Human rights and the Indian Constitution - Human Rights Law and Practice

← All Human Rights Law and Practice topics Past papers

On this page

1. The Constitution as a human rights document
2. Treaties in Indian law
3. The role of courts
4. Problem: the poor accused without a lawyer
5. Problem: the impounded passport
6. Problem: people living without basic amenities
How this is examined

Cases checked to exist. Read the judgment before quoting a holding.

Every case cited here has been checked to exist — the citation resolves and names the right parties. The propositions attributed to each case have not been verified line by line against the judgment. Case names link through to the full judgment: read it before quoting a holding in an examination answer, and never carry a proposition from notes into court on trust.

How to use this note. The Constitutional Law notes already deal with Articles 14 to 32, the writs and the DPSPs. This paper asks something different: how the Constitution gives effect to international human rights, and what Indian courts have done with the treaties. Use those notes for the content of each Article; use this one for the link to the international instruments, and for the problems, which are set in almost every paper.

1. The Constitution as a human rights document

The Constitution was drafted while the UDHR was being written, and the parallels are close. The Preamble’s justice, liberty, equality and fraternity “assuring the dignity of the individual” echo UDHR Article 1.

Part III and civil-political rights. Equality (Arts. 14–18; UDHR Arts. 1, 2, 7; ICCPR Arts. 2, 3, 26); the freedoms of Article 19 (UDHR Arts. 13, 19, 20; ICCPR Arts. 12, 19, 21, 22); protection in respect of conviction (Art. 20; ICCPR Arts. 14(3)(g), 14(7), 15); life and personal liberty (Art. 21; UDHR Art. 3; ICCPR Arts. 6, 9); arrest and detention (Art. 22; ICCPR Art. 9); exploitation (Arts. 23, 24; ICCPR Art. 8); religion (Arts. 25–28; ICCPR Art. 18); minorities (Arts. 29, 30; ICCPR Art. 27); remedies (Arts. 32, 226; UDHR Art. 8; ICCPR Art. 2(3)).
Part IV and economic-social rights. Article 38 (social order based on justice; UDHR Art. 28); Article 39 (livelihood, equal pay, children; ICESCR Arts. 6, 7, 10); Article 39A (equal justice and free legal aid; ICCPR Art. 14(3)(d)); Article 41 (work, education, public assistance; ICESCR Arts. 6, 9, 13); Article 42 (humane conditions, maternity relief; ICESCR Arts. 7, 10); Article 43 (living wage; ICESCR Art. 7); Article 45 (early childhood care); Article 47 (nutrition and health; ICESCR Arts. 11, 12).
Article 51A lists fundamental duties, reflecting UDHR Article 29(1).
Independent institutions: the National Commissions for Scheduled Castes (Art. 338) and Scheduled Tribes (Art. 338A), and the Special Officer for Linguistic Minorities (Art. 350B).

Some rights in the Covenants are absent from Part III in terms, but the Supreme Court has read them into Article 21 since Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 INSC 16, (1978) 1 SCC 248: the right to travel abroad, speedy trial, legal aid, privacy, livelihood, shelter, health, education, a clean environment, and dignity.

2. Treaties in Indian law

India follows the dualist approach to treaties. Making a treaty is an executive act; under Article 253 Parliament may make any law for implementing a treaty, even on a State List subject. A treaty not enacted into law does not of itself create rights enforceable in Indian courts. Article 51(c), a Directive Principle, asks the State to foster respect for international law and treaty obligations.

The courts have nonetheless given treaties a large role, by three techniques.

Interpretation of statutes. In Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin, 1980 INSC 19, (1980) 2 SCC 360, ICCPR Article 11 was not directly enforceable, but section 51 CPC was read consistently with it and with Article 21: a poor debtor cannot be imprisoned unless he has the means to pay and refuses.
Filling gaps. In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, 1997 INSC 604, (1997) 6 SCC 241, there was no law on sexual harassment at the workplace. The Court held that any international convention not inconsistent with the fundamental rights and in harmony with their spirit must be read into them, and framed guidelines based on CEDAW, binding until Parliament legislated.
Giving content to Article 21. In PUCL v. Union of India, 1996 INSC 1509, (1997) 1 SCC 301, ICCPR Article 17 and UDHR Article 12 were used to hold telephone tapping an invasion of privacy, and procedural safeguards were laid down. In National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, 2014 INSC 275, (2014) 5 SCC 438, the Yogyakarta Principles informed recognition of transgender persons as a third gender.

3. The role of courts

The courts are the main protectors of human rights in India. Articles 32 and 226 (see the Constitutional Law note on writs and PIL) give a direct remedy; the five writs, habeas corpus in particular, are the oldest human rights remedies. Three developments of the 1980s matter for this paper.

Public interest litigation, with relaxed standing and letters treated as petitions, allowed NGOs and journalists to raise the cases of prisoners, bonded labourers and pavement dwellers.
Compensation as a public law remedy for violation of Article 21: Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, 1983 INSC 85, (1983) 4 SCC 141 (detention for fourteen years after acquittal), and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, 1993 INSC 113, (1993) 2 SCC 746 (custodial death).
Guidelines where the law is silent: arrest and custody in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, 1996 INSC 1508, (1997) 1 SCC 416; workplace harassment in Vishaka.

4. Problem: the poor accused without a lawyer

A poor woman accused of pickpocketing is arrested and produced before the court. She cannot afford a lawyer. Does the State have any duty? (January 2026)

Issue. Whether the State must provide free legal assistance to an indigent accused, and at what stage.

Law.

Article 39A directs the State to provide free legal aid so that opportunities for securing justice are not denied by reason of economic or other disabilities. Article 22(1) gives an arrested person the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of choice.
M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, 1978 INSC 137, (1978) 3 SCC 544: free legal service to a prisoner who cannot afford it is part of the fair procedure required by Article 21.
Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, 1979 INSC 66, (1980) 1 SCC 98: the right to free legal services is an essential ingredient of reasonable, fair and just procedure for a person accused of an offence, implicit in Article 21.
Khatri v. State of Bihar, 1980 INSC 241, (1981) 1 SCC 627 (the Bhagalpur blinding case): the State’s duty arises when the accused is first produced before the Magistrate, and the Magistrate must inform the accused of the right to free legal aid.
Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, 1986 INSC 31, (1986) 2 SCC 401: the right does not depend on the accused asking for it; a conviction after a trial in which an unrepresented, indigent accused was not offered legal aid was set aside.
Section 341 BNSS (section 304 CrPC): where the accused in a trial or appeal is unrepresented and has insufficient means, the Court shall assign an advocate at State expense. Section 12(c) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 entitles every woman to legal services, whatever her means.
ICCPR Article 14(3)(d): legal assistance assigned free where the interests of justice require and the accused cannot pay.

Application. She is an accused, indigent, and a woman, so she qualifies twice under section 12. The duty begins at her first production before the Magistrate, who must tell her of the right and assign counsel through the legal services authority. Her not asking makes no difference after Suk Das.

Conclusion. Yes. The State must provide her a lawyer at its expense from the first production. A trial without one would violate Article 21 and any conviction would be liable to be set aside.

5. Problem: the impounded passport

Jaspal, a party leader, plans to go to England. Suspecting he will make serious allegations against the Government there, the Government impounds his passport. Advise Jaspal. (January 2026)

Issue. Whether the impounding violates his fundamental and human rights.

Law. The right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21: Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, 1967 INSC 99, AIR 1967 SC 1836. Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967 allows impounding if the authority deems it necessary in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of India, friendly relations with any foreign country, or the interests of the general public; section 10(5) requires reasons to be recorded and, on demand, furnished. In Maneka Gandhi the passport of a journalist was impounded “in public interest” without a hearing or reasons. The Court held that procedure under Article 21 must be fair, just and reasonable, not arbitrary; that Articles 14, 19 and 21 are not mutually exclusive; that natural justice applies to impounding, at least by a post-decisional hearing; and that freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) is not confined to Indian territory. Internationally, UDHR Article 13(2) and ICCPR Article 12(2) protect the right to leave any country, and ICCPR Article 19 protects expression.

Application. The ground is the Government’s wish to stop criticism of itself. Criticism of the Government is not a threat to sovereignty, security or friendly relations, and silencing it is not a “general public” interest; it is an attempt to restrict speech, which can only be done on the grounds in Article 19(2). The order is arbitrary and violates Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21.

Conclusion. Jaspal should demand the reasons under section 10(5), appeal under the Act, and petition the High Court under Article 226 (or the Supreme Court under Article 32) for certiorari quashing the order. On Maneka Gandhi he should succeed.

6. Problem: people living without basic amenities

Poor people live in remote areas in small huts, without the infrastructure needed to live and develop as human beings. Are their human rights violated? (February 2025)

Article 21 includes the right to live with human dignity and “the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter”: Francis Coralie Mullin, 1981 INSC 11, (1981) 1 SCC 608. Livelihood is part of life (Olga Tellis, 1985 INSC 151) and so is shelter (Chameli Singh v. State of U.P., 1995 INSC 906). ICESCR Article 11 (food, clothing, housing), Article 12 (health) and the minimum core doctrine point the same way. The answer is yes: the State’s failure to provide basic shelter, water, health care and access is a failure of its duty under Article 21 read with Articles 38, 39 and 47 and its obligations under the ICESCR. The remedy is a PIL under Article 32 or 226 for directions, or a complaint to the NHRC or the State Commission under section 12 of the 1993 Act. Note that the duty is to take steps to the maximum of available resources; the court will direct a time-bound scheme, not order instant results.

How this is examined

The essay “Explain the human rights guaranteed and protected under the Indian Constitution” was set in January 2026, February 2025 and August 2024. Write section 1 as a map with the matching UDHR and Covenant Articles, then section 2 and a paragraph on courts; do not reproduce the Constitutional Law answers on each Article. “Writs under the Indian Constitution” (June 2025) and “Role of courts to protect human rights in India” (August 2024) are short notes from section 3 and the writs note. All three problems above come from the January 2026 and February 2025 papers, and Unit IV offers a problem as the alternative to the short note.