Unit 1

Human beings are rational beings. They by virtue of their being human possess certain basic, inherent
and inalienable rights which are commonly known as human rights. Human Rights are defined as all
those rights which are essential for the protection and maintenance of dignity of individuals and create
conditions in which every human being can develop his personality to the fullest extent. Human rights
become operative with the birth of an individual. These are moral claims which are inalienable and
inherent in all individuals by virtue of their humanity alone, irrespective of caste, colour, creed, place
of birth, sex, cultural difference or any other consideration. Because of their immense significance to
human beings; human rights are also sometimes referred to as fundamental rights basic rights,
inherent rights, natural rights and birth rights. They are not created by any legislature through
legislation and are not subject to amendment.

Philosophical and historical foundation of human rights and duties - Human rights did not
suddenly appear in modern constitutions; they evolved from ancient moral, religious, and political
traditions in both Eastern and Western civilizations.
Early settled societies like Mesopotamia created legal protections such as the Code of Hammurabi,
which introduced ideas of fair trial, property protection, and proportional punishment, while religious
texts like the Ten Commandments imposed duties against murder, theft, and dishonesty.
Greek philosophy added concepts of individual virtue and universal human community, and Roman
law — especially natural law theory — recognized equality and basic rights of citizens.
Later, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam emphasized brotherhood and moral equality, though practice
often excluded groups like slaves and women.
The Renaissance and Reformation revived humanist thought, questioned religious authority, and
gradually promoted individual liberty and religious freedom, leading toward modern human rights
ideals.
Overall, human rights historically emerged as a blend of law, religion, and philosophy responding to
changing social conditions rather than a single invention at one moment in time.

Human rights in India evolved across ancient, medieval, and modern periods rather than beginning
in the Constitution alone.
Ancient Indian thought — especially the Vedas, epics, and texts like Manusmriti — emphasized
equality, human dignity, welfare of all, and duties of rulers to act justly, later reinforced by Buddhism,
Jainism, and Ashoka’s humane governance that prohibited cruel punishment and promoted welfare.
In medieval India, many regimes were autocratic and discriminatory, but reforms under Akbar
introduced tolerance, bail, and benefit-of-doubt principles, while the Bhakti movement revived moral
equality.
During British rule, widespread repression led to organized demands for civil liberties, equality before
law, and freedom, reflected in Congress resolutions, the Nehru Report, and constitutional proposals.
These struggles culminated in the Constitution of India, which incorporated a comprehensive
framework of fundamental rights and freedoms — combining civil, political, social, economic,
religious, and minority protections — aligning domestic guarantees with emerging global human
rights ideals.

Universalism versus Cultural Relativism - Universalism holds that moral values, norms, and
standards apply equally to all human beings regardless of culture, race, gender, or nationality, so
practices can be judged by common human principles such as fairness, dignity, or harm. Cultural
relativism rejects that idea and argues behaviour must be understood within its own cultural context
— meaning right and wrong depend on social traditions rather than universal rules.
Extreme (absolute) relativism says outsiders should never judge any cultural practice, while critical
relativism allows questioning practices, especially where power or harm is involved.
The core conflict between the two is simple: universalism prioritizes shared human rights standards
across societies, whereas cultural relativism prioritizes respect for cultural diversity and warns that
imposing universal norms can become ethnocentric.
Second-generation human rights are socio-economic “welfare” rights aimed at ensuring a dignified
standard of living, including education, housing, healthcare, employment, and adequate living
conditions. Unlike first-generation civil and political rights, which require the state mainly to avoid
interference (negative freedom), these rights require active government action and provision of
resources (positive freedom). Influenced strongly by socialist thought and later codified in the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, they recognize that real freedom is
impossible without protection from poverty and deprivation. Both first and second generations share
the goal of protecting human dignity, but second-generation rights expand the idea by insisting that
liberty is meaningless unless basic social and economic needs are actually met.

Human rights are built on a small set of foundational ideas that explain why they exist and how they
operate in law. These “pillars” are not separate rights but guiding principles recognised in
international instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and later conventions.
The first pillar is universality. Human rights belong to every human being simply because they are
human, irrespective of nationality, caste, gender, religion, or status. A state does not grant these rights;
it recognises and protects them. This principle prevents governments from arguing that certain groups
are outside legal protection or that cultural differences justify denial of basic freedoms.
The second pillar is equality and non-discrimination. All persons are equal before the law and must
receive equal protection. Any distinction based on race, sex, language, caste, disability or similar
status must have a lawful and reasonable justification. This pillar transforms human rights from
abstract morality into enforceable legal claims because unequal treatment itself becomes a violation.
The third pillar is indivisibility and interdependence of rights. Civil and political rights such as
liberty, speech and fair trial cannot be separated from social and economic rights such as health,
education and livelihood. Denial of one undermines the enjoyment of the other. For example, freedom
of expression has little meaning without education, and the right to vote is weakened by extreme
poverty. Modern human rights law therefore rejects the earlier hierarchy between categories of rights.
The fourth pillar is dignity and autonomy. Human rights protect the inherent dignity of the person
and their ability to make choices about their life. Protection against torture, privacy violations, forced
labour and arbitrary detention all flow from the idea that individuals are ends in themselves and not
instruments of the state.
The fifth pillar is accountability and rule of law. Rights must be enforceable against public
authorities. Courts, independent institutions and remedies ensure that violations are corrected and
prevented. Without enforcement mechanisms, rights remain political promises rather than legal
guarantees.
Together these pillars — universality, equality, interdependence, dignity and enforceability — form
the conceptual foundation of modern human rights law and guide interpretation of constitutional and
international protections.