In the world of legal philosophy, the debate over whether human rights are a grant from the state or inherent is the foundation of how we interpret the law. The modern consensus, backed by international law, is that human rights are inherent, though they require a legal grant to be enforceable in court.
1. The "Inherent" View (Natural Law Theory)
Inherent by virtue of being human.
Inalienable rights: meaning they cannot be given away or taken by anyone..
Universal, eternal, and independent of any written law.
Analogy: Right to breathe isn't "granted" by a law; it is inherent to our biological existence.
2. The "Grant" View (Legal Positivism)
This view argues that "rights" are a legal fiction until a lawmaker writes them down. In this framework, a right is a "grant" or a gift from the State to its citizens.
3. Modern view
The modern legal system including the Indian Judiciary follows a middle path called "Constitutional Recognition of Inherent Rights."
Rights are Inherent: They belong to you by birth.
The Constitution is a Declaratory Document: The Constitution does not create these rights; it simply recognizes and protects them.
Landmark Case: ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976)
This is the most famous "Grant vs. Inherent" battle in Indian history.
Justice H.R. Khanna famously argued that the Right to Life is inherent. Even if Article 21 is suspended, the state has no inherent power to take a life without the authority of law.
No comments:
Post a Comment