Role of Indian Judiciary in Protection and Promotion of 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."

ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla, 1976

Justice Beg observed "the object of making certain general aspects of rights fundamental is to
guarantee them against illegal invasion of these rights by executive, legislative, or judicial organ
of the State."

Golak Nath vs. State of Punjab, 1967

Chief Justice Subba Rao had rightly observed, that "Fundamental rights are the modern name for
what have been traditionally known as natural rights."

In Gopalan vs. State of Madras, 1950

It was contended that the Preamble to Indian Constitution which seeks to give India a
‘democratic’ Constitution should be the guiding star in its interpretation and hence any Law
made under Art. 21 should be held as void if it is offered against the principle of natural justice,
for otherwise the so-called fundamental right to life and personal Liberty would have no
protection.

Thommen J., in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India, 1993

The theme of article 14 of Constitution provides security of justice before the Court without any
discrimination as to gender, caste, creed, religion etc. It involved two concepts First negative
concept implying the absence of any special privilege in favor of any one that all are equally
subject to the ordinary Law of the Land and that no person, whatever be his rank, or condition, is
above the Law. Second positive concept ‘Equal Protection of Law’ is positive in nature. It does
not mean that identically the same Law should apply to all persons or that every law must have a
universal application within the country irrespective of difference of circumstance. It denotes
equality of treatment in equal circumstance. It implies that among equals the law should be equal
and equally administered, that the like should be treated alike without distinction of race,
religion, wealth, social status and political influence.
It may be worthwhile to note that Art. 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
declares that all are equal before the Law and are before the Law are entitled without any
discrimination to the equal protection of Laws.
In Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, 1976
The petitioner was refused a passport arbitrarily and therefore it was argued on behalf of the
petitioner that the violation of the right to the personal Liberty should be examined in the Light
of the provision of Article 14 and the provisions of the Passport Act. The passport was
impounded of following arbitrary procedure by the authority. In this case the increasing judicial
trend of imposing the requirements of principle of natural justice on different types of bodies and
different types of bodies and different types of administrative action. An authority for the
proposition that the principles of natural justice are an integral part of the guarantees of equality
assured by Art. 14 In this case it was held that the ‘procedure established by Law’ should be just
fair and reasonable In this case Article 14 which strike out the arbitrariness of the state action in
this case the principle of natural justice.
From above case Law the concept of Natural Justice is the concept of administrative Law means
Substantial justice fundamental justice, universal justice or fair play in action it is great
humanizing. It is for doing justice.

In Balaji vs Sate of Mysore, 1962

The court held that the excessive reservation of 68% was declared void in Balaji court observed
that in the interest of the weaker sections of the society need to be adjusted with interests of the
society as a Whole. ( Article21(2) of UDHR and Article 16 of the Constitution).

In Bennett Coleman & Co. vs. Union of India, 1973

The court held that the newsprint control order was challenged under provision of article 19 and
14 in writ petitions filed by several newspaper companies and several readers in this case state
controlling newspapers and interfering with the freedom of press because of this is the direct
control which violation of the freedom of speech and expression

In Kedarnath Bajoria vs. State of West Bengal, 1953

In this case, offence committed by the accused in 1947 but in 1949 the punishment for the same
offence was enhanced. The Honourable Apex Court ruled that the offence committed in the year
1947 is not liable for more punishment or severe punishment.
Under this provisions of ex-post-facto Law, the enhanced punishment cannot be imposed by the
Amended Act, but the accused can take advantage of the beneficial provisions of the ex-post
facto Law that the Law will not be affected by Article 20 (1).

In State of Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu, 1961

Self-incrimination can only mean conveying information based upon personal knowledge of the
person giving information and cannot include merely the mechanical process of producing
document in court which may throw Light on any point in controversy, and which does not
contain any statement the accused based on his personal knowledge. (Article18 of UDHR 1948
& Article 25 of the Indian Constitution).

Re. Stanislaus vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1977

In this case propagate religion means to spread and publicize religious view for edification of
others. The right to propagate religion does not include the right to convert and forceful
conversion interferes with an individual’s ‘Freedom of conscience’.

In Bijoe Emmanuel vs. State of Kerala, 1986

This case was popular as the name ‘National Anthem case’ the students belonged to the sect of
jehovahs refusing to sing National Anthem, student stood silent when the Anthem was being
sung Right to remain silent was held to be an right to freedom of speech and expression.
Article 22 of UDHR and Article 29 of the Constitutional Law of India Article 22 – Everyone as
member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization through national
effort and international Co-operation and in accordance with the economic, social and cultural
rights in dispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

In Case of Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union vs. Union of India, 1980

The supreme Court declare this article as an integral part of the basic structure of the
Constitution and further observed that the fundamental right could have been meaningless in
absence of the provisions of article 32 in the Constitution.

In People’s Union for democratic Rights vs. Union or India, 1982

The court rejected the argument that such ‘public interest litigation would create arrears of cases
and therefore they should not be encouraged. Even the traditional doctrine of Locus standi means
the person whose fundamental right has been infringed can approach to Supreme Court.
The supreme court directly and Article 32 (2) empowers the court to issue directions or order or
writs such as habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, quo warranto and prohibition.

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 travel abroad

The right to travel abroad is a guaranteed right under Article 12 paragraph (2) of the Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights. In Sathwant Singh Sawhney vs. D. Ramanathan, 1967 Assistant
Passport Officer, New Delhi, bthe Court held that the right to go abroad is part of an individual's
personal liberty within the meaning 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.

Shayara Bano vs. Union of India and others, 2017

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.

Common Cause vs. Union of India, 2018

Right to Die with Dignity is a Fundamental Right (Article 21). Supreme Court allows Passive
Euthanasia and Living Will.

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India, 2018

The right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.

Ramlila Maidan Incident, In Re (2012) 5 SCC 1

The Supreme Court has broadened the ambit of right of life to bring in a citizen's right to

sleep peacefully under it. A citizen has a right to sleep because it is fundamental to life under
Article 21.

Prem Shankar Shukla vs. Delhi Administration, 1980

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.

K.A. Abbas v. Union of India, 1970

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.

Murli S. Deora v. Union of India, 2001

The Supreme Court in its decision banned smoking in public places like auditoriums, hospital
buildings, public offices, railways, court buildings, libraries, educational institutions, health
institutions and other place of public use.