Formatted: Left

ASSIGNMENT

Assignment: Introduction to Human Rights

Subject: Human Rights and Duties

Name: Sadia Khan

Enrollment Number: GH7195

Supervisor: Dr. Gazala Parveen

 Definition

What are Human Rights?

Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our
nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, color,
religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our
human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated,
interdependent and indivisible. Universal human rights are often
expressed and guaranteed by law, in the forms of treaties, customary
international law, general principles and other sources of international
law. International human rights law lays down obligations of
Governments to act in certain ways or to refrain from certain acts, to
promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of
individuals or groups.
There can be disagreement about human rights - for example about
which rights are more important or whether a moral or legal right is a
human right. When we talk about human rights we are usually referring
to those principles that the nations of the world have agreed to refer to as
human rights. These have been set down in international agreements and
form part of international law. The rights set out in these agreements are
often also written into the domestic law of individual countries. Human
rights cover virtually every area of human activity. They include civil
and political rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom from torture.
They also include economic and social rights, such as the rights to health
and education. Some rights apply to individuals, such as the right to a
fair trial: these are called individual rights.
Human rights are more than mere demands: they have some special
characteristics that have been agreed by the international community.
One of these characteristics is that human rights are universal. This
means they apply to everyone, regardless of status, race, gender,
nationality or other distinction. Indeed, equality is one of the
fundamental human rights ideas. Another characteristic is that they are
indivisible- people are entitled to all rights, whether they be civil and
political such as the right to a fair trial or economic, social and cultural
such as the right to education.

History Behind Human Rights

In 539 B.C., the armies of Cyrus the Great, the first king of ancient
Persia, conquered the city of Babylon. But it was his next actions that
marked major advance for Man. He freed the slaves, declared that all
people had the right to choose their own religion, and established racial
equality. These and other decrees were recorded on a baked-clay
cylinder in the Akkadian language with cuneiform script known today as
the Cyrus Cylinder, this ancient record has now been recognized as the
world’s first charter of human rights. It is translated into all six official
languages of the United Nations and its provisions parallel the first four
Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Spread of Human Rights

From Babylon, the idea of human rights spread quickly to India, Greece
and eventually Rome. There the concept of “natural law” arose, in
observation of the fact that people tended to follow certain unwritten
laws in the course of life, and Roman law was based on rational ideas
derived from the nature of things. Documents asserting individual rights,
such as the Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right (1628), the US
Constitution (1787), the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of
the Citizen (1789), and the US Bill of Rights (1791) are the written
precursors to many of today’s human rights documents.
 Principles/Features of Human Rights

Universal and inalienable

The principle of universality of human rights is the cornerstone of
international human rights law. This principle, as first emphasized in the
Universal Declaration on Human Rights in 1948, has been reiterated in
numerous international human rights conventions, declarations, and
resolutions. The 1993 Vienna World Conference on Human Rights, for
example, noted that it is the duty of States to promote and protect all
human rights and fundamental freedoms, regardless of their political,
economic and cultural systems. All States have ratified at least one, and
80% of States have ratified four or more, of the core human rights
treaties, reflecting consent of States which creates legal obligations for
them and giving concrete expression to universality. Some fundamental
human rights norms enjoy universal protection by customary
international law across all boundaries and civilizations. Human rights
are inalienable. They should not be taken away, except in specific
situations and according to due process. For example, the right to liberty
may be restricted if a person is found guilty of a crime by a court of law.

Interdependent and indivisible

All human rights are indivisible, whether they are civil and political
rights, such as the right to life, equality before the law and freedom of
expression; economic, social and cultural rights, such as the rights to
work, social security and education, or collective rights, such as the
rights to development and self-determination, are indivisible, interrelated
and interdependent. The improvement of one right facilitates
advancement of the others. Likewise, the deprivation of one right
adversely affects the others.

Equal and non-discriminatory

Non-discrimination is a cross-cutting principle in international human
rights law. The principle is present in all the major human rights treaties
and provides the central theme of some of international human rights
conventions such as the International Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. The
principle applies to everyone in relation to all human rights and
freedoms and it prohibits discrimination based on a list of non-
exhaustive categories such as sex, race, colour and so on. The principle
of non-discrimination is complemented by the principle of equality, as
stated in Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Both Rights and Obligations

Human rights entail both rights and obligations. States assume
obligations and duties under international law to respect, to protect and
to fulfil human rights. The obligation to respect means that States must
refrain from interfering with or curtailing the enjoyment of human
rights. The obligation to protect requires States to protect individuals and
groups against human rights abuses. The obligation to fulfil means that
States must take positive action to facilitate the enjoyment of basic
human rights. At the individual level, we should also respect the human
rights of others.
 Concept of human rights
Today, the concept of human rights is recognised as a universal one, as
can be seen from the declaration adopted by the Vienna World
Conference on Human Rights in 1993 and the United Nations
resolutions passed on the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights in 1998. Smokestacks who question the universality of
human rights should be reminded that states as geographically diverse as
China, Lebanon or Chile were among those who helped to draft the
concept in the 2nd half of the 1940s.Anyway, since then many more
states have expressed their support for the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and ratified the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR) as well as the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) which are based on the
Universal Declaration. The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms
of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) has been ratified by 189
countries, albeit with many reservations, whereas the UN Convention on
the Rights of the Child has been ratified by 196 states.The starting point
of the concept of human rights is the concept of the inherent dignity of
all members of the human family as enshrined in the Universal
Declaration and the International Covenants of 1966, which also
recognised the ideal of free human beings enjoying freedom from fear
and want and being endowed with equal and inalienable rights.
Accordingly, human rights are universal and inalienable, which means
that they apply everywhere and cannot be taken away from the human
person even with his or her agreement.
As stated at the Vienna World Conference on Human Rights in 1993 by
UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali “human rights are birth
rights”.
Human rights are also indivisible and interdependent. Different
dimensions or categories of human rights can be distinguished: civil and
political rights, like freedom of expression, and economic, social and
cultural rights, like the human right to social security, which must be
“progressively realised” because they place financial obligations on the
state. In the past, certain states or groups of states, such as the socialist
states have expressed a preference for economic, social and cultural
rights as opposed to civil and political rights, whereas the United States
and the member states of the Council of Europe showed a certain
preference for civil and political rights. However, at the World
Conference on Human Rights in Tehran in 1968 as well as at the World
Conference on Human Rights in Vienna in 1993, this unproductive
debate was addressed by the recognition of both categories or
dimensions of human rights as being of equal importance. In Tehran in
1968 they were declared as in-divisible and interdependent, because the
full enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights is hardly possible
without civil and political rights and vice versa. In the 1980s, an
additional category of human rights obtained recognition, i.e. the right to
peace, the right to development, and the righto a healthy environment.
These rights provide a framework necessary for the full enjoyment of all
other rights. However, there is no conditionality in the sense that one
category of human rights is a precondition for the other.
The third category is best described as solidarity rights, because they
require international cooperation and aim at community-building.
Human rights need to be distinguished from “animal rights” and “earth
rights” propagated by certain interest groups.
The concept of human rights today is shared globally and as such forms
a basis for the international community of states, international
organisations and social movements, all of which regard themselves as
members of international society. Human rights can also be a means
which people can use as a tool for social transformation.
Therefore, the concept of human rights is closely linked to the concept
of democracy (Right to Democracy). The requirements of the European
Union and the Council of Europe for admission of new members point
in the same direction. How-ever, it will depend on the knowledge and
understanding of human rights by the people themselves and their
readiness to use them as a tool for change that human rights can have
this transformative effect.
The traditional concept of human rights has been criticised by feminists
for not properly reflecting the equality of women and men and for its
lack of gender sensitivity. The World Conferences on Women and the
elaboration of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women have, contributed to a gender-sensitive
approach to the human rights of women, which is also reflected in the
UN Declaration on Violence against Women (Human Rights of
Women). It is important to note that human rights instruments present a
new social and political concept by legally recognising women as full
and equal human beings.
 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 periods 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.
 Human Rights Development in India
1829 - The practice of sati was formally abolished by Governor General
William Bentinck.
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 case that
the basic structure of the Constitution (including many fundamental
rights) is unalterable by a constitutional amendment.
1978 - SC rules in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India that the right to life
under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be suspended even in an
emergency.
1985-6 - The Shah Bano case, where the Supreme Court recognized the
Muslim woman's right to maintenance upon divorce, sparks protests
from Muslim clergy. To 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.

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 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 J. P vs. State of A.P. and others.
● For instance, the decision in Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity
& Ors vs. State of West Bengal & Anr delineates the right to
emergency medical care for accident victims as forming a core
minimum of the right to health.
● The orders in PUCL vs. Union of India underscore the right of
access for those below the poverty line to food supplies as forming
 the bare non-derivable 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 tribal, 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
regarding the aspect of seismic activity. The area of justifiability was
confined to the rehabilitation of those displaced by this Project. By many
two to one, the Court struck out the plea that the SSP had violated the
fundamental rights of the tribal 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’.
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 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.
 CONCLUSION

It is universally recognized that right to life and liberty, and dignity are
inherent in man. These basic human rights are enforceable rights in
every civilized and welfare state because it is futile to talk about a right
without a remedy. The Constitution does not guarantee a right to
compensation for violation of Human Rights. Such a right should be
specifically incorporated in the Constitution. More than forty-five years
have gone after the adoption of the Constitution and we have not been
able to fulfil the constitutional commitments. We have not even been
able to protect and safeguard the human rights provided by the
Constitution or other laws in force for the protection of human rights and
recommend measures for their effective implementation. As the
promotion of Human Rights literacy and research on Human Rights are
the two important objectives of the Human Rights Commission,
experienced academicians should be included in the membership of the
Commission. A National University on Human Rights needs to be
established to promote the study and research on Human Rights. Special
scholarship should be given to the research scholars of Human Rights.
The National Human Rights Commission as well as State Human Rights
Commissions should help and encourage to make telefilms on the
current problems i.e. child labour, bonded labour, child prostitution,
female infanticide, or any violation of Human Rights so that these films
can make the general people aware of their own and others’ rights.