From Equality to freedom : The Foundation of Human Dignity

BY: ARNAV BHASKAR

Human Rights Violation In India

Human rights, the inalienable entitlements of every individual, form the bedrock of a just society. In India, a constitutional republic with a rich tapestry of cultures and communities, these rights are enshrined both in the Constitution and in various international instruments to which India is a signatory. Nevertheless, systemic gaps, socio-economic disparities, and institutional shortcomings have given rise to persistent human rights violations—from bonded labour and custodial torture to discrimination against marginalized groups. This article examines the landscape of human rights violations in India, the legal framework addressing them, landmark judicial interventions, and the challenges that persist.

Concept and Classification of Violations

Broadly, human rights violations in India can be classified into:

1. Civil and Political Rights Violations: These include custodial torture, extrajudicial killings, restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly, and denial of fair trial rights.

2. Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Violations: Manifesting as bonded labour, child labour, denial of education or health services, and displacement without adequate rehabilitation.

3. Rights of Vulnerable Groups: Violations targeted at women (domestic violence, sexual harassment), children (trafficking, abuse), Dalits and Adivasis (atrocities, land dispossession), and LGBTQ+ persons (discrimination, criminalisation until 2018).

Understanding these categories helps tailor legal and policy responses to address the root causes of violations.

Legal and Institutional Framework

India’s Constitution guarantees fundamental rights under Part III, including Articles 14 (equality), 19 (liberty), and 21 (life and personal liberty). Parallelly, the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 established the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and State Human Rights Commissions, empowered to investigate grievances and recommend remedial measures. Additional statutes—such as the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989—provide sector-specific safeguards.

Yet, the implementation gap between law and practice often leaves victims without timely redress.

Key Judicial Pronouncements

1. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984)

In this landmark case, the Supreme Court treated bonded labour as a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 23 (prohibition of forced labour) and 21. The Court directed proactive identification, release, and rehabilitation of bonded labourers, and mandated periodic inspections of vulnerable districts. This case underscored the principle that socio-economic exploitation is as much a human rights breach as overt physical coercion.

2. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)

Responding to widespread sexual harassment in workplaces, the Supreme Court laid down the Vishaka Guidelines, treating sexual harassment as a violation of gender equality (Article 14) and the right to life with dignity (Article 21). Until legislative enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, these guidelines filled a critical regulatory vacuum.

3. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)

In light of rampant custodial deaths and torture, the Supreme Court issued detailed procedural safeguards for arrests and detention—such as mandatory police diary entries, prompt medical examination, and access to counsel—to curb custodial excesses. These “Basu guidelines” have become part of standard operating procedures for law enforcement.

4. Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2011)

Addressing state-sanctioned violence against tribal communities in conflict zones, the Supreme Court struck down laws conferring immunity on security forces operating under the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act, 2005. The judgment reaffirmed that even in areas affected by insurgency, human rights guarantees cannot be suspended and excessive use of force breaches Articles 21 and 14.

5. National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (NALSA) (2014)

Recognising the rights of transgender persons, the Supreme Court held that non-recognition of gender identity violates Articles 14, 15 (non-discrimination), and 21. It directed the State to grant legal recognition and access to education, employment, and health services, marking a watershed moment for LGBTQ+ rights in India.

Role of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)

Since its inception in 1993, the NHRC has registered thousands of complaints ranging from police brutality to prison conditions. Though it cannot impose binding orders, its recommendations carry moral authority; it can also intervene suo motu and monitor conditions in jails, mental health institutions, and relief camps. State Commissions mirror its mandate at the regional level. However, limited enforcement power and delays in government response have diminished its deterrent effect.

Persistent Challenges

1. Implementation Deficit: Despite progressive judgments, slow administrative follow-

   through means relief often reaches victims too late.

2. Lack of Awareness: Marginalised groups may not know their rights or how to approach authorities, leading to under-reporting.

3. Institutional Resistance: Police and local officials sometimes disregard court guidelines on arrests, detention, or investigations.

4. Judicial Backlogs: Overburdened courts delay the adjudication of human rights cases.

5. Socio-economic Barriers: Poverty, illiteracy, and social stigma hinder access to justice, especially for women, Dalits, Adivasis, and LGBTQ+ individuals.

Way Forward

• Strengthening Enforcement: Transform NHRC recommendations into binding

  directives and ensure regular audits of compliance.

• Capacity Building: Sensitise police, judiciary, and public officials on human rights norms through mandatory training.

• Legal Aid Expansion: Bolster free legal services for vulnerable groups and streamline procedures for speedy trial.

• Community Engagement: Empower grassroots NGOs and human rights defenders with resources to document violations and advocate reforms.

• Data-Driven Policy: Establish a centralized, publicly accessible database of human rights violations to identify patterns and allocate resources effectively.

  
  

• Conclusion

  Human rights violations in India span a broad spectrum—from entrenched socio-economic exploitation to state excesses in the name of security. The constitutional framework and judiciary have evolved robust safeguards, yet implementation gaps persist. As a law student deeply invested in the cause of justice, I believe that bridging the divide between rights guaranteed on paper and actual relief on the ground requires coordinated action by State institutions, civil society, and informed citizens. Only through vigilant enforcement, public awareness, and institutional accountability can India fulfil the promise of dignity and equality for all.