PRESIDENCY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

SUBMITTED SUBMITTED BY
TO
NAME PROF.VAMSIMOHANAMA’AM NAME DIVYASHREE
SCHOOL OF LAW
2016BCL003
 PART-A

Q 1.

A]

Originally, people had rights only because of their membership in a group, such as a family.
Then, in 539 BC, Cyrus the Great, after conquering the city of Babylon, did something totally
unexpected—he freed all slaves to return home. Moreover, he declared people should choose
their own religion. The Cyrus Cylinder, a clay tablet containing his statements, is the first
human rights declaration in history. Human rights is a right given to any of the human being
and the belief that everyone, by virtue of her or his humanity, is entitled to certain human
rights is fairly new. Its roots, however, lie in earlier tradition and documents of many
cultures; it took the catalyst of World War II to propel human rights onto the global stage and
into the global conscience. Throughout much of history, people acquired rights and
responsibilities through their membership in a group – a family, indigenous nation, religion,
class, community, or state. 

The idea of human rights spread quickly to India, Greece and eventually Rome. The most
important advances since then have included:
1215: The Magna Carta—gave people new rights and made the king subject to the law.
1628: The Petition of Right—set out the rights of the people.
1776: The United States Declaration of Independence—proclaimed the right to life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness.
1789: The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen—a document of France,
stating that all citizens are equal under the law.
1948: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights—the first document listing the 30 rights to
which everyone is entitled.

The English Bill of Rights (1689), The French Declaration on the Rights of Man and Citizen
(1789), and the US Constitution and Bill of Rights (1791) the written precursors to many of
today’s human rights documents. Yet many of these documents, when originally translated
into policy, excluded women, people of color, and members of certain social, religious,
economic, and political groups.Contemporary international human rights law and the
establishment of the United Nations (UN) have important historical antecedents. Efforts in
the 19th century to prohibit the slave trade and to limit the horrors of war are prime examples.
In 1919, countries established the International Labor Organization (ILO) to
oversee treaties protecting workers with respect to their rights, including their health and
safety.

Member states of the United Nations pledged to promote respect for the human rights of all.
To advance this goal, the UN established a Commission on Human Rights and charged it
with the task of drafting a document spelling out the meaning of the fundamental rights and
freedoms proclaimed in the Charter. The Commission, guided by Eleanor Roosevelt’s
forceful leadership, captured the world’s attention.

On December 10, 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted by

the 56 members of the United Nations. The vote was unanimous, although eight nations
chose to abstain.

The UDHR, commonly referred to as the international Magna Carta, extended the revolution
in international law ushered in by the United Nations Charter – namely, that how a
government treats its own citizens is now a matter of legitimate international concern, and not
simply a domestic issue. It claims that all rights are interdependent and indivisible. The
influence of the UDHR has been substantial. Its principles have been incorporated into the
constitutions of most of the more than 185 nations now in the UN. Although a declaration is
not a legally binding document, the Universal Declaration has achieved the status
of customary international law because people regard it "as a common standard of
achievement for all people and all nations."

 According to me the most and major role was played by UDHR in the later stage ,but the
first time evolution was started by the the Magna Carta 1215.

B]

The modern human rights era can be traced to struggles to end slavery, genocide,
discrimination, and government oppression. After World War I, many scholars, activists, and
some national leaders called for a declaration and accompanying international system—the
League of Nations—to protect the most basic fundamental rights and human freedoms.
Atrocities during World War II made clear that previous efforts to secure individual rights
and curtail the power of governments to violate these rights were inadequate. The time was
ripe for adoption of a globally recognized instrument that enshrined these values. Thus was
born the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) as part of the emergence of the
United Nations (UN).

The UDHR was the first international document that spelled out the “basic civil, political,
economic, social and cultural rights that all human beings should enjoy.”2 The UN General
Assembly ratified the declaration unanimously on December 10, 1948.3 The vote to adopt the
UDHR was considered a triumph as it unified diverse nations and conflicting political
regimes. The UDHR was not legally binding, though it carried great moral weight. In order to
give the human rights listed in the UDHR the force of law, the United Nations drafted two
covenants, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The division of
rights between these two treaties is artificial, a reflection of the global ideological divide
during the Cold War. Though politics prevented the creation of a unified treaty, the two
covenants are interrelated, and the rights contained in one covenant are necessary to the
fulfillment of the rights contained in the other. Together, the UDHR, ICCPR, and ICESCR
are known as the International Bill of Human Rights. They contain a comprehensive list of
human rights that governments must respect and promote, including: x Right to life; x
Equality; x Security of person; x Freedom from slavery; x Freedom from arbitrary
arrest/detention; x Freedom of movement and residence; x Due process of law; x Freedom of
opinion and expression; x Freedom of association and assembly; x Right to safe and healthy
working conditions; x Right to form trade unions and to strike; x Right to adequate food,
clothing, and housing; x Right to education; and x Right to health.

Why Are Human Rights Important? -Human rights reflect the minimum standards necessary
for people to live with dignity and equality. Human rights give people the freedom to choose
how they live, how they express themselves, and what kind of government they want to
support, among many other things. Human rights also guarantee people the means necessary
to satisfy their basic needs, such as food, housing, and education, so they can take full
advantage of all opportunities. Finally, by guaranteeing life, liberty, and security, human
rights protect people against abuse by individuals and groups who are more powerful.
According to the United Nations, human rights: Ensure that a human being will be able to
fully develop and use human qualities such as intelligence, talent, and conscience and satisfy
his or her spiritual and other needs. Human rights are not just theoretical; they are recognized
standards to which governments are to be held accountable.5 There are five basic tenets
underlying human rights as they apply to all people. Human rights are: x Universal in that
they belong to all people equally regardless of status. All people are born free and equal in
dignity and rights. x Inalienable in that they may not be taken away or transferred. People still
have human rights even when their governments violate those rights. x Interconnected
because the fulfillment or violation of one right affects the fulfillment of all other rights. x
Indivisible as no right can be treated in isolation. No one right is more important than
another. x Non-discriminatory in that human rights should be respected without distinction,
exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, color, age, national or ethnic origin,
language, religion, sex, or any other status, which has the purpose or effect of impairing the
enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

PART -B

Q2

A]

Yes , lapses by the legislature to fill in the lacunae can be violation of human rights. Human
rights are, in such situations protected by the other organs of the state.

Legislative omissions occur in every country and happen when Parliament, which had the
duty to legislate, fails to ensure that the relevant and necessary acts are passed and is
complete, thereby leaving a legal gap, lacunae or vacuum in the legal system. Every country
faces this problem and they deal in one way or another with the issue of legal gaps. In some,
the Constitution act provides that the Constitutional Court or equivalent body has the power
to investigate and assess the constitutionality of legislative gaps and may even provide for a
special procedure for such a situation, whereas others do not allow the Court to have such a
role and the legal gap is dealt with in a different manner.

In India, the Constitutional Court or equivalent body intervenes, it is however made clear that
the Court cannot fill in the legal gap by creating a new act, but often the gap is filled by
interpretation of existing acts, in conformity with the Constitution. The problems of
legislative omissions in constitutional jurisprudence were the topic of a questionnaire
prepared by the Conference of European Constitutional Courts.
Judiciary in every country has an obligation and a Constitutional role to protect Human
Rights of citizens. As per the mandate of the Constitution of India, this function is assigned to
the superior judiciary namely the Supreme Court of India and High courts. The Supreme
Court of India is perhaps one of the most active courts when it comes into the matter of
protection of Human Rights. It has great reputation of independence and credibility. The
preamble of the Constitution of India encapsulates the objectives of the Constitution-makers
to build a new Socio Economic order where there will be Social, Economic and Political
Justice for everyone and equality of status and opportunity for all. This basic objective of the
Constitution mandates every organ of the state, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary
working harmoniously to strive to realize the objectives concretized in the Fundamental
Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy.

A review of the decisions of the Indian Judiciary regarding the protection of Human Rights
indicates that the judiciary has been playing a role of saviour in situations where the
executive and legislature have failed to address the problems of the people. The Supreme
Court has come forward to take corrective measures and provide necessary directions to the
executive and legislature,. However while taking note of the contributions of judiciary one
must not forget that the judicial pronouncements cannot be a protective umbrella for
inefficiency and laxity of executive and legislature. It is the foremost duty of the society and
all its organs to provide justice and correct institutional and human errors affecting basic
needs, dignity and liberty of human beings. Fortunately India has pro-active judiciary. It can
thus be aspired that in the times ahead, people‟s right to live, as a true human beings will
further be strengthened.

From the perusal of the above contribution it is evident that the Indian Judiciary has been
very sensitive and alive to the protection of the Human Rights of the people. It has, through
judicial activism forged new tools and devised new remedies for the purpose of vindicating
the most precious of the precious Human Right to Life and Personal Liberty.

2. B.
According to me, the best steps which have been taken by the state in attempts to safeguard
the human rights of woman are by implementing policies and commissions such as National
Policy for Empowerment of Women, National Mission for Empowerment of Women and
National Commission for Women.

The National Policy for Empowerment of Women (NPEW) was formulated in 2001 as the
blueprint for the future, with the expressive goal of bringing about the advancement,
development and empowerment of women. The NPEW laid down detailed prescriptions to
address discrimination against women, strengthen existing institutions which includes the
legal system, provide better access to health care and other services, equal opportunities for
women's participation in decision-making and mainstreaming gender concerns in the
development process. The policies and programmes of the Government are directed towards
achieving inclusive growth with special focus on women in line with the objective of the
National Policy for Empowerment of Women.

National Mission for Empowerment of Women: Government of India launched the National
Mission for empowerment of women (NMEW) on International Women’s Day in 2010 with
the aim to strengthen overall processes that promote all-round development of women. It has
the mandate to strengthen the inter-sector convergence; facilitate the process of coordinating
all the women’s welfare and socio-economic development programmes across ministries and
departments. The Mission aims to provide a single window service for all programmes run by
the Government for Women under aegis of various Central Ministries

The National Commission for Women was set up as statutory body in January 1992 under the
National Commission for Women Act, 1990 to review the Constitutional and Legal
safeguards for women ; recommend remedial legislative measures ; facilitate redressal of
grievances and to advise the Government on all policy matters affecting women. The
Commission initiated various steps to improve the status of women and worked for their
economic empowerment. It organises consultations, constituted expert committees on
economic empowerment of women, conducts workshops and seminars for gender awareness
and took up publicity campaign against female foeticide, violence against women, in order to
generate awareness in the society against these social evils and human rights of women.

Also the State has enacted various legislative measures intended to ensure equal rights, to
counter social discrimination and various forms of violence, atrocities and crimes against
women to provide support services especially to working women. Although women may be
victims of any of the crimes such as 'Murder', 'Robbery', 'Cheating' Child Marriages, Sati and
forced prostitution and human trafficking etc. The crimes, which are directed specifically
against women, are characterized as 'Crime against Women'.

3.

Individuals with an infectious disease or with exposure to one, whose behavior or movements
pose a significant risk of harm to their communities cannot legitimately claim to possess a
'right' to be free from interference necessary to control the threat. In those instances no right
to be free from interference exists because public health powers may limit personal interests
in autonomy, privacy, free expression, and liberty.

The state and departments of health are the first faced with the role of balancing the rights of
the individual who may be infected or exposed to a disease and the rights of the public to be
healthy and safe. The initial actions of the board of health largely determine the subsequent
actions taken by individuals and groups involved in quarantine. Furthermore, a state should
consider whether there are less restrictive ways to protect public health, as "public health
authorities should adopt the policy that is most likely to promote health and prevent disease
while incurring the fewest possible personal burdens. Instead of automatically quarantining
for Corona, the local boards of health could require mandatory quarantine for it. The state
also has the authority to close any school and prohibit public gatherings for as long as
necessary in order to protect public health. Therefore, in balancing the rights of the
individual, it may be less invasive and stigmatizing to individuals to close schools or prohibit
public gatherings than to tell certain individuals they cannot leave their residence or treatment
center and publicly indicate quarantine.

The protection of the health and lives of the public is paramount, and those who by conduct
and association contract such disease as makes them a menace to the health and morals of the
community must submit to such regulation as will protect the public.

The courts have held that a person does not lose rights or guarantees just because that person
becomes ill with a contagious disease or is exposed to a contagious disease. While the
government may restrict such a person's movement and freedom in ways that it could not
with those who are healthy and unexposed, the government cannot and should not be allowed
to completely disregard a person's rights. Before determining whether quarantine is
applicable to a situation, a board of health should identify the particular disease of concern,
the elements of the disease, and the attributes of the disease.

While the 'public health' justification may be invoked as a ground for limiting certain
individual interests to deal with a serious threat to individuals or the health of the population,
it does not require complete disregard for a person's basic rights.

One of the ways in which the courts could ensure the due process rights of those affected by
quarantine laws is to make risk assessments on a case-by-case basis. Individualized risk
assessments avoid decisions made under a blanket rule or generalization about a class of
persons.

When government acts to protect the population's health or safety, it affirms the social and
economic right to health. However, the "compulsory interventions diminish individual
interests this clash of individual and collective interests is inevitable in the theory and
practice of public health. Because the tension between rights and public health is inevitable,
the federal and state governments should both try to ensure that the minimum due process
rights that are guaranteed in criminal cases are also available and guaranteed for quarantine.
While there are crucial differences between a criminal proceeding and quarantine, there are
also important similarities. In both cases, a person is deprived of some of his liberty interests
and freedom of movement.

While quarantine is rarely used and causes tension between the rights of an individual and the
public health of the nation, it also can be very beneficial. During the SARS outbreak in 2003,
the World Health Organization acknowledged that the use of quarantines combined with
surveillance and travel restrictions, sharply reduced the adverse effects of the outbreaks. The
state governments must work together in formulating a bioterrorist response, including
quarantine, because without involvement by the government in a systematic way during
peacetime, there is little chance that an effective response to protect our nation will be made
in the context of an emergency shift in power.

The most difficult part of any quarantine law is determining how much to protect individual
rights and liberties while still keeping the public healthy and safe. While this is true for any
disease outbreak, it is especially true in the case of a bioterrorist attack. With a bioterrorist
attack, the number of people who are likely to either be infected or exposed to a contagious
disease would be so high that unless a local board of health had engaged in advance planning,
chaos would be rampant. Government and public health officials must be able to react
quickly and intelligently to a potentially catastrophic disease outbreak. Reacting intelligently
is crucial so the government does not curtail individual liberties nor neglect the protection of
public health

PART-C

4.

Article 8 of the UDHR says that everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the
competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the
constitution or by law. This is also called as access to justice: the right to obtain legal help
and access the justice system when your rights are not respected.

In India Fundamental rights were made effective by Art 32 and 226. If there is no remedy
there is no right at all. Article 32 itself is a Fundamental Right General declarations had not
much value unless there existed the will and the means to enforce them.

The Constituent Assembly showed the will to enforce the fundamental rights by providing
means under Art 32 and 226 of the Constitution. Speaking on Art 32, the Drafting Chairman
of the Indian Constitution described this Article as the very soul and heart of the Constitution,
because it provided effective remedies against violation of Fundamental Rights and without
which the Constitution would be a nullity.

The Constitution has given power to the Supreme Court under Art.32 and High Courts under
Art 226 to issue writs or judicial processes such as habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition,
certiorari and quo warranto in order to the enforcement of the fundamental rights against any
authority in the state, at the instance of an individual whose right guaranteed under this
Article has been violated.

It is recognized on all hands that access to Justice is one of the most basic Human Rights and
without it the realization of many other human rights may become difficult and in response to
the demand for access to justice for which millions of our people are constantly and
continually clamoring with a view to protection against violation of their human rights.

Article 24 of the UDHR says that everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including
reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay. Right to leisure and
rest; each work day should not be too long and everyone has the right to rest and take regular
paid holidays.

In the case of Sayeed Maqsood Ali V/s State of Madhya Pradesh, the Hon’ble High Court of
Madhya Pradesh held that under Article 19(1) (a), read with Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, the citizens have a right to sleep at night and to have a right to leisure which is all
necessary ingredients of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
People of India have a right to sleep and leisure. Disruption or disturbance in sleeps creates
mental stress, deficient in working efficiency and other things.

In order to protect the workers from the exploitation of the factory owners in respect of
working hours, the Factories Act, 1948 states some provisions related to it. Working Hours is
nothing but the hours for which the worker or employee under a job. It can be on a daily
basis, weekly basis or monthly basis. Earlier, the job description was centered on the pay or
the salary. But now since, the quality of the work is also important for the workers, the aspect
of working hours plays an important role in deciding to opt for a job or not.

Section 51 of the Factories act 1948 talks about weekly hours, it lays down the maximum
limit on working time for a worker in a factory on a weekly basis. It states that no factory
would ask the workers or make them work for more than 48 hours a week.

Section 55 of the Factories act 1948 talks about rest intervals, it states that the maximum time
for which a worker will work before the interval time period is 5 hours. The interval needs to
be of a minimum half an hour, in certain cases, the State Government may exempt some
factories from this limitation. In reality, the limitation is not removed but extended to 6 hours
only.

5. A.

When state is violating the human rights of its subjects what is the role that international
organizations (United Nations) can play in the protection of the same.

The role that international organizations (United Nations) is to prevent human rights
violations and secure respect for human rights by promoting international cooperation and
coordinating the United Nations' human rights activities.

When state is violating the human rights of its subjects, the individuals can complaint directly
to UN. Treaty Bodies have additional powers to receive and consider complaints from
individuals who allege they are the victims of human rights violations by the State. The
bodies with the power to hear individual complaints are:

 the Human Rights Committee;

 the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination;
 the Committee against Torture; and
 the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women.

A finding of a Treaty Body that a State Party has violated a person’s human rights under the
treaty is not legally binding.

Individuals can only make complaints to Treaty Bodies if they have exhausted all domestic
remedies and if the relevant State Party has recognised the competence of the Treaty Body to
hear their complaint.

By ratifying the ICERD, the CAT and the First Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, Australia has
recognised the competence of Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the
Committee against Torture and the Human Rights Committee to hear individual complaints
about violations of the relevant treaty provisions.

The United Nations is currently considering proposals to reform the treaty bodies and make
reporting obligations easier for States, by establishing a single, unified Treaty Body to
monitor implementation of all the principal human rights treaties.

5. B.

The violation of economic, social and cultural rights occurred as the State failed in its
obligations to ensure that they are enjoyed without discrimination or in its obligation to
respect, protect and fulfill them. Often in situation like this, human rights violations are like
Physical torture (which might include mutilation, beatings, and electric shocks to lips, gums,
and genitals), sexual violence (Women and girls are often raped by soldiers or forced into
prostitution), and war crimes (include taking hostages, firing on localities that are undefended
and without military significance, such as hospitals or schools, inhuman treatment of
prisoners, including biological experiments, and the pillage or purposeless destruction of
property).

The violations of economic rights generally include:

 Failure to ensure a minimum wage sufficient for a decent living (rights at work)
 Failure to prevent employers from discriminating in recruitment (based on sex,
disability, race, political opinion, social origin, HIV status, etc.) (The right to work)
 Failure to provide for a reasonable limitation of working hours in the public and
private sector (rights at work)

The violations of social rights include:

 Forcibly evicting people from their homes (the right to adequate housing)
 Women and girls are often raped by soldiers or forced into prostitution
 Contaminating water, for example, with waste from State-owned facilities (the right
to health)

The violations of cultural rights include:

 Banning the use of minority or indigenous languages (the right to participate in

cultural life)
 Failure to guarantee that people and communities have an access to culture and can
participate in the culture of their selection

The violations of Political rights include:

 Unable to exercise the right to seek redress or a legal remedy

 Restriction on the right to oppose the government when it may fail to protect