The Indian Judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court and the High Courts, has transitioned from a formalistic "legal" institution to a "constitutional" institution that proactively protects the rights of the masses. This transformation is primarily driven by the expansion of Article 21 and the innovation of Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
1. Expansion of Article 21 (Right to Life)
The most significant contribution is the judicial expansion of the "Right to Life and Personal Liberty." The Court moved from a narrow view in A.K. Gopalan to a broad, humanistic view in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978).
Derived Rights: The Judiciary has read several "implied rights" into Article 21, including:
Right to a clean environment (M.C. Mehta cases).
Right to free legal aid (Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary).
Right to privacy (K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India).
Right to education (Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka).
2. Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
The Judiciary relaxed the traditional rule of Locus Standi (which meant only the victim could approach the court). Under the leadership of Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, the Court allowed any public-spirited citizen to approach the court on behalf of the poor and marginalized.
Epistolary Jurisdiction: The Court even treated simple letters or postcards addressed to judges as writ petitions, making justice accessible to the illiterate and the impoverished.
3. Humanizing the Criminal Justice System
The Judiciary has acted as a shield for the "invisible" victims of the state—prisoners and undertrials.
Rights of Prisoners: In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, the court ruled against solitary confinement and the use of bar fetters, emphasizing that "fundamental rights do not end at the prison gates."
Custodial Violence: In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court laid down mandatory guidelines for arrests and detentions to prevent custodial torture and "encounter" deaths.
4. Protection of Vulnerable Groups
The Judiciary has filled "legislative vacuums" by creating guidelines where laws were missing:
Women: In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Court created guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at workplaces because no law existed at the time.
Child Labor: In M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu, the court issued directions to eradicate child labor from hazardous industries.
LGBTQ+ Rights: In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, the Court decriminalized consensual same-sex acts, upholding the dignity of the queer community.
5. The Basic Structure Doctrine
By establishing the Basic Structure Doctrine in Kesavananda Bharati (1973), the Judiciary ensured that the Executive and Legislature cannot use their amending powers to scrap the fundamental rights or the democratic nature of the Constitution. This serves as the ultimate safeguard against authoritarianism.
6. Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint
The Indian Judiciary is often cited globally for its Judicial Activism. Through "Continuous Mandamus," the courts monitor the implementation of their orders (e.g., supervising environmental clean-ups or food security schemes) to ensure that human rights protections exist in reality, not just on paper.
Summary
| Tool/Doctrine | Impact on Human Rights |
| Article 21 Expansion | Transformed "survival" into "life with dignity." |
| PIL | Democratized access to justice for the poor. |
| D.K. Basu Guidelines | Reduced instances of custodial torture. |
| Vishaka Guidelines | Provided safety for women at work. |
| Basic Structure | Prevented the destruction of the Bill of Rights. |
No comments:
Post a Comment