Human rights are two simple words that, when combined, form the cornerstone of our existence. "Inalienable fundamental rights to which person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being" is the popular understanding of human rights.

With its multicultural, multiethnic, and multireligious populace, India is a heterogeneous nation where maintaining human rights is essential to a harmonious coexistence. Since human rights are so vast, it is impossible to define them all. Nevertheless, the Human Rights Act of 1993 attempts to define human rights as "the rights relating to life, liberty, equality, and dignity of individual guaranteed by Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India."

Active Role of Judiciary

All human rights are, of course, legal rights; nevertheless, it is regrettable that not all human rights have been made into legal rights to this day. The reason for this is that since the law follows the action, it is impossible to codify every likely law in advance of the protection of human rights. In these situations, the principle of natural justice or the due process of law actively serve to protect people's rights in the absence of legislation.

Human rights are wonderful since they are universally applicable; the trick is in putting them into practice. The preservation of human rights is, at its core, the primary goal shared by the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the democratic government. They work to protect each other's and the nation's citizens' human rights.

Undoubtedly, the judiciary has been instrumental in safeguarding human rights throughout the years. Many of the most repugnant human rights violations, such as child marriage, sati, honor killings, slavery, child labor, etc., have been completely eradicated as a result of rigorous enforcement actions by the judiciary and general public awareness.

The Indian Constitution, which guarantees fundamental rights and gives the Supreme Court of India and High Courts the authority to uphold them, places a high value on human rights. The fact that India has ratified, subject to certain restrictions, international conventions on civil, political, social, and cultural rights is also significant.

With its broadest understanding of upholding human rights, the Indian judiciary has aided in the development of the country and the objective of making India a thriving state. Human rights are defined as "the rights relating to life, liberty, equality, and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by the Court of India" in Section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. Thus, it is clear that courts are crucial to upholding people's rights.

Barriers

Ensuring the preservation of human rights should be the top priority for all national courts. There are certain obstacles that I feel need to be removed.

• Refusing to use the legal system out of fear or financial hardship.
• An overwhelming amount of laws.
• High-cost legal processes.
• Insufficient Legal Aid Programs.
• Insufficient knowledge of the laws, the rights they grant, and the customs that are in place.
• The inability of legal systems to offer effective, reasonable, preventive, and nondiscriminatory remedies.
• Public participation in reform movements is lacking.

PIL serves as a great example to use at this time. We have witnessed numerous injustices being addressed through the PIL process throughout our lives. I can clearly remember a handful that, in the past few decades, have been brought before the Supreme Court: unable to obtain food; famine fatalities; inequitable distribution of government housing; ban on smoking in public areas; inquiry into suspected bribery;

Some Instances:
In Hussainara Khatoon and others vs. Home Secretary State of Bihar AIR 1979 SC 1360, the Supreme Court expressed distress over the "travesty of justice" resulting from undertrial prisoners being held for extended periods of time because of irrationally high bail requirements set by the police or the magistrate. The court also issued necessary corrective guidelines, ruling that "the procedure established by law" for denying someone their personal liberty or life (Article 21) must also be "reasonable, fair, and just."

The practice of using handcuffs and fetters on prisoners violates the guarantee of basic human dignity, which is part of India's constitutional culture. As a result, it fails the test of equality before the law (Article 14), fundamental freedoms (Article 19), and the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21). This ruling was made by the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980) 3 SCC 526. The statement read, "To torture a man, defile his dignity, vulgarize society, and foul the soul of our constitutional culture is to bind him hand and foot, fetter his limbs with hoops of steel, shuffle him along in the streets, and stand him for hours in the courts."

The Supreme Court affirmed the judiciary's jurisdiction as a "protector of civil liberties" in Smt.Nilabati Behera @ Lalita Behera vs. State of Orissa & Ors. (1993) 2 SCC 746. The court held that the State was obligated to "repair damage caused by officers of State to fundamental rights of the citizens" and to compensate the family members of a person whose life was taken by their wrongful action. The court read into Article 21 the "duty of care" that could not be denied to anyone. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, states that "anyone who has been victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation," and the court cited this provision for this purpose.

The court held in Joginder Kumar vs. State of UP and Others (1994) 4 SCC 260 that "the law of arrest is one of weighing and balancing the rights, liberties of the single individual and those of individuals collectively." On the one hand, individual duties, obligations, and responsibilities are on the other.

The court stated in Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum vs. Union of India & Others (1995) 1 SCC 14 that a "speedy trial is one of the essential requisites of law" and that the guarantee of "equal protection of law" under Article 21 of the Constitution could only have meaning if investigations and trials were expedited.

Enabling Provision
Enabling clauses safeguard the right to enforce the Human Rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The Constitution's Article 226 gives High Courts the authority to issue directives, orders, or writs in the forms of Quo Warranto, Mandamus, Certiorari, Habeas Corpus, and Prohibition to uphold any and all legal rights, including fundamental rights. The Supreme Court is endowed by Article 32, which is a Fundamental Right in and of itself, with the authority to conduct judicial review and to issue writs, orders, and directives for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

It is important to note that Dr. Ambedkar stated, "If I were asked to name any particular article in the Constitution as the most important-an article without which this Constitution would be nullity-I would not refer to any other article except this one." During his speech, he made reference to draft Article 25, which is the current Article 32, in the Constituent Assembly. It is the heart and soul of the Constitution, and I am happy that the House has acknowledged its significance.

"The future evolution of the Indian Constitution will thus depend to a large extent upon the work of the Supreme Court and the direction given to it by the Court, while its function may be one of interpreting the Constitution...it cannot in the discharge of its duties afford to ignore the social, economic, and political tendencies of the time which furnish the necessary background," Alladi Krishnaswami Aiyar also said during the Constituent Assembly debates. And these guesses have shown to be accurate. Any anyone who feels wronged can go directly to the higher courts to get prompt redress against the government for violating any fundamental right.

Final Remarks
Human rights today encompass more than just the ability to live in dignity. Human rights are divided into three generations by the International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Third-generation human rights refer to the right to self-determination and the right to development. First-generation human rights are fundamentally civil and political in nature, as well as strongly individualistic; Second-generation human rights are essentially economic, social, and cultural in nature, guaranteeing different members of the citizenry equal conditions and treatment.

The judicial branch should work more to stop human rights violations because as the scope of human rights expands, so does the jurisdiction for their protection.

In the history of judiciaries worldwide, the Indian judiciary is playing a unique role. Therefore, it needs to demonstrate that it is deserving of the public's faith and confidence. The nation's respect for the judiciary will only be gained if it goes beyond its traditional role of mediating disputes between parties and instead contributes to the development of the nation and the establishment of a social order in which all citizens have access to the basic economic needs of a civilized life, such as work, housing, healthcare, education, and so forth.

Written By: Akanksha