Introduction

Human rights based on birth in the human race are the basic rights available to any human
being. It is inherent in all human beings irrespective of their nationality, religion, language,
gender, color or any other consideration. The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 defines
human rights as: "Human rights" means the rights relating to the life, liberty, equality and
dignity of the individual which are guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in
international covenants and enforced by the courts in India.

Protection of human rights is essential for the development of the people of the country,
which ultimately leads to national development as a whole. The Constitution of India
guarantees basic human rights to every citizen of the country. The framers of the
Constitution have tried their best to implement the necessary provisions. However, with
continuous development, the horizons of human rights have also expanded. MPs are now
playing a bigger role in recognising people's rights and passing laws, amending provisions,
etc.

Development of Human Rights

Human rights originated in India long ago. It can be easily identified from the principles of
Buddhism and Jainism. There were provisions for human rights in Hindu religious books and
religious texts such as Gita, Vedas, Arthashastra and Theology. Muslim rulers like Akbar and
Jahangir were also highly appreciated for their respect for rights and justice. During the
early British period, people faced a major violation of many rights and this led to the birth of
modern human rights jurisprudence in India.

On January 24, 1947, the Constituent Assembly voted to form an Advisory Committee on
Fundamental Rights under the chairmanship of Sardar Patel. A draft list of powers was
prepared by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, B.N. Rao, K.T. Shah, Harman Singh, K.M. Mushi and the
Congress Expert Committee. Although some modifications were proposed, there was almost
no disagreement on the principles included. The rights in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights were almost entirely incorporated in the Indian Constitution either in the
Fundamental Rights or the Directive Principles of State Policy. The Motilal Nehru Committee
Report, 1928 included nineteen fundamental rights, of which ten appear in fundamental
rights while three of them appear as fundamental duties.
Characteristics of Human rights
1. Human rights are universal in nature which means that they are given to every
individual irrespective of his/her caste, creed, race, religion, nationality and place of
birth.
2. These are inalienable rights. Many philosophers believe that these are natural rights
given by God and cannot be taken away or changed by anyone.
3. These are indivisible and interdependent rights. If a government gives one right
then it has to protect the other rights of its citizens. For example, it is the duty of
government to protect the right of fair hearing and provide food, shelter and clean
environment to its citizens in order to protect the right to life of its citizens.
4. They are inherent to each person and available since birth.
5. They are not lost if the man is not familiar with his rights or if he does not use his
rights. For example if a person is not aware of his right to consult the advocate
then it does not mean that his right is finished. It is then the duty of authorities to
provide him with free legal aid or tell him his rights.
6. They protect the dignity and personality of humans. Rights like right to life, right to
liberty, right against arbitrary arrest and punishment etc protect the dignity of a
person.

Sources of Human Rights

International treaties
These are the most important sources of human rights. There are multiple treaties on
human rights that are binding on the states that are party to such treaties. For example,
the European Convention on Human Rights, the American Convention, the African
Charter on Human Rights, and People’s Rights.

International customs
These rights have acquired the status of customary international law by their practice and,
thus, are binding on all the states irrespective of their consent. Many of these rights are a
part of customary international law and thus known as a source of human rights.

International instruments
There are several declarations, resolutions, and recommendations related to human rights
that have been adopted by the United Nations as a source of such rights. Some of these are
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), declarations adopted at the Tehran
Conference (1968) and the Vienna Conference (1993).

Judicial decisions
The International Court of Justice serves as another important source of human rights by
setting up precedents and decisions in various disputes and case laws relating to violations
of human rights.

Official documents
Documents and journals like Human Rights Law Journal, Human Rights Review, European
Law Review, and other collective official work under the United Nations serve as the source
of human rights.

Classification of Human Rights

Human rights are inherent and interdependent on each other and so there are not many
different kinds of human rights. All these rights are equally important and inherent in all
human beings, irrespective of their age, sex, caste, creed, race, religion, location, or
nationality. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights did not precisely categorise human
rights but mentioned 2 kinds:

 Civil and political rights

 Economic, social, and cultural rights

Theoretical classification of human rights

1. Civil and political rights
The rights that protect the life and personal liberty of a person are called civil rights. They
are necessary to maintain the dignity of a person. These include rights like the right to life,
liberty and security of a person, the right to privacy, the right to own property, freedom of
thought, religion and movement.

Political rights are such rights that allow a person to participate in governmental activities.
These include rights like the right to vote and the right to be elected. The nature of such
rights is different, but they are interrelated to each other. Both these rights are covered in
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

These rights are also called first-generation rights and are derived from 17th and 18th-
century theories related to the American, English, and French Revolutions. These form a
part of negative rights because the government abstains from doing such activities or
forming policies that violate these rights. The following civil and political rights are
recognized in the declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations:

 Right to life, personal liberty, and security (Article 3)

 Freedom from slavery (Article 4)
 The prohibition against torture and inhuman treatment (Article 5)
 Equality before the law and equal protection (Article 7)
 Remedy before national tribunals (Article 8)
 Freedom from arrest, which is arbitrary (Article 9)
 Right to a fair trial and public hearing by an impartial tribunal (Article 10)
 Freedom from ex-post-facto laws (Article 11)
 Right to privacy (Article 12)
 Right to nationality (Article 15)
 Right to own property (Article 17)
 Right to freedom of religion and conscience (Article 18)
 Freedom of expression (Article 19)
 Freedom to conduct a peaceful assembly (Article 20)
 Take part in government activities (Article 21)

2. Fundamental rights
Some human rights are guaranteed to the citizens of the state through constitutional
provisions and cannot be infringed upon at any cost, even by the state authorities. These
are termed fundamental rights. The expression ‘fundamental rights’ is stated in declarations
and constitutional provisions of many states. The Virginia Declaration of 1776 states that
men are free and independent and have certain inherent rights. The French Declaration
of Rights of Man and Citizen, 1789 provides that men are born free and have equal rights.
The Indian Constitution guarantees six fundamental rights to the citizens of the country.
These are:

 Right to Equality (Article14)

 Right to freedom (Article19-22)
 Right to religion (Article 25)
 Cultural and educational rights (Article 29–30)
 Right against exploitation (Article 23– 24)
 Right to constitutional remedies (Article 32)

3. Natural rights
The history of human rights is rooted in ancient times and the philosophical concepts of
natural law and thus, also termed natural rights. Plato was one of the first writers to give a
standard ethical code of conduct. Aristotle opined that rights change as per the different
kinds of circumstances faced by society from time to time. Since human rights are
universally applicable to every person in the world it is similar to natural rights. Natural
rights have been derived from natural law which opines that law must reflect moral
reasoning and must be related to morals imbibed in a person or set by the society. On the
other hand, positivism states that human rights are a result of enactments of statutes and
orders by law which comes with various sanctions attached to it.

4. Moral rights
Human rights that determine the spiritual and moral conduct of a person are termed moral
rights. They are primarily contained in moral rights as they highlight various moral values
that cannot be highlighted by any set of institutional rights. They promote moral values like
respect for everyone, brotherhood, secularism, protection of life, peace in society, etc.
Human rights also put moral obligations on the state and people not to violate and infringe
on the rights of other people. If done so, it will be punished as per the provisions of the set
statute.

5. Legal rights
The rights that are recognized by the legal system of a country are called legal rights. The
two essential elements of these rights are:

 The holder of the right, and

 A person bound by duty.
Rights and duties are correlated to each other. A person cannot have a right without any
corresponding duty. A person having a right also has a duty not to violate another person’s
rights. Human rights are given to every individual irrespective of any considerations, and the
state has the corresponding duty to protect the rights of its citizens. Article 2 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights lays down that it is the primary duty of the state to
promote, protect, and implement all human rights through various measures and legislative
provisions. The government of any state should pass any such laws which infringe on the
rights of the people.

6. Economic rights, cultural rights and social rights

These rights are also called freedoms and guarantee a person the minimum necessities of
life. These are also included in the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural
Rights. These form a part of positive rights as the state is required to frame policies and
provisions to implement such rights. These rights are based on the concept of social equality
and are second-generation rights. These rights include the right to work, social security,
physical and mental health, and education. The various economic, cultural, and social rights
recognised by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are as follows:

 Right to social security (Article 22)

  Right to work and choice of employment (Article 23)
 Right to rest (Article 24)
 Right to standard living and health (Article 25)
 Right to education (Article 26)
 Freedom to participate in cultural life (Article 27)
 Right to social and international order (Article 28)
In addition to the above rights, there is yet another kind of right called collective rights.
These rights are enjoyed by individuals collectively and include the right to self-
determination, physical protection of the group, and the prohibition of genocide.

Future of Human Rights

The roots to protect human rights can be traced back to the period of Babylonian laws as
the king issued a certain set of ethical codes of conduct for its people called Hammurabi’s
code. It included fair wages, protection of property, and charges to be proved during the
trial for the person to be punished. Other such examples are Assyrian laws, Hittite laws, and
Dharma of the Vedic period. Many philosophers recognise human rights as natural rights.
Some of these are Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, etc. While Plato was the first to write a universal
standard of conduct, Cicero, on the other hand, believed that these rights must be made
customary and civil. With these, there was the implementation of human rights in various
countries.

Greece gave its citizens freedom of speech, equality before the law, the right to vote and
get elected and the right to trade. The Magna Carta of Great Britain was also implemented
as a response to heavy taxes imposed on people in the country. It is also famous for
introducing jury trials and their concept to the world. Like this, every country guaranteed to
its citizens a certain set of fundamental rights through the constitution or legislative
provisions.

With the advancement of technology, climate change, and developments in science, can we
say these rights are enough to protect the life and liberty of individuals? These rights,
though provided through legislative provisions along with an obligation on the state not to
infringe upon such rights, are at times violated by various actions and steps of the
authorities. Various punishments to the accused like death, torture in prison, harassment,
use of third degree and scientific methods while investigation are a threat to his/her right to
life and are debtable issues. The privacy of a person is violated by misuse of social media
which also helps a person to intrude into one’s personal life through various means.
Similarly, many other freedoms are violated by discrimination against people belonging to
other nationality in a country.

Some of the human rights are not directly guaranteed in the constitution of a state as a
fundamental but indirectly under the ambit of a particular right. For example, the right to
privacy in the Indian Constitution is not a fundamental right purely but falls under the ambit
of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. This is the reason that it is not taken
seriously by the people and state and thus, is violated easily. Society is dynamic and, thus,
demands change. With the change in society, there’s a need to change and refine human
rights. Nowadays, there’s a need to include the right to the internet in human rights as it
has become a part of everybody’s life. This right has also been recognized by the Indian
Judiciary in the case of Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020). With the acceptance
of the LGBTQ community in society, the focus should be made to recognise their rights with
all seriousness to protect them from harassment and torture. All this shows that there is a
way ahead and human rights need to be refined to meet the demands and needs of people
in present society.

International Human Rights and Fundamental Rights

(Part III of COI)

India had signed the Universal Declaration on Human Rights on January 01, 1942. Part III of
the Constitution India ‘also referred to as the Magna Carta’ contains the Fundamental rights.
These are the rights that are directly enforceable against the state in case of any violation.
Article 13(2) prohibits the state from making any law in violation of the Fundamental Rights.
It always provides that if a part of the law made is against the Fundamental Rights, that
part would be declared void. If the void part cannot be separated from the main act, the
whole act may be declared void.

In the case of Keshvanand Bharti v. State of Kerela, the apex court observed: “The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights may not be a legally binding instrument but it shows
how India understood the nature of human rights at the time the Constitution was adopted.”

In the case of Chairman, Railway Board & Ors. v. Chandrima Das & Ors., it was observed
that UDHR has been recognized as a Model code of conduct adopted by the United Nations
General Assembly. The principles may have to be read if needed in domestic jurisprudence.

Provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights along with corresponding provisions
in the Constitution of India are as follows:

Brief Description of Provision COI

UDHR

Equality and equal protection before the law Article 7 Article 14

Remedies for Violation of Fundamental Rights Article 8 Article 32

Right to Life and personal liberty Article 9 Article 21

Protection with respect to conviction of Article Article 20(1)

 offences 11(2)
Article Earlier a Fundamental Right
Right to property
17 under Article 31
Right to freedom of conscience and to Article
Article 25(1)
practice, profess, and propagate any religion 18
Article
Freedom of speech Article 19(1)(a)
19
Article
Equality in opportunity for public service Article 16(1)
21(2)
Article
Protection of minorities Article 29(1)
22
Article
Right to education Article 21A
26(1)

Many of the civil and political rights contained in the International Covenant on Political and
Civil Rights, 1966 (ICCPR) are also contained in Part III of the Constitution of India. India
has signed and ratified the ICCPR.

In the case of Jolly George Varghese & Anr. v. Bank of Cochin, J. Krishna Iyer observed that
though a provision is present in ICCPR but not in Indian Constitution, does not make the
covenant an enforceable part of ‘Corpus Juris’ in India.

Provisions of ICCPR along with the corresponding provision of Constitution of India are as
follows:

Brief Description of Provision ICCPR COI

Article 6(1) &

Right to life and liberty Article 21
9(1)

Prohibition of trafficking and forced labour Article 8(3) Article 23

Article 9(2),
Protection against detention in certain cases Article 22
(3) and (4)

Article 19(1)
Freedom of movement Article 12(1)
(d)

Right to equality Article 14(1) Article 14

Right not to be compelled to be a witness against own Article 14(3)
Article 20(3)
self (g)

Protection against double jeopardy Article 14(7) Article 20(2)

Protection against ex-post facto law Article 15(1) Article 20(1)

Right to freedom of conscience and to practice, profess Article 25(1)

Article 18(1)
and propagate any religion & 25(2)(a)

Article 19(1) Article 19(1)

Freedom of speech and expression
& (2) (a)

Article 19(1)
Right to assembly peacefully Article 21
(b)

Article 19(1)
Right to form union/ association Article 22(1)
(c)

Equality in opportunity of public service Article 25(c) Article 16(1)

Equality and equal protection before law and no

Article 14 &
discrimination on the basis of any ground such as race, Article 26
15(1)
colour, sex, language, religion etc.

Article 29(1)
Protection of interests of minorities Article 27
& 30

Some of the rights which were not earlier included in Fundamental Rights
but were available in ICCPR. They were considered Fundamental Rights by
various judicial pronouncements. Some of them are the Right to a fair trial,
the Right to privacy, the Right to legal aid, Right to travel abroad. I will be
dealing with them in detail in the later part of this article.

Unremunerated Fundamental Rights

A number of rights that were available in the covenant were not available as fundamental
rights at the time of enactment of the Constitution. The judicial interpretations have
widened the scope of fundamental rights available in the Indian Constitution.

In the court of A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, the apex court observed that the law of
the land does not recognize any natural or common law rights other than those specifically
provided in the Indian Constitution.

Later, in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, J. Bhagwati observed; “The
expression ’personal liberty’ in article 21 is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of
rights, which go to constitute the personal liberty of man and some of them have been
raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under
Article 19. No person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law made by
the State prescribing the procedure for so depriving him, and the deprivation is effected
strictly in accordance with such procedure.”

After the present case, the apex court came up with the “theory of emanation” in order to
make fundamental rights active and meaningful. Also, relaxation to the rule of ‘locus standi’
was given by the court. Some of the major judicial interpretations of Fundamental Right are
as follows:

Right Case Law

Right to live with Human Dignity PUCL & Anr. v. State of Maharstra & Ors.

Right to Clean Air M.C. Mehta (Taj Trapezium Matter) v. Union of India

Right to Clean Water M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors

Right to freedom from Noise

In Re: Noise Pollution
Pollution

Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. v. Home Secretary, State

Right to Speedy Trial
of Bihar

Right to Free Legal Aid Khatri And Others v. State of Bihar & Ors.

Right to Livelihood Olga Tellis & Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation

Right to Food Kishen Patnayak v. State of Odisha

Right to Medical Care Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India &Ors.

Right to Clean Environment Rural Litigation And Entitlement Kendra v. State Of

 U.P. & Ors

Right to Privacy K .S. Puttaswamy & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors

CASES :

Right to Clean Air

The Taj Mahal Case-
The Taj Mahal Case, also known as the Taj Trapezium Case, was fought between M.C. Mehta and the Union of
India. He filed a writ petition in 1986.

Background- The Taj Mahal is considered one of India’s most epic Mughal structures. The Taj Trapezium zone,
which is of 10,400 sq. km., is built to protect it from pollution. Mehta visited Taj in 1984 and noticed the white
marble of the Taj turning yellow. To bring this matter into the limelight, he filed a petition in the Supreme
Court.

Facts of the case-

 The petitioner stated pollution as the main cause of the yellow color. Emission of pollutant gases like sulfur dioxide and
oxygen turned into acid rain. This rain was harmful to the monument and caused the marbles to turn yellow.
 Therefore, the petitioner asked for the protection of the monument.
 As a result, the Central Board for Prevention and Control of Water published “Inventory and Assessment of Pollution
Emission in and Around Agra-Mathura Region”.
 The report declared the pollution levels as high and measures to reduce them.
 One of the measures was to shut down thermal power stations. Another step was to reduce emissions of Sulphur
Dioxide by 50%.

Judgements- the Supreme Court observed that other than chemicals, socio-economic factors too influenced the
degradation of Taj. The people living in the Trapezium Zone were at risk due to air pollution. The court ordered
292 industries to operate using safe fuels like propane instead of coke/coal, otherwise they would have to
relocate. The Gas Authority of India Limited was in charge of applications of gas. The court also gave few
fundamental rights to workers of these industries and demanded payment of their wages during the time taken
for relocation.
Right to Clean Water
Ganga Pollution Case
Background- The River Ganga is the lifeline to many civilizations. But along with domestic waste, industrial
waste is also polluting this river. M.C. Mehta filed a PIL under Article 32 of the constitution in the Supreme
Court. It has been stated that the water of this river is Holy, and many people consume it. Thus protecting it is
vital for human life.

Facts-

 Tanneries discharged the maximum industrial waste in Kanpur.

 The tanneries defended themselves by stating that they are not directly discharging this waste into the Ganges. Instead,
they discharge into municipal drains and it is the Municipality’s responsibility not to mix the two.
 In addition, they stated that the equipment required for regulatory mechanisms is too expensive and shutdown of these
tanneries would lead to unemployment.

Judgment- The court declared that unemployment and revenue is a matter that is incomparable to public health.
The court also blamed the Municipality for being a total failure and asked the Municipality to take proper action
against this. The court demanded an adequate drainage and sewage system.

Right to Medical Care

Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India &Ors.
This case has enlarged the scope and jurisprudence of emergency medical care in India. This is
a landmark judgment pronounced by the Supreme Court which made it obligatory for a doctor
or a hospital both public and private to provide immediate medical aid to a victim of a road
accident.

Facts:
The petitioner, who claims himself to be a human rights activist, filed this writ petition in the
public interest on the basis of a newspaper report concerning the death of a scooterist who
was knocked down by a speeding car. The report further states that the injured person was
taken to the nearest hospital but the doctors there refused to attend to him; they told him that
he should be taken to another hospital, located some 20 kilometers away, which was
authorized to handle medico-legal cases. The scooterist died while he was being transported to
the other hospital.
Right to Clean Environment

Rural Litigation And Entitlement Kendra v. State Of U.P. & Ors

Facts of the Case


 Doon Valley is a part of the Mussoorie Hill series of The Himalayas. The Doon Valley
area was very rich. Several rivers have their beginning from Mussoorie hills which
completed the valley region ecologically thrive. But it became a district for limestone
mining and the valley started degrading due to the use of exploding, cutting trees, and
extreme mining in the 1950s.
 Limestone mining processes in the Doon Valley became spread-out between 1955 and
1965. The Use of detonating, for the removal of minerals, resulted in a lack of vegetation
in the valley. By the early 1980s, the valley misplaced its natural beauty and became
disposed of landslides, floods, water scarcity, high temperatures, and cropland
obliteration.
 In 1961, the Uttar Pradesh State Minister of Mines banned mining industries in the state.
But in 1962, the state government decided various mining leases for 20 years and
quarrying was happening again. When leases came for regeneration in 1982, the state
forbade them on the grounds of ecological devastation. Mining companies extended the
high court against this verdict of the government. Allahabad High Court permitted
mining in the Doon Valley, considering economic profit over ecological factors.[i]
 In 1983, a local NGO of Dehradun Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra (RLEK),
directed a complaint letter of India against environmental poverty to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court registered this complaint as a writ petition under Article 32 of the
Indian constitution.[ii] The Supreme Court ordered an assessment of all current mining
operations in the valley. The court also focused on the state government to start a
database for the cultivation of the region.

Right to Free Legal Aid :

Khatri And Others v. State of Bihar & Ors.

 Rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is permitted of people or
owed to people according to some legal system, social convention, and ethical theory
and these rights are protected by our constitution under fundamental rights. Art 21
Indian constitution gives the right for protection of life and personal liberty to the
citizens. In this we are discussing the “Khatri vs. State of Bihar” also known as the
“Bhagalpur blinding case”. This case had made criminal jurisprudence history by
becoming the first in which the Supreme Court ordered compensation for violation of
basic human rights. The incident was widely argued, debated and acutely criticized by
numerous human rights organizations.

Facts
• In 1980 in Bhagalpur in the state of Bihar India, when police blinded 31 individuals
under trial by pouring acid into their eyes.

• Hingorani on behalf of the blinded prisoners was whether that the State was liable
to pay compensation to the blinded prisoners for violation of their Fundamental Right
under Article 21 of the Constitution. She contended that the blinded prisoners were
deprived of their eyesight by the Police Officers.

• The police officers as Government servants acting on behalf of the State and since
this constituted a violation of the constitutional right under Article 21, The State was
liable to pay compensation to the blinded prisoners.

Right to Speedy Trial

Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar

This case is a landmark case in the rights related to prisoner's trials. In the year 1977, a
national police commission was organized and on making that report, one of the members of
the committee Sir R.F. Rustum visited Bihar jail. During the survey of the jails, he Visited
Muzzafarpur and Patna jails.

He found that there are many prisoners in the jail without proper trails. According to him,
there are many accused who have almost lived more than the punishment that would have
been awarded by the court if found Guilty. The report was later Published in the Indian Express
newspaper and then one of the lawyers of the Supreme Court Pushpa Kapila Hingorani, saw
the report and filled a PIL in the name of one of the prisoners named Hussainara Khatoon.

Facts of the Case:

On the basis of the news report several under trials, including women and children were in the
prison of Bihar awaiting their trials for years. A PIL for habeas corpus was filed by the Lawyer
Pushpa Kapila Hingorani. The period of Imprisonment already undergone by many of them was
more than the maximum sentence Imposable on Conviction.

In some of the cases, the trial had not begun while in the case of some others, the
investigations were yet to be completed despite the lapse of several years. Behind the long
Incarceration, the convicts were unable to arrange for their defense and to afford their bail- A
bail bond with sureties. Expressing Shock at such alarming disclosures, the Supreme Court in
the absence of an appearance by the respondent State passed interim orders.

Right to Livelihood

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation

Facts of the case
1. In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation [1], the state of Maharashtra in
1981 and the Bombay Municipal Corporation decided to evict the pavement
dwellers and those who were residing in slums in Bombay.
2. Pursuant to that, the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra Mr A. R. Antulay ordered
on July 13 to evict slum dwellers and pavement dwellers out of Bombay and to
deport them to their place of origin.
3. The eviction was to proceed under Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal
Corporation Act 1888.
4. On hearing about the Chief Minister’s announcement they filed a writ petition in the
High Court of Bombay for an order of injunction restraining the officers of the State
Government and the Bombay Municipal Corporations from implementing the
directive of the Chief Minister.
 5. The High Court of Bombay granted an ad interim injunction to be in force until July
21, 1981. Respondents agreed that the huts would not be demolished until October
15, 1981. Contrary to agreement, on July 23, 1981, petitioners were huddled into
State Transport buses for being deported out of Bombay.
6. The respondent’s action was challenged by the petitioner on the grounds that it is
violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. They also asked for a declaration
that Section 312, 313 and 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act 1888 is
violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

Right to Privacy

K .S. Puttaswamy & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors

Facts:
The case was brought by 91-year old retired High Court Judge Puttaswamy against the Union of
India (the Government of India) before a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court which had
been found out on reference from the Constitution Bench to work out whether or not the right
to privacy was secure as associate degree freelance elementary right following conflicting
selections from alternative Supreme Court benches .

The latest case had concerned a challenge to the government's Aadhaar scheme (a form of
uniform biometrics-based identity card) which the government proposed making mandatory
for access to government services and benefits. The challenge was created before a three-
judge bench of the Supreme Court on the idea that
the theme desecrated the proper to privacy.

However, the lawyer General argued on behalf of the Union of Asian nation that the Indian
Constitution doesn't grant specific protection for the proper to privacy. He based mostly this
on observations created within the case of M.P.Sharma v.Satish Chandra (an eight-judge bench)
and Kharak Singh v.Uttar Pradesh (a five-judge bench).

However, a future eleven-judge bench found that elementary rights weren't to be construed as
distinct, unrelated rights, thereby upholding there dissenting view in Kharak Singh. This also
formed the basis of later decisions by smaller benches of the Supreme Court which expressly
recognized the right to privacy. It was during this context that a Constitution Bench was
established and all over that there was a requirement for a nine-judge bench to work out
whether or not there was a elementary right to privacy within the Constitution.

The Petitioner argued before the nine-judge bench that this right was a freelance right,
guaranteed by the right to life with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The
Respondent submitted that the Constitution solely recognized personal liberties which can
incorporate the right to privacy to a limited extent. The Court considered detailed arguments
on the nature of fundamental rights, constitutional interpretation and the theoretical and
philosophical bases for the right to privacy as well as the nature of this right.