Public Deliberation Will Always Be A Threat To Those Who Achieved Power In Its Absence: Justice DY Chandrachud [Video&Full Text]

The Supreme Court Justice D Y Chandrachud was speaking at an event organised by The International Institute of Human Rights Society to celebrate the Human Rights Day. "The conception of human rights has radically evolved over the years, gradually redefining the relationship between the individual and the State. The adoption of legally enforceable human rights marks a turning point in human history. They represent the rejection of a culture of authority and impunity and instead shine a light on our potential to live together with dignity in free and self-determining societies." He said that our present paradigm of civil and political rights acts as a crucial barrier against oppression and atrocities. "The journey begins with the adoption of the Magna Carta in the 13th century, which recognized the principle that even royal government had limits, and certain liberties must be guaranteed by law. The text proclaimed: 'No free-man shall be seized, imprisoned, dispossessed, or outlawed, or in any way destroyed; nor will we condemn him, nor will we commit him to prison, excepting by the legal judgement of his peers, or by the laws of the land.' This clause has been interpreted as providing the right to a trial by jury and the right to due process. Most significantly, it represented a limitation on the absolute authority of the State, the monarchy of the day, to act with impunity against its citizens. The rule of law would stand in the way." He added, "Perhaps a touch ironically for us in India, it was the right to property that was chosen as the crown jewel for rights to be protected against the capture by the State, most notably by John Locke. It was a strategic masterstroke. In a world where the monarchy was the single largest landowner and regularly stripped people of their lands and titles, emphasising property as the inherent right of all persons undercut the monarchy's power of eminent domain. It also ensured that the idea of human rights had the support of powerful landowners and the burgeoning merchant class. This anecdote is a reminder that while legal disclosure on human rights often seeks to divorce itself from the politica, the two often share a symbiotic relationship. He added, the history of human rights protection by the judiciary in India has centred around Article 21 of the Constitution and its interpretation by the Supreme Court and that our court has over the years recognized economic and social rights such as the right to shelter, right to privacy, right to health and medical care, and right to live in a pollution-free environment as being a component of the right to life. He further said, "The scope of these rights has also gradually expanded over the years, often relying on international treaties and instruments. In K.S. Puttuswamy v. Union of India, the Supreme court declared the right to privacy as a constitutionally protected right, referring to Articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UDHR and the European Convention on Human Rights. Similarly, in Common Cause v. Union of India, the court recognized the right to die with dignity as a facet of Article 21. " He opined that the protection of human rights in India, however, has never been limited to the judiciary citing the example of the operation of the Right to Information Act where the citizens, their elected representatives and courts all work together to further human rights protection. He further examined few cases which dealt with the rights under Article 21. He said that at the time of drafting the Constitution, the framers were acutely conscious that the civil and political rights guaranteed by the Constitution in Part III formed only one amongst many ways in which the Constitution protected the individual. He then quoted Dr. Ambedkar : " Ask those who are unemployed whether what are called fundamental rights are of any value to them. If a person who is unemployed is offered a choice between a job of some sort, with some sort of wages,...and the exercise of his right to freedom of speech, association, religion etc., can there be any doubt what his choice will be?" He added, today our human rights discourse is often framed in the language of freedom from the State, and freedom to act in a particular manner. The Directive Principles, however, point to a far more expansive definition of freedom that is the true goal of a substantive human rights regime. While saying about the vision of freedom that Directive Principles capture, Justice Chandrachud added, "Yes, a citizen's freedom is abridged when they are detained or shackled. But what about when education becomes so expensive it cannot be afforded by a vast majority of our population. Or when a woman is compelled to work at home and not accorded financial independence? The substantive content of freedom contemplated by our ...

Public Deliberation Will Always Be A Threat To Those Who Achieved Power In Its Absence: Justice DY Chandrachud [Video&Full Text]

Arabhi Anandan

Tags