Human Rights are those rights that are inherent in our nature and without which we would be unable to live as humans. The fact that we are human beings allows us to make claims. The concept of human rights embodies the basic rights of an individual against his own state. ‘Human Rights’ is a twentieth-century term but its notion is as old and considered as old as Political philosophy. These rights had a place in all ancient societies though referred to by different names, and include civil rights, liberties, and social, cultural, and economic rights. 

The social contract theory philosophers are of the view that the object of the creation of a state is to maintain and protect the rights of individuals. According to Aristotle, “State came into existence out of base necessities of life and continues for the sake of good life”. Similarly, Locke was of the view that the end of the state is to remove the obstacles that hinder the development of an individual.

The actual concept of human rights and their enforcement began first taking shape in the west with the emergence of the renaissance and the process of industrialization. Unfortunately, the other side of the world has colonization and its effects on the native population. It was eventually after the end of the World Wars and the formation of the United Nations in 1945 and its various covenants that the enforcement of human rights took up a right beginning. Human rights are inalienable rights that are the eternal part of the nature of human beings and are essential for the development of their personality, qualities, intelligence, talent, and conscience.

International Human Rights Law

Human rights were first involved within the provisions of the United Nations Charter 1945. Articles 1 and 55 of the Charter place emphasis on the universal respect for human rights and the fundamental freedoms for all without distinction of race, sex, language, or religion.

It was the first time in 1948 that recognition of such rights at the international level was given by the General Assembly. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was accepted and adopted by the United Nations. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the first segment of the International Bill of Human Rights which includes the International Covenant on Economic Cultural and Social Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the General Assembly in 1966 and came into force in 1976.

It does not impose legal obligations upon the member states but sets a common standard of achievement for all people and all nations in their attempt to promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms by adopting progressive measures in that regard. 

Special bodies have been established by the UN as per the International Conventions. These bodies monitor that the protection and enforcement of human rights and fundamental freedoms are carried out as per the provisions of all the international conventions and protocols relating thereto. 

There is no international court to administer international human rights law but quasi-judicial bodies exist under certain international treaties. The International Criminal Court has jurisdiction over the crime of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, and the European Court of Human Rights and Inter-American Court of Human Rights enforce regional human rights law. However, there cannot be proper enforcement without the responsibility of the Nation-State, to make human rights a reality in their national rule of law. In practice, many human rights are difficult to legally enforce caused due to the absence of consensus on the application of certain rights, the lack of relevant national legislation to take legal action to enforce them.

Judicial Application of International Human Rights Law

In legislative efforts, the Indian Parliament enacted the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, constituting the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), State Human Rights Commission (SHRC), and Human Rights Courts (HRCs). 

The Supreme Court has been remarkable in promoting and protecting human rights through a creative reading of the DPSP into Part III of the Constitution and Article 21. The Supreme Court has extended the meaning of life and personal liberty in a manner where a number of unremunerated rights were unconsidered under the umbrella term of Article 21.

In our country, the judiciary is regarded as a separate branch of government. There are two rules that govern this independent judiciary:

• The conventional job of the Court is to interpret the law, and
• 2. Judicial Activism, i.e., going beyond the statute of the law and using the court’s discretion to make decisions and to give the necessary justice.  It performs both duties admirably for the safeguarding of basic rights.

The role of the judiciary was mostly passive in matters of judicial activism until Maneka Gandhi’s case in 1978. In the case, 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” and widened the scope of Article 21 and deduced unenumerated rights such as “right to live with human dignity”. 

The judiciary bent the rule to provide remedies to the sufferers of human rights violations who were poor, underprivileged, and downtrodden in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, wherein a letter from an organization stating the state of bonded labor was considered as a writ petition and after the inquiry ordered the release and rehabilitation of the bonded laborers.

Furthermore, the Constitution does not provide for 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. This was seen in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that “the power of the Court under Article 32(1) is not only is a substantive in nature, that enforces the fundamental rights, but it is also remedial in scope”.  The case has enumerated the right to a wholesome environment as part of human rights though the same is not explicitly mentioned in the language of the Constitution.

In M. H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, the court held that where a prisoner is unable to engage a lawyer, it is the duty of the state to assign one and pay costs for the same. The court also considered the right to a speedy trial as a human right as seen in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, Bihar, where the Court observed that “procedure that keeps a large number of people behind bars without trial is not just and fair and not in conformity with Article 21.”

In pursuance of the protection of human rights, the Courts have not shied away from the legislative function whenever there is no legislation on a certain issue as seen in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan. The Supreme Court virtually enacted a piece of legislation on the ground that there is a vacuum in the legislative field of sexual harassment of women in the workplace, by virtue of the power conferred under Article 141 of the Constitution. The Court has further improved the human rights of women through cases like Associate Banks Officers Association v. State Bank of India, wherein it was held that women workers are not inferior to their male counterparts and there should no discrimination on the ground of sex.

Additionally, in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pramod Bhartiya, Supreme Court held that “under Article 39 the State shall direct its policy towards securing equal pay for equal work for both men and women”.The court has aimed to include basic simple everyday rights that must be observed. In Francis Coralie v. Union, the court observed that “Right to life includes the right to life with dignity along with it – namely, the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing, and shelter.” In Rudal v. State of Bihar court stated the citizens right to know was part of Article 21 and recognized the right as a necessary ingredient of participatory democracy. The court recently discussed the right to not listen and keep silent, in Om Birangana Religious Society v. State, wherein it was observed that no authority can grant permission to make the public captive listeners along with people’s right to sleep.

Conclusion

Human rights are basic fundamental rights integral to the development of human beings and surroundings in the absence of a person who cannot live life with dignity.

The Indian Judiciary in recent times relaxed the rule of locus standi for the protection of human rights leading to the inception of Public Interest Litigation. This has helped the court reach grassroots levels of human rights violations and reinforce and protect them. The Courts protected the rights of women, workers, children, and prisoners through this judicial activism. It is almost considered that the judiciary is playing the role of savior of human rights such that people can live with dignity. Certainly, this quest for socio-economic justice by the judiciary is considered at times to be overstepping the limits of its judicial function and trespassing into the areas of the legislature and the executive.

However, judicial activism has become inevitable in the ever-growing civilization set-up leaving various areas of concern open and in nature as the judiciary is the guardian of our Constitution of India. The Indian Supreme Court has shown that to any extent can be touched to protect and enforce fundamental rights by way of incorporating various unspecified human rights into Article 21 of the Constitution.