Abstract
The foundation of a fair and civilized society is human rights. It defends people’s freedom and self-respect from oppression and tyranny. The protection of human rights was significantly helped by the Indian judiciary. This paper explores the evolving landscape of human rights. It examines how constitutional courts in India have played a crucial role in expanding the concept of justice by analyzing judgments, Public Interest Litigation, and Judicial activism. Recent amendments like the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019, which was implemented in 2024, and new criminal laws of 2024 are analyzed for their impact on rights.
Keywords
Human Rights, Judiciary, Judicial Activism, Fundamental Rights, Citizenship Amendment Act, India
Historical Evolution of Judicial Role in Human Rights
In India, the idea of human rights wasn’t created at once. They were mentioned in the Vedas, Manusmriti, and Arthashastra. It also stems from colonial times, when people lived under despotic rule with minimal rights. This made the demand for freedom and justice. Due process and the fairness of the law were established in Europe by the Magna Carta in 1215. All of these concepts had an impact on constitutional thought. After gaining independence, the constitution framers enshrined Fundamental Rights in the constitution and vested the judiciary with the responsibility to act as their protector. Dr B.R. Ambedkar had once said, “If I were asked to name any particular article in this Constitution as the most important — an article without which this Constitution would be a nullity — I could not refer to any other article except this one (Article 32). It is the very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it.” The Supreme Court and High Court were given power under Articles 32 and 226 to do complete justice. It allows an individual to approach the court if they believe that their fundamental rights have been violated or need to be enforced.
From the Beginning, the judiciary has always played a major role in defining and expanding the scope of Human Rights. In the AK Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) The court was of the view that liberty can be restricted as long as the procedure is established by the law. In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India In this case, the court held that any law that affects life and liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable and within the lawful boundaries of the Constitution. Because of this, Article 21 is among the strongest safeguards for human rights. In Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala the court created the basic structure of the constitution, which cannot even be amended by the parliament.
Introduction
Human rights are conceptualized to be certain rights that are given to humans by virtue of being human beings. India is the biggest democratic country in the world, and one of the major goals of a democratic country is to protect people’s basic rights. The greatest value of human life is best represented in respecting the fundamental rights and allowing people to enjoy and exercise these rights to the extent that preserves humanity. Every democratic society is built on human rights, which ensure that every person has freedom, equality, and dignity. These rights are primarily safeguarded in India by the Constitution’s Fundamental Rights (Part III), which the Directive Principles of State Policy further enhance. Our constitution puts the responsibility on the Judiciary to protect human rights, and in case of any violation, it is empowered to protect the people and restore them. Also, the object behind various legislations and the creation of different organs of the state is nothing but to ensure the overall welfare of the citizens and protect their life, dignity, liberty, and human rights. Apart from the Higher courts of the country, the subordinate courts also play a very important role in protecting the human rights of the citizens.
Also, India became one of the signatory Countries of the United Nations Organization, having made a commitment to respect and protect the Human rights declared and accepted by the United Nations. It requires the signatory countries to acknowledge human rights in their constitution and domestic laws. India, being a signatory, put fundamental rights in the Indian constitution, enforceable since 26 January 1950. Human rights are now given importance in international agreements, treaties, covenants, and domestic law. The focus of this paper is on how the judiciary plays a significant role in safeguarding Human rights.
Both Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights are guaranteed by the Constitution, and courts frequently combine the two to extend rights like livelihood and education. By granting bail, offering legal assistance, and ensuring prompt trials, district courts and magistrates also play a significant role in protecting rights, in addition to the Supreme Court and High Courts. In the modern world, the judiciary’s role has expanded beyond merely defending citizens against the government to include upholding rights like privacy, health, education, and even a clean environment. This demonstrates how human rights evolve and how the judiciary strives to maintain their significance for all.
Procedural Safeguards under CPC and CrPC
The Protection of Human rights isn’t limited to the constitution but can also be seen through the procedural laws. The Civil Procedure Code ensures fairness in civil disputes through notices, appeals, and evidence. The Code of Criminal Procedure of the Court, which is now replaced by the BNSS, is made to safeguard the rights of he accused and witnesses. It talks about arrest with or without a warrant, search, and seizure of the property. etc. The Indian Constitution’s Articles 14, 19, 21, and 22 serve as the foundation for these codes. The courts have not only the duty to ensure that the due process of these codes is being followed, but also to ensure that police practices are being strictly followed. For example, when a person is arrested without a warrant, the police can handcuff the accused only when he satisfies the guidelines given by the Supreme Court. According to Section 162 prohibits statements that are given in police custody from not used as evidence in the court, and Section 164 which talks about recording confessions before a magistrate.
The BNSS reform that has been recently introduced is more victim-centric. It introduced strict timelines for investigation and trials. For instance, the investigation should be finished within 90-180 days, depending upon the offense. Also, the courts have to frame the charges within 60 days. It introduces mandatory bail for first-time offenders after serving one-third of the sentence. The BNSS establishes fair trial measures like timelines, protection of witnesses and victims, which are in respect of the Human Rights. Even in the case of Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar the Supreme Court was of the view that the state cannot avoid its constitutional obligation to provide a speedy trial by taking the defence of financial or administrative inability.
Role of the Law Commission of India in Human Rights Protection
The government established the Law Commission of India to examine present laws and recommend amendments. Although it does not enact laws on its own, its reports are crucial because they frequently serve as guidelines for the judiciary and Parliament. The Commission’s work has brought attention to several human rights-related issues, including access to justice, electoral reforms, the treatment of women in detention, and torture in detention.
For instance, the Commission’s 113th Report recommended that, unless proven otherwise, the law should assume that the police are to blame when someone passes away while in their custody. Later, in the well-known case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court took notice of this concept and established guidelines to stop torture in detention. In the same way, the 273rd Report called for a special anti-torture law to bring India into compliance with international standards, while the 135th Report on Women in Custody suggested protections for female inmates.
Law Commission reports have frequently been cited by Indian courts in their decision-making. This illustrates the manner in which the judiciary is supported by professional research and policy recommendations rather than operating independently. By assisting legislators and judges in crafting laws and rulings that support the values of equality, liberty, and dignity, the Law Commission indirectly but significantly contributes to the protection of human rights.
Recent Amendments and Legislative Developments (2020–2025)
Human rights protection has been impacted by major changes made to the Indian legal system in recent years. These changes demonstrate how the judiciary’s role in interpreting and upholding fundamental rights is constantly changing. Important modifications consist of:
1. The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) of 2019 will go into effect in 2024. Certain minority groups from nearby nations are granted citizenship under this law. Its effects on Article 14’s right to equality have generated a lot of discussion. The judiciary is still keeping an eye on the Act’s implementation and has received numerous petitions contesting it.
2. The 2024 Criminal Law Reforms Amendments strengthened the penalties for crimes against marginalized communities, cybercrimes, and sexual offenses. These changes fortify procedural safeguards and improve victim protection.
3. The 2023 Data Protection Act: By controlling the collection, keeping, and processing of personal data, this Act upholds the right to privacy that is mentioned under Article 21. It addresses modern technological issues and echoes the court’s previous privacy rulings.
4. The 2022 Amendment Rules for Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights):These regulations strengthen equality and non-discrimination principles by offering more transparent procedures for legal recognition, access to social welfare programs, work opportunities, and education.
5. The Juvenile Justice (Amendment) Act of 2021 gave District Magistrates more authority over adoption and rehabilitation while introducing measures to safeguard children in need of care and those in conflict with the law.
6. The goals of the 2024 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam These are comprehensive reforms of the criminal justice system that will improve trials, increase transparency, and guarantee the right to a fair trial.
The complex link between judicial interpretation and legislation is highlighted by these legislative developments. To make sure that legislative changes are in line with constitutional safeguards and international human rights obligations, the judiciary still plays an important role.
Judicial Activism and Landmark Judgments (2020–2025):
Through judicial activism and public interest litigation, the Indian judiciary has actively interpreted constitutional provisions to protect human rights, frequently crossing traditional legal boundaries. The court’s proactive approach to tackling new social, technological, and health issues is demonstrated by recent rulings:
The Supreme Court affirmed reproductive rights and medical confidentiality in X v. Union of India, strengthening Article 21 protections and building on the privacy ruling in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). In Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar PradeshThe Court balanced concerns about hate speech and public order while extending the reach of free speech under Article 19. The 2021–2023 National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) follow-up orders instructed states to put welfare and anti-discrimination policies in place for transgender people, guaranteeing their legal recognition, social inclusion, and equal opportunity. In the Cases of COVID-19 Suo Motu (2020–2021), the Supreme Court stepped in during the pandemic to defend the right to health, protect migrant workers, and guarantee access to oxygen and medical supplies. The judiciary’s role in protecting human rights in an emergency was demonstrated by these actions. Vrinda Grover v. Union of India (2024) strengthened witness protection procedures and increased accountability in cases of torture committed while a person was in custody, highlighting the judiciary’s dedication to protecting procedural justice and human dignity.Petitions about the CAA (2024–2025) The Citizenship Amendment Act was contested in a number of petitions on the grounds of discrimination and Article 14 violations. The judiciary’s ongoing involvement shows how legislative intent and constitutional protections can coexist.
These cases demonstrate how the judiciary in India is developing its role in upholding fundamental rights, advancing social justice, and tackling contemporary human rights issues. Together with legislative supervision, judicial activism strengthens the protection of citizens’ rights and guarantees that the Constitution is a living document.
The Bihar Voter Roll Case (2025):
This recent controversy is an important example that shows that the Judiciary plays a big role in the protection of Human Rights. In this, the Election Commission of India carried out a Special Intensive Revision of the electoral rolls in Bihar. During the process of revising, lakhs of names were removed on the grounds of being shifted, deceased, or duplicates. There were many complaints by the genuine voters that their names had been deleted without notice and without proper reasons, and re-inclusion is extremely difficult, as they have to present parental documents. This situation was very serious as genuine citizens couldn’t vote in the upcoming state elections, and it went against Article 14, 21, and the guarantee of Universal Adult Suffrage that is mentioned under Article 326. The case wasn’t only about elections but about protecting basic human rights and the principles of democracy. The matter reached the Supreme Court through petitions filed under Article 32.
The Court told the Election Commission to publish the list of the deleted names and specify the reasons for deletion, and allow them to use Aadhar or any other Single ID to get re-enrolled. The Supreme Court also gives orders to deploy para-legal volunteers to help poor and marginalized citizens reapply. This way, the judiciary stepped in to protect democracy when the ECI was becoming Unfair. It also shows that the court not only protects the rights limited to Life, liberty, and dignity, but also political rights, which also contribute to the enjoyment of human dignity.
Global Practices:
Understanding how courts around the world strike a balance between state interests and the protection of human rights is made easier by looking at international practices. India’s human rights framework can be strengthened with the help of comparative analysis:
1. The US: The definition of individual liberty has been heavily influenced by the U.S. Supreme Court. Debates about privacy and bodily autonomy were triggered by cases such as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), which limited the right to an abortion. The balance between national security, privacy, and freedom of expression is regularly evaluated by courts.
2. United Kingdom: The European Convention on Human Rights has been adopted into domestic law by the Human Rights Act of 1998. In order to make sure that individual liberties are not unduly jeopardized, UK courts regularly assess counterterrorism legislation for proportionality.
3. South Africa: Here, Socioeconomic rights like housing, healthcare, and education are upheld by the Constitutional Court. Its rulings have established a framework for courts to actively oversee governmental obedience to constitutionally guaranteed rights.
4. Canada: With a focus on a useful approach that safeguards marginalized communities, the Supreme Court of Canada regularly interprets the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to support equality, freedom of expression, and minority rights.
The judiciary’s function as a guardian of rights is highlighted when comparing India to these nations. Despite being a leader in judicial activism and public interest litigation, India still faces obstacles like implementation gaps, delays, and new digital threats. India’s human rights jurisprudence can be strengthened by taking inspiration from international practices.
Challenges Faced by the Judiciary
Despite its proactive role, the judiciary faces several obstacles that restrict its ability to completely protect human rights:
1. Judicial Backlog: Overworked courts hinder the quick enforcement of rights by delaying the administration of justice.
2. Implementation Gaps: At the executive level, even progressive rulings are occasionally not effectively carried out.
3. Finding a balance between liberty and national security: laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) raise questions about possible abuse and repression of protest.
4. Technological Difficulties Courts must continually revise their interpretations of privacy and data protection rights in light of new concerns like digital surveillance, cybercrimes, and AI-based decision-making.
5. Limited Access to Justice: Despite constitutional guarantees, marginalized communities frequently struggle to obtain courts and legal remedies.
Recommendations
The following actions are recommended to improve the protection of human rights:
1. Mechanisms for Quick Justice: Creating human rights and rushed courts to cut down on the backlog of cases.
2. Strengthening Legal Aid: Increasing NALSA’s and other legal aid organizations’ reach to assist vulnerable and marginalized groups.
3. Judicial Training: Consistent education campaigns on human rights topics, such as gender justice and digital rights, for judges and legal professionals.
4. International Cooperation: Gaining knowledge from international practices like the proportionality test of the ECHR and the socioeconomic rights enforcement of South Africa.
5. Utilizing digital tools to monitor rights violations, improve case management, and enhance transparency is known as technology integration.
These suggestions seek to improve the court’s capacity to uphold rights while guaranteeing prompt and fair justice.
Conclusion
Since courts have been asked to handle both established and new issues, the judiciary’s role in defending human rights in India has expanded. The Supreme Court and High Courts have made sure that state power does not come at the expense of individual liberty, equality, and dignity by means of judicial review, public interest litigation, and progressive constitutional interpretations. Whether in the context of the Citizenship Amendment Act, the new criminal laws, or the Bihar voter roll case, recent interventions demonstrate that the judiciary still upholds rights by holding the state accountable, transparent, and equitable.
However, the judiciary does not operate in an empty space. Courts use the Law Commission of India’s reports, legislative changes, and international human rights standards as crucial guidelines when extending constitutional protections. However, there are still issues: the boundaries of judicial protection are tested by new threats from technology and national security issues, enforcement gaps, and delays in justice.
Overall, the Indian judiciary has demonstrated that upholding human rights is a constant duty rather than a one-time event. The courts support democracy by defending marginalized populations, demanding due process, and tying India’s legal system to international human rights standards. In order to improve the effectiveness and accessibility of human rights protection for all citizens, greater collaboration between the judiciary, legislature, executive branch, and independent organizations such as the Law Commission will be necessary going forward.
Kirti Mahal, VIPS, 8076466788