Human Rights Law — Unit I

Human rights are the basic rights and freedoms that belong to every person in the world, simply because he or she is a human being. They are not gifts given by a king, a Parliament, or a Constitution — they exist because a person is born human. A newborn child in a village hut and the President of a country both possess these rights equally, because human rights do not depend on nationality, caste, religion, sex, or wealth. In a law examination, the definition of “human rights” is the foundation stone on which the entire unit of Human Rights Law is built, and an examiner expects a student to state this idea with precision, using accepted legal and statutory language rather than vague general talk.

This topic is important because every other topic in Human Rights Law — the classification of rights, the machinery for their enforcement (such as the National Human Rights Commission), and the remedies available under the Constitution — depends on first understanding what a “human right” actually is. Unless a student can correctly define human rights, he cannot distinguish them from ordinary legal rights, moral rights, or fundamental rights, and cannot answer application-based problem questions in the examination.

• To understand the plain meaning of the term “human rights”.
• To learn the statutory definition given in Section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
• To be able to state at least three juristic definitions of human rights with the name of the jurist.
• To appreciate the international law meaning of human rights as found in the UDHR.
• To distinguish human rights from ordinary legal rights.
• To be able to reproduce a complete, examination-ready definition in 5, 10, and 20 mark formats.

The idea that human beings possess certain rights merely by virtue of being human is very old. It can be traced to natural law thinkers of ancient Greece and Rome, to religious traditions across the world that speak of human dignity, and later to the social contract philosophers of Europe — John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Hobbes — who argued that certain rights (life, liberty, and property) exist in a “state of nature” even before government is formed. These ideas influenced the American Declaration of Independence (1776) and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789). The term “human rights” in its modern international form took shape after the horrors of the Second World War, when the United Nations was formed in 1945 and adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) on 10 December 1948. India, drawing on this international movement and on its own constitutional values, enacted the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, which for the first time gave a statutory definition of “human rights” in Indian law and created the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).

Timeline: - Ancient period → Natural law and religious traditions recognise human dignity - 1690 → Locke’s theory of natural rights (life, liberty, property) - 1776 → American Declaration of Independence - 1789 → French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen - 1945 → United Nations Charter - 1948 → Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted - 1950 → European Convention on Human Rights - 1966 → ICCPR and ICESCR adopted - 1993 → Protection of Human Rights Act enacted in India; NHRC established

In simple language, human rights mean those rights which a person possesses only because he or she is a human being. They are inherent, meaning they are built into a person from birth and are not created or given by any government. They belong equally to all persons everywhere, and no one can be lawfully deprived of them except in the manner and to the extent recognised by law. Human rights protect the basic conditions necessary for a dignified human life — such as the right to live, the right to be free, the right to be treated equally, and the right to live with dignity.

According to the Oxford Dictionary, human rights are “the basic rights and freedoms that belong to every person in the world, from birth until death.” Black’s Law Dictionary describes human rights as those rights which are considered to belong fundamentally to all persons and which are of such a nature that any government which denies them offends against fundamental standards of civilisation. The Concise Oxford Dictionary similarly defines them as “a right which is believed to belong to every person.” These dictionary meanings all stress two common ideas — universality (belonging to every person) and inherence (existing from birth), which a student should always highlight in an answer.

(a) John Locke (1632–1704), English philosopher, father of the theory of natural rights — Locke, in his Two Treatises of Government, argued that in the state of nature every man possesses certain natural rights, namely the right to life, liberty, and property (or “estate”), and that these rights exist prior to and independent of civil society. According to Locke, government is formed by a social contract precisely to protect these pre-existing natural rights, and if a government fails to protect them, the people have the right to resist and replace it. Explanation: Locke’s definition is important because it establishes the idea that rights are not created by the State but exist independently of it — a foundational idea for all later human rights thinking.

(b) Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832), English jurist, founder of legal positivism and utilitarianism — Bentham famously rejected the idea of natural rights, calling them “nonsense upon stilts.” According to Bentham, rights can only exist if they are created and recognised by positive law (law made by the sovereign); there can be no right without a corresponding legal duty enforced by the State. Explanation: Bentham’s positivist view is important in examination answers as the contrasting view to natural law theory — it shows why, in India, human rights needed to be given statutory recognition (through the PHRA, 1993) and constitutional recognition (through Part III) in order to become legally enforceable.

(c) Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, former Judge, Supreme Court of India — Justice Krishna Iyer described human rights as those rights which are basic to the dignified survival of human beings and stressed that human rights are “the modern name for what have been traditionally known as natural rights,” representing the minimum rights which every individual must have against the State and society to live as a human being. Explanation: Krishna Iyer’s formulation is valuable to Indian students because it links the Western natural rights tradition to Indian constitutional practice and to the social-justice orientation of the Indian judiciary.

(d) Durga Das Basu, eminent Indian constitutional law commentator — D.D. Basu defines human rights as “those minimal rights which every individual must have against the State, or other public authority, by virtue of his being a member of the human family, irrespective of any other consideration.” Explanation: Basu’s definition is one of the most quoted in Indian textbooks because it captures three elements at once — the minimum content of the rights, the fact that they are claimed primarily against the State, and the idea of universality arising from membership of “the human family.”

Section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 defines “human rights” as follows: “human rights” means 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 courts in India.

Word-by-word explanation: - “Rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity” — these four words identify the actual subject matter of human rights: the right to live, the right to be free, the right to be treated as an equal, and the right to be treated with dignity as a human being. These correspond closely to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. - “of the individual” — human rights, under this Act, attach to the individual human being, not to a group, community, or corporation as such. - “guaranteed by the Constitution” — this refers to the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution of India (Articles 12 to 35). - “or embodied in the International Covenants” — this refers to rights found in international human rights treaties, and Section 2(f) of the Act clarifies that “International Covenants” means the ICCPR and the ICESCR, both adopted by the UN General Assembly on 16 December 1966. - “and enforceable by courts in India” — this is the crucial limiting phrase. It means that under Indian statutory law, a right is treated as a “human right” for the purposes of the Act only if an Indian court can actually enforce it. A moral or aspirational right that no Indian court can enforce falls outside this narrow statutory definition, even though it may still be a “human right” in the wider philosophical sense.

Human rights can be understood as a bridge between morality and law. Philosophically, they are moral entitlements that every human being possesses because of his or her humanity — the capacity to think, to feel pain, to seek dignity, and to pursue a good life. Legally, in India, they become enforceable only when they are recognised either by the Constitution (as Fundamental Rights) or by international covenants that Indian courts choose to read into domestic law, most often through Article 21 of the Constitution. This dual character — moral foundation plus legal enforceability — is what a complete definition of human rights must capture. A good examination answer should therefore always combine (i) the philosophical/natural-law meaning, (ii) at least two juristic definitions, and (iii) the exact statutory definition under Section 2(d) of the PHRA, 1993.

Human rights are inherent (born with the person), inalienable (cannot be given away or taken away except by law), universal (apply to all persons everywhere), indivisible (all rights are equally important; one cannot be sacrificed for another), interdependent (the enjoyment of one right often depends on another), and they impose corresponding obligations mainly on the State.

• They exist independent of recognition by any State (though enforcement requires recognition).
• They cannot ordinarily be sold, transferred, or waived.
• They apply equally without discrimination on grounds of race, sex, religion, or nationality.
• They are protected by both domestic constitutional law and international law.
• They evolve over time — new rights (such as the right to privacy or a healthy environment) are recognised as society develops.

Human rights are commonly classified into civil and political rights (e.g., right to life, free speech, right to vote) and economic, social and cultural rights (e.g., right to work, education, health). They may also be classified generation-wise: first-generation (civil-political), second-generation (economic-social-cultural), and third-generation (collective/solidarity rights such as right to development and a clean environment).

The importance of a correct definition lies in the fact that it fixes the boundary of what a court, the NHRC, or an international body can protect. Without a clear definition, claims could be endlessly expanded or arbitrarily denied.

A settled definition gives certainty to citizens about what they can claim, gives courts a workable standard for adjudication, allows international comparison and cooperation, and gives the NHRC a statutory basis on which to investigate complaints.

Critics point out that the Section 2(d) definition is narrow because it limits “human rights” only to what is “enforceable by courts in India,” which excludes many economic and social rights (directive principles) that are not directly enforceable, even though they are essential to human dignity. This has been criticised as diluting India’s international human rights commitments at the domestic statutory level.

The definition is applied whenever the NHRC decides if a complaint (e.g., custodial death, police torture, denial of medical aid to a prisoner) falls within its jurisdiction under the Act; it is also applied by courts when deciding whether a claim can be entertained as one relating to “life, liberty, equality and dignity” under Article 21.

Article 14 (equality before law), Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty), Article 32 (right to constitutional remedies), Article 12 (definition of “State”), and Article 13 (laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are void) are the core provisions that give constitutional teeth to the statutory definition of human rights.

Section 2(d) (definition of human rights), Section 2(f) (definition of International Covenants), Section 3 (constitution of NHRC), and Section 12 (functions of NHRC) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

Article 1 of the UDHR (1948) states: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” Article 2 of the UDHR adds that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms in the Declaration without distinction of any kind. Article 6 of the ICCPR protects the right to life, and Article 2 of the ICESCR requires States to progressively realise economic, social and cultural rights.

Case 1: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461; (1973) 4 SCC 225 Facts: Swami Kesavananda Bharati challenged Kerala land reform legislation that affected his mutt’s property, questioning the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. Issue: Whether Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 is unlimited, and whether it can abrogate Fundamental Rights. Judgment: A 13-judge bench held, by a 7:6 majority, that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but cannot destroy or alter the “basic structure” of the Constitution. Ratio Decidendi: The basic structure of the Constitution — including the rule of law, judicial review, and fundamental rights of a basic character — cannot be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment. Importance: This case is foundational because it places core human rights and constitutional values permanently beyond the destructive reach of transient political majorities. Examination Use: Cite this case to show that human rights guaranteed under the Constitution enjoy a protected, near-permanent status in Indian law.

Case 2: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 Facts: The petitioner’s passport was impounded by the government without giving her a reason or a hearing. Issue: Whether the procedure under the Passport Act, which allowed impounding of a passport without a hearing, violated Article 21. Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the “procedure established by law” under Article 21 must be fair, just, and reasonable, and not arbitrary; it also held that Articles 14, 19, and 21 are interlinked (the “golden triangle”). Ratio Decidendi: Right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 is not confined to mere animal existence but includes the right to live with human dignity, and the procedure depriving a person of that right must satisfy the test of fairness. Importance: This case massively expanded the definitional content of the right to life, giving concrete constitutional meaning to “dignity,” a key word in Section 2(d) of the PHRA. Examination Use: Use this case to prove how judicial interpretation gives living content to the abstract statutory words “life, liberty, equality and dignity.”

Not applicable directly to this narrow definitional question, though students may refer to the Barcelona Traction case (ICJ, 1970) for the concept of erga omnes obligations owed by States to the international community regarding basic human rights.

A prisoner who is tortured in police custody is being denied the human right to dignity and freedom from torture. A domestic worker paid less than the minimum wage because of her gender is being denied the human right to equality. A homeless person denied any shelter during winter faces a violation touching the human right to life with dignity.

• Human rights belong to a person purely because he/she is human.
• They are inherent, inalienable, and universal.
• Section 2(d) PHRA, 1993 defines them as rights of life, liberty, equality and dignity, guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in International Covenants, and enforceable by Indian courts.
• Jurists like Locke, Bentham, Krishna Iyer, and D.D. Basu give differing but complementary definitions.
• Article 1 UDHR is the starting point of the modern international definition.

Inherent, inalienable, universal, dignity, natural rights, positive law, Section 2(d), International Covenants, enforceable, life and liberty, equality, NHRC.

Examiner’s Tip: Always reproduce Section 2(d) of the PHRA, 1993 word for word — examiners specifically award marks for the exact statutory language, especially the phrase “enforceable by courts in India.”

Common Mistake: Students often confuse “human rights” with “fundamental rights” and treat them as identical; fundamental rights are only the constitutionally guaranteed subset of the wider category of human rights.

High-Scoring Point: Quoting both Article 1 UDHR and Section 2(d) PHRA together, and then explicitly comparing the “moral” versus “legal/statutory” character of human rights, is the single most reliable way to secure full marks in this question.

To conclude, human rights are the basic entitlements that flow from being human, philosophically rooted in natural law and human dignity, and given concrete legal shape in India through Article 21 of the Constitution and Section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. A complete definition must combine the moral, juristic, and statutory dimensions.

• Meaning: rights owed to a person because he/she is human.
• Dictionary: basic rights/freedoms belonging to every person from birth.
• Locke: natural rights of life, liberty, property.
• Bentham: rights exist only through positive law.
• Krishna Iyer: modern name for natural rights, minimum rights for dignified survival.
• D.D. Basu: minimal rights against the State by virtue of membership of human family.
• Section 2(d) PHRA 1993: rights of life, liberty, equality, dignity — guaranteed by Constitution/International Covenants — enforceable by Indian courts.
• Article 1 UDHR: all human beings born free and equal in dignity and rights.
• Key cases: Kesavananda Bharati (basic structure protects rights), Maneka Gandhi (dignity content of Article 21).

Human Rights = rights a person has simply for being human → inherent, universal, inalienable → in India, statutorily defined in Section 2(d) PHRA 1993 as rights of life, liberty, equality, and dignity, guaranteed by the Constitution or International Covenants, enforceable by Indian courts.

Human rights are the basic rights and freedoms that belong to every person simply because he or she is a human being. They are inherent, universal, and inalienable, meaning they cannot ordinarily be taken away. John Locke described them as natural rights to life, liberty, and property existing even before government. D.D. Basu defined human rights as the minimal rights every individual must have against the State by virtue of membership of the human family. In India, Section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 defines “human rights” as the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual, guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in International Covenants, and enforceable by courts in India. Article 1 of the UDHR similarly declares that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

Introduction: Human rights are those basic rights and freedoms which every person possesses simply by virtue of being a human being, regardless of nationality, sex, religion, caste, or any other status. They form the foundation of dignified human existence and are recognised both by domestic constitutions and international law.

Body: Philosophically, human rights trace their origin to natural law thinkers such as John Locke, who argued that human beings possess natural rights to life, liberty, and property even in the state of nature, prior to the formation of government. In contrast, Jeremy Bentham rejected natural rights as “nonsense upon stilts,” insisting that rights only exist when created by positive law and backed by State enforcement. Indian jurists have added valuable perspectives: Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer described human rights as the modern name for natural rights, representing the minimum entitlements necessary for a dignified human existence, while Durga Das Basu defined them as the minimal rights every individual must have against the State by virtue of membership of the human family, irrespective of any other consideration.

At the statutory level in India, Section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 provides the operative legal definition: human rights “means 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 courts in India.” This definition combines constitutional guarantees under Part III of the Constitution with international covenants (the ICCPR and ICESCR), but importantly restricts protection under the Act to rights that are actually enforceable by Indian courts. At the international level, Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 declares that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Conclusion: Human rights, therefore, must be understood at three levels — as a moral/philosophical claim rooted in human dignity, as a juristic concept variously defined by scholars, and as a precise statutory entitlement under Section 2(d) of the PHRA, 1993, enforceable through constitutional remedies and the machinery of the NHRC.

Introduction

Human rights represent the most fundamental category of rights known to law — rights that belong to a person not because of citizenship, contract, or status, but purely because he or she is a human being. They form the bedrock of any society that claims to respect human dignity, and their study is the natural starting point of any course on Human Rights Law.

Meaning and General Definitions

In ordinary language, human rights are the basic rights and freedoms to which every person is entitled from birth until death. The Oxford Dictionary defines them precisely in these terms, while Black’s Law Dictionary describes them as rights so fundamental to every person that any government denying them offends the basic standards of civilisation. Two ideas recur in every general definition: universality (they belong to all humans) and inherence (they exist from birth, not by grant).

Juristic Definitions

Different jurists have approached the definition from different angles. John Locke, writing in the seventeenth century, held that natural rights to life, liberty, and property exist even in the state of nature, and that government exists only to protect these pre-existing rights. Jeremy Bentham took the opposite, positivist view, arguing that rights can exist only when created and enforced by positive law, famously dismissing natural rights as “nonsense upon stilts.” Indian jurisprudence has contributed its own formulations: Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer described human rights as the modern name for natural rights and as the minimum rights necessary for a dignified human existence, connecting Western natural-rights theory to Indian constitutional practice. Durga Das Basu, one of India’s most respected constitutional commentators, defined human rights as the minimal rights every individual must have against the State by virtue of being a member of the human family, irrespective of any other consideration. Reading these definitions together shows the tension, and the eventual reconciliation, between natural-law and positivist thinking that runs through the whole subject.

Statutory Definition under the PHRA, 1993

Section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 gives the operative Indian legal definition: “human rights” means 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 courts in India. Each element of this definition matters. The substantive core is four values — life, liberty, equality, and dignity — corresponding closely to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The source can be either the Constitution of India or the International Covenants (defined under Section 2(f) as the ICCPR and ICESCR of 1966). The crucial qualifying phrase is “enforceable by courts in India,” which narrows the definition for statutory purposes to justiciable rights, excluding purely aspirational or non-justiciable claims.

International Definition

Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, and are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. This provision is the philosophical anchor of the entire international human rights framework and strongly influenced the drafting of Part III of the Indian Constitution.

Judicial Illustration

In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461, the Supreme Court held that Parliament cannot destroy the basic structure of the Constitution, thereby placing core human rights values beyond ordinary political interference. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, the Court held that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 includes the right to live with human dignity and that any procedure depriving a person of this right must be fair, just, and reasonable — giving living, judicially enforced content to the word “dignity” found in Section 2(d) of the PHRA.

Conclusion

Human rights, taken together, are best defined as those basic, inherent, and universal entitlements — chiefly relating to life, liberty, equality, and dignity — that every human being possesses simply by virtue of being human, and which in India receive concrete legal protection through the Constitution, the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and international covenants, as interpreted and enforced by the constitutional courts.

Mnemonic: Remember “LEED” for the four core values in Section 2(d) — Life, Equality, Equality(dignity paired), Dignity — or more precisely “LLED”: Life, Liberty, Equality, Dignity.

Memory Trick: Think “Born Human = Born with Rights” — no application form needed.

Flowchart: Human Being ↓ Inherent Dignity ↓ Natural/Moral Rights ↓ Recognition by Constitution/International Covenants ↓ Enforcement by Courts = Human Rights (Sec. 2(d) PHRA)

Mind Map:

Human Rights ├── Meaning │ ├── Inherent │ └── Universal ├── Juristic Definitions │ ├── Locke – natural rights │ ├── Bentham – positive law only │ ├── Krishna Iyer – minimum dignity rights │ └── D.D. Basu – minimal rights vs State ├── Statutory Definition │ └── Sec. 2(d) PHRA 1993 └── International Instrument └── Article 1 UDHR

Tree Diagram:

Human Rights ├── Civil & Political Rights ├── Economic, Social & Cultural Rights └── Collective/Solidarity Rights

Q: Is Section 2(d) the only definition of human rights recognised in India? A: No, it is the statutory definition for purposes of the PHRA, 1993 and NHRC jurisdiction; courts also draw a wider meaning from Article 21 and international law.

Q: Are human rights the same as fundamental rights? A: No. Fundamental rights (Part III of the Constitution) are the constitutionally guaranteed subset; human rights is the broader category, which also includes rights under international covenants.

Q: Why does Section 2(d) restrict human rights to what is “enforceable by courts in India”? A: To give the definition practical, justiciable content and to fix clear jurisdiction for the NHRC and courts, though this is criticised as narrowing the concept.

• What is the literal meaning of “inherent” in the context of human rights?
• Name two jurists who gave opposing views (natural law vs positivism) on the source of rights.
• Which section of which Act defines “human rights” in Indian statutory law?

• “Human rights are those rights without which a person cannot live as a human being.” Discuss.
• Explain the statutory definition of human rights under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
• Critically examine the definition of human rights given by various jurists.