ICESCR

Cases 13th August 2025

1. I.D.G. v. Spain (2015) - Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
• Facts: The complainant, Ms. I.D.G., faced foreclosure proceedings on her home after defaulting on a
loan. The court attempted to serve her notice multiple times but failed as she was not home. The fourth
time, the notice of auction was simply pasted to her door. She was subsequently evicted without, she argued,
having received effective prior notification.
• Decision: The Committee found that Spain had violated her right to adequate housing under Article 11
of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). It held that states must
take all appropriate measures to ensure that individuals facing eviction receive timely and adequate notice,
allowing them to participate in legal proceedings. This includes ensuring that the method of notification is
reasonably calculated to reach the person.
2. Minister of Health v. Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) (2002) - Constitutional Court of South
Africa
• Facts: The Treatment Action Campaign (TAC), an NGO, sued the South African government on behalf
of HIV-positive pregnant women. The government was refusing to make the anti-retroviral drug
Nevirapine widely available in public hospitals to prevent mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of HIV.
The government argued the drug's safety was not fully proven and cited logistical costs for a national rollout.
• Decision: The Constitutional Court of South Africa delivered a landmark ruling. It held that the
government's policy was a violation of the right to access healthcare services enshrined in Section 27 of the
South African Constitution. The court explicitly referenced South Africa's obligations under Article 12 of
the ICESCR (the right to the highest attainable standard of health) to inform its interpretation of the
constitution. It ordered the government to make Nevirapine available without delay.
3. Sunil Babu Pant and Others v. Government of Nepal (2007) - Supreme Court of Nepal
• Facts: Sunil Babu Pant, LGBTQ+ activists, and the Blue Diamond Society (an LGBTQ+ rights
organization) filed a petition challenging widespread discrimination against sexual and gender minorities.
They cited illegal detention, denial of employment, and lack of access to healthcare and education. They
invoked Nepal's constitution as well as its obligations under the ICCPR (Articles 2, 17, 26) and the ICESCR
(Articles 2, 6 10, 12).
• Decision: The Supreme Court of Nepal issued a groundbreaking decision. It legally recognized a "third
gender" category based on an individual's self-identification. The court ordered the government to amend
all laws that were discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity and to issue official
identity documents (like citizenship cards and passports) reflecting the third gender category.
4. Comilang v. Commissioner of Registration (2013) - Hong Kong Court of Appeal
• Facts: Ms. Comilang, a domestic worker from the Philippines working in Hong Kong, was denied a new
visa. She argued that this decision indirectly violated the rights of her daughter, who was a Hong Kong
resident, by forcing their separation. She invoked protections for the family under Hong Kong's Basic Law
(Article 37) and international covenants, including Article 10(1) of the ICESCR (protection of the family).
• Decision: The Court of First Instance initially ruled that international instruments were not directly
enforceable in Hong Kong's domestic law. However, the Court of Appeal, while ultimately deciding the
case on other procedural grounds, upheld the principle that international human rights norms, particularly
those in the ICESCR, should inform the interpretation of domestic law. The judgment affirmed that while
the ICESCR may not be directly justiciable, its principles are relevant for assessing whether a government
action is lawful and reasonable.
20. 08. 2025
Sub Commission on Protection of Human Rights
This came into existence form 1947 and is subsidiary of the Human Rights Commission Originally not
named like this but in 1947 called as Sub Commission for prevention of discrimination and protection of
minority rights and changed as protection for Human rights in 1999.
Its is the think tank of UN it bridges the gap between academic research and policy making. It was often
therefore referred as official think tank of UN. It studies various human rights issued- Main Contribution
like Scope of Indigenous rights. Makes recommendations and any other function entrusted by UN.
Focusses on thematic studies.
It started originally with only 12 members and later it rose to 43. For more than 50 years it commenced
studies with different indigenous groups from different parts of the world and later drafted the UNDRIP
(UN Declaration of Rights of Indigenous People). It became a declaration in 2007- happened because of
extensive communication of sub commission with various indigenous for a more than 40-50 years.
It Commenced study on racial discrimination and was the foundation of Durban Conference which took
place in 2001. Further, it also made the report on TLC (Trans National Corporation) and Human Rights.
Submitted (Norms on responsibilities of TLC and Other businesses with regard to Human Rights)
in 2000 began in 1990s. What should be accountability of TLC in respect of Human Rights. This is non-
binding but it was the founding principle of UN Guiding Principles on business and Human Rights
2011. (Based on report of sub-commission).
Sub Commission is now replaced by Advisory body who is not that effective.
Commission on Status of Women (CSW)
Established in 1946 and is a subsidiary of ECOSOC. It has developed CEDAW and looks in
implementation of the same and meets twice yearly in New York. 45 member States elected for four years.
Full female membership and is primary goal is to Policy Recommendation and coordinate with another
body called the UN Women.
Major Contributions:
1. CEDAW- Found in 1979 and its implementation
2. Platform for Action- 1995- It is discussed as a Blueprint for Gender Equality. Women and Poverty,
health and Women, women and armed conflict, and so on. Became a Blue Print for nation states on what
are the area of gender equality on which they should work upon.
3. Regular agreed Conclusions: These are advisory opinions where CSW agrees on these are ways where
women rights are violated and two main aspects: Violence against women 2013, and Women in Digital
Age 2023.
OHCRC (Office of High Commissioner of Human Rights)
Created in 1993 by UNGC resolution. Headquarters in Geneva and 90 offices around the world. It
reports to two bodies: UN Secretary General, UN Human Rights Council. It is like a supervisor to all types
of bodies and treaty bodies. It looks into special procedure done under HRC. It participates in UPR and so
on.
Criticism: 1. Selective reviews and so on.
Major role: Drafting of SDG Goals and coming up with the UNGA 2016 Resolution on Climate Change
(Right to clean, healthy, & sustainable environment)
Note: These are all charter based bodies

21. 08. 2025

UN TREATY BODIES
We have 9 treaties but we have 10 treaty body. As treaty on torture has a sub commission as well. These
Bodies monitor the implementation of the treaties under which they are formed. Members are also different
from charter bodies as they include independent experts and are not chosen because of political
representation purposes and so on. Every country sends their own individual experts from whom few are
nominated. These are more autonomous from the Charter body.
Selection Process: Principle or Addis Ababa Guidelines on Independence and impartiality of
members of Treaty Bodies
They all meet in Geneva but the tenure for meeting is different and they have support from the Office of
High Commissioner (Financial and Staff Support) (Human Rights Division of the High Commissioner).
Treaty Bodies Charter Bodies
1. Specific Human Rights Agendas are taken up. 1. Open for any thematic discussions.
(CEDAW only Women rights)
2. Independent Experts 2. State representatives are elected
3. These are quasi-Judicial or legal Organ. 3. More of a Political Organ.
4. We have review periodic reports as mechanisms 4. UPR Mechanisms, Special Rapporteurs,
and Individual Complaints can be done and general Emergency Investigations as a mechanism.
Comments as are released by the Bodies.

Function of Treaty Bodies:

1. State Party reports (Any Treaty body once you become a member you need to submit a report
within one year of changes made and then every few years.) Once done later they submit
Concluding Remarks. (As if do you need anu institutional set up and all) Further, NHRC bodies
can also give reports but are taken up in plenary sessions.
2. Individual Complaints: Optional Protocol 1 and all have these complaint mechanisms and their
own treaty bodies can take them up. But only when domestic remedies are exhausted. Torture
treaty allows for interstate complaint also.
3. Country Visit and Inquiry
4. General Comments and General Recommendations (Only for CEDAW).
5. Annual Meeting of Chairpersons: Since there are 10 different treaty bodies, separate procedures.
Therefore, all chairpersons can meet, share work and decide on effective body to implement the
UN system in a better manner.
6. Treaty Body Strengthening: UN High Commissioner on Human Rights said that State and non-
state parties have to initiate the process of reflection.
S No. Committee Composition Mechanism Meetings
1. CERD, 1969 18 Members • General 3/Year in a
(Elimination of Comments/ fraction of 3-
Racial General 4-3 weeks.
Discriminations) recommendations/
thematic
discussions/ Early
warning to
countries saying
law which you are
bringing is
violative/Allows
for individual and
interstate
complaint.
• Every 2-year State
Party Report.
(Allows in
Concluding
remarks for CERD
to ask amendments
in laws of a country
and so on. )
2. Committee on 18 Members • After Ratification- 2 Sessions a
Economic, Social Initial Report is to year. (3+1
and Cultural Rights, be given and every week.)
1985 5 year- State Party
Report.
• (Monitors rights in
the covenant and
what can be the
constructive
dialogue)
3. Human Rights 18 Members • First State Party 3 sessions per
Committee report- in 1 year year.
(Implementing and then whenever
provisions of the committee
ICCPR) request. According
to past practices,
every 8-year
members can be
asked to submit the
report.
• Article 41 of
covenant says that
committee can
look into inter-
state complaints
and optional
protocol 1
mentions avoid
individual
complaints.
 • Second Optional
protocol required
that in the State
Party reports they
mention how have
they abolished
death penalty.
4. CEDAW 23 Members Can receive 3 years (in
(Commission on communications from fashion of
elimination of individuals or civil society 3+1+1) (Pre
discrimination that there is violation or on sessional
against women) basis of these complaints Group
they can initiate enquiries. Meetings)

Contributions: `1. They

have walked towards
citizenship rights of women
in Japan. (geneder Equality
in Mongolia0
2. inheritance rights in
Tanzania (Wanda mein
rights to hold land to
women too)
3. Domestic Violence laws
in South Korea.
4. Anti Traffikking laws in
Ukraine and Moldova.
5. National enquiries on
missing and murdered
women in Canada.
6. They forced China -to
prohibit any non – medical
foetus identification.
7. Political Rights of women
in Costa Rica.
5. Committee Against 10 Independent • Works for
Torture (same as experts implementation of
year of convention) convention on
prevention of
inhumane
treatment, cruelty
and torture.
• State can
complaint against
other states,
Individual
Complaints,
Inquiries and inter-
state complaint,
STR (State Treaty
Report) (1-4 years)
• Universal
ratification/ full
implementation is
 one of the main
goals.
• Convention has an
optional protocol
which has led to
establishment of a
sub committee on
prevention of
Torture.
6. Sub Committee on Members • Guided by the 3 times a year
Prevention of selected for 4 principles of (1-1-1)
Torture 2006 years- 25 impartiality,
members • They ensure that
general assembly
every year
considers the
report of the
committee
• National
Prevention
Mechanism.
7. Committee on Members states • To adapt inquiries 2 times a year
rights of persons are to give reports and if they find (1-1 week)
with disability within two years evidence on
and every four violence then they
years annual report back to
reports is to be general assembly.
given (Article 35
of the
Convention)
8. Committee on 14 independent • Article 2 Para 1: 2 sessions per
Protection of rights experts as Defines Migrant year (1-1)
of all migrant members Workers.
workers and their
families, 2004
9. Committee on 18 members • 3 protocols: 3 sessions
rights of children optional protocol (3 plenary
(Convention on 1: protection of weeks and 2
rights of children) children in armed sessions of
conflict. workings)
• optional protocol
2: Sale of children:
child prostitution
and child
pornography. and
• 3. optional
protocol: Children
can file complaints:
Optional protocol
in
communication’s
procedure.
• Initial Report: 2
years of ratification
 and then every five
years.

28th August 2025

European Human Rights System

Timeline:

• World War II-Congress of Europe (Gathering, May 1948 (Need for Parliamentary
Assembly, Court of Justice and Individual Complaints)- Council of Europe- ECPHRFF-
Disintegration USSR (Until this called the Cold War) - Amendments made by
Protocol 11 (Happened under Article 34) - 21st century-2010- Led to Protocol 19.
• Commission (Admissibility) Direct transfer to Committee of Europe if by chance matter
not Admissible. If admissible but matters not clear than the next committee-> Committee
(Admissibility and merits of case)-> Chamber (7 Judges) (Admissibility and Merits of
the Case) -> Grand Chamber (17 Judges)
• Article 19-51- European Courts on Human Rights, Article 19-Establishment of the Court,
to ensure contracting Party are observing the rights of protocol. Article 20-Number of
judges- Article 21- Eligibility, Article 22- Elections of Judges, Article 23- Terms of Office
and so on.
• Disintegration of USSR- Gorbachev- Backfired new reforms and USSR disintegrated into
small states- They tried to get into the Council of Europe- 23 Countries after disintegration
number rose to 47. Increase on number of Petitions. Therefore, Protocol 11 introduced:
• Changes introduced:
 Suspended Human Rights Commission
 Made European court on human rights permanent
 It abolished the committee of Ministers
 Made judgement of courts final
 Restructured court as Commission, committee, chamber and Grand Chamber.
• Article 41: Just Satisfaction
1. European Council: Aimed to Safeguarding Common Heritage: This has later evolved into
fundamental rights which has been embedded in the Convention. They talk about cooperation.
The council is important because it wanted to focus and formulated the following four things: 1.
Human right and Fundamental Rights; 2. European Social Charter; 3. Prevention of torture,
Inhumane treatment or degrading treatment; 4. Came up with the Framework convention for
protection of National Minority.
2. European Convention of Human Rights 1953: It has 14 protocols out of which 8 are
procedural and 6 are substantive. Under these Convention there are three categories of rights:
 • Absolute Rights and are Non-Derogable: Article 2, 3, 4 (Against Slavery), Article
7(Prohibition of Punishment without legal procedure)
• Derogable Rights: Article 15 (1): While states are carving out derogable rights they
should consider their international obligations.
• Derogable Rights are further expressed as Qualified Rights: Article 8, Article 9
3. Implementation can be happened through court, or Committee of Ministers or the Court of first
instance and then European Court on Human Rights (Directly looks into whether violation
of Human Rights for which they apply: Margin of Appreciation: Individual Countries have
a right to solve the conflict between individual rights and National Interest. This depends
on “Totality of Circumstance of that particular case”. Originally National Interest only
referred to National Security but now includes various aspects.
4. European Social Charter: Elaborates on Economic and Social Rights and member states to the
council are also members to the Charter: Submit annual report on implementation of Economic
and Social Rights: who further based on their conclusion submit member states performance:
There is also a protocol (1998) which came under this charter: individuals can directly file complain
before ECSR or can file collective complaints by NGO’s.
5. The European Court on Human Rights and ECJ are totally different bodies. ECJ is
connected with the EU. EU=/NOT EQUIVALENT TO EUROPEAN COUNCIL.
6. EU has further pillars: Common Foreign and Security Policy, Justice and Home Affairs Policy,
Common Foreign and Security Policy. Under the Treaty of European Union Article 6 it is said
Union shall respect the Fundamental Rights as guaranteed by the ECHR. To Implement Art 6,
Treaty of Amsterdam was brought in 1999 and it says that if Article 6 is violated continuously and
persistently by Member Countries their can be a suspension of their right to vote within the Union
(However, unanimity of all members is needed, not really possible to happen)-
7. ECJ: 25 JUDGES AND 8 Administrators and only jurisdiction is to consider legality of
community acts and not implementation of Human Rights. Thus, ECJ generally does not look if a
Community Directive viaolates the Human Rights. Only time it did acknowledge the Human
Rights was in the case of International Hondelge selllschaft v. Corratsstoh Fus Cretreide
(1970 case): European Regulation on Agriculture Policy was being questioned and Germany said
this is in violation of right of trade and occupation under Germany’s constitution. Can EU law be
valid if conflict in national Constitution: however, these National Consti’ act as general principles
of Community laws and thereby guiding principles for protection of Human Rights.
8. So European Council. Parliament and Commission came up with Charter of Fundamental
Rights of European Union in 2000. This was not ratified for many years and finally became
binding in 2009 and mirrors provisions of European Commission on Human Rights. EU
has never became party to the commission thus the charter had to came into force.
US Human Rights System

1. State Law
2. National Law

State Laws – OAS – 13 American Countries – Nicaragua withdrew in 2023

4 Objections:

1. Democracy
2. HR Protection
3. Economic and Social Development
4. Regional Security

Inter American Human Rights System (IAHRS)

1. American Declaration – on Rights an Duties of Man – 1948 – came before UDHR and focusses
on both rights and duties (towards family -e.g. education, nutrition, society - environment,
humanity)
2. American Convection on Human Rights – 1969 – 24 states as members
3. Additional Protocols – Protocol of San Salvador – 1988 and to Abolish Death Penalty, 1990

US Human Rights System

The US Human Rights System is a framework for protecting human rights within the United States. It
operates on two main levels: State Law and National Law.

Inter-American Human Rights System (IAHRS)

The IAHRS is a regional human rights body operating under the Organization of American States (OAS).
The OAS comprises 35 member states in the Americas, although Nicaragua withdrew in 2023.

The OAS has four primary objectives:

1. Democracy
2. Human Rights Protection
3. Economic and Social Development
4. Regional Security

The IAHRS is governed by several key instruments:

1. American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man (1948): This declaration, predating the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), emphasizes both the rights and duties of
individuals. It highlights duties toward family (e.g., providing education and nutrition), society (e.g.,
protecting the environment), and humanity.
 2. American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) (1969): Currently ratified by 24 states, the ACHR
establishes two key institutions: the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-
American Court of Human Rights (established in 1979).

Institutions of the ACHR

1. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: This is the principal organ for implementing the
rights and duties outlined in the convention. It reviews petitions and complaints, takes
**precautionary measures* to prevent irreparable harm (even before a violation occurs), facilitates
friendly settlements, and conducts on-site visits to monitor country-wide violations. The
commission also produces country reports and can refer cases to the court.
2. Inter-American Court of Human Rights: Located in San José, Costa Rica, the court consists of
seven judges elected by the OAS. It has advisory, contentious, and provisional jurisdictions.
Provisional measures provide immediate, short-term relief to protect individuals like human rights
defenders or journalists from arrest. The court conducts both written and oral proceedings and
can grant various forms of relief, including compensation, guarantees of non-repetition, legislative
reform, or public apologies.

Enforcement and Key Provisions

1. Articles 44 to 51: Establish the individual petition system.

2. Article 48 (1): Provides for friendly settlement, a non-contentious method of resolution where a
mediator or arbitrator assists the victim and the state, often used in land disputes involving
indigenous peoples.
3. Article 25: Covers precautionary protection.
4. Article 63 (2): Addresses provisional measures.
5. Article 41: Pertains to monitoring and country visits.

Additional Protocols

1. The ACHR is supplemented by two additional protocols:

2. Protocol of San Salvador (1988): Focuses on obligations concerning economic, social, and cultural
rights.
3. Protocol to Abolish the Death Penalty (1990).

Challenges and Criticisms

1. Lack of Ratification: While the USA and Canada are members of the OAS, they have **not
ratified the ACHR, which limits the system's reach and effectiveness in these countries.
2. Political Pressure: The system faces political pressure and threats of withdrawal from member
states, such as Venezuela, when they come under scrutiny for human rights violations.
 3. Resource Constraints: The court is burdened by a high volume of cases and a lack of resources,
which can delay justice.

Case Law

1. Velásquez Rodríguez vs. Honduras (1988): In one of the first binding judgments by the court,
it held that the state is responsible not only for direct human rights violations but also for a **failure
to prevent* them. The court found Honduras guilty due to a lack of due diligence in a case
involving the disappearance of a university student.
2. Barrios Altos vs. Peru (2001): The court ruled that amnesty laws passed by the Peruvian
government were invalid* because they violated Articles 8 and 25 of the ACHR. These laws had
protected police officers involved in civilian deaths during anti-insurgency operations. The court
mandated legislative reforms to abolish them.
3. González vs. Mexico (2009): In what is known as the "Cotton Fields" case, the court found that
Mexico had a duty to prevent, investigate, and punish gender-based violence. The state's negligence
in addressing the murders of women in cotton fields made it a human rights violator.
4. Advisory Opinion on Environmental Rights (2017): The court, in response to a request from
Colombia, affirmed that a healthy environment is a human right. It established that states are
obligated to conduct environmental impact assessments and provide information to citizens
regarding environmental issues.

US Human Rights system:

1. State Law
2. National Law

State Laws – OAS – 13 American Countries – Nicaragua withdrew in 2023

4 Objections:

1. Democracy
2. HR Protection
3. Economic and Social Development
4. Regional Security

Inter American Human Rights System (IAHRS)

1. American Declaration: Talks about both Rights as well as duties. (Duty towards your family,
society, environmental rights, social security and towards humanity.
2. American Convention of Human Rights: 24 States: Talks about Political and civil rights. Inter-
American Commission as well as courts.
3. 2 Additional Protocols – Protocol of San Salvador – 1988 and to Abolish Death Penalty, 1990
Further, there is IACHR 1959 and IACHR 1979: Rights and Duties under the Convention: Office in
Washington and has 7 independent members- elected by general Assembly of OAS. (Advisory Jurisdiction/
Contentious Jurisdiction and Provisional Jurisdiction).

• General Old Right: Civil and Political Rights and Socio and economic rights
• Duties Organ: Commission and Court (iNITIALLY not there, established in 1994 and started
functioning in 2006, enforced in 2004.
• African Charter and American Charter
• Bogata Charter: American Declaration of 1948: 7 months Prior to the UDHR: Inter-American
Commission on human Rights was established: Convention and Statute was drafted.
• A special inter-American Conference: In rio De janero was conducted.
• 1968: Draft was completed: San Something Costa Rice: Ratified by 21 States out of 32: 11th July
1978 came into force.
• General Obligations of the Member states: Article 1 of the Convention and Article 2 of the
Convention. (If convention provides for any particular right and that right is not incorporated in
the Domestic legal system and that system is not undertaken and so on.
• Part I Chapter II deals with civil and political rights. Most rights are almost similar with few
changes. Article III talks about jurisdictional personality. (Right to Life)
• Article 32 & Article 33 (Inter-American Commission and Court of Human Rights)
• Article 44: Indvidual Petitions
• Article 45: State Petitions.
• Section 4 Article 48-51
• Composition: Article 34-40

BANJUL CHARTER: AFRICAN CHARTER: ENFORCED IN 1986 COMMON TO THE

EARLIER: DIFFERENCE: BOTH CIVIL AND SOCIAL AND POLITICAL AND CULTURE
WAS NOT THERE.

African Charter of the Human and People’s Rights (Banjul Charter- came into force in
Banjul, Gambia)

This charter has political, civil rights, plus cultural, social and economic rights and the duties (Duties are
under Article 27- Ind duty towards family and society, and Article 28- Duty not to violate/ compromise
national security). They have three parts, Part I: Article 1-29 (Rights and Duties); Part II: Article 30-63
(Safeguards- setting up of commissions); Part III: Article 64-68.
Human Rights under the African Charter is based on the principles of community and all. Commission
established in 1987- Banjul, Gambia and has 11 members and though are elected by a body called as the
OAU (Organisation of African Unity), members of OAU- elects the members required to be part of
commission- they act in personal capacity rather than member of or state representative.

Article 45 mandates the enforcement of this commission; 1. Promotion of Human Rights, 2. Protection of
Human Rights, 3. Interpretation. They have to submit reports on implementation of charter every two years
and accept any individual complaint on grounds of violation. Can also accept any inter-state complaint.
(Protective measures). If Commission gives a judgement only recommendary in nature and not binding.

SERAC & CESR v. State of Nigeria (2001): Violation by State of Nigeria under Art 16,26,14,18,4, and
22. Was held liable.

Court has come through aa protocol to the charter- 1998

Jurisdiction: People’s Court: decisions are binding- Contentious, Advisory and Contemporary Jurisdictions
(Most of the states did not ratify)

Hussain v. United Republic of Tanzania: Plaintiff subject to mandatory death penalty through hanging.
Held violative of human rights.

12-Septermber 2025

CAIRO Declaration 1990- OIC: Organisation of Islamic Corporation

One of the primary criticisms for this is that it does not uphold the universality of Human rights as
enshrined in the UDHR: This is reflected in Rights of woman, free speech and so on. Human Dignity
belongs to both woman and men but according to them men and woman are not legally equal. These rights
are thus, subjected to Islamic Interpretation. This Declaration is not in consonance to UDHR.

Discrimination:

1. Woman’s share in Inheritance- Iran’s law- In Iran’s Civic Code- Women could inherit half the
share of Male heir.
2. Guardianship: You need a permit from your male guardian for travel, job and marriage. Reformed
in 2018
3. Evidence: Before 2019: A statement of a woman was not equivalent to the statement of a man.

These are against CEDAW law and reservations are based on Islamic Principles.

Cairo Declaration is root of establishment of Apostasy Laws: Article 18 ICCPR allows man or woman to
practice religion of their choice- but these laws limit right to change the faith. Based on this Sudan till 2020:
criminalised someone living Islam covert to any other religion be punishable with death. (Children above 5
years and pregnant woman could be killed)
In 2020- Sudanese law No. 12 of 2020 because of which, this has been revised and not punishable by Death
Penalty. Imprisonment made to be community service. Cairo became a main reason why given such leeway.

Arab Charter

Whatever the Cairo Declaration was following Arab Charter is supposed to fill the gaps and is a binding
treaty. Three rights identified:

1. Right to Self determination

2. Right to development.

Article 45: AHRC: Independent experts (State Report/ Inter-State Complaints- No complaint mechanism-
Only calls for State reviews mechanism. Every member submits report to the AHRC. Which rates how
countries are doing individually.

22/09/2025

MODULE 5

HUMAN RIGHTS IN CONTEMPORARY INDIA

Preamble talks about Constitutional Provisions relying on Internation Principles- Equality, Fraternity and
so on. Two main parts focusing on HR are the Fundamental Rights and DPSP. None of these particularly
talk about Human Rights, but the rights and DPSP included are parallel to the international regime and
focusses on holistic development of Human beings.

However, our main focus is on to ensure how international treaties are being implemented. Since India
follows principles of Dualism (International Principles do not automatically applies and have to be ratified
to be enforced on us) (Implementation happens through Legislation)

Article 51 ©- Notion of International Peace and security- foster respect and this can be done by ratification,

Foster Respect: Article 253- (we need to show up) Talks about role of legislature as well as the Parliament-
Parliament has the power to make law for implementation of any treaty/conventions or the decisions made
at these treaties. Like Doha Declaration-we had amendments in Patent Act to ensure the public health.
Ratification however, precedes this and therefore ratification is a power in the hands of the Executive.

This is read with Article 73- power of executive to exercise rights dealing with treaties, agreements and all:
Wherever government has to sign documents- executive will go.

Executive Power is subject to Entry 14 of List I: Entering into treaties, conventions with foreign countries.

Government of India also follows certain more power under Article 260: Government of India may by
agreement with govt of any other government may undertake the function of Govert. Of other territory
and will be subject to laws of that country and International Law Treaties.
Lastly, in terms of fostering respect is also ensured by Judiciary. While Article 51 is not justifiable but court
is free to implement international principles within the municipal law as long as no conflict between the
court. The scope of municipal law can be expanded by Judiciary.

Vishaka v. State of Rajas.

No workplace harassment laws at that time, Supreme court said to check evilness of exploitation of women
working and all we can interpret the International Principles under CEDAW to understand scope of
Article14,19, 15, 21 are to be interpreted.

International principles: not inconsistent with the constitution and is in harmony with the constitution can
be applied. Judiciary can deal with international framework and read it within Indian Provisions.

Section 12 of Protection of HR Act India, primary goal of NHRC is to study the int. conventions and
treaties on HR and make recommendation for its effective implementation- Sometimes NHRC send some
recommendation and sometimes, ministries themselves ask NHRC to give report on the rights.

Book- Page 260- PROTECTOR OF CONSTITUTION (MP Sharma v. Satish Chandra (narrow privacy)
later wider in Puttuswamy/ AK Gopalan case (narrow) Maneka Gandhi (wider)

CASES ON INTERPRETATION OF INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS

1. Keshvananda Bharti v. Union of India (1973): Amendment 24th. 25th and 29th was challenged-
Relating to Basic Structure and Human right beings’ part of it as their exists Part III of the
Constitution of India. Basic Structure embodies fundamental rights and protects citizens from
major violations and two particular rights are important: Article 8 of UDHR (If government is
trying to be inequal- go to specified bodies): Judiciary will see if constitutional amendment is
valid/not along with Article 10 of the UDHR. These two together prevents arbitrary action of
government destroying the core basic rights. Similarly, Basic Structure also protects these rights.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Interpretation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
and what is due process of law to curtail Article 21. Based on Article 9 (No one subject to arbitrary
arrest, exile), Article 13 of UDHR (Everyone has a right to leave a country including their own
country and reinstated in Article 12 of ICCPR.), Article 14 (1) of ICCPR (Right to fair hearing and
due process) Combination of these interpreted within the scope of Article 21.
3. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979): Relating to the undertrial prisoners and the right
to speedy trial. Court said Speedy Trial is a Fundamental right within the scope of Right to live
with dignity and is a part of Article 21. Article 9 of UDHR: No one subject to arbitrary arrest, exile
and so on. Article 10: Every one entitled to fair and public hearing within a reasonable time before
an impartial tribunal, incorporated in Article 14 (3) (c). So, even though no direct right is being
interpreted through international obligations.
4. Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar: Detention related rights
5. Sebastian Hungry v. Union of India: Detention related rights
6. Neelabathi Behara v. state of Orissa:
7. Francis Corallie v. Administrator Delhi (1981): Arrested, denied access to her family members
and no legal counsel plus conditions in the Jail were also Inhumane. The question was when we
talk about personal liberty under Article 21 does the prisoners whose rights are curtailed due to
due process of law. Of course, them being subjected to arrest is under due process but they still
have basic liberty. (food, shelter and right to human interaction (Article 5: No one subject to cruel
treatment reinstated under Article 10 of ICCPR) Arbitrary interference with family life (Article 12
of UDHR and Article 17(1) of ICCPR) (Adequate standards of living (Article 25 of UDHR) (This
is an interpretation of a positive liberty: rather than curtailment of liberty (negative liberty) to
requirement of positive entitlements required (Positive Liberty).
8. Peoples’ Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982): It is on forced labour,
workers working in Asian Games Project construction and paid way below the minimum wage:
whether Non-Payment of wages and payment below the minimum wages amounts to forced labour
under Article 23 of Indian Constitution. Court said non-payment under the minimum wages
amounts to economic exploitation of Human beings thereby denying human rights. (UDHR:
Article 23 (1)(favourable conditions), Article 23 (3) (The wage should be just and favourable) and
ICESCR: Article 7(3). Article 8 (3) ICCPR: Against Forces and bonded labour. Court referred to
these and said this clearly is forced labour and thus violation of Article 23 of COI.
9. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984): PIL filed for workers working in quarries
wherein hazardous conditions. Court said inhumane living conditions is violation of Article 21 and
bonded labour not allowed under Article 23. They referred to Article 4 of UDHR saying bonded
labours are modern forms of slavery under this Article and is there in Article 8 of ICCPR as well.
India is party to two ILO conventions: Forced Labour conventions 1930 (Convention 29) and
Abolition of Forced Labour (Convention 105 1957). These conditions are violation of all these
obligations as well.
10. Shah Bano Begum Case (1985): A Muslim lady trying to seek maintenance under Section 125 of
CrPc. The right to maintenance expired after Iddat period, the Muslim lady said even beyond to
Iddat period according to section 125 she is entitled to maintenance. So, India ratified in 1980 the
CEDAW which is talking about discrimination against woman and was ratified only in 1993 and
Shah Bano happened between the period of ratification but since it had signed, under Article 16
(1)(c) (equal rights and responsibilities during marriage) and (h) (equality during dissolution and
financial security)- Section 125 being secular law SC said shah Bano entitled to maintenance. And
it talked about why India needs a Uniform Civil Code.
11. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Muncipal Corporation (1985): It was about the Pavement Dwellers
whose housing area demolished by the BMC. This demolition held to be not just denial of their
home but livelihood since the footpath was close to their work place. Was it an infringement? The
 SC held that within Article 21 said Life includes Right to Livelihood. If depriving them to live there
you are depriving them form livelihood. Eviction was not a problem but proper procedure of
rehabilitation and notice giving was not ensured by BMC. Court referred to Article 21 and various
DPSP: Article 39 (a): State shall direct its policy to secure to the men and women equally a proper
right to livelihood and Article 41: States shall within its economic capacity and development make
place for employment (Right to work). r/w Article 37 and courts reads all of this with the obligation
on state to ensure livelihood and work it would be sheer pedantry (mockery) to exclude right to
livelihood from right to life. The order for eviction was procedurally not fair. Article 25 (1)-
Adequate standards of living including housing and security plus ICESCR- Article 11(1)
(International obligation on India to recognise this right under domestic laws).
Interpretation of right to housing: UN General Comment 4 of Human Cultural, economic
and social rights: The Committee has interpreted Article 11 of ICESCR and have determined what
is housing ins secure, safe space and when eviction happens all these are denied.
12. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987): They looked into environmental and industrial hygiene as
a part of Right to Life. The environment is also connected to Right to life to ensure the standards
of hygiene which should be maintained. Oleum gas leaked several people were injured. PIL was
filed seeking compensation and stronger liability: Absolute Liability in terms of hazardous Industry
and should ensure no harm to communities and workers happens. Read with Article 21 to include
environmental and industrial hygiene. India is also obligation under ICESCR Article 12 (2)(b).
(Right to maintain health related best standards).
13. Animal Welfare Board of India v. Nagaraja: 5 freedoms of environment (court’s ecocentric
approach)
14. Animal welfare Board of India v. Union of India:
15. Muhammad Salim v, state of Uttarakhand: Ganga and Yamuna legal person but SC subjudice.
16. Sunil Batra v, Delhi Administration: Prison rights
17. DK Basu and Vishaka guidelines: Judiciary cannot make a law but guidelines can be made to
fill the gaps.
18. Kishore Chand v. State of HP: (1990): Kishore chand accused of murder case and custodial
torture to get his confession. Whether custodial torture and forced confession is a violation of
Article 21. Court held that forced confession is against article 20 since forced to provide
information self-incrimination and custodial torture is against Article 21. (Article 5 UDHR, Article
14 (3)(g) ICCPR). There is another convention which is Convention against torture but since only
signed not ratified India not obligated to it only inspo can be taken.
19. Vishaka v. state of Rajasthan (1997): CEDAW explicit reference to it. CEDAW Ratified in 1993.
No law of sexual harassment but int bound to bring law. Two provisions (Article 11 (1)(a) (right
to work) and (1)(f) (health and safety at work place). The other provision is Article 5 (a) of
 CEDAW-elimination of any prejudice or customary practices. Yes, supposed to frame guidelines
to prevent harassment at work places.
20. Narmada Bachao Aandolan v. Union of India (2000): Sardar Sarovar Dam Project was in
question- People were evicted without adequate rehabilitation. Right to life has been curtailed.
Whether, the construction violated any rights and whether Right to Development in conflict with
first gen right (right to life). Can RTD override community right. Court allowed the construction
but held the rehabilitation was essential function of state machinery. Development necessary but
needs to be sustainable. Rio Declaration- Principle 3 (Develop must be fulfilled equitably for
present and future generations) and Principle 4 (Environment protection is an integral part of the
development).
21. Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India (2008): Punjab Excise Act (Section 30). Woman
cannot be employed in job of serving liquor whether it violated rights under Article 14,15 and 21.
The section was struck down though it looks like a protectionist measure but is a gender-based
stereotype being reinforced. It is the effect and not the intent of the legislation which has to be
seen. The court directly refers to the provisions of the CEDAW. Article 5(a): abolition of
stereotype related laws dealing with gender related issues. Article 11 (c): Freedom of choice of
profession is being violated. Also Violated UDHR Article 2 and Article 3 of ICCPR Article 7 of
ICESCR.
22. Nandini Sundar v. State of CG: CG-Salwa Judum- special police force made as a civil vigilant
group to combat the Maoist movement in Chhattisgarh tribals were recruited given weapons and
sent to fight their own tribes leading to killings and displacement. Court said against Article 14 and
court ordered disbanding this Judum. And said state cannot give away weapons even during
internal conflicts article 14 and article 21 cannot be compromised. Apart from UDHR Provisions
India had obligations under UNDRIP (UN Declaration of Rights of Indigenous People) Article 7
and 10 (Indigenous people right to life, security and integrity and cannot be force to be displaced.
Such union violates Human Rights and is not allowed.
23. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): Whether Section 66A of IT Act was constitutional and
held not to be constitutional. Supreme Court refers to Freedom of Speech as Human Rights and
held there are three concepts fundamental in understanding the reach of most basic human rights
including freedom of speech and these are central to democracy and human dignity- discussion,
advocacy and incitement- mere discussion and advocacy how so ever controversial is at the heart
of Article 19 (1)(a) of the constitution. It is only at the stage of Incitement that Article 19 (2) comes
into play. Thereby, 66A Unconstitutional- Article 19 of UDHR and ICCPR and HRC- General
Comment in 2011: Same safeguards online speech has as the offline speech. Online speech is to
be treated equally to offline speech.
24. Shayara Banu v. Union of India (2017): Triple Talaq was challenged called violation of human
dignity, equality between Muslim man and Muslim woman and non-discrimination principle. Test
 was done on 15, 14 and 21. Triple Talaq is unconstitutional and court directly referred to CEDAW
Article 5 (a) (State Party shall take all appropriate measures to modify social and cultural tenets of
conduct of men and women to ensure the that ideas of inferiority or superiority are balanced with
equality) and Article 16 (1)(c) (equal rights and responsibilities of men and women. Under UDHR
Article 2 talks about equality and 16 (1) says equality between men and women between and after
marriage (Union’s Defence: India put reservations with regards these articles: India will abide by
these provisions but not in conflict with interreference in the cultural personal laws so triple talaq
not unconstitutional.) Courts said judiciary must always remain alive in terms of international
conventions stating Article 14,15 and 21 and international obligations no inconsistency and based
the same Triple Talaq (Instantaneous) held invalid.
25. Nalsa v. UOI and Navtej Johar v. Union of India (2018): Several LGBTQI+ Community
against Article 377 historically used to harass same sex relationships in India. Article 14, 15, 19 and
21 violated it. Whether it undermines privacy, equality and so on. Court decriminalises same sex
relationships and said sexual orientation is an inalienable attribute of Human identity and dignity
and thereby LGBTQ persons are equal to any other persons as to any other Indian Citizens. Refers
to UDHR (ALL born free), Article 2, refers to ICCPR (Article 17), ICCPR Article 26 also. Tonen
v. Australia refereed to Yogyakarta Principles persuasive value 2006 principle 2 and 6- non-
discrimination and privacy and consensual relationships. CEDAW Referred to for LGBTQ
Women.
26. When do you acquire Human right and when does it end (born or foetus or death and all):
Medical termination of pregnancy act- 24 weeks till allowed: Ashray Adhikar Abhiyan v. UOI:
If homeless people die, they deserve to be cremated or put to rest with dignity. Nand Kishore
Sharma v. Union of India: MTP act constitutionality challenges, if medical termination allowed
is it violation of child’s rights.
27. Hadia case: Right to marry she converted in Islam to marry a guy: court said freedom to choose
religion and all state interference or parents interference cannot be there.
28. ICCPR Art 9 sub article 5 talks about compensation used in
29. Olga tellis case: Right to livelihood.
30. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020): Article 370 was removed from Jammu and Kashmir
was curtailed for a long time and was an editor of the Kashmir times and along with another leader
from Kashmir said this indefinite period for stoppage of internet services is violation of right to
life and right to circulation of newspaper. (So, Article 19 (1)(a) and (g) is violated). The Court
framed whether freedom of speech and expression includes right to access the internet/not. While,
the arguing for this case, Anuradha Bhasin looked into Indian system but Government Lawyer
looked into Article 4(1) of ICESCR not to justify the access to internet as FR but that the Article
gives state power to in times of emergency derogate rights which ensure peace.) Even in
International Covenants these rights are derogagble and referred to an American Philosopher
 called father of technology and even he denied right to technology as a HR. The SC however,
refuses to accept this and said Internet is part of Article 19 as is an enabler to speech and
expression. The court says infinite suspension of internet services is not allowed only in cases of
emergency is it allowed to derogate the rights. (Procedural error while exercising these rights even
under IT Rules)
31. Deepika Singh v. CAT (2022): Deepika Singh was a nurse at a Government Hospital PGIMER
Chandigarh. When she applied her application for matrimony leave was denied because she had
already taken leave 180 days leave for her two existing children. She said not exhausted her
entitlement since, the previous two leaves (were child care leave) were taken for her stepchildren
(UMBER SINGH Children) In 2019 she was taking for her own biological type. The court says
that can maternity leave be denied because she had earlier availed child care leave for non-biological
children. Whether def of parents includes (stepmother, same sex couples and so on). SC said the
denial of maternity leave is discriminatory and family term is inclusive (Step families, single- parent
households. Guardianship care and so on) and she will not have a child care leave but maternity
leave she can take. The court specifically refers to Article 25 (2) UDHR (Motherhood and
childhood are entitled to special care assistance) and Article 11 (2)(b) of CEDAW (family should
be inclusive definition based on comparable social benefits).
32. In Re: Bulldozer Action Case (In Re: Direction in matter of demolition of structures)
(2024): Several states across India were giving orders of demolishing of houses and all because
person was convicted both commercial and housing without any court order. Happened overnight
and thereby the families were also thrown out. Due to this, Art 32 petition filed before the SC.
Whether Executive can demolish structure without any judicial process and all. This is
unconstitutional, executive cannot act as a judge and punish and came up with “Safeguard
Measure” (Notice do, Specific Ground for demolition to be mentioned, to be given by registered
post and if physically there post it on the structure and has to happen 15 days prior or any longer
period as required by local law, give the party the opportunity of personal hearing, while
demolishing give inspection report of demolition along with videographic evidence, name of state
officials and preserve the records. All of this, has to be uploaded on digital portal for digital
transparency.) No Int principle referred but can be referred to Article 12 of UDHR (check on
arbitrary power of state), Article 17 (protection of Property) UDHR.
33. Hoshiyar Singh v. Union of India (Del HC) (2025): Hoshiyar Singh BSF personnel, in later
promotion tests if was found he was HIV Positive, and was immediately removed saying incapable
of performing the duty. Hoshiyar Singh said my disease does not affect his capability and said
against his right to dignity. Can service be terminated or promotion be withheld or denied because
he is HIV positive. Court said action is Unconsitutional and Discriminatory. State has obligation
to ensure equality, dignity and livelihood (Article 14,16 and 21). Court mentions scientific
understanding of HIV shows it’s a manageable condition and does not render someone incapable
 of doing its job. Article 1 (equality) and Article 23 (freedom to work) of UDHR, Article 26
ICCPR (Non-discrimination), Article 6 and 7 (Right to work and just and favourable
conditions at work) ICESCR, ILO Convention No. 111 (Prohibits discrimination at Work
Places), UN Guidelines on AIDS and HIV (State must prevent any stigma or
discrimination).

NOTE FOR END SEMS:

1. One question based on this case.

2. Amartya Sen Question.

6th October 2025

Human Rights Act 1993

Institutiotional Framework:

1. NHRC

2. SHRC

3. Human right courts.

Paris Principles adopted in 1991 talks about establishment of NHRI (National human Rights
Institutions)

7 principles Identified:

1. Independence of the NHRI to ensure no government influence is there. Institutions should be

autonomous in nature, structure and operation and in law.
2. Pluralism: The members of the Representations of NHRI should not be limited to majority but
will include members from academia, NGO and all.
3. The mandate of NHRI should be broad and should covered all types of Human Rights Issues.
4. Investigative power
5. Adequate Financial and Human Resources to carry its functions independently.
6. Advisory role for government to reform the laws, upcoming policies on human right and so on.
7. Principle of Co-operation- to ensure Universal nature of Human Rights is maintained by NHRI
co-operation with other UN Bodies.

These principles were aimed to be incorporated in the Human right Act 1993.

Definitions: Section 2 (d): Human rights mean the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of
the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and
enforceable by courts in India.
 Institutional Framework: Section 3: Establishment of NHRC and its composition: 1 Chairperson
(Retired Chief Justice of India) and four other members. They can be other judges of Supreme Court
of High court. Generally, it is 2 Judges and 2 Human Rights experts (Lawyers or NGO)

Amendment in 2006 adds ex officio member- chairperson of National Commission of SCST/

Women and children and minorities are automatically ex-officio members of the NHRC.

Functions- Section 12:

a. Inquire, suo motu or on a petition presented to it by a victim or any person on his

behalf 1 [or on a direction or order of any court], into complaint of—
i. violation of human rights or abetment thereof; or
ii. negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant;
b. intervene in any proceeding involving any allegation of violation of human rights pending
before a court with the approval of such court;
c. 2 [(c) visit, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force,
any jail or other institution under the control of the State Government, where persons are
detained or lodged for purposes of treatment, reformation or protection, for the study of
the living conditions of the inmates thereof and make recommendations thereon to the
Government;]
d. review the safeguards provided by or under the Constitution or any law for the time being
in force for the protection of human rights and recommend measures for their effective
implementation;
e. review the factors, including acts of terrorism, that inhibit the enjoyment of human rights
and recommend appropriate remedial measures;
f. study treaties and other international instruments on human rights and make
recommendations for their effective implementation;
g. undertake and promote research in the field of human rights;
h. spread human rights literacy among various sections of society and promote awareness of
the safeguards available for the protection of these rights through publications, the media,
seminars and other available means;
i. encourage the efforts of non-governmental organisations and institutions working in the
field of human rights;
j. such other functions as it may consider necessary for the promotion of human rights.

State Human Rights Commission- Section 21- Not mandatory and what about UT- Can be done by
Neighbouring state- 1 chairperson and four members no ex officio member and is limited to List II and
List III matters only.
Human right Court- Section 30 of the Act- Each district in India but not mandatory the government
may say particular sessions court will act like a Human right Courts- Presided by Sessions Judge- Speedy
Trial Relating to Human right violations.

Section 31: Whenever a HRC notified Special Public Prosecutor may be appointed as well.

Section 12 (i): Dealing with principles of Pluralism: Dealing with NGO: encourage the efforts of non-
governmental organisations and institutions working in the field of human rights;

Shortcomings:

1. NHRC cannot inquire into any matter pending before SHRC (Section 36 (1))
2. There is one year limitation period: even if gross violation for redressal of grievances you need to
show one year has not lapsed (Section 36 (2).)
3. HRC and SHRC not mandatory- State may say nahi chaiye.
4. Though NHRC may investigate, recommend or submit a report its order is not binding and are
not recommendatory.
5. Before, 2006 amendments there were very overlapping mechanisms form ex officio commissions.

October 7th 2025

NHRC sometimes moves the court for enforcement of order

NHRC vs State of Arunachal Pradesh (1996)

Chakmas Community – Buddhist minority – migrated from Bangladesh in 1960s – place where they
settled in AP got submerged because of damn flooding

AP government started being complicit in their expulsion, denying routes – came to the notice of the
NHRC – under section 12 the HR Act – approached SC – filed a writ under article 32 – SC held right
to life and liberty under article 21 – imposes constitutional duty on state to ensure basic facilities – not
citizens?

Court said that NHRC is a legitimate body empowered to interfere in any violation of the HR Act
Section 18 b

Paramjit Kaur vs State of Punjab (1998)

Wife of HR activist Jasvant Singh Detained by Punjab Police/ Disappearance?

NHRC took notice – started investigation into whereabouts. Section 36 (2) – 1 year limitation period.
CBI report with court. Asked for NHRC report

Can NHRC commence investigation after 1 year? Held if court asks report under article 32 – then a
statutory bar cannot curtail SC’s power
 Extra Judicial Execution Victim vs UOI (2016)

he Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM), a group representing families of
people allegedly killed by security forces in Manipur, filed a petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution. They claimed that over 1,500 fake encounters had taken place in the name of counter-
insurgency operations, and sought an independent probe into these alleged extra-judicial killings by the
police and armed forces, including those under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act), 1958
(AFSPA). NHRC notice to state of Manipur and different institution within the state

8th October 2025

OTHER INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKS IN INDIA (NATIONAL COMMISSIONS)-SALIENT

FEATURES

1. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR WOMEN

NCW Act 1990- Headquartered in New Delhi and composition- Chairperson+
5 Members+ member Secretary.
Functions:
i) Investigate
ii) Conduct research
iii) Review the law and suggest amendments
iv) Inspect Jails where applicable to find out living conditions of women
v) Submits Report
vi) Literacy and awareness
 NCW v. State of Delhi (2001 SC)

NCW filed SLP challenging the order of High Court and said that in the High court acquitted an
accused person under offence of abetment of suicide of a woman who was raped by him. Woman
only committed suicide because was raped and for rape also reduced the period of sentence. This
was challenged- They said it is unable to comprehend how the NCW can come under the SLP or
coming in appeal from order of HC as from HC only state itself or individual party offended can.
Since, act does not provide any inherent power of appeal on behalf of the private individual as
since not there NCW cannot come on appeal. Undoubtedly, leave can be granted to appeal under
Art 136 but on behest of the state and private affected party and not through the general bodies.

2. NCPCR- Nation Commission for Protection of Child’s right

NCCPR ACT 2005 And commission came in 2007 and specifically refers to UNCRC 1989- India
is a party to it. Because of that ratification- following the obligation came up with this commission.
Chairperson + 6 members (Child Welfare Expert)
3. NATION COMMISSION FOR MINORITY RIGHTS
Established in 1992 by act of 1992- They recognised 6 minorities for India- Muslims, Christians,
Sikhs, Parsis, Jains and Buddhist. Chairperson+ VP+ 5 members. Specific complaints have to be
filed no Suo Moto power. Whenever law coming relating to rights of minorities the committee
under Article 29 and 30 of the COI. Rest same functions as NCW.
Bal Patel v. UOI (2005)
The Supreme Court said job of minority commission is to ensure that no one tomorrow goes on
to ask the minority status. Filed under Section 2 (c ) of the act to declare Jains as minorities under
state of Bombay. Commission did recommend but government did not approve. Section 2 (c )-
Minority means the community notified as such by the Central Government. Court said what is
the bindingness of the recommendation of the commission. There is no specific function as per
the act under Section 9 to identify the community and recommend to the government. Constitution
ideals can be gathered by the constitution articles and there is no need for any community to feel
as minority in India. The above-mentioned constitutional goal must be taken into consideration.
This will lead to a multi-national sentiment in the country. It is anti-thesis of the constitutional
goal.
4. NCSC & NCST
According to original Art 338- these were one commission now after 2004 Amendment it has
become Art 338A. Members: Chairperson/ Vice Chairperson plus three members- Health,
livelihood, Social, educational and economic interest of SC/ST (For ST- work on land related
disputes, rehabilitation and forest protection).
All India Indian Overseas Bank Association v. Union of India (1996 SC)
It is about promotion related issues of SC and Commission directed that send records and stop
promotion process interim order passed. The Association filed a case saying NCSC can investigate
 but cannot pass an interim injunction. So, Court looks into Section 138 (8)- Commission has all
the power of civil court while investigating or inquiring a matter. The commission has not been
given power to issue interim injunction and lacks authority to issue an order of that type.

15th October 2025

IPR and HR

There is a conflict in the very basis of these and often IPR violates HR. IPR as HR- Locke’s Social Contract
Theory rights- part of property rights.

Article 10 of UDHR- Right to property.

If you have a traditional form of property with that you get a bundle of rights. Moral Rights under Copyright
Act- 6 Bis of BERNE convention. Has to be associated with the author. Utilitarian theory says to promote
greatest good of greatest number- allow more incentive to those who create new work who in broader
scheme of innovate- Article 27 of UDHR- Public Access and Public Rights. Right to protection of Moral
and Material interests- Authors Rights. It creates a drift between these two things. Here the conflict lies,
exclusive right v. right to access. In Broader scheme of things, if I am incentivised to create new things
people will be motivated to create things beneficial to society as a whole.

Human Rights Aspects in IPR:

Compulsory Licensing is an example of Human rights- Medicine for cold and I can protect it but if the
prices are too high- government has authority to use it without authorisation.

Parallel Imports- following doctrine of exhaustion- Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing Association v. Republic

of south Africa (1998)- HIV Aids epidemic- south African govt enforced a law which allowed parallel
importation of medicines to be further sold at a lower price- Suit filed by the plaintiff but huge criticism as
they were just taking into consideration their own profits and that’s all.

This led to the Doha Agreement- to ensure rights of citizens can be protected- Novartis Case. (Not meet
efficacy or significantly enhanced efficacy so no evergreening of medicines is allowed) - They developed a
drug for cancer patient- redeveloped it saying better absorbed by the body- filed for patent in India-If patent
recognised cost around 1,20,000- Indian Companies could make it for 8,000- allow us to make the patent
to make better drugs with efficiency and cheap prices- very expensive so we allow generic company to do
so. Making medicines affordable is one of the duties of the state.

If a company keeps on patenting a drug again and again that effects accessibility- as MNC would only want
to maximise their profits- affordability will be reduces and accessibility too- that’s why parallel importation
allowed by south Africa.

Right to health-related aspect.

Right to food- Unless you enjoy your survival you cannot talk about the second or third generation human
rights- Protection of Plant varieties and farmers rights- to increase production- HYV seeds introduced and
are accessible but after that the advancement is limited without license cannot acquire. We can have these
seeds we cannot sell them further. S-39- Lays v. state of Gujarat and Monsanto.

Right talks about selling it but not as a branded seed and exchange with other farmers- rights to farmers is
connected to Food and agricultural Organisation- ITFGRA- Right to food.

GI- Protection of Appellation of Origin- Kolhapuri Chappal- GI Tag- effect of GI Tag- manufacturer and
community gets recognition and WIPO says if a product has GI tag so its price by some percentage is
increased. GI thus recognises the Cultural rights- but the process and product is not protected- so unless
and until Prada calls its Kolhapuri Chappal they cannot be stopped.

Nagaland’s shawl-GI- Taken the design and made a suit for men- held not protected and while GI is trying
to protect in terms of process it is not effective in complete protection of that product.

Right to Indigenous Rights

17th October 2025

AI AND HUMAN RIGHTS

AI based applications and digital tools the interface with human right can be in two ways:

1 helps in promotion of human rights:

1. Foreceasting for access to information ( preservation in artic animal rights)

2. ⁠vast and velocity of data.

3. ⁠And sometimes helps in democraticising the process.

4. ⁠Sometimes helps in scientific progression

5. ⁠so ai facilitates human rights

ISSUES:

1. Like any other technology ai also has certain problems like use of its for predictive policing. ( Delhi-
CMAP’s- Crime mapping analytics and predictive system) , Hyderabad has integrated people information
hub( uses facial recognition technology for identifiying whether any particular place has any criminal
footprint), UP (Trinetra), Mumbai ( MARVEL- Mah advanced research and vigilance for integrated law
enforcement.- to eliminate threats- operate through facial recognition and hotspot analysis, data fushion to
predict crimes.
This use is good for society on the face of it but with that comes the challenge of intensive surveillance. (
like state knowing where you are whether you like nationalist movies and so on which state can collect and
create profiles for citizens) criticised as tools for targeted surveillance to suppress the political dissent.
Monitoring undesirable communities or people for government.

2. AI Bots and Synthetic Media’s- helping in creating of deepfakes. Of course Ai bots like ask mmt and all
but are also harmful as leads to deepfakes and all. Leads to two challenges-

1. misinformation

2. privacy and personality rights ( human rights) ( film star’s, singers trying to save themselves- Amitabh
bachan, Akshay Kumar, Anil Kapoor and so on)- causing commercial harm ( economic rights) ( defames
and now commercial potentials are being taken away)

3. ⁠social credit system- AI used to find out trustworthiness of a citizen ( rent paid/ stable marriage/ and so
on to decide whether his insurance premium should be more or less. Or should be that whether a better
chance to meet doctor)- it impacts a lot of human rights ( getting a house, book a house, medicines, health
care- personal decisions impact benefits) so ai regulation can happen twofold

1. Self regulation- those using and developing should decide guiding principles for ai models.- risk regulation
- if risk their only then regulation needed.

2. Developing AI based on whether AI RESPECTING BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. In learning process of

AI PUt HUMAN RIGHTS PRINCIPLES. - life cycle of artificial intelligence starting from development
of ai should begin by inclusion of human rights principles.

3. ⁠biases have various examples- AI based health care teachnologies-BP- if made in Germany or training
data set of Germany then in INDia not fair as Indian not training data ka part. If data only tested on men
and not women cannot decide as a woman.

Sometimes vulnerable groups used for training of ai without consent therefore proper consent principles
and transparency principles should be used in ai training as well as learning stage.

Whether AI should have rights? Can AI lay claim to human rights by jug Suraiya

He wrote an article and whether ai can have human rights tomorrow and maybe the general ai will be
stimulating intelligence just like human beings-1967- do android’s dream of electronic sheep- Phillp Depo-
since we were bestowed with free will by our creator, creator of ai should also give it free will.

Why to create me and endow me with free will if that is crime for life to be sad.

If ai is created by human developers why should human developers decide what ai should do. With blurring
distinction between humans and machines why should ai ka kya karna kya nahi humans decide kareun)
 27 October 2025

Human Rights on Right to Nature and of Nature-

These two legal movements emerging from two different perspectives:

1. Right to Nature: Human Perspective: Access to nature, carbon footprint and so on: This is
based on the Anthropocentric Approach where the human beings are in the central: Human Beings
right to access the nature- Veganism, Veg v. non-Veg and so on. Human needs s central theme
and then natures requirements.
2. Right of Nature: Nature is the central theme- where we deal with nature’s plan. From here
comes different conflict theories: (ECOCENTRISM)
• Human rights based: Development v. Nature: All justifications post world war in the
international organisation the focus was on Human dignity, freedom and equality. The
focus is on human being only. Similar to the fact that we are rational and we should focus
on our selves. And what are state’s obligation to protect these. Legal Discourse sidelines
the fact that Human being is only a part of nature.
• The Right of nature movement started in 2000s- It is not putting human being on the
pedestal but putting the natural ecosystem and balance between species as the central
theme. This is out shift from anthropocentric to ecocentric movement- nature itself have
ecocentric values. Led by indigenous communities especially in the UNDRIP. As
indigenous communities feel that they are part of nature and cannot be separated from it.
Since nature important our rights should cater to the nature’s requirements.

INTERNATIONAL LEGAL INSTRUMENTS RECOGNISING RIGHT OF NATURE:

• Inter- American Court of Human Rights: In advisory opinion of 2017- Right to healthy
environment is an autonomous Human Right. (Human at the centre and not the nature).
• African Charter- Article 24: Collective right to a satisfactory environment- is followed by the duty
to maintain it.
• These Indigenous communities see nature as legal entity: in The Ecuador 2017 Constitution-
Panchamama- Mother Earth- Has its own rights and thereby any citizen can sue on behalf of
Panchamama.
• Similarly, Bolivia has a law called the “Law of mother earth 2010”- nature is mentioned as a
collective subject of rights- whereby PIL can be started on behalf of enforcement of these collective
set of rights of nature
• Colombian Courts- Declared Atrato River as a legal entity and guardians of it are indigenous
communities residing on the river bank can enforce their rights.
• New Zealand declared River Whanganui- 2017- a living entity with legal rights to be maintained
by Maori Tribe.
 • India- Borrowing from above two- Uttarakhand HC said Ganga and Yamuna are living persons-
later reversed. - As not enough resources to enforce their rights. Another example where
indigenous rights- niamgiri hills- Vedanta case
• Bangladesh- also said ganga is living entity.
• In all these examples except the last two Indigenous communities were suing
• Animal Welfare Board of India v. Nagaraja: 5 freedoms of environment (court’s ecocentric
approach)
• Animal welfare Board of India v. Union of India:
• Muhammad Salim v, state of Uttrakhand: Ganga and Yamuna legal person but SC subjudice.
• .

Gilbert says rights are based on human greed so a middle ground is whenever a court is
interpreting a right to healthy environment- The UN approach (Renewable energy/ Sustainable
development) agenda is development and not conservation. But Convention of Biodiversity
focusses more on preservation (Right of Nature) approach. ‘

28th October 2025

Terrorism and Human Rights

Terrorism -> Human Rights <- State

If security of state can be curtailed then the human rights can be curtailed. The approach is mainly security
based now and only derogable rights can be curtailed. Antonio Guterrus UN Sec General- Fight against
terrorism will never succeed if we perpetuate the denial and destruction of Human Rights. We need to
balance measures by state and terrorist organisation related measures.

UN Charter Article 1: Objective is to maintain international peace and security (effective preventive
measures collective measures) and prevention of any acts of aggression even if done by state and UN
Charter Article 55 (International, economic and social rights): Creation of world-wide stability- You need
to create peaceful and friendly relationships among yourself. Often funded by states against other states:
Article 56: Progress of economic and social rights necessary to meet the requirements of Article 55.
(Doesnot mention word terrorism)

UNSC: Resolution No. 1373 in 2001:

1. Prevent and suppress financing of terrorist act

2. All states should criminalise any wilful collection by direct or indirect means by its own national
with the purpose of funding terrorist activities.
3. Freeze without delay any funds used to facilitate terrorist activities.
 4. To prohibit the citizens.

UNSC Resolution 1566 2004: Focus on how states itself can stop

1. In the legislation of the states all acts of terrorism should be taken as very serious offence or
serious threat
2. They request a body called a counter- Terrorism Committee. To monitor how UN states are taking
measures to counter terrorism.

UN General Assembly adopted a Strategy: Global Counter Terrorism Strategy: No voting needed:
Consensus se adopted:

1. Identify conducive conditions for terrorism to grow

2. Adopt measures to combat terrorism
3. If a country who needs capacity building, then UN needs to facilitate the same.
4. Whatever measure you adopt needs to promote respect for HR and rule of law.
5. Every state who adopted counter terrorist measure must send a report to UN and UN will review
it in every two years (2026- 9th Review)- Whether domestic measure satisfying all the above
mentioned four pillars.

CONCERNS:

1. Security v. Liberty: When such threats come liberty is threatened at the first instance- which however is
said to be there to protect the people. So even though necessity principle makes emergency valid but
prolonging emergency not fair.

2. Whether fair trial was allowed. Article 4 ICCPR: Public emergency that threatens the life of nation: states
may derogate certain obligations in such situations. Publicly officially the emergency should be declared and
cannot be discriminatory like against gender, colour or class.

3. The derogation must end once emergency is ended and cannot be perpetual- HR Committee reviews
whether only derogagble rights supressed if yes whether their was necessity and proportionality and if yes
whether emergency is for indefinite period.

Lawless v. Ireland (European Court of HR 1961):

Jerar Lawless Irish- detained during emergency without trial and kept in jail. He challenged offences against
state is curtailing his liberty, fair trail and legality of EU Convention of HR (5,6,7). Similar to ICCPR Art 4-
Court said liberty can be curtailed but not the other two. So, EU Court of HR- declaration of emergency
was lawful but detention is unlawful.

Harques De Morais v. Angola UNHRC: Arrested because he published an article against Government
officials and he said this is against and violation of his HR. Whether such arrest is justifiable under Art 4:
Committee said Angola measure were not required during emergency and were too broad. There cannot
be blanket suspension there has to be only specific and targeted suspension.

Otman v. UK (2012): After 9/11 European states whoever they thought was a terrorist or related to them,
Otman a Jordian citizen deported to Jordan- while he was being deported he was in Jordan and in abtentia
found to be guilty of being a terrorist. Otman said if I am deported if I go back to justify their judgement
they will get the confession out of him through torture- UK said diplomatic assurance taken that you will
not be tortured but Otman said it will violate his Art 3,6 of EU Convention of HR. European court of HR-
Whether deportation will actually expose him to torture- court said no. Whether free trail violated-
deportation is not torture but since in abstentia trial already done- No real risk of torture but deportation
itself will violate art 6 because high risk of evidence be obtained by torture. Try him in the UK and no
deportation allowed.

29th October 2025

India’s Stance:

India is not a party of the optional protocol but the constitution has emergency provisions and Article 21
which is non Derogable. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla: Article 21 can be taken away. But in Putt
swamy Judgement it was held Article 21 is not suspended during emergency. So even though the optional
protocols are not subscribed we are still following the mechanism.

Legislations to curtail terrorism:

1. TADA (Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act) 1985: (Trial purposes) Focusses
on Preventive measures and talks about specialised courts- trails for the people found guilty and
the detention can be for an extended period without filling of a chargesheet. Also, certain
circumstances where confession to police is admissible and it also withheld witness identity. (lack
of transparency). In certain situations, there is a presumption of guilt (If arms, and other
incrementing material found in possession burden on the accused to prove innocence). Multiple
Human rights related concerns (No transparency, can be misused against minority groups and so
on)
Katar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994): Constitutionality of TADA challenged but SC said is valid
and only regarding confession to police strict guidelines are required to be followed and should be
given to officers not below SP level and must be voluntary in writing.
2. POTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act), 2002: (This is for suspicious purposes- more like found
nothing but preventive detention related) Up to 180 days it was mentioned that even if the
chargesheet was not filed still it is admissible to put an accused person in jail. Confession to SP
level police is allowed. (Huge Criticism and therefore, in 2004 Centre decided to repeal it.)
Challenges in PUCL v. Union of India (2004): The court identified the Key challenges of
POTA Act saying it takes away the right to fair trail and many cases no legal representation is there.
 The conditions for SP level confession whether a judicial officer or oversight presence is not there
and is missing in implementation of the act. (Two years of protest)
3. UAPA (Unlawful activities prevention act )1967: Amended first in 2004->2008->2012->2019
(Major Amendment). They do define terrorism but focus is on unlawful activities (suspecting
activity may fund terrorism- if unlawful association for terror activities and connected it to POTA
provisions. If suspicion there than the preventive detention applies.
It includes financing, planning, recruitment and any other act in support of terrorism. Even if you
share any video for awareness but government may suspect you are trying to instigate, they may
see violent acts and in 2019 these things have been added. It also allows designating individuals as
terrorists. (TADA and POTA only associations). The moment their name is included under
designated names they cannot be allowed to have further transactions (Schedule IV). Bail here is
an exception and not being given is the rule.
Challenged in Zahoor Ahmed Shah v. NIA (2019): He was denied bail and court said if prima
facie prosecution has evidence against you under this law then bail will be denied.
2008 Amendment established NIA which is the central agency who investigate terror related-
suspicions. It includes attachment of property during the investigation itself.

Further, Indian Courts have held that these are subject to proportionality principle as well.

30th October 2025

VULNERABLE GROUPS

Inherent biases and directly and indirectly participating in some form of discrimination Bias as base for
discrimination:

• Ageism
• Gender
• Disability
• Linguistic

How systematic discriminations faced by various groups:

Can be because of history, society or cultural reasons and have been grounds of exceptions in terms of
cultural relativism. Vulnerabilities means to be attacked can be mental, emotional or any other attack. Goal
of special affirmative legislations is to make these inequal situations equal. (Can minimise the
discrimination). These are people subject to discrimination and biases because of various conflict like
poverty, gender, age and so on.

1. WOMAN:

Substantive equality, non-discrimination and state Obligation- CEDAW Principles

Direct Discrimination: Directly excluding them

Indirect Discrimination: Gender Neutral Laws: But woman is discriminated because of patriarchy and
age long discrimination. Non discrimination must exist in de facto (in reality) and de jure (in law).

(Indian Single woman could not adopt the child- these biases are based on historical discrimination)

(If Indian woman needs to adopt, they need the consent of husband but not vice versa)

De Facto Discrimination: If leave for so many days why hire (maternity and menstrual and so on).

International Law:

When CEDAW came into force in 1979 most of the developed country did not ratify it including US till
date.

UNSC Resolution of 2000 Resolution No. 1325: Kind of sexual violence woman face during armed conflict.

Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action of 2005: Includes Healthcare, education and media
representation and violence against woman and all.

2. CHILDREN: Survival/Development/ Participation/ Healthcare/ Nutrition/ Schooling/ Freedom of

expression/ Protection (safe from all sorts of violence)

Children are mostly abused- Female Foeticide: Mothers are killing children they cannot take the burden/
Physical abuse in the household/ mental abuse/ sexual abuse/ outside as well.

Physical and mental attributes of children main reason why should be protected therefore so many laws.
Convention on rights of Children: Best Interest Principle: When exercising control various biases come
into picture. It talks about survival which is the basic. Development is also important and while developing
there should be non-discrimination this is where intersectionality plays a big role.

Right to participation can be curtailed by the best interest principle. (Parental Control)

CRC has two optional protocols: Optional Protocol on Child Soldiers: No children to be hired for war
below the age of 18. Children cannot be hired as soldiers.

Optional Protocol II: Child Trafficking and everything. (For marriage and prostitution of children/ child
pornography not allowed) These came in 2000.

ILO Convention 1999: Don’t employ any child as labour. Child labour universally prohibited.

3. RACISM:

Historically people from certain race were directly considered as slaves and not humans. Racism is
connected to the core issues of Human dignity. If you are not sure of whether I would end up violating
someone’s ideology or culture and therefore, that can also lead to discrimination.
UN CERD,1965 (All forms of racial discrimination, ethnic discrimination is barred)

UNESCO 1978: Focusses on linking how racism is violence of essential human dignity (only preamble
important)

4. DISABILITY

Medical Model of disability (fix you have some operation and all)/ Charitable Model of Disability (raising
money expecting appreciation, empathetic) / Societal Model of Disability (Society is responsible for various
flaws in it/ accident or by birth not the persons problem but society never comes to help)/ Human Rights
Model of Disability (Yes accident and all happened but lets empower you so that you on your own time
can decide how you want to lead your life)

Convention on Rights of persons with disabilities 2006: Disability (Physical and Mental disorder
included)

Includes the following:

1. Inclusive education

2. accessible public facility

3. Equal legal capacity (will and interest theory (as far as you have the will decide for yourself))

4. Job Opportunities

5. DISEASE RELATED DISABILITY:

1990s HIV Aids- spread of AIDS- Was not able to control and huge myths relating to it and African
countries had no access to medicines- organised and unorganised sector had to hide their disease- A lot of
moments in 90s were made to spread awareness on AIDS-

General assembly session on HIV and AIDS- Adopted declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS
2001.

Talks about programme which talks about the action plan that as a state member what are the steps you
should take to promote societal awareness and all. And how to recognise the rights and how refusal of basic
rights can lead to human rights violations.

6. AGEISM AND DISCRIMINATION:

Philippines Government brought- Ageism related measures- The problem can be with young and old
people both. Main things which have to be considered:

1. Independence
2. Elder Abuse
3. Lack of Healthcare and Infrastructure facilities
UN Principles for Older persons 1999: Focusses on 4 Principles:

• State measures should keep elderly people independent in their day-to-day activities
• Participation
• Self-care and Self-Fulfilment
• Dignity (Right against abuse and all)

Madrid Action Plan 2002: Social Protection/ Anti Abandonment policies / Health care access

7. LGBTQ+ related Discrimination:

There has been sponsored violence and various types of exclusion as well. UNHRC Resolution of 2011
(decriminalisation of all provisions relating to same sex)- backed by Yogyakarta Principles of 2006-
Sexual orientation is your personal choice and also talks about right to employment as an important right
and here it also includes choice of clothing.

INTERSECTIONALITY: Sometimes there are biases which increases because you are gendered, disable
or so on. If Indian disable woman migrated woman (woman plus disable plus migrated plus Asian): The
amount of discrimination would be more than any other Asian woman: Visa may not be removed and it
leads to worse condition where intersectionality leads to huge problems.

The reality that people have multiple identities of who they are and lead their privileges: Black woman
(Gender and racial discrimination): Disabled and below poverty line, and so on.

So when we talk about rights of vulnerable communities, we not only need rights relating to them we need
policies and advocacy dealing not just to them but dealing with intersectionality as well.

Practical advocacy of these rights should be there.