HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

LLB Examination Notes

Indian Context with Case Laws & Examples

Comprehensive Notes for Exam Preparation

2025-26
 LLB Human Rights Law – Exam Notes by Praneeth Kumar - 4th Sem LLB

TOPIC 1: Difference Between the European Convention and

American Convention on Human Rights
1.1 Introduction
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR, 1950) and the American Convention on
Human Rights (ACHR, 1969) are the two most significant regional human rights instruments.
While both aim to protect fundamental rights, they differ in scope, enforcement mechanisms,
and substantive rights protected. Understanding their differences is critical for comparative
human rights law.

1.2 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Adopted by the Council of Europe in 1950, the ECHR came into force in 1953. It was the first
regional treaty to establish an international court to adjudicate individual complaints. It primarily
protects civil and political rights.
Key Features: The ECHR established the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in
Strasbourg. It allows individual petitions under Article 34, and its judgments are binding on
member states. The Convention is a living instrument, interpreted dynamically.

1.3 American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR)

The ACHR was adopted by the Organization of American States (OAS) in 1969 and came into
force in 1978. It is also known as the Pact of San Jose, Costa Rica. It protects a broader range
of rights compared to the ECHR, including some economic and social rights.
Key Features: The ACHR created a dual enforcement system through the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. It
recognises the right to property (Article 21), right to a name (Article 18), and progressive
development of economic rights (Article 26).

1.4 Key Differences – Comparative Table

Aspect ECHR (European) ACHR (American)
Year of Adoption 1950 1969
Entry into Force 1953 1978
Regional Body Council of Europe Organization of American States
(OAS)
Enforcement Body European Court of Human Rights Inter-American Commission +
(ECtHR) Inter-American Court
Individual Petition Direct access to ECtHR (Art. 34) Must first go through the
Commission

Page 2
 LLB Human Rights Law – Exam Notes by Praneeth Kumar - 4th Sem LLB

Right to Property Protocol 1, Art. 1 (additional Art. 21 (included in main text)

protocol)
Right to a Name Not explicitly included Art. 18 (expressly protected)
Economic Rights Not in main text; separate ESC Art. 26 (progressive development)
Death Penalty Abolished (Protocols 6 & 13) Art. 4 restricts; not fully abolished
Scope of Application 47 member states of Council of 25 states that ratified within OAS
Europe
Doctrine Margin of Appreciation Pro Homine Principle (most
favourable interpretation)
Living Instrument Yes – evolutive interpretation Yes – corpus juris approach

1.5 Key Distinctions in Detail

A. Enforcement Mechanism
The ECHR provides direct individual access to the ECtHR after exhausting domestic remedies.
In contrast, the ACHR requires complaints to first be examined by the Inter-American
Commission, which may then refer the matter to the Inter-American Court. Only states and the
Commission can bring cases before the Court, not individuals directly.

B. Substantive Rights
The ACHR is broader in substance. It includes rights absent from the ECHR main text: right to a
name (Art. 18), rights of the child (Art. 19), right to nationality (Art. 20), and right to property (Art.
21). The ECHR addresses some of these through Additional Protocols.

C. Interpretive Approach
The ECtHR uses the Margin of Appreciation doctrine, giving states discretion on sensitive
issues. The Inter-American Court uses the Pro Homine principle, always interpreting rights in
the manner most favourable to the individual.

1.6 Relevant Case Laws

Handyside v. United Kingdom (1976) ECtHR – The ECtHR established the margin of
appreciation doctrine, holding that national authorities are better placed to decide on matters
of public morals. This case illustrates the ECHR’s deference to state discretion.
Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras (1988) IACtHR – The landmark first contentious case
of the Inter-American Court. The Court held Honduras responsible for the forced
disappearance of a citizen. It established the state’s duty to investigate, punish, and
compensate human rights violations.
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) SC India – The Indian Supreme Court referenced
both ECHR and ACHR principles while framing guidelines for sexual harassment. The Court

Page 3
 LLB Human Rights Law – Exam Notes by Praneeth Kumar - 4th Sem LLB

relied on international conventions to fill domestic legislative gaps, demonstrating how

regional conventions influence Indian jurisprudence.

1.7 Indian Relevance

India is not a party to either ECHR or ACHR but Indian courts regularly refer to their
jurisprudence as persuasive authority. In cases involving right to life (Art. 21), privacy, and
dignity, the Supreme Court of India has drawn from ECtHR and IACtHR decisions. The
comparative study of these conventions enriches Indian human rights discourse and has
influenced the expansive interpretation of fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution.

Page 4
 LLB Human Rights Law – Exam Notes by Praneeth Kumar - 4th Sem LLB

TOPIC 2: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and

Classification of Human Rights
2.1 Introduction to UDHR
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations General
Assembly on 10th December 1948 (Resolution 217A) in Paris. It was drafted by a committee
chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt. The UDHR is considered the foundational document of
international human rights law and has been translated into over 500 languages.
Legal Status: The UDHR is a declaration, not a treaty, and was not originally binding. However,
many scholars now consider its provisions as part of customary international law. Its principles
have been incorporated into the constitutions of many nations, including India.

2.2 Structure of the UDHR

The UDHR contains a Preamble and 30 Articles. Articles 1–2 lay down general principles of
dignity, equality, and non-discrimination. Articles 3–21 cover civil and political rights. Articles
22–27 cover economic, social, and cultural rights. Articles 28–30 deal with the general
framework for the enjoyment of these rights.

2.3 Key Provisions

•​ Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
•​ Article 2: Non-discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language,
religion, etc.
•​ Article 3: Right to life, liberty, and security of person.
•​ Article 5: Prohibition of torture and cruel treatment.
•​ Article 9: Prohibition of arbitrary arrest and detention.
•​ Article 18: Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.
•​ Article 19: Freedom of opinion and expression.
•​ Article 23: Right to work and equal pay for equal work.
•​ Article 25: Right to an adequate standard of living including food, clothing, housing, and
medical care.
•​ Article 26: Right to education.

2.4 Classification of Human Rights

Human rights are classified into different generations based on the historical evolution of rights
discourse. This classification was proposed by Czech-French jurist Karel Vasak in 1979.

A. First Generation Rights (Civil and Political Rights)

These are negative rights that require the state to refrain from interfering with individual
freedoms. They include the right to life, liberty, freedom of speech, right to a fair trial, freedom of

Page 5
 LLB Human Rights Law – Exam Notes by Praneeth Kumar - 4th Sem LLB

religion, right to vote, and protection against torture. These are primarily derived from Articles
3–21 of the UDHR and are given binding force through the ICCPR (1966).
Indian Example: Articles 14–32 of the Indian Constitution (Fundamental Rights) largely
embody first-generation rights. Article 21 (Right to Life), Article 19 (Freedom of Speech), and
Article 22 (Protection against Arrest) are prime examples.

B. Second Generation Rights (Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights)

These are positive rights requiring the state to take affirmative action. They include the right to
education, right to health, right to work, right to social security, and right to an adequate
standard of living. These are derived from Articles 22–27 of the UDHR and codified in the
ICESCR (1966).
Indian Example: Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV, Articles 36–51) embody
second-generation rights. Article 41 (Right to Work), Article 45 (Right to Education), and Article
47 (Nutrition and Standard of Living) are examples.

C. Third Generation Rights (Solidarity/Collective Rights)

These are group or collective rights that require international cooperation. They include the right
to development, right to a healthy environment, right to peace, right to self-determination, and
right to natural resources. These rights are still evolving and are not yet fully codified in a
binding treaty.
Indian Example: The right to a clean environment has been read into Article 21 by the
Supreme Court. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987), the Court recognised the right to live in
a pollution-free environment as part of the right to life.

2.5 Classification Table

Generation Nature Examples International
Instrument
First Generation Civil & Political Life, Liberty, Speech, Fair ICCPR
(Negative Rights) Trial, Vote
Second Economic, Social, Education, Health, Work, ICESCR
Generation Cultural (Positive Housing
Rights)
Third Generation Solidarity/Collective Development, African Charter, Rio
Rights Environment, Peace, Declaration
Self-Determination

2.6 Important Case Laws

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) AIR 1978 SC 597 – The Supreme Court
expanded Article 21 to include the right to live with dignity, incorporating UDHR principles.
The procedure established by law must be just, fair, and reasonable.

Page 6
 LLB Human Rights Law – Exam Notes by Praneeth Kumar - 4th Sem LLB

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) – The 13-judge bench recognised that the
Preamble and Fundamental Rights reflect UDHR values. The Basic Structure Doctrine
implicitly protects human rights principles drawn from the UDHR.
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981) – The Court held
that the right to life includes the right to live with basic human dignity and all that goes along
with it – adequate nutrition, clothing, shelter, and facilities for reading, writing, and
expressing oneself. This drew from UDHR Article 25.
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) – The Supreme Court invoked UDHR
principles to hold that bonded labour violates the right to life and dignity. It directed
rehabilitation measures, connecting UDHR Article 4 (prohibition of slavery) with Article 21
and Article 23 of the Indian Constitution.

Page 7
 LLB Human Rights Law – Exam Notes by Praneeth Kumar - 4th Sem LLB

TOPIC 3: CEDAW – Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of

Discrimination Against Women
3.1 Introduction
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) was
adopted by the UN General Assembly on 18th December 1979 and came into force on 3rd
September 1981. Often described as the International Bill of Rights for Women, it is the most
comprehensive treaty addressing women’s rights. India ratified CEDAW in 1993 with
reservations to Articles 5(a) and 16(1).

3.2 Definition of Discrimination (Article 1)

Article 1 of CEDAW defines discrimination against women as any distinction, exclusion, or
restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the
recognition, enjoyment, or exercise by women of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the
political, economic, social, cultural, civil, or any other field, irrespective of their marital status, on
the basis of equality of men and women.
Key Point: This definition covers both intentional discrimination (de jure) and discrimination that
occurs in effect (de facto), even if the law appears neutral on its face.

3.3 Types of Harassment

A. Sexual Harassment
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favours, and other verbal or physical conduct
of a sexual nature. This includes quid pro quo harassment (where compliance is a condition for
employment benefits) and hostile work environment harassment (where conduct creates an
intimidating or offensive atmosphere).

B. Gender-Based Harassment
Non-sexual conduct that is directed at a person because of their gender, such as demeaning
remarks about women’s abilities, derogatory gender-based comments, or exclusion from
activities or decision-making based on gender.

C. Domestic Violence / Intimate Partner Harassment

Physical, sexual, emotional, verbal, or economic abuse by a current or former intimate partner
or family member. This is addressed specifically under Indian law through the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

D. Cyber Harassment / Online Harassment

Digital forms of harassment including cyberstalking, non-consensual sharing of intimate images,
online threats, and trolling aimed at women. The IT Act, 2000 (Sections 66E, 67) and Indian
Penal Code provisions address some forms.

Page 8
 LLB Human Rights Law – Exam Notes by Praneeth Kumar - 4th Sem LLB

3.4 Key Provisions of CEDAW

•​ Article 2: States must condemn discrimination and adopt policies to eliminate it,
including legislative measures.
•​ Article 3: States must take all appropriate measures to ensure full development and
advancement of women.
•​ Article 4: Temporary special measures (affirmative action/reservations) to accelerate de
facto equality are not considered discrimination.
•​ Article 5: States must modify social and cultural patterns of conduct to eliminate
prejudices and customary practices based on gender stereotypes.
•​ Article 7: Right to participate in political and public life on equal terms.
•​ Article 10: Equal rights in education, including elimination of stereotyped concepts in
curricula.
•​ Article 11: Equal rights in employment, including equal remuneration, social security,
and maternity protection.
•​ Article 12: Equal access to health care services, including family planning.
•​ Article 16: Equal rights in matters relating to marriage and family relations.

3.5 CEDAW Committee and Enforcement

The CEDAW Committee consists of 23 experts who monitor implementation. States must
submit periodic reports. The Optional Protocol (1999) allows individual complaints and inquiry
procedures. India has NOT ratified the Optional Protocol, meaning Indian women cannot directly
complain to the CEDAW Committee.

3.6 Indian Legislative Framework

A. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and
Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act)
Enacted following the Vishaka guidelines, this Act defines sexual harassment and mandates the
creation of Internal Complaints Committees (ICC) in every workplace with 10 or more
employees. It covers both organised and unorganised sectors and recognises quid pro quo and
hostile work environment harassment. Non-compliance attracts penalties including cancellation
of business licence.

B. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act)

This is a landmark legislation giving effect to CEDAW obligations in the domestic sphere. It
provides civil remedies to women facing domestic violence.
Key Features of the DV Act:
•​ Section 3 – Definition of Domestic Violence: Includes physical abuse, sexual abuse,
verbal and emotional abuse, and economic abuse. This is wider than mere physical
violence.

Page 9
 LLB Human Rights Law – Exam Notes by Praneeth Kumar - 4th Sem LLB

•​ Section 4 – Information to Protection Officer: Any person who has reason to believe
that domestic violence has been committed can inform a Protection Officer.
•​ Section 12 – Application to Magistrate: An aggrieved person or Protection Officer can
apply to the Magistrate for relief.
•​ Section 17 – Right to Reside in Shared Household: Every woman in a domestic
relationship has the right to reside in the shared household, whether or not she has any
title or ownership.
•​ Section 18 – Protection Orders: Magistrate can pass orders prohibiting the respondent
from committing violence, entering the aggrieved person’s workplace, or making contact.
•​ Section 19 – Residence Orders: Respondent can be restrained from dispossessing or
disturbing the aggrieved person’s possession of the shared household.
•​ Section 20 – Monetary Relief: Includes compensation for expenses, medical costs,
loss of earnings, and maintenance.
•​ Section 22 – Compensation Orders: Magistrate can order compensation for injuries
including mental torture and emotional distress.

3.7 Role of Government in Protecting Against Discrimination

•​ Legislative Measures: Enactment of POSH Act 2013, DV Act 2005, Dowry Prohibition
Act 1961, Equal Remuneration Act 1976 (now subsumed in Code on Wages 2019),
Maternity Benefit Act 1961.
•​ Constitutional Provisions: Article 14 (Equality), Article 15(3) (special provisions for
women), Article 16 (equal opportunity), Article 39(a)(d) (equal pay), Article 42 (maternity
relief), Article 51A(e) (renounce practices derogatory to women’s dignity).
•​ Institutional Mechanisms: National Commission for Women (NCW) established under
the National Commission for Women Act, 1990. State Women’s Commissions in each
state. One Stop Centres (Sakhi Centres) for violence victims.
•​ Schemes and Programmes: Beti Bachao Beti Padhao, Mahila Shakti Kendra, Ujjwala
(anti-trafficking), Women Helpline (181), Nirbhaya Fund for women’s safety.

3.8 Important Case Laws

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1997 SC 3011 – The Supreme Court, in the absence of
legislation, laid down guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at the workplace. The Court
directly relied on CEDAW and its General Recommendation No. 19 to define sexual
harassment and establish employer obligations. This led to the POSH Act, 2013.
Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra (1999) 1 SCC 759 – The Court upheld
the dismissal of an officer for sexually harassing a subordinate, applying Vishaka guidelines.
It held that sexual harassment violates fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21.
D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010) 10 SCC 469 – The Supreme Court interpreted the
definition of ‘domestic relationship’ under the DV Act. It held that a ‘relationship in the nature
of marriage’ must satisfy conditions akin to a common-law marriage.

Page 10
 LLB Human Rights Law – Exam Notes by Praneeth Kumar - 4th Sem LLB

Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora (2016) 10 SCC 165 – The Supreme
Court struck down the words ‘adult male’ from Section 2(q) of the DV Act, allowing
complaints against female perpetrators as well. This expanded the scope of protection.
S.R. Batra v. Smt. Taruna Batra (2007) 3 SCC 169 – The Court held that a wife cannot
claim right of residence in a property exclusively owned by her in-laws. The shared
household must be the matrimonial home or a dwelling jointly occupied.
Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association v. State of Maharashtra (2019) – The Bombay
High Court, relying on CEDAW and constitutional principles, struck down the ban on dance
bars, holding that denying women their right to livelihood was discriminatory.

Page 11
 LLB Human Rights Law – Exam Notes by Praneeth Kumar - 4th Sem LLB

TOPIC 4: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

(ICCPR) – Articles 6 and 28
4.1 Introduction
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) was adopted by the UN
General Assembly on 16th December 1966 and came into force on 23rd March 1976. It gives
binding legal effect to the civil and political rights outlined in the UDHR. India acceded to the
ICCPR on 10th April 1979 but has not ratified the First Optional Protocol (individual complaints)
or the Second Optional Protocol (abolition of death penalty).
Key Features: The ICCPR is monitored by the Human Rights Committee (HRC) established
under Article 28. States must submit periodic reports. It contains 53 Articles divided into 6 Parts.

4.2 Article 6 – Right to Life

Article 6 is the most fundamental provision of the ICCPR. It provides that every human being
has the inherent right to life, that this right shall be protected by law, and that no one shall be
arbitrarily deprived of life.

Key Elements of Article 6:

•​ Article 6(1): Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be
protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
•​ Article 6(2): In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death
may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at
the time of commission.
•​ Article 6(3): When deprivation of life constitutes the crime of genocide, nothing in this
article shall authorise derogation from the Genocide Convention.
•​ Article 6(4): Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or
commutation of the sentence.
•​ Article 6(5): Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons
below eighteen years of age and shall not be carried out on pregnant women.
•​ Article 6(6): Nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of
capital punishment.

Scope and Interpretation:

The HRC in General Comment No. 36 (2018) interpreted Article 6 expansively. The right to life
is not limited to protection against arbitrary killing. It includes the positive obligation of the state
to protect life – addressing infant mortality, epidemics, malnutrition, and other threats. It
encompasses the right to live with dignity and links to socioeconomic conditions that affect
survival.

Indian Position on Right to Life:

Page 12
 LLB Human Rights Law – Exam Notes by Praneeth Kumar - 4th Sem LLB

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution mirrors and expands upon ICCPR Article 6. The Supreme
Court has interpreted the right to life to include: right to livelihood (Olga Tellis), right to health
(Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity), right to clean environment (M.C. Mehta), right to
education (Unnikrishnan), and right to shelter (Chameli Singh).

Indian Position on Death Penalty:

India retains the death penalty but restricts it to the ‘rarest of rare’ cases following Bachan Singh
v. State of Punjab (1980). India has not ratified the Second Optional Protocol. The Supreme
Court has progressively narrowed the application of the death penalty while maintaining its
constitutionality.

4.3 Article 28 – Human Rights Committee

Article 28 establishes the Human Rights Committee (HRC), the treaty body that monitors
implementation of the ICCPR.

Key Provisions:
•​ Article 28(1): There shall be established a Human Rights Committee consisting of
eighteen members of high moral character and recognised competence in the field of
human rights.
•​ Article 28(2): Members shall be nationals of States Parties to the Covenant and shall
serve in their personal capacity, not as government representatives.
•​ Article 28(3): Consideration shall be given to equitable geographical distribution and
representation of different forms of civilization and principal legal systems.

Functions of the HRC:

•​ State Reporting (Art. 40): Reviews periodic reports submitted by States Parties and
issues Concluding Observations with recommendations.
•​ General Comments: Issues authoritative interpretations of ICCPR provisions (e.g.,
General Comment No. 36 on Right to Life).
•​ Individual Complaints (Optional Protocol I): Hears complaints from individuals
against states that have ratified the Optional Protocol. India has not ratified this.
•​ Inter-State Complaints (Art. 41): Can receive complaints from one State Party against
another, if both have made declarations accepting this jurisdiction.

4.4 Important Case Laws

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 – The Supreme Court upheld the
constitutionality of the death penalty but restricted it to the ‘rarest of rare’ cases, aligning with
ICCPR Article 6(2) requirement that death penalty be imposed only for the most serious
crimes.

Page 13
 LLB Human Rights Law – Exam Notes by Praneeth Kumar - 4th Sem LLB

Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470 – Laid down guidelines for determining
‘rarest of rare’ cases: manner of commission, motive, socially abhorrent nature, magnitude
of crime, and personality of victim.
Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014) 3 SCC 1 – The Supreme Court commuted
death sentences where there was unexplained and inordinate delay in deciding mercy
petitions, recognising the right against mental torture under Article 21 read with ICCPR
Article 6(4).
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1 – While decriminalising
homosexuality, the Supreme Court referred to ICCPR provisions on privacy, dignity, and
non-discrimination, demonstrating the influence of ICCPR on Indian constitutional
interpretation.

Page 14
 LLB Human Rights Law – Exam Notes by Praneeth Kumar - 4th Sem LLB

TOPIC 5: International Covenant on Economic, Social and

Cultural Rights (ICESCR) – Articles 11 and 12
5.1 Introduction
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) was adopted on
16th December 1966 and came into force on 3rd January 1976. Together with the ICCPR and
the UDHR, it forms the International Bill of Human Rights. India acceded to the ICESCR on 10th
April 1979.
Key Principle: The ICESCR operates on the principle of progressive realisation – states must
take steps to the maximum of their available resources to achieve the full realisation of rights
recognised in the Covenant (Article 2). This is monitored by the Committee on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights (CESCR).

5.2 Article 11 – Right to an Adequate Standard of Living

Text and Scope:
•​ Article 11(1): States Parties recognise the right of everyone to an adequate standard of
living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing, and housing, and to
the continuous improvement of living conditions.
•​ Article 11(2): States Parties recognise the fundamental right of everyone to be free from
hunger and shall take measures including specific programmes to improve methods of
production, conservation, and distribution of food, and to ensure equitable distribution of
world food supplies.

Components of the Right:

•​ Right to Adequate Food: General Comment No. 12 (1999) elaborates this as the right
to have regular, permanent, and unrestricted access to food that is quantitatively and
qualitatively adequate, sufficient and safe, ensuring a fulfilling life with dignity.
•​ Right to Adequate Housing: General Comment No. 4 (1991) identifies components:
legal security of tenure, availability of services, affordability, habitability, accessibility,
location, and cultural adequacy.
•​ Right to Water: General Comment No. 15 (2002) recognised the right to water as
implied in Articles 11 and 12, being essential for adequate food, housing, and health.

Indian Context:
The Directive Principles of State Policy incorporate Article 11 principles. Article 39(b) directs
distribution of material resources for common good. Article 47 requires the state to raise
nutrition levels and the standard of living. The National Food Security Act, 2013, the MGNREGA
(2005), and the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana give legislative and policy effect to these rights.

5.3 Article 12 – Right to Health

Text and Scope:

Page 15
 LLB Human Rights Law – Exam Notes by Praneeth Kumar - 4th Sem LLB

•​ Article 12(1): States Parties recognise the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the
highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.
•​ Article 12(2): Steps to be taken shall include: (a) Reduction of stillbirth rate and infant
mortality; (b) Improvement of environmental and industrial hygiene; (c) Prevention,
treatment, and control of epidemic diseases; (d) Creation of conditions assuring medical
service to all in sickness.

Interpretation – General Comment No. 14 (2000):

The CESCR clarified that the right to health is not a right to be healthy, but a right to a system of
health protection that provides equality of opportunity. It contains four essential elements:
•​ Availability: Functioning public health and health care facilities, goods, and services in
sufficient quantity.
•​ Accessibility: Physical accessibility, economic accessibility (affordability), information
accessibility, and non-discrimination.
•​ Acceptability: All health facilities must be respectful of medical ethics and culturally
appropriate.
•​ Quality: Health facilities, goods, and services must be scientifically and medically
appropriate and of good quality.

Minimum Core Obligation:

States must ensure, at the very minimum: access to health facilities on a non-discriminatory
basis, access to minimum essential food, basic shelter and sanitation, essential drugs as
defined by WHO, and equitable distribution of health facilities. Failure to meet these obligations
is a prima facie violation.

5.4 Indian Position and Case Laws

PUCL v. Union of India (2001) (Right to Food Case) – The Supreme Court directed the
implementation of food schemes (mid-day meals, ICDS, Antyodaya Anna Yojana) to prevent
starvation deaths. This is a direct application of ICESCR Article 11(2) on freedom from
hunger.
Chameli Singh v. State of UP (1996) 2 SCC 549 – The Court held that the right to shelter is
a fundamental right under Article 21, drawing from ICESCR Article 11’s right to adequate
housing. Shelter includes adequate living space, safe environment, and civic amenities.
Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996) 4 SCC 37 – The
Supreme Court held that failure of a government hospital to provide timely medical treatment
to an emergency patient violated the right to life. The state has a constitutional obligation to
provide adequate medical facilities, aligning with ICESCR Article 12.
Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India (1995) 3 SCC 42 – The
Court held that the right to health, medical aid, and occupational health is a fundamental
right under Article 21. Workers exposed to asbestos were entitled to health insurance and
regular medical examinations.

Page 16
 LLB Human Rights Law – Exam Notes by Praneeth Kumar - 4th Sem LLB

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545 – The Court held that the
right to livelihood is part of the right to life under Article 21. Pavement dwellers could not be
evicted without due process, implicitly affirming ICESCR Article 11 principles.

Page 17
 LLB Human Rights Law – Exam Notes by Praneeth Kumar - 4th Sem LLB

TOPIC 6: Article 21 of the Indian Constitution

6.1 Text of Article 21
"No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law."
Article 21 is the most litigated and expansively interpreted fundamental right in the Indian
Constitution. Originally a negative right restraining state action, it has been transformed through
judicial interpretation into a repository of positive obligations encompassing nearly every aspect
of dignified human existence.

6.2 Historical Evolution

Phase 1: Narrow Interpretation
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27 – The Supreme Court adopted a narrow
interpretation, holding that ‘procedure established by law’ means any procedure laid down
by a validly enacted law. Each fundamental right was a separate silo; Article 21 could not be
read with Articles 14 and 19. The procedure did not need to be fair or reasonable.

Phase 2: Expansive Revolution

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597 – This landmark 7-judge bench
decision overruled Gopalan. The Court held that Articles 14, 19, and 21 form a golden
triangle and must be read together. The procedure under Article 21 must be just, fair, and
reasonable, not arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive. This transformed Article 21 from a mere
negative right into an expansive guarantee of human dignity.

6.3 Scope and Rights Derived from Article 21

Post-Maneka Gandhi, the Supreme Court has read numerous rights into Article 21. The
following is a comprehensive enumeration:

A. Right to Livelihood
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) – Eviction of pavement dwellers
without alternative arrangement violates Article 21 as livelihood is integral to life.

B. Right to Health and Medical Care

Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of WB (1996) – Government hospitals
cannot refuse emergency treatment. The state has an obligation to provide adequate
medical facilities.

C. Right to Education
Unnikrishnan J.P. v. State of AP (1993) 1 SCC 645 – Right to education up to age 14 is a
fundamental right under Article 21. This led to the 86th Amendment (2002) inserting Article
21A and the Right to Education Act, 2009.

Page 18
 LLB Human Rights Law – Exam Notes by Praneeth Kumar - 4th Sem LLB

D. Right to Clean Environment

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) – Right to live in a pollution-free environment is part of
Article 21. This led to the development of absolute liability doctrine and numerous
environmental protection orders.

E. Right to Privacy
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 – A 9-judge bench
unanimously held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21. Privacy
includes informational privacy, bodily autonomy, and decisional autonomy. This overruled
M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962).

F. Right to Dignity
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, UT of Delhi (1981) – Right to life includes the
right to live with human dignity, not mere animal existence. It encompasses adequate
nutrition, clothing, shelter, and facilities for self-expression.

G. Right to Speedy Trial

Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) – The Court held that speedy trial is a
fundamental right. Undertrial prisoners who had been in custody longer than the maximum
sentence for their alleged offence must be released.

H. Right against Custodial Violence

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416 – The Court laid down 11 mandatory
guidelines for arrest and detention to prevent custodial torture and death, recognising these
as violations of Article 21.

I. Right to Fair Trial

Zahira Habibulla Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (Best Bakery Case) (2004) – The Court held
that the right to a fair trial includes protection of witnesses and the right of victims to
participate meaningfully in criminal proceedings.

J. Right to Die with Dignity

Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) 5 SCC 1 – The Supreme Court recognised
passive euthanasia and the validity of advance medical directives (living wills) as part of the
right to die with dignity under Article 21.

K. Right to Sleep
In Re: Ramlila Maidan Incident (2012) 5 SCC 1 – The Court observed that the right to
sleep is a fundamental right under Article 21, being essential for life and health.

6.4 Article 21 and International Law

Article 21 has become the conduit through which international human rights norms enter Indian
law. The Supreme Court has repeatedly harmonised Article 21 with UDHR Article 3 (right to life),
ICCPR Article 6 (right to life), ICESCR Article 11 (adequate standard of living), and Article 12

Page 19
 LLB Human Rights Law – Exam Notes by Praneeth Kumar - 4th Sem LLB

(right to health). In Vishaka, CEDAW was directly applied through Article 21. The Court uses
international law as an interpretive aid when domestic law is ambiguous or silent.

6.5 Summary Table of Rights under Article 21

Right Leading Case
Life and Personal Liberty Maneka Gandhi v. UOI (1978)
Livelihood Olga Tellis v. BMC (1985)
Health and Medical Care Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity (1996)
Education Unnikrishnan J.P. v. State of AP (1993)
Clean Environment M.C. Mehta v. UOI (1987)
Privacy K.S. Puttaswamy v. UOI (2017)
Dignity Francis Coralie Mullin (1981)
Speedy Trial Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979)
Against Custodial Violence D.K. Basu v. State of WB (1997)
Fair Trial Zahira Habibulla (Best Bakery) (2004)
Die with Dignity Common Cause v. UOI (2018)
Shelter/Housing Chameli Singh v. State of UP (1996)
Legal Aid Hussainara Khatoon (No. 4) (1980)
Against Solitary Confinement Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978)
Travel Abroad Maneka Gandhi v. UOI (1978)
Sleep In Re: Ramlila Maidan (2012)
Reputation Subramanian Swamy v. UOI (2016)

Page 20
 LLB Human Rights Law – Exam Notes by Praneeth Kumar - 4th Sem LLB

TOPIC 7: Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) – Child

Rights
7.1 Introduction
The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) was adopted by the UN General Assembly on
20th November 1989 and came into force on 2nd September 1990. It is the most widely ratified
human rights treaty in history, with 196 state parties. India ratified the CRC on 11th December
1992. The CRC defines a child as every human being below the age of 18 years (Article 1).

7.2 Guiding Principles of the CRC

The CRC is built on four fundamental principles:
•​ Non-Discrimination (Article 2): All rights apply to every child without discrimination of
any kind, irrespective of race, colour, sex, language, religion, disability, birth, or other
status.
•​ Best Interests of the Child (Article 3): In all actions concerning children, the best
interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. This applies to courts,
administrative bodies, legislative bodies, and social welfare institutions.
•​ Right to Life, Survival, and Development (Article 6): Every child has the inherent right
to life, and states shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and
development of the child.
•​ Respect for the Views of the Child (Article 12): A child who is capable of forming his
or her own views shall have the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting
the child, with due weight given to age and maturity.

7.3 Key Rights under the CRC

A. Civil Rights and Freedoms
•​ Article 7: Right to be registered at birth, right to a name, and right to acquire a
nationality.
•​ Article 8: Right to preserve identity, including nationality, name, and family relations.
•​ Article 13: Freedom of expression, including freedom to seek, receive, and impart
information.
•​ Article 14: Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.
•​ Article 15: Freedom of association and peaceful assembly.
•​ Article 16: Right to privacy – no arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home, or
correspondence.

B. Family Environment and Alternative Care

•​ Article 9: Child shall not be separated from parents against their will, except when in the
best interest of the child (e.g., abuse, neglect).

Page 21
 LLB Human Rights Law – Exam Notes by Praneeth Kumar - 4th Sem LLB

•​ Article 10: Family reunification applications shall be dealt with in a positive, humane,
and expeditious manner.
•​ Article 18: Both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing of the child,
with the best interests as their basic concern.
•​ Article 20: A child deprived of family environment is entitled to special protection and
alternative care (foster placement, kafalah, adoption, or institutional care).

C. Health and Welfare

•​ Article 24: Right to the highest attainable standard of health and access to health
services. States must combat disease and malnutrition, ensure pre-natal and post-natal
care, and abolish traditional practices prejudicial to child health.
•​ Article 26: Right to social security.
•​ Article 27: Right to a standard of living adequate for physical, mental, spiritual, moral,
and social development.

D. Education, Leisure, and Cultural Activities

•​ Article 28: Right to education. Primary education must be compulsory and free.
Secondary education must be available and accessible. Higher education must be
accessible on the basis of capacity.
•​ Article 29: Education shall develop the child’s personality, talents, respect for human
rights, and preparation for responsible life.
•​ Article 31: Right to rest, leisure, play, and recreational activities appropriate to age.

E. Special Protection Measures

•​ Article 19: Protection from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury, abuse,
neglect, maltreatment, or exploitation while in care.
•​ Article 32: Protection from economic exploitation and hazardous child labour.
•​ Article 33: Protection from narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
•​ Article 34: Protection from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse.
•​ Article 35: Prevention of abduction, sale, and trafficking of children.
•​ Article 37: No torture or cruel treatment; no death penalty or life imprisonment without
possibility of release for offences committed by children; detention as a last resort and
for the shortest appropriate period.
•​ Article 38: Protection of children in armed conflict; no recruitment of children below 15
into armed forces.
•​ Article 39: Rehabilitation and social reintegration of child victims.
•​ Article 40: Right of an accused child to be treated in a manner consistent with the child’s
sense of dignity, with fair trial guarantees adapted for age.

7.4 Optional Protocols

Page 22
 LLB Human Rights Law – Exam Notes by Praneeth Kumar - 4th Sem LLB

•​ Optional Protocol on Children in Armed Conflict (2000): Raises the minimum age for
direct participation in hostilities to 18 and prohibits compulsory recruitment of under-18s.
India ratified this in 2005.
•​ Optional Protocol on Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography
(2000): Criminalises these acts specifically. India ratified this in 2005.
•​ Optional Protocol on Communications Procedure (2011): Allows individual
complaints to the CRC Committee. India has not ratified this.

7.5 Indian Legislative Framework for Child Rights

•​ Constitutional Provisions: Article 15(3) allows special provisions for children. Article
21A guarantees free and compulsory education (6–14 years). Article 23 prohibits
trafficking. Article 24 prohibits child labour in hazardous employment. Article 39(e)(f)
protect children from exploitation.
•​ Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: Repealed the 2000
Act. Provides for the care, protection, treatment, and rehabilitation of children in conflict
with law and children in need of care and protection. Allows children aged 16–18 to be
tried as adults for heinous offences.
•​ Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO): Comprehensive
legislation addressing sexual assault, harassment, and pornography involving children.
Gender-neutral protection. Special courts for speedy trial.
•​ Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act):
Implements Article 21A. Every child aged 6–14 has the right to free education in a
neighbourhood school. 25% reservation for disadvantaged children in private schools.
•​ Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2016: Prohibits
employment of children below 14 in all occupations. Prohibits adolescents (14–18) in
hazardous occupations.
•​ Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005: Establishes NCPCR (National
Commission) and SCPCRs (State Commissions) to monitor child rights implementation.
•​ Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006: Makes child marriages voidable at the option
of the minor. Minimum age: 18 for girls and 21 for boys.

7.6 Important Case Laws

M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996) 6 SCC 756 – The Supreme Court directed the
abolition of child labour in match factories in Sivakasi and ordered rehabilitation, including
education and monetary compensation. The Court relied on CRC principles and
Constitutional provisions.
Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2011) 5 SCC 1 – The Court directed the
implementation of a comprehensive plan for the rescue, rehabilitation, and reintegration of
missing and trafficked children, drawing on CRC Article 35.

Page 23
 LLB Human Rights Law – Exam Notes by Praneeth Kumar - 4th Sem LLB

Sampurna Behura v. Union of India (2018) – The Supreme Court directed all states to set
up special juvenile police units and child welfare committees as mandated under the JJ Act,
and emphasised the best interest principle from CRC Article 3.
Gaurav Jain v. Union of India (1997) 8 SCC 114 – The Court directed that children of sex
workers should not be treated differently from other children. They are entitled to all rights
including education, health, and protection from exploitation, reflecting CRC’s
non-discrimination principle.
Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India (1984) 2 SCC 244 – The Supreme Court laid
down comprehensive guidelines for inter-country adoption, prioritising the welfare and best
interests of the child. This is regarded as a precursor to CRC Article 21 on adoption.
Subramanian Swamy v. Raju (2014) 8 SCC 390 – The Supreme Court upheld the
constitutional validity of the Juvenile Justice Act, reaffirming that children in conflict with the
law must be treated with reformative and rehabilitative objectives, not punitive ones.

7.7 CRC Committee and Monitoring

The CRC Committee (18 independent experts) monitors implementation through state reports
(initial report within 2 years, then every 5 years), Concluding Observations, General Comments
(e.g., General Comment No. 14 on Best Interests), and Days of General Discussion. India has
submitted multiple reports and received recommendations on issues including child labour,
malnutrition, child marriage, and juvenile justice.

– End of Notes –

Page 24