Indian Constitution and Human Rights
Indian Constitution and Human Rights
The Human Right traditionally known as ‘natural right’ that the court can mold to meet the
exigencies of the specific circumstances this was decoded in the case Golakhnath vs. State of
Punjab, 1967.
The Supreme Court of India has in the case Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib, 1980 declared that
Judiciary has a special responsibility, "to enlarge the range and meaning of the fundamental
rights and to advance the human rights jurisprudence."
Supreme Court in Unnikrishnan and others vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh, 1992 held that
every citizen of this country has the right to free education until he completes the age of fourteen
years.
Right not to be imprisoned for inability to fulfill a contractual obligation. In Jolly George
Varghese vs. Bank of Cochin, 1980 it was held by the Supreme Court that to cast a person in
prison because of his poverty and consequent inability to meet his contractual liability is a
violation of Article 21.
Right to privacy
This right is stipulated under Article 17 paragraph (1) of the Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights. In Kharak Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1962 it was held by the Supreme Court
that the 'domiciliary visits' is an infringement of the right to privacy and is violative of the
citizen's fundamental rights of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21.
Deoraj Khatri vs. State of Bihar, 1980 case raised the case of Police brutality in which 80
suspected criminals were brutally blinded during Police investigation (Bhagalpur Blinding case).
The Supreme Court condemned it as a "barbaric act and a crime against mankind."
In Sheela Barse vs. the State of Maharashtra, 1983 case, the Court was confronted with the
custodial violence against women and it laid down certain guidelines against torture and ill
treatment of women in Police custody and jails.
The Supreme Court has also read into Article 21 a right to monetary compensation for
deprivations of the right to life and liberty suffered at the hands of the State. This was
highlighted in the Rudal Shah vs. State of Bihar, 1983 case. The emergence of the right to
compensation has nullifed one of the reservations made by India in its instrument of accession to
the human rights Covenants, which stated that the Indian law did not recognize such a right in
the event of right deprivation.
The health problems of workers in the asbestos industry led the Supreme Court in the case
Paramanand Katra vs. Union of India, 1989 to rule that the right to life and liberty under
Article 21 also encompasses the right of the workers to health arid medical aid. The right to life
has been held to include the right to receive instant medical aid in case of injury and the right of
a child to receive free education up to the age of fourteen.
Supreme Court of India declared the practice of Triple Talaq as unconstitutional by 3:2
majority. While Justices Nariman and Lalit held that instant Triple Talaq is unconstitutional and
violative of Article 14, Justice Joseph struck down the practice on the ground that it goes
against Shariat and the basic tenets of the Quran.
Joseph Shine vs. Union of India, 2018
The judgment of CJI Misra held that Section 497 violated a woman’s right to dignity, resulting in
infringement of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Right to Die with Dignity is a Fundamental Right (Article 21). Supreme Court allows Passive
Euthanasia and Living Will.
The court held that handcuffs are prima facie inhuman, unreasonable and at first blush arbitrary
without fair procedure and objective monitoring. The court recognized the need to secure the
prisoner from fleeing but asserted that this does not compulsorily require handcuffing.
This is the first case in which the issue of prior censorship of films under Article 19(2) came into
consideration of the Supreme Court of India. Under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, films are
divided into two categories- ‘U’ films for unrestricted exhibition, and ‘A’ films that can be
shown to adults only. The petitioner’s film was refused the ‘U’ certificate, and he challenged the
validity of censorship as violative of his fundamental right of freedom of speech and
expression. He contended that no other form of speech and expression was subject to such prior
restraint, and therefore, he demanded equality of treatment with such forms. The Court, however,
held that motion pictures are able to stir emotions more deeply than any other form of art.