HUMAN RIGHT PROJECT.pdf

HUMAN RIGHTS AND SUPRME COURT OF INDIA

2016

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

SUBJECT- HUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT WORK ON HUMAN RIGHT& SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

SUBMITTED TO- DR. VIJAY KUMAR VIMAL

SUBMITTED BY ROHIT SINHA ROLL NO. 601 10TH SEMESTER

1


2016

AIMS AND OBJECTIVEThe aim of researcher, in doing the research work is to give a broad outline of human rights and Supreme Court of India. The project will further analyze the various aspect of “Art 21 as interpreted by apex court” in contrast with the various judicial precedents which are relevant to the topic.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:As whole research work for this work is confined to the library and books and no field work has been done hence researcher in his research work has opted the doctrinal methodology of research. Researcher has also followed the uniform mode of citation throughout the project work.

SOURCES OF DATA:For doing the research work various sources has been used. Researcher in the research work has relied upon the sources like many books of International Law, Articles, and Journals. The online materials have been remained as a trustworthy and helpful source for the research.

SCOPES AND LIMITATIONS:Though the researcher has tried his level best to not to left any stone unturned in doing his research work to highlight the various aspects relating to the topic, but the topic being so vast and dynamic field of law and whose horizon and ambit cannot be confined and narrowed down, the research work has sought with some of the unavoidable limitations.

HYPOTHESIS:Researcher by reading and doing preliminary research researcher is of the opinion that Supreme Court Of India is protecting Human Rights through the power conferred through various articles in the constitution.,

2


2016

TABLE OF CONTENT AIMS AND OBJECTIVE- ................................................................................ 2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:- ................................................................... 2 SOURCES OF DATA:- .................................................................................... 2 SCOPES AND LIMITATIONS:- .................................................................... 2 HYPOTHESIS:- ............................................................................................... 2 TABLE OF CONTENT .................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................... 5 DEFINITION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ........................................................... 6 CHARACTERISTIC AND NATURE OF HUMAN RIGHTS ..................... 6 DEVELOPMENT OF HUMAN RIGHT ....................................................... 8 The UN Charter, 1945................................................................................. 8 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 ......................... 8 International Covenants on Human Rights........................................ 8 LEGAL STATUS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN INDIA .................................... 9

3


2016

ACTIVE ROLE OF JUDICIARY ................................................................ 10 ENABLING PROVISION ........................................................................... 11 HUMAN RIGHTS DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA ...................................... 12 JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION ................................................................ 13 CHILD LABOUR AND RIGHT TO EDUCATION .................................. 14 CHILD LABOUR WELFARE AND THE LOCUS STANDI.................... 16 JUVENILE JUSTICE.................................................................................... 17 ADOPTION OF CHILDREN...................................................................... 18 SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN ............................................ 19 REHABILITATION OF CHILD PROSTITUTES ................................... 20 SUPREME COURT ON HUMAN RIGHTS .............................................. 21 VERSATILE ROLE OF COURTS .............................................................. 30 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 33 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................ 36

4


2016

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.

5


2016

DEFINITION OF HUMAN RIGHTS The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), 1948, defines human rights as “rights derived from the 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 human excreta. This law is called Employment of Manual Scavengers and Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act.

6


2016

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 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,

7


2016

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 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.

8


2016

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 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.

9


2016

However, the country has witnessed enforcement of these rights by the deliberations of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

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 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.

10


2016

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, 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

11


2016

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 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 case1 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.  1985-6 - The Shah Bano case3, where the Supreme Court recognized the Muslim woman's right to maintenance upon divorce, sparks protests from Muslim clergy. To 1 2

(AIR) 1973 SC 1461 AIR (1978) SC

12


2016

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 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 rights 4 of the citizen and non-citizens alike. The twin safeguards of equality before law and equal protection of laws5 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 6 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

3

(1985) SCC (2) 556

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 Article 14 of the Indian Constitution: The State shall not deny to any person equality before law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. 6 Word secular is inserted by the Constitution (42 nd Amendment) Act, 1976 (w.e.f. 03.01.1977).

13


2016

international obligations respected. These base are articulated principally in Article 51,7 which occurs in Part IV of the Indian Constitution. The true nature and scope of the function of the court has since long been a matter of debate almost in all the countries regulated by written Constitution. Austinian Jurisprudence gives a very narrow view of the judicial function. Austin defined law as a command of the political sovereign and his sovereignty was indivisible and absolute, only the legislature could make law. The function of the court was merely to declare the pre-existing law or to interpret the statutory law. But on the other hand, the realist movement in the United State the latest branch of sociological Jurisprudence which concentrates on decisions of law courts. Regards and contend that law is what court says. For them, judges are the law makers. The entire common law is the creation of the English courts but is posited on the myth that judge merely found law. Even with such self-negating perception of their own role, the English judges not only made law but also changed it to suit entirely new conditions created by the industrial revolution.In this modern era Judicial Activism emerged as tool for protecting Rights of the Children including protection from sexual exploitation, child trafficking, child abuse etc. some case dealt by the Indian judiciary for the protection of child rights are as follows

CHILD LABOUR AND RIGHT TO EDUCATION Education is critical for economic and social development. It is crucial for building human capabilities and for opening opportunities. The importance of education was fully recognised by classical economist and social scientist such as Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Schultz, Becker and Amartya sen. Alfered Marshall in the Principles of Economics observed as follows: “The wisdom of expending public and private funds on education in not to be measured by its direct fruits alone. It will be profitable as a mere investment, to give the masses of the people

7

Article 51: The Stae shall endeavour to (a) promote international peace and security; (b) maintain just and honourable relations between nations; (c) foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealing of organise peoples with one another; and (d) encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration.

14


2016

much greater opportunities, than they can generally avail themselves of. For by this means many, who would have died unknown, are able to get the start needed for bringing out their latent abilities. The most valuable of all capital is invested in human beings.” The abolition of child labour must be preceded by the introduction of compulsory education since compulsory education and child labour laws are interlinked. Article 24 of the Constitution bars employment of child below the age of 14 years.8 Article 45 is supplementary to Article 24 for if the child is not to be employed below the age of 14 years he must be kept occupied in some educational institution.9The Court in series of cases has unequivocally declared that right to receive education by the child workers is an integral part of right of personal liberty embodied in Article 21 of the Constitution.10 In M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu11 The Supreme Court directed that children should not be employed in hazardous jobs in factories for manufacture of match boxes and fireworks, and positive steps should be taken for the welfare of such children as well as for improving the quality of their life. In Goodricke Group Ltd v Center of West Bengal12the Court held that it would be for the Centre and State/Union Territories to raise necessary resources to achieve the goal of providing free education. Recently Article 21-A has been inserted in the India Act, 2002 which provides that the state shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to furteen years in such manner as the state may, by law, determine. In Unni Krishnan J.P. v State of Andhra Pradesh Justice Mohan observed “in educational institutions which are seed-beds of culture, where children in whose hands quiver the destinies of the future, are trained. From their

8

Article 24: No Child below the age of fourteen years shall be employed to work in any factory or mine or engaged in any other hazardous employment. 9 Article 45 of the Indian Constitution: State shall endeavour to provide, within period of ten years from the commencement of this Constitution, for free and compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of 14 years. 10 AIR 1993 SC 2178. 11 AIR 1991 SC 417. 12 123 CTR 516..

15


2016

ranks will come out when they grow up statesmen and soldiers, patriots and philosophers, who will determine the progress of the land.13

CHILD LABOUR WELFARE AND THE LOCUS STANDI The liberalization of the concept of locus standi, to make access to the court easy, is an example of the changing attitude of the Indian Courts. It is generally seen that the working children by and large come from the families, which are below the poverty line, and there are no means to ventilate their grievance that their fundamental rights are being breached with impunity. Keeping in view the pitiable conditions of the child workers, the apex court has shown its sensitivity towards the poor people by relaxing the concept of locus standi. One important case in which Supreme Court entertained a letter, sent by post as public interest litigation was the Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India14 Also known as the Asiad Workers case. The Supreme Court held that though the Employment of Children Act, 1938 did not include the construction work on projects because the construction industry was not a process specified in the Schedule to the Act, yet, such construction was a hazardous occupation and under Art.24 children under 14 could not be employed in a hazardous occupation. The right of a child against exploitation under Art.24 was enforceable even in the absence of implementing legislation, and in a public interest proceeding15 They have no faith in the existing social and economic system”. A high water mark in the application of the Article 24 of the Constitution was reached in the decision of the Court in Salal Hydro Project v. Jammu and Kashmir16 wherein the Court reiterated the above stand. The Court maintained that child labour is an economic problem. Poor parents seek to argument their meager income through employment of their children. So, a total prohibition of child labour in any form may not be socially feasible in the prevailing socio-economic environment. Article 24 therefore, 13

AIR 1993 SC 2178. AIR 1982 SC 1473. 15 Retrieved from last visited on 27th Nov. 2011, at 15:41 IST. 16 AIR 1987 SC 177. 14

16


2016

puts only a practical restriction on child labour. The Court further observed that so long as there is poverty and destitution in this country, it will be difficult to eradicate child labour.

JUVENILE JUSTICE The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 200017 is enacted as human rights legislation and it is now in force in all State uniformly, repealing the entire Children’s Act enacted by states individually. This legislation deals with the two types of juveniles. “Juvenile in conflict with law” as defined under Section 2(1) and child in need of care and protection as defined under Section 2 (d). A juvenile or a child as defined under Section 2 (k) is a person who has not attained the age of 18 years. The penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prisoners, the essential aim of which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation. Juvenile offenders shall be segregated from adults and be accorded treatment appropriate to their age and legal status.18 In Sheela Barse v. Union of India19Ms.Sheela Barse, a dedicated social worker took up the case of helpless children below age of 16 illegally detained in jails. She petitioned for the release of such young children from jails, production of information as to the existence of juvenile courts, homes and schools and for a direction that the District judges should visit jails or sub-jails within their jurisdiction to ensure children are properly looked after when in custody. The Court observed that children in jail are entitled to special treatment. Children are national assets and they should be treated with special care. The Court urged the setting up of remand and juvenile homes for children in jails.20In Sheela Barse v Secretary Children Aid Society21 the Supreme Court came forward to protect the rights of the children in the observation homes.

17

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act was enacted in 2000 by repealing the Juvenile Justice Act 1986. Article 10 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, 1966. 19 1986 3 SCC 596. 20 Retrieved from last visited on 27th Nov. 2011, at 15:40 IST. 21 AIR 1987 SC 656. 18

17


2016

ADOPTION OF CHILDREN Adoption concerns two of our basic human concerns identity and family. A child’s rights to an identity and family are now universally recognized. They are enshrined in the United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989.22 The Activist Supreme Court of India in Lakshmikant Pandey v Union of India23 1. This writ petition has been initiated on the basis of a letter addressed by one Laxmi Kant Pandey, an advocate practising in this Court, complaining of mal-practices indulged in by social organisations and voluntary agencies engaged in the work of offering Indian children in adoption to foreign parents. The letter referred to a press report based on "empirical investigation carried out by the staff of a reputed foreign magazine" called "The Mail" and alleged that not only Indian children of tender age are under the guise of adoption "exposed to the long horrendous journey to distant foreign countries at great risk to their lives but in cases where they survive and where these children are not placed in the Shelter and Relief Homes, they in course of time become beggars or prostitutes for want of proper care from their alleged foreign foster parents." The petitioner accordingly sought relief restraining Indian based private agencies "from carrying out further activity of routing children for adoption abroad" and directing the Government of India, the Indian Council of Child Welfare and the Indian Council of Social Welfare to carry out their obligations in the matter of adoption of Indian children by foreign parents. This letter was treated as a writ petition and by an Order dated 1st September, 1982 the Court issued notice to the Union of India the Indian Council of Child Welfare and the Indian Council of Social Welfare to appear in answer to the writ petition and assist the Court in laying down principles and norms which should be followed in determining whether a child should be allowed to be adopted by foreign parents and if so, the procedure to be followed for that purpose, with the object of ensuring the welfare of the child. In this case the Supreme Court held that any adoption in violation of or non-compliance with may lead adoption to be declared invalid and expose person 22 23

Asha Bajpai, Adoption Law and Justice to the Child, Center of Child and the Law NLSIU, Bangalor, 1996, p. 1. AIR, 1986, SC, p. 1272.

18


2016

concerned with to strict action including prosecution. For years, social activists have used these directions to protect children and promote desirable adoptions. The Government of India framed a national policy in this regard.

SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN Human Rights are derived from the dignity and worth inherent in the human person. Human right and fundamental freedom have been retreated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The human rights for women, including girl child age, therefore, inalienable, integral and indivisible part of universal human rights. All forms of discrimination on ground of gender are violative of fundamental freedoms and human rights. It would, therefore, be imperative to take all steps to prohibit prostitution. Eradication of prostitution in any form is integral to social weal and glory of womanhoods. Right of the child to development hinges upon elimination of prostitution. Success lies upon effective measures to eradicate root and branch of prostitution. In Bachpan Bachao Andolan v Union of India writ petition filed by HRLN, Suprem Court on 18.04.2011 has ordered for implementation of suggestions put forth during the hearing of this case, which will introduce significant reforms in existing child protection regime. The petition was originally brought in 2006 on issue of abuse and exploitation of children in circus industry. Court has ordered Central Government to bring a notification prohibiting employment of children in circus, to conduct raids to rescue children already working in circuses and frame proper scheme for their restoration. During the hearing in this case, several recommendations were put forth by petitioner and respondent, aimed on reforming existing legal and procedural mechanism on child protection. This recent order is just one among the several orders which may be given by Hon’ble Supreme Court in due couese of time as Hon’ble Court has made clear its intention to deal with issue of childrens exploitation in a long term and systematic manner. Assuring to deal with childrens exploitation firmly, Supreme Court has observed: “We plan to deal with the problem of childrens exploitation systematically”.

19


2016

In Vishal Jeet v. Union of India24 Supreme Court in this case deals with some seminal questions relating to the sexual exploitation of children. Here it has been observed that it is highly deplorable and heart rending to note that many poverty stricken children and girls in the prime age of youth are taken to the ‘flesh market’ and forcibly pushed into “flesh trade” which is being carried on in utter violation of all cannons of morality, decency and dignity of mankind. In Gaurav Jain v. Union of India,25 The Supreme Court held that the children of the prostitutes have the right to equality of opportunity, dignity, care, protection and rehabilitation so as to be part of the mainstream of social life without any pre-stigma attached on them. The Court directed for the constitution of a committee to formulate a scheme for the rehabilitation of such children and child prostitutes and for its implementation and submission of periodical report of its Registry.26 7. Sakshi v Union of India27 In this Public Interest Litigation matter, the Supreme Court of India asked the Law Commission to consider certain important issues regarding sexual abuse of children submitted by the petitioner and the feasibility of amendment to 375 and 376 IPC28.

REHABILITATION OF CHILD PROSTITUTES The rescue and rehabilitation of the child prostitutes and children should be kept under the Nodal Department, namely; Department of Women and Child Development under the Ministry of Welfare and Human Resource, Government of India. It would devise suitable schemes for proper and effective implementation. The institutional care, thus, would function as an effective rehabilitation scheme in respect of the fallen women or the children of fallen women even if they have crossed the age prescribed under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act. They

24

AIR 1990 SC 1413. AIR 1997 SC 3051. 26 Retrieved from < http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/childrens_rights/India.html> last visited on 27th Nov. 2011, at 15:42 IST. 27 1999 8 SCC 591. 28 Retrieved from last visited on 27th Nov. 2011, at 15:42 IST. 25

20


2016

should not be left to themselves, but should be rehabilitated through self-employment scheme or such measures as are indicated by the Supreme Court in this case. The juvenile homes should be used only of a short stay or relieve the child prostitutes and neglected juveniles from the trauma they would have suffered. They need to be rehabilitated in the appropriate manner. The details are required To be worked out by meaningful procedure and programmes. In the light of the directions already given by this court from time to time to the central government state governments and Union Territory Administrators, adequate steps should be taken to rescue the prostitutes, child prostitutes and the neglected juveniles. They should take measures to provide them adequate safety, protection and rehabilitation in the juvenile homes manned by qualified trained social workers or homes run by NGOs with the aid and financial assistance given by Government of India or state government concerned. A nodal committee with the public spirited NGOs, in particular women organizations women members should be involved in the management. Adequate encouragement may be given to them. The needed funds should be provided and timely payments disbursed so that the scheme would be implemented effectively and fruitfully.29

SUPREME COURT ON HUMAN RIGHTS 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

29

Y. Vishnupriya, Judicial Activism For Protection of Children in India, Socio-legal Journal, Vol.37 (1), Jan. 2011, p. 150.

21


2016

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 Rights30" Under the Act31 "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 Madras32 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 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.

30

The act shall be deemed to have come into force on 28/09/1993, vide section 1 (3) of the Act Sec 2 (1) (d) 32 AIR 1950 SC 27 31

22


2016

In an American case (Munn v. Illinois)33, 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.P34 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 the case of Anwar v. State of Jammu & Kashmir35, it was held that the protection guaranteed under article 21 extends to all persons, not merely citizens, including even persons under imprisonment. A prisoner has the right to freedom of expression reading and writing except in so for as it is circumscribed by the fact of imprisonment.36 In Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India37 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 imposed a limitation upon legislative

33

94 US 133:24 Led 77 (1877) A.I.R. 1963 SC 1295 35 A.I.R. 1971 SC 337 36 A.I.R. 1966 SC 424 37 AIR 1978 SC 597 34

23


2016

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. In Maneka’s case, the supreme court has widened the scope of the words 'personal liberty' and said ‘the expression personal liberty’ in Article 21 is of widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of a man and some of them have been raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given protection under Article 19. Further the Supreme Court held that the mere prescription of some kind of procedure is not enough to comply with the mandate of Article 21. The procedure prescribed by law has to be fair, just and reasonable not fanciful oppressive or arbitrary, otherwise it should not be a procedure at all the requirements of Article 21 would not be satisfied. A procedure to be fair or just must embody the principles of Natural justice. Natural justice intended to invest law with fairness and to secure justice, the court said ‘law should be reasonable law’ and not merely an enacted piece of law.’

This wider interpretation of Article 21 becomes the starting point for the evolution of the law relating to judicial intervention in Human Rights Cases. In fact Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is a fundamental right having its origin in Human Rights. Mr. Justice S.R.Das in his judgment in Gopalan's case gave an illustration that “if a law provided that the cook of the Bishop of Rochester be boiled in oil it would be valid under Article 21”. This view stood for 28 years until it came to be overruled by the court's judgment in Maneka Gandhi's case a judgment that was largely inspired by the dynamic and creative approach of justice Bhagwati.

In this famous decision which according to many jurists marks a watershed in the history of the constitutional law of the country the Supreme Court for the first time took the view that procedure under Article 21 has to include natural justice. Justice Bhagwati who represented the majority consensus of the court as Justice Chandrachud, Justice Untwalia and Justice Fazal Ali agreed with him insisted that the concept of reasonableness must be projected into the procedure

24


2016

contemplated by Article 21.38 Justice Bhagwati and justice Krishna lyer emphasized that human dignity is an important aspect of liberty and hence while considering liberty we have to consider human dignity.39 Justice Krishna lyer took great pains to uphold the human dignity and observed,

"Spiritual basis of our constitutional order is human dignity and social justice and not the sadistic cruelty of hard confinement for years"40

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 Administration41 (1978) the right not to be held in fetters as in Charles Sobraj case42 (1978) the right against handcuffing as in T. Vatheeswaran case43 (1983) the right against custodial violence as in Nilabati Behera case44 (1993) or the rights of the arrestee as in D.K. Basu case45 (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 Rajasthan46 (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 Administration47 (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 Jail48 (1978) also. In Nandini Satpathy V.P.L. Dani49 (1978) the Supreme Court 38

Mool Chand Sharma : Justice Bhagwati court constitution and Human Rights (1995) P-89-99 Jolly G. Varghese V. Bank of Chochin, A.I.R. 1980 SC 470 40 Inder Singh V. State, A.I.R. 1978 SC 1091. 41 (1978) 4 SCC 494 42 (1978) 4 SCC 104 43 (1983) 2 SCC 68 44 (1993) 2 SCC 746 45 D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416 46 (1997) 6 SCC 241 47 A.I.R. 1978 SC 1675 48 A.I.R. 1978 SC 1514 39

25


2016

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 Maharashtra50 (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 Bihar51 expressed 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 Bihar52 (1998) the Supreme Court has issued guidelines for speedy disposal of criminal cases besides its earlier guidelines. In Icchu Devi Choraria53 (1980), the court declared that personal liberty is a most precious possession and that life without it would not be worth living. Terming it as its duty to uphold the right to personal liberty, the court condemned detention of suspects without trial observing that “the power of preventive detention is a draconian power, justified only in the interest of public security and order and it is tolerated in a free society only as a necessary evil”. Dear ones of a person who has been deprived of life by their wrongful action, reading into Article 21 the “duty of care” which could not be denied to anyone. For this purpose, the court referred to Article 9 (5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 which lays down that “anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation”.

49 50

A.I.R. 1978 SC 1025 A.I.R. 1978 SC 1548

51

AIR 1979 SC 1360

52

A.I.R. 1998 SC 3281 1980 SCC 531

53

26


2016

In Prem Shankar Shukla vs. Delhi Administration54 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 & Ors.55 Supreme Court has held in Sunil Batra V. Delhi Administration56 that fetters especially bar fetters shall be shunned as violative of human dignity. In Icchu Devi Choraria vs. Union of India57 the court declared that personal liberty is a most precious possession and that life without it would not be worth living. Terming it as its duty to uphold the right to personal liberty, the court condemned detention of suspects without trial observing that “the power of preventive detention is a draconian power, justified only in the interest of public security and order and it is tolerated in a free society only as a necessary evil”. Dear ones of a person who has been deprived of life by their wrongful action, reading into Article 21 the “duty of care” which could not be denied to anyone. For this purpose, the court referred to Article 9 (5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 which lays down that “anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation”.

54

(1980) 3 SCC 526 (1995) 3 SCC 743 56 A.I.R. 1978 SC 1675 57 ( 1980) 4 SCC 531 55

27


2016

It was observed in Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi58 (1981) that right to life cannot be restricted to mere animal existence. It means something more than just physical survival. Right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and co-mingling with fellow human beings. There is no express provision in the Constitution of India for grant of compensation for violation of a fundamental right to life and personal liberty. But the judiciary has evolved a right to compensation in cases of illegal deprivation of personal liberty. In Smt. Nilabati Behera @ Lalita Behera vs. State of Orissa & Ors.59 the Supreme Court asserted the jurisdiction of the judiciary as “protector of civil liberties” under the obligation “to repair damage caused by officers of the State to fundamental rights of the citizens”, holding the State responsible to pay compensation to the near and dear ones of a person who has been deprived of life by their wrongful action, reading into Article 21 the “duty of care” which could not be denied to anyone. For this purpose, the court referred to Article 9 (5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 which lays down that “anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation”. In Joginder Kumar vs. State of UP and Others60 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………”.

58

A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 746 (1993)2 SCC 746 60 (1994) 4 SCC 260 59

28


2016

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 India and another61 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,62 the 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 death42. 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.,63 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

61

AIR 1997 SC 568 AIR 1997 SC 610 63 (1997) 6 SCC 241 62

29


2016

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.”

VERSATILE ROLE OF COURTS 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 intervention by the courts for issues involving the economic, social and cultural rights definitely created a positive implication. I can say with pride that some very important developments have occurred wholly due to the initial efforts taken by the Judiciary, like  Many of the recent changes in law and policy relating to education in general, and primary education in particular, are owed to the decision in Unnikrishnan P.J v s. S tate of A.P. and others64  For instance, the decision in Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity & Ors vs. State of West Bengal & Anr65. delineates the right to emergency medical care for accident victims as forming a core minimum of the right to health.

64 65

(1993 4 SCC 111) (1996) 4 SCC 37

30


2016

 The orders in PUCL vs. Union of India66 underscore the right of access for those below the poverty line to food supplies as forming the bare non-derogable minimum that is essential to preserve human dignity.  PIL cases concerning environmental issues have enabled the Court to develop and apply the ‘polluter pays principle’, the precautionary principles, and the principle of restitution.

The role of court is diverse in nature, sometimes it is required to become the arbitrator too. The PIL case brought before the Supreme Court in 1994 by the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA), a mass-based organization representing those affected by the large-scale project involving the construction of over 3,000 large and small dams across the Narmada river flowing through Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Gujarat, provided the site for a contest of what the Court perceived as competing public interests: the right of the inhabitants of the water-starved regions of Gujarat and Rajasthan to water for drinking and irrigation on the one hand and the rights to shelter and livelihood of over 41,000 families comprising tribals, small farmers, and fishing communities facing displacement on the other. In its decision in 2000, the Court was unanimous that the Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP) did not require re-examination either on the ground of its cost-effectiveness or in regard to the aspect of seismic activity. The area of justifiability was confined to the rehabilitation of those displaced by this Project. By a majority of two to one, the Court struck out the plea that the SSP had violated the fundamental rights of the tribals because it expected that: ‘At the rehabilitation sites they will have more, and better, amenities than those enjoyed in their tribal hamlets. The gradual assimilation in the mainstream of society will lead to betterment and progress’. The Court acknowledged that in deciding to construct the dam ‘conflicting rights had to be considered. If for one set of people namely those of Gujarat, there was only one solution,

66

2003(10) SCALE 967

31


2016

namely construction of a dam, the same would have an adverse effect on another set of people whose houses and agriculture would be submerged in water’. However, ‘when a decision is taken by the Government after due consideration and full application of mind, the court is not to sit in appeal over such decision’. Even while it was aware that displacement of the tribal population ‘would undoubtedly disconnect them from the past, culture, custom and traditions’, the Court explained it away on the utilitarian logic that such displacement ‘becomes necessary to harvest a river for the larger good’.

Henceforth, it is no doubt that in 21st century the courts ranging from the subordinate courts to the highest court of the country requires the judges to play an active role in resolving the issue. The adversarial legal system is changing more towards the inquisitorial legal system, due to the complexity of the issues involved. For example, in a hypothetical situation, if the issue of cyber terrorism is brought before the court of law, is it possible for the Judges to decide the matter like any other regular criminal cases. The reply would definitely be in negative, owing to the reason it might result in gross violation of rights. I stated this example to demonstrate that law is not mathematics; rather a logical conclusion arrived in the light of the substantive law. Hence, it requires immense knowledge and active participation of the judges for the justice to be delivered.

32


2016

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 selfdetermination 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 Shukla67 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.

67

AIR 1976 SC 1207

33


2016

As a consequence with the expansion of scope of human rights, the ambit of safeguarding the 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. I from the bottom of my heart congratulate the Academy’s effort to organise such regional conferences which certainly creates a forum for the judicial officers to develop a national dialogue of emerging challenges and also to contribute towards the excellence of the judicial system. With conviction, I can say that with such conferences and training programmes organised more frequently; it will facilitate in achieving our challenges at ease. The brief survey of the above mentioned cases shows that the activism of the Indian Supreme Court to protect the children from various type of exploitation. Although the Supreme Court made laudable directions and suggestions in many instances to protect basic rights of poor children, unfortunately these directions and suggestions are not followed and implemented by the government machinery effectively. In this regards, the performance of the Indian Judiciary stands out as a signal contribution to the implementation of human rights generally and that of Child Rights in particular. As such in the M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu and Goodricke Group Ltd v Center of West Bengal Supreme Court of India emphasized on national Constitution and international instruments, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Indian government is required to ensure that children do not engage in hazardous work. In Lakshmi Kant Pandey v

34


2016

Union of India with object of ensuring the welfare of the child J. Bhagwati directed the Government and various agencies to follow some principles as their constitutional obligation to ensure the welfare of the child. Also judiciary has taken the lead to save the child from exploitation and improve their conditions. To mention a few, the Asiad case (1981), L.K.Pandey case (1994), M.C.Mehtas case (1991), Vishal Jeet v. Union of India (1990), and Gaurav Jain v. Union of India (1997) are some of the famous decisions where the judiciary has shown enough courage to uphold the interests of the children and spared no one to improve the working conditions of the child workers. The judiciary has always made concrete efforts to safeguard them against the exploitative tendencies of their employer by regularizing their working hours, fixing their wages, laying down rules about their health and medical facilities. The judiciary has even directed the states that it is their duty to create an environment where the child workers can have opportunities to grow and develop in a healthy manner with full dignity in consensus of the mandate of our constitution.

35


2016

BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS  Kapoor, S.K, “International Law and Human Rights”, 20 edition 2016.  Agrawal,H.O, “International Law and Human rights”, 20 edition 2014.  Khanna, D.P, “Reforming human Rights”, 1 edition 2001.  Upadhya Archana, yasin Adil-ul-yasin, “Human Rights”, 1 edition2000.  Dannelly Jack, “Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice”, 2 edition, 2005.  Saxena Ajay, Singh Indu, “Human Rights in india and Pakisan”, 2004. th

th

st

st

nd

WEBSITES  http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in.  http://nhrc.nic.in  http://www.legalservicesindia.com.  http://legacy.fordham.edu.  http://www.ohchr.org

36

HUMAN RIGHT PROJECT.pdf

Recommend Documents