights of all human beings. The Constitution of India provides

elaborate provisions for all classes of human rights. Part- III relating to the Fundamental Rights

deals with the civil and political rights which and are justifiable in nature; meaning thereby, that

they are enforceable through a Court of Law. The economic, social and cultural rights are

contained in Part IV of the Constitution which lays down Directive Principles of State Policy.

The later are non-enforceable in a court of law, but, are fundamental to governance of country.

ACTIVE ROLE OF JUDICIARY

Of course, all legal rights are human rights but it is unfortunate that all human rights have not

become legal rights as on date. This is because the law follows the action, as a consequence, it is

not possible to codify all probable laws in anticipation for protection of human rights, and this is

when the due procedure of law or the principle of natural justice plays an active role in

protecting the rights of the people when there is no legislation available. As I have mentioned

earlier, the magnificence of human rights is that it is all pervading, the trick lies in the successful

execution of the same. Fundamentally, the basic motive of all the three wings of the democratic

government, namely, the executive, the legislative, and the Judiciary revolves around the

7
protection of human rights. They strive together and separately to uphold the human rights of the

people in the country. The Judiciary with no doubt has played a vital role in protection of Human

rights over the decades. Some of the most unpleasant violation of human rights like Sati, Child

Marriage, Honor Killings, Slavery, Child labour etc., have been abolished wholly owing to

widespread awareness and strict implementation measures taken by the Judiciary. The status of

human rights is fairly high under the Constitution of India which makes provision for

fundamental rights and empowers Supreme Court of India and High Courts to enforce these

rights. Equally important is the fact that India is a signatory to international conventions on

economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights, with certain conditions. These rights are

partly contained in Part III of the Constitution of India including the right to equality in Article

14, right to freedom of speech and expression in Article 19(1)(a), the right to protection of life

and personal liberty in Article 21 and the right to religious freedom in Article 25 etc.

In Part IV of the Constitution, the Directive Principles of State Policy i.e. the duties of the State

or the socio-economic rights, have been envisaged which are non justiciable in any court of law

but complementary to the fundamental rights in Part III. It directs the State to apply policies and

principles in the governance of the country so as to enhance the prospects of social and economic

justice. For instance, Article 43 directs the State to secure for workers a living wage, decent

standard of life and social and cultural opportunities. On a different note, the society should be

changed in a positive way by the State, enlighten and place every human being in a society

where their individual rights can be protected as well as upheld. The Indian judiciary with its

widest interpretation in observance of Human Rights has contributed to the progress of the nation

and to the goal of creating India as a vibrant State. The definition of Human Rights can be found

under Section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 as, “The rights relating to life,

8
liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the

International Covenants and enforceable by the Court of India.” So it is evident that Courts have

a major role to play in enforcing the rights. ENABLING PROVISION The right to enforce the

Human Rights provided in the Constitution of India is protected through enabling provisions.

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers High Courts to issue directions, orders or writs in the

nature of Habeas Corpus, Quo Warranto, Mandamus, Certiorari, Prohibition for the enforcement

of fundamental rights as well as any other legal rights. Article 32, itself a Fundamental Right,

invests the Supreme Court with the power of judicial review for the enforcement of fundamental

rights with the power to issue directions, orders and writs as well. It is worth mentioning that Dr.

Ambedkar who in course of his speech referred to draft Article 25 corresponding to the present

Article 32, in the Constituent Assembly, said, “if I was asked to name any particular article in the

Constitution as the most important-an article without which this Constitution would be nullity – I

would not refer to any other article except this one. It is the very soul of the Constitution and

very heart of it and I am glad that the House, has realized the importance”. During the debates in

the Constituent Assembly Alladi Krishnaswami Aiyar also remarked, “The future evolution of

the Indian Constitution will thus depend to a large extent upon the work of the Supreme Court

and the direction given to it by the Court, while its function may be one of interpreting the

Constitution….it cannot in the discharge of its duties afford to ignore the social, economic and

political tendencies of the time which furnish the necessary background”. And these predictions

have come true. Any aggrieved person could have direct access to superior Courts for obtaining

quick relief against the state for violation of any fundamental right. In addition to the above

provisions, Article 142 enables the Supreme Court to make such orders as are necessary to do

complete justice in the cause; Article 141 provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court

9
shall be binding on all; and Article 144 obliges all authorities to act in the aid of the Supreme

Court.

HUMAN RIGHTS DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA

 1829 - The practice of sati was formally abolished by Governor General William

Bentick.

 1929 - Child Marriage Restraint Act, prohibiting marriage of minors under 14 years

of age is passed.

 1955 - Reform of family law concerning Hindus gives more rights to Hindu women.

 1973 - Supreme Court of India rules in Kesavananda Bharati 1case that the basic

structure of the Constitution (including many fundamental rights) is unalterable by a

constitutional amendment.

 1978 - SC rules in Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India2 that the right to life under

Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be suspended even in an emergency.

 1985 - The Shah Bano case3, where the Supreme Court recognized the Muslim

woman's right to maintenance upon divorce, sparks protests from Muslim clergy. To

nullify the decision of the Supreme Court, the Rajiv Gandhi government enacted The

Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986

 1989 - Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989 is
passed

 1992 - A constitutional amendment establishes Local Self-Government ( Panchayati

Raj ) as a third tier of governance at the village level, with one third of the seats
1
(AIR) 1973 SC 1461
2
AIR (1978)
3
(1985) SCC (2) 556

10
 reserved for women. Reservations were provided for scheduled castes and tribes as

well.

 1993 - National Human Rights Commission is established under the Protection of

Human Rights Act.

 2001 - Supreme Court passes extensive orders to implement the right to food.

JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION

The role of the India Judiciary and the scope of judicial interpretation have expanded remarkably

in recent times, partly because of the tremendous growth of statutory intervention in the present

era. The judiciary plays an important role in the protection of fundamental rights4 of the citizen

and non-citizens alike. The twin safeguards of equality before law and equal protection of laws

are acknowledge as two of the most important pillars of human rights of the universe of freedom

that is where ever freedom to assert human rights is recognized, whether under an unwritten or a

written constitution. India is the largest democracy in the world, a sovereign, socialist, secular
5
democratic and republic with a comprehensive charter of rights written into its constitution. The

Indian Constitution lays down base on which its foreign policy should be constructed and its

international obligations respected. These base are articulated principally in Article 51,which

occurs in Part IV of the Indian Constitution.

SUPREME COURT ON HUMAN RIGHTS

4
Part III of the Constitution. For details see Durga das Basu, Shoter Constitution of India,Prentice-Hall of India Pvt.
Ltd., New Delhi, 1996, p. 22-23.
5
Word secular is inserted by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 (w.e.f. 03.01.1977).

11
The progress of any society is dependent upon proper application of law to its needs and since

the society today realizes more than ever before its rights and obligations, the judiciary has to

mould and shape the law to deal with such rights and obligations. It is thus clear that within

certain limits judges have the power of profoundly influencing the system of law and

contributing to its substance. Courts enable the law to keep pace with the changing conditions.

Numerous illustrations can be presented from the laws of various countries which show that

courts with their creative function kept the law abreast with time without any formal change in it.

This process of development of law is so well illustrated by how from A.K. Gopalan to Maneka

Gandhi, it took the supreme court of India more than a quarter of a century to read a new

dimension into Art 21 of the Indian constitution. Safety of life and liberty of a person are most

significant Human Rights in any ordered society. The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 has

now defined "Human Rights"6 Under the Act "Human Rights" means the rights relating to life,

liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the constitution. The rights relating

to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual are guaranteed by part III of Indian

Constitution. In the beginning the judiciary has a conservative attitude towards this right and

checks only bad provisions, judiciary limited the scope of the expression personal liberty, to

bodily restrains only. In A.K Gopalan V. State of Madras7 personal liberty was held to mean

liberty of the physical restrains of body only. In this case, the majority held that the expression,

'procedure established by law' means procedure prescribed by the law of the state i.e. this right is

guaranteed against executive arbitrariness and if the following conditions are satisfied, once

liberty may be deprived: (i) There should be a law (ii) Law should be a valid law (iii) The

procedure laid down by law should be followed. Court refused to infuse in that procedure the

6
The act shall be deemed to have come into force on 28/09/1993, vide section 1 (3) of the Act
7
AIR 1950 SC 27

12
principles of natural justice. The court also arrived at the conclusion that Article 21 excluded

enjoyment of the guaranteed under article 19 Because, Article 19, according to the court,

postulated legal capacity to exercise the rights guaranteed by it. But this restrictive interpretation

of the Article 21 has not been accepted in the subsequent cases. The term life cannot be confined

only to take away of life.

In an American case (Munn v. Illinois)8 it was held that, right to life means something more than

mere animal existence. The Supreme Court of India upheld this in Kharak Singh v. State of U.P9

and said Art 21 means not merely the right to the continuance of person’s animal existence, but a

right to the possession of his organs, his arms and legs etc.

In Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India10 Indian Supreme Court pronounced a landmark judgment

that the procedure contemplated by Article 21 should be in conformity with the principles of

natural justice and unless it was so, it would be no procedure at all; the requirement of Article 21

would not be satisfied.

It was a turning point when the Supreme Court held that any state action affecting life and liberty

of a person has to be ‘right, just, fair and reasonable and not arbitrary, fanciful and oppressive’.

Thereafter, there appeared era of progressive judicial activism for protection of human rights. In

the post–Maneka period court’s activism blossomed and flourished. The Supreme Court, in its

anxiety to protect human rights, has at times undertaken the roles of both organs of the

government, the legislature and the executive. Prior to the decision of Maneka Gandhi in 1978,

Art 21 was constructed only as a guarantee against executive action unsupported by law, as was

held in Gopalan case. However, Meneka Case opened up new dimensions and laid down, that it
8
94 US 133:24 Led 77 (1877)
9
A.I.R. 1963 SC 1295
10
AIR 1978 SC 597

13
imposed a limitation upon legislative action also. A great transformation has come about in the

judicial attitude towards the protection of human rights of persons. From Goplan to Meneka, thus

judicial exploration has completed its trek from North to South Pole.

The courts have been making judicial intervention in cases concerning violation of human rights

as an ongoing judicial process. Decisions on such matters as the right to protection against

solitary confinement as in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration 11(1978) the right not to be held

in fetters as in Charles Sobraj case (1978) the right against handcuffing as in T. Vatheeswaran

case (1983) the right against custodial violence as in Nilabati Behera case(1993) or the rights of

the arrestee as in D.K. Basu case(1997) or right of the female employees not to be sexually

harassed at the place of work as in the case of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan12 (1997) are just a

few pointers in that directions. After Maneka's case the right to life has been given an expansive

interpretation and the courts have come down hard in cases of violation of Human Rights.

Supreme Court has held in Sunil Batra V. Delhi Administration13(1978) that fetters especially

bar fetters shall be shunned as violative of human dignity. Bar fetters were held violative of

human dignity in charles sobraj V. Supt Central Jail14 (1978) also. In Nandini Satpathy V.P.L.

Dani15(1978) the Supreme Court held than an accused has the right to consult a lawyer during

interrogation and that the right not to make self-incriminatory statements should be widely

interpreted to cover the pre-trail stage also. In M.H Haskot V. State of Maharashtra16 (1978) the

Supreme Court held that right to free legal Aid is a fundamental right. Further The Supreme

Court in Hussainara Khatoon a nd others vs. Home Secretary State of Bihar17 expressed
11
(1978) 4 SCC 494
12
(1997) 6 SCC 241
13
A.I.R. 1978 SC 1675
14
A.I.R. 1978 SC 1514
15
A.I.R. 1978 SC 1025
16
A.I.R. 1978 SC 1548
17
AIR 1979 SC 1360

14
anguish at the “travesty of justice” on account of under-trial prisoners spending extended time in

custody due to unrealistically excessive conditions of bail imposed by the magistracy or the

police and issued requisite corrective guidelines, holding that “the procedure established by law”

for depriving a person of life or personal liberty (Article 21) also should be “reasonable, fair and

just”. Further while considering while considering the plight of the undertrails in Jail, speedy

trial was held to be an integral part of the right to life and liberty contained in Article 21 of the

constitution of India. In Raj Deo Sharma V. State of Bihar18(1998) the Supreme Court has

issued guidelines for speedy disposal of criminal cases besides its earlier guidelines.

In Prem Shankar Shukla vs. Delhi Administration19 the Supreme Court found the practice of

using handcuffs and fetters on prisoners violating the guarantee of basic human dignity, which is

part of the constitutional culture in India and thus not standing the test of equality before law

(Article 14), fundamental freedoms (Article 19) and the right to life and personal liberty (Article

21). It observed that “to bind a man hand-and-foot’, fetter his limbs with hoops of steel; shuffle

him along in the streets, and to stand him for hours in the courts, is to torture him, defile his

dignity, vulgarise society, and foul the soul of our constitutional culture”. Strongly denouncing

handcuffing of prisoners as a matter of routine, the Supreme Court said that to “manacle a man is

more than to mortify him, it is to dehumanize him, and therefore to violate his personhood….”.

The rule thus laid down was reiterated in the case of Citizens for Democracy v s. State of Assam

& Ors20.Supreme Court has held in Sunil Batra V. Delhi Administration 21that fetters especially

bar fetters shall be shunned as violativee of human dignity.

18
A.I.R. 1998 SC 3281
19
(1980) 3 SCC 526
20
(1995) 3 SCC 743
21
A.I.R. 1978 SC 1675

15
In Joginder Kumar vs. State of UP and Others22 the court ruled that “the law of arrest is one of

balancing individual rights, liberties and privileges on the one hand and individual duties,

obligations and responsibilities on the other; of weighing and balancing the rights, liberties of the

single individual and those of individuals collectively………

In Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum vs. Union of India & Others ( 1 995) 1 SCC 14

the Court asserted that “speedy trial is one of the essential requisites of law” and that expeditious

investigations and trial only could give meaning to the guarantee of “equal protection of law”

under Article 21 of the Constitution. In People’s Union for Civil Liberties [PUCL] vs. Union of

India23 and another the dicta in Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights, 1966 was treated as part of the domestic law prohibiting “arbitrary interference with

privacy, family, home or correspondence” and stipulating that everyone has the right to

protection of the law against such intrusions. In D .K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, 24the Court

found custodial torture “a naked violation of human dignity” and ruled that law does not permit

the use of third degree methods or torture on an accused person since “actions of the State must

be right, just and fair, torture for extracting any kind of confession would neither be right nor just

nor fair”. In cases of custodial deaths, judiciary can issue a writ of mandamus directing the state

to grant compensation to the victim’s family; 5 Lakhs compensation was granted in a case of

custodial death. In recent years supreme Courts treats delay in execution of death sentence, as

violation of Human Right. It was held that if supreme Courts find that delay in execution of

death sentence is undue. “The court would quash the capital Punishment” and substitute for it the

sentence of life imprisonment to that person. In Vishaka & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 25

22
(1994) 4 SCC 260
23
AIR 1997 SC 568
24
AIR 1997 SC 610
25
(1997) 6 SCC 241

16
Supreme Court said that “gender equality includes protection from sexual harassment and right

to work with dignity, which is a universally recognized basic human right. The common

minimum requirement of this right has received global acceptance. In the absence of domestic

law occupying the field, to formulate effective measures to check the evil of sexual harassment

of working women at all workplaces, the contents of international conventions and norms are

significant for the purpose of interpretation of the guarantee of gender equality, right to work

with human dignity in Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution and the safeguards

against sexual harassment implicit therein and for the formulation of guidelines to achieve this

purpose…. in the absence of enacted law to provide for the effective enforcement of the basic

human right of gender equality and guarantee against sexual harassment and abuse, more

particularly, guidelines and norms are hereby laid down for strict observance at all workplaces or

other institutions, until a legislation is enacted for the purpose. This is done in exercise of the

power available under Article 32 for enforcement of the fundamental rights and it is further

emphasized that this would be treated as the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article

141 of the Constitution.”

17
 Conclusion

In the present era, the human rights refers to more than mere existence with dignity. The

International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg divides the human rights into three

generations. First-generation human rights are fundamentally civil and political in nature, as well

as strongly individualistic in nature; the Second-generation human rights are basically economic,

social and cultural in nature, they guarantee different members of the citizenry with equal

conditions and treatment; the Third-generation human rights refers to the right to self

determination and right to development. It is true that nobody is perfect, and this also applies to

our judiciary. As in some cases like ADM Jabalpur v. S. K Shukla26 our Judiciary failed to satisfy

the need of Human Rights. The five senior most judges of Indian Supreme Court including the

Chief Justice struck down the Habeas Corpus. On this day during the Emergency the Supreme

Court sank to its lowest when it decided the infamous Habeas Corpus Case with the following

conclusion: In view of the Presidential Order dated 27th June 1975 no person has any locus to

move any writ petition under Article 226 before a High Court for habeas corpus or any other writ

or order or direction to challenge the legality of an order of detention on the ground that the order

is not under or in compliance with the Act or is illegal or is vitiated by mala fides factual or legal

or is based on extraneous considerations. The Presidential Order referred to was the one issued

during Emergency declaring that the right of any person to move any Court for any enforcement

of the rights conferred by Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution and all proceedings pending

in any Court for the enforcement of the above mentioned rights shall remain suspended for the

period during which the Proclamation of Emergency are in force.

As a consequence with the expansion of scope of human rights, the ambit of safeguarding the

26
AIR 1976 SC 1207

18
rights also increases, as a result, the judiciary should toil more to prevent the violation of human

rights. Judiciary is the only organ which can translate these rights into reality; which is not

possible without the help of the judicial officers of the respective courts. Ultimately after many

ups and downs the Indian judiciary is playing a role incomparable in the history of judiciaries of

the world. It must, therefore, prove itself worthy of the trust and confidence which the public

reposes in it. The judiciary must not limit its activity to the traditional role of deciding dispute

between two parties, but must also contribute to the progress of the nation and creation of a

social order where all citizens are provided with the basic economic necessities of a civilized life,

viz. employment, housing, medical care, education etc. as this alone will win for it the respect of

the people of the country.

19
 Bibliography

BOOKS
 Kapoor, S.K, “International Law and Human Rights”, 20th edition 2016.

 Agrawal,H.O, “International Law and Human rights”, 20th edition 2014.

 Khanna, D.P, “Reforming human Rights”, 1st edition 2001.

 Upadhya Archana, yasin Adil-ul-yasin, “Human Rights”, 1st edition2000.

WEBSITES

 http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in.

 http://nhrc.nic.in

 http://www.legalservicesindia.com

20