BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF LAW
ASSIGNMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW AND PRACTICE
ON
“ CONCEPT OF HUMAN RIGHTS ”

SUBMITTED BY :- SUBMITTED TO:-

NAME:- NARROTTAM KUMAR Dr. Shweta Chaturvedi

CLASS:- B.A. LLB (Hons) Dr. Anurag Agrawal

SEMESTER :- 7th(2021-22)

ROLL NO :-18225BLT041

ENROLLMENT NO :- 407225
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
TO PREPARE ANY ASSIGNMENT ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT IS
ABLE GUIDANCE AND REFERENCE WITHOUT IT AN
ASSIGNMENT IS INCOMPLETE. I AM VERY THANKFUL TO Dr.
SHWETA CHATURVEDI AND Dr. ANURAG AGRAWAL FOR
THEIR ABLE GUIDANCE AND SUPPORT.
AT LAST BUT NOT LEAST , I AM VERY
THANKFUL TO MY FRIENDS AND OTHER PERSON WHO HAVE
HELPED ME DURING PREPRATION OF THIS PROJECT.
 INDEX
Sr no Page no
(1) INTRODUCTION 4

(2) CONCEPT OF NATURAL LAW AND NATURAL RIGHTS 5-7

(3) DEFINITION OF HUMAN RIGHTS 7-8

(4) CONCEPT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN 20 TH CENTURY 8-9

(5) LEAGUES OF NATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS 10-11

(6) HUMAN RIGHTS PROVISION UNDER UN CHARTER 11-13

(7) THEORIES OF HUMAN RIGHTS 14-16

(8) CLASSIFICATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS 17-18

 (1) Introduction

The philosophy of Human Rights is reflected in the following popular version “Loka Samastha
Sukhino Bhawanthu” which means that the entire humanity be happy. The greatest gift of
classical and contemporary human thought to culture and civilization is the notion of Human
Rights. The struggle to preserve, protect and promote basic Human Rights continues in every
generation in every society. New rights arise from the womb of the old. Today we widen the
sphere of Human Rights thought and action to new areas and constituencies.

Human Rights are rooted in the culture and values of every nation of the world. To understand
the true significance of the concept of Human Rights, we must know its historical context. The
development of Human Rights and then recognition and protection at the international level can
be divided into different periods. It would therefore be logical to start with the concept of natural
right which eventually led to the formulation of Human Rights.
 (2) Concept of Natural Law and Natural Right
Natural Law and Natural Rights in Ancient times
The idea of Natural Rights is very old. In the classical literature of Ancient Greece from 5th
century B.C. we come across a striking expression of the belief in the power exercised by the
gods on human society, based on law. According to the Ancient Greece writers, the god
establishes a law which stand above the obligations and interdictions imposed by the rules of the
[Link] Roman law there was a distinction between national law (jus civile) and the law
which is actually common to all nations (Jus gentium). Jus natural was the law of nature which is
fixed and immutable, higher to all human laws derived from the dictates of right reason.

Marcus Tullius Cicero (104-43 B.C), the great Roman jurist declared that there is one eternal and
immutable law which will apply to all people at all times and which emanates from the God is
Natural Law.

The higher moral law and above the positive law embodying certain values of universal validity
like Dharma (righteousness) Artha (wealth), Kama (desires), Moksha (salvation) were
expounded by ancient Indian Philosophers and thinkers 5000 years ago with a view to establish a
harmonious social order by striking a balance between inner and outer, spiritual and material
aspect of life.

Natural Law and Natural Rights in Middleages

Natural law acquired a new role and phase during medieval period in the works of the Christian
theologians in the forms of a belief in a law of God, above all human laws. According to St.
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) the law of nature is the foundation of all human law. The state is
subject to that higher law which determines the relation of the individual to the state. This idea
led to the establishment of doctrine of natural rights and by the end of Middle Ages the concept
of natural rights of man became well established. All this led to the formulation of right to revolt
against a tyrannicalruler.

In middle ages, a number of Acts were enacted to show the superiority of Natural law and
Natural Rights. The principle of the Habeas Corpus Acts latent in the 39th clause of Magna Carta
was acknowledged already in 1188 by Alfonso IX at the certes of Leon. The great Charter of the
liberties of England or the Magna Carta of 1215was imposed on King John by the prelates, Earls
and barons of his realms after his defeat by the king of France in 1214. Charters of liberty are
steps towards the realization and implementation of Human Rights. Magna Carta of 1215,
Petition of Rights of 1628; Habeas corpus Act of 1679, Bill of Rights of 1689 are some of such
steps taken in England.

Natural Law and Natural Rights in 17th and 18thCentury

The key notion of the social contract theory implied the existence of rights which the individual
possessed before entering organised society. The contributions of Hugo Grotius, Vattel,
Pufendorfand Wolff in the development of the concept of natural rights arecommendable. There
were other factors which emphasised the vitality of the natural rights of man. Milton’s appeal to
the natural freedom of man was the basis of his claim to be ruled by law and not by the arbitrary
whim of man; the insistence in the course of the puritan revolution, on natural rights in support
of political freedom, social equality and universal suffrage; the place which Blackstone assigned
to the natural rights of man are some of the examples of the factors which gave force to the
doctrine of natural rights in 16th century.

The Virginian Declaration of Rights of 1776; other similar Constitutional enactments in the same
year; the Constitution of New York and of New Georgia of 1777, and that of Marsacheselts of
1780; the declaration of independence of 1776 and the Bill of Rights in the form of the first ten
Amendments to the Constitution of America; the declaration of the Rights of Man and of the
Citizen adopted in 1789 by the French National Assembly and prefixed to the Constitution of
1793 and 1795: all these expressly acknowledged the inherent rights of Man. All these
enactments, the formal incorporation of the inherent Human Rights and the possibility of their
consequent protection not only against the tyranny of kings but also against the intolerance of
democratic majorities were a new idea. This was the first attempt to derive Human Rights from
natural rights.

Natural Rights and Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention

in 19thCentury
At the turn of the century after the French revolution the doctrine of natural law was a doctrine of
abstract and immutable principles and of eternal and inviolable Human Rights. In England,
Burke launched his attack against the assertion of the Natural Law doctrines.

In Germany, reaction against the philosophy of natural law emerges with “Historical School” of
jurisprudence. But we come across the occasions in this century on which the doctrine of
humanitarian intervention has been involved on behalf of countries. Such, for example was the
intervention in 1827 by great Britain, France and Russia on behalf of the Greek revolutionaries,
the numerous interventions protecting Turkish treatment of Armenians and other Christians and
the protests by the United States in 1891 and 1905 against anti-Semitic outrages in Russia. From
the beginning of the 19th century, attention was directed more to the rights of the individual than
to the objective norms. But states have persistently claimed supreme authority over all persons
with in their respective territories. Traditional international law recognized only states as the
appropriate subjects of international law.

In consequence, subject to permissible exception, relation between a state and its subject
according to traditional prescriptions are a matter of domestic concern of law, not covered by
rules of international law. Under this prescription, therefore an individual can not claim
international rights as against his own state and in the absence of international agreements, he
has no locus standi before an international court for demanding redress against the violation of
rights by his home states. It is pertinent to note here that in spite of the inadequacies of
traditional international law an increasing number of treaties were entered into the purpose of
which was to protect the rights of certain classes of persons. Then there was A.V. Dicey’s
concept of Rule of law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power or wide discretionary
powers. These developments of 18th and 19th century culminated the idea of Human Rights.

(3) Definition on Human Rights

Although volumes have been written about human rights for ages, yet it is hard to define the term
as it is a dynamic concept and endeavors to adopt itself to the needs of the day. It is for this
reason that understanding and definition of the term depend heavily on the opinions and
conditions prevailing in the given society at a given time. Since the socio-economic environment
with which the question of and content of human rights.

It is because of this that it becomes difficult to define this concept in absolute terms. Attempts
have been made to comprehend the term despite all the complications. To put it simply, “human
rights constitute those very rights which one has precisely because of being a human.” Human
rights are defined as those rights, which every human being is entitled to enjoy by virtue of being
a member of the human species.

Richard Wassertrom: “one ought to be able to claim as entitlements (i.e. as Human Rights) those
minimal things without which it is impossible to develop one’s capabilities and to have life as
human being”. That is Human Rights are moral entitlements possessed only by persons.

Tiber Macham: “Human Rights are universal and irrevocable elements in a scheme of justice.
Accordingly, justice is the primary moral virtue within human society and all rights are
fundamental to justice”
Joel Feinberg: “Human Rights as moral rights held equally by all human beings, unconditionally
and unalterably. That is for Feinberg Human Rights are moral claims based on primary human
needs”.

“Human rights” in the words of R.J. Vincent, “are the rights that everyone has by virtue of his
very humanity. They are grounded in our appeal to human nature. Writing in the same vein,
David Selby says ’Human rights pertain to all persons and are possessed by everybody in the
world because they are human beings, they are not earned, bought or inherited, nor are they
created by any contractual undertaking.

Kant Baier: “Human Rights as, those moral rights whose moral ground and generating factors
are the same, namely being human in some relevant sense”

Cranstan: “Human Rights by definition is a universal moral right, something which all people,
everywhere at all times ought to have, something of which no one may be deprived without
grave affront to justice, something which is owing to every human being simply because one is
human”.

D.D. Basu: “Human Rights as those minimal rights which every individual must have against the
State or other public authority by virtue of his being a member of the human family, irrespective
of any other consideration”

Apart from the definitions provided by scholars, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
1948, refers Human Rights as inalienable rights of all members of the human family. The above
definitions generally focus upon the idea that Human Rights apply to all human beings because
they are human beings.

D.D. Raphael: “Human Rights constitute those very rights which one has precisely because of
being a human being”.

Marting Golding: “Human Rights as act of claiming, performed on the level of the human
community”

(4)New Attitude to the concept of Human Rights in 20th

Century
Great importance has been attached in the 20th century to the Human Rights issue in the
international arena and tremendous efforts have been made, through the formulation of new
principles and procedures to transfer the promotion and protection of basic rights, from the hands
of the states to an authoritative super national organization. The uncompromising acceptance of
the principle that “all men are born free and equal in dignity” has emerged pragmatically from
the crucible of experience as the most valid of all working hypothesis of human relations. By the
end of First World War, apart from political and civil rights the concepts of economic, social and
cultural rights have also been developed. The idea that workers needed special safeguards was
beginning to take hold in many industrial countries. Labour unions were establishing the right to
collective bargaining; wages were being increased and hours were being reduced. The idea that
the citizens had certain basic economic and social rights had been recognized in the Constitutions
and Legislations of democratic countries.
(5) The Leagues of Nations and Human Rights
After the First World, War the provisions of League of National Charter came into force. The
covenant of the League of Nations reflected Human Rights. The phrase “Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms” did not appear in the covenant. The drafters of the covenant were pre-
occupied with the maintenance of international peace and security, the pacific settlement of
disputes, the establishments of a mandates system for former German and Ottoman territories
and the protection of Minorities in central Europe. Neither the Council nor Assembly of the
League subsequently dealt with the question of Human Rights. The wholesale and systematic
suppression of Human Liberty in communist Russia, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were
officially unnoticed by the League, although the implication of these acts of tyranny were
recognized by many of its member States.

In collaboration with League of Nations the International Labour Organization which was set up
in 1919 rendered signal service in the field of Human Rights. The ILO was established on the
basis of the realization that universal peace could be achieved only if it were based on social
justice. The Assembly of the League endorsed in 1925 the Geneva Declaration of the Rights of
the Child. The international action to eliminate the worst social evils like slavery, forced labour,
the traffic in narcotics and the traffic in women and children was greatly strengthened under the
League. In particular the development of conventions and recommendations by the ILO
emphasized a new international concern in labour problems, wages, working hours, working
conditions and social security. These activities of the League reflect the growing acceptance of
the concept that the affairs of labour were matters of international as well as national concern.

In two fields of Human Rights, the League of Nations made a significant advance over the past.
These fields are regulation of mandated territories and minorities system. The activities of the
League in both these fields represented apart international concern with the Human Rights of
individuals living in territories formerly governed by the enemy powers, and in part, the growing
international concern with the right of self-determination of peoples and nations.

The International Labour Organisation and the League of Nations thus touched some aspects of
the fields of Human Rights. Concern was shown especially in the fields of slavery, forced labour,
mandated territories and minorities. The major work of the League and the ILO has provided an
efficient system for developing and coordinating new international machinery for economic and
social cooperation rather than to define rights and to device measures for promoting them.

In 1929, the Institute of International Law adopted declaration of International Rights of Man. It
asserted that rights of a citizen laid down in several domestic Constitutions, particularly those of
the French and the United States Constitutions were ordained not only for citizens but for all
men. Article 1 of the Declaration lays down, “it is the duty of every state to recognize the equal
rights of every individual .
right to life, liberty and property and to accord to all within its territory the full and entire
protection of these rights without distinction to nationality, sex, race, language or religion”.

(6) Human Rights Provisions under the [Link]

With the rise of fascism in Germany and Italy and the outbreak of world war- II, the question of
Fundamental Rights of man became much more important in many international conventions,
The United Nations Declaration of January 1, 1942 put on record that complete victory over their
enemies is sentential to defend life, liberty, independence and religious freedom and to preserve
Human Rights and justice in their own land as well as in other lands.

The big three (United States, Soviet Union and Great Britain) endorsed the above declaration in
their conference of March 3, [Link] came the Philadelphia Declaration of the International
Labour Organization 26th session which laid down “All human beings, irrespective of trade,
creed, or sex, have the right to pursue both their material well being and their spiritual
development in conditions of freedom and dignity of economic security and equal opportunity”.

The Dumbarton Oaks Conference of 1944 among the four big powers led to the first tentative
draft of a new world organization. At Yalta conference of 1945, the Great powers issued a
declaration of liberated Europe where principles of Atlantic Charter and Declaration of United
Nations were affirmed.

Then came on April 25, 1945 the San Francisco conference of the United Nations where of the
Charter of United Nations emerged. It is important to note that till the coming into force of the
U.N. Charter, Human Rights were expressed in pious terms in treaties. Prior to coming into force
of the U.N. Charter Human Rights movement was confined to abolition of slavery, humanitarian
laws of welfare, and protection of Minorities. The brutality committed by the Nazis and fascists
during the second world war made it imperative for a world organization to proclaim and
advocate the protection of Human Rights. The U.N. Charter proclaims sacrosanct of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The United Nations Organization was primarily concerned with evolving a mechanism to
maintain international peace and security. The first documentary uses of expression “Human
Rights are to be found in the Charter of the United Nations”.

In its preamble, the Charter interalia reaffirms its “Faith in Fundamental Human Rights….” and
Article thereafter stated that the purposes of the United Nations shall be, amongothers.

The U.N Charter, however was not a binding instrumentand merely stated the idea which was
later developed by the different agencies and organs.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly
on 10th December, 1948, has been proclaimed “as a common standard of achievement for all
peoples and all nations”. It incorporates not only the traditional Civil Liberties but also Social,
Economic and Cultural Rights. Together with it, the two principal international Human Rights
instruments, namely the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 and the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966 have given very wide
connotation to the concept of Human Rights and fundamental freedoms. At regional level the
European Convention on Human Rights was adopted in 1950, the Inter  American Convention
on Human Rights in 1969, the African Charter on Human and Peoples‟ Rights in 1981; in 1994
the Council of the Arab League passed the Arab Charter on Human Rights. In order to add
emphasis upon all those categories of Human Rights contained therein and to exemplify them, a
number of international Human Rights instruments have been concluded. Some of them may be
mentioned here, such as, the International Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; the Conventional on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women; the Declaration on the Right to Development; the Convention
on the Rights of Child; the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; the
Convention for the protection of all Persons from Enforced disappearance and many more.

The question that, how far, the rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
the two International Covenants and other Conventions have been translated into real rights of
individuals, can be answered only after the examination of the individual legal system of the
respective States.

In the field of Human Rights, international conferences have been held, in the past, on specific
issues of Human Rights. For instance, to deal with the problems of women, four international
conferences have been convened under the auspices of the United Nations. Similarly,
conferences have also been arranged to discuss other issues of Human Rights such as minorities,
racial discrimination, crime and torture. These consequences have pushed the international
community to focus on economic and social issues in their programmes. In addition to the above,
international conferences have been convened to discuss all the aspects relating to Human
Rights. Such conferences covered a variety of issues relating to the protection and promotion of
Human Rights.

The recognition and protection of Human Rights is nothing but the acknowledgement of the
dignity of the human race, and are designed to enable each human individual to lead a life of
fulfilment and achieve the maximum potential of the talents imbued by nature upon that
individual.

It is by the faithful and unstinted enforcement of these rights that civilization of the world can
truly qualify to be called human civilizations, bereft of barbarism, cruelty and conduct shocking
to the human conscience. It would also be the best guarantee to humankind against looming
spectres of holocausts, genocides, violent conflicts and mindless annihilation of the human race
in the name of wars. If peace of body, mind, and spirit be the ultimate objective of the human
beings, protection of Human Rights is the categorical imperative of modern life.

The close examination of above stated historical facts/events at International and national levels
bear testimony to the belief that man’s struggle for rights is as old as the history of mankind.
This concept of Human Rights was in rudimentary from in the ancient times, in formative stage
in the Middle Ages and fully grown in the 20th century with the formation of United Nation.

The UDHR was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10th December, 1948. The declaration
was, however of great importance in stimulating and directing the International promotion of
Human Rights. It formulates a unitary and universally valid concept of what values all states
should cherish within their own domestic orders. Together with it, the two International Human
Rights covenants namely the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 and the
International.

Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 have given a very wide connotation to
the concept of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. At the Universal and the Regional
level a host of specific treaties on Human Rights was hammered out.

International conferences on Human Rights have also been arranged from time to time to discuss
various issues of Human Rights issues relating to minorities, racial discrimination, crime,
population, development and torture and many more. These conferences have pushed the
International community to focus on economic and social issues in their programmes. So far as
the protection and promotion of Human Rights are concerned the NGOs have rendered signal
services since 1863 when the International Counsel of Red Cross was established. It is also clear
that, in India, the movement for the protection of Human Rights started during British rule.
Indian people demanded these rights from British Government.

After independence, Fundamental Rights are incorporated in part-III of the Indian Constitution
which bears close resemblance with Human Rights. In accordance with the mandate of
International Covenants on Human Rights as well as the provisions of the Indian Constitution the
government had enacted the protection of Human Rights Act 1993 to provide for the
Constitution of National Human Rights Commission, State Human Rights Commissions in the
States and Human Rights Courts at district level for better protection of Human Rights and for
matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

In addition to the protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 there are certain legislations which
directly or indirectly protect the Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of mankind in
multidimensional approach. All these are in accordance with the mandate of Human Rights
instruments as well as in accordance with the Constitutional provisions.
(7) Theories of Human Rights
In order to have a comprehensive understanding of human rights, a look at the various theories
becomes necessary to observe the shifting of priority of rights during the different phases of
history. These theories provide the basis to determine the precise subject matter upon which
there could be an agreement.

An incisive insight into the major theories of rights is as follows:-

The Theory of Natural Rights

This is the earliest theory of [Link] origin can be traced back to the ancient Greeks. According
to this theory, rights belong to the man by nature and thus are self-evident truths. They are
considered as inborn absolute, pre-civil and according to some, they are even pre-social. They
can be asserted anywhere and everywhere. Thomas Paine, Grotius, Tom Paine and John Locke,
to name a few, are the main exponents of this theory. These theorists derived their ideas about
right from God, reason or a prior moral assumption. To them, every individual possesses a
unique identity and is expected to account for his actions as per his own conscience.

However, the critics of the natural rights theory argue that rights are abstract, absolute, or
unidentified phenomenon. Liberty, as they argue, lives within restraints. So, restraints upon
rights create social conditions where everyone has a share to develop his personality and
’correspondingly has his obligations to others. Rights and obligations, in fact, are the two sides
of the same coin.

Despite the above the theory of natural rights inspired the idea that any kind of unjust, arbitrary
or oppressive treatment to human beings is an assault upon humanity itself. Apart from this, it
also provided the basis, for the English, French and American revolutions, thereby resulting in
the Bill of Rights.

In order to have a comprehensive understanding of human rights, a look at the various theories
becomes necessary to observe the shifting of priority of rights during the different phases of
history. These theories provide the basis to determine the precise subject matter upon which
there could be an agreement. An incisive insight into the major theories of rights is as follows:-

The Legal Theory of Rights

This theory is a reaction against the theory of natural rights. Advocates of this theory argue that
the ideas of natural law and natural rights are an abstract and ridiculous phenomenon. Hence, the
existence and enjoyment of the fundamental rights of an individual could be better maintained
and practiced by the state rather than by the individual himself.
Thomas Hobbes, John Austin, and Jeremy Bentham are the main propounders of this theory.

According to them, rights are purely utilitarian concepts and thus the rule and regulations are
necessary for identification and protection of one’s rights. Towards this end, every individual has
to sacrifice certain rights and freedoms for the general welfare of the society.

This theory has been severely criticized on the ground that law alone does not create rights.
Rather, it recognizes and protects them. Customs, traditions and morality also have a basis for
rights. However, the truth in this theory lies in the fact that it enables individuals to demand
certain specific and recognized rights as granted and guaranteed by the state.

The Anti-utilitarian Theory of Rights

There are yet other theorists who strongly argue that the priority of the well-being of the
majority as stated by the utilitarian is not the prime objective of state. Amongst them Dowrkin,
Nozic and John Rawls are the leading ones. They hold the view that the welfare of the majority
might lead to detrimental consequences as far as the welfare of a particular person or a group of
persons is concerned. So there has to be proper reconciliation between the well being of the
majority and individual well-being for the better enjoyment of social and individual rights.
Today, the demand for right to development on international foray is perhaps the manifestation
of this theory.

The Legal Realist Theory of Rights :

The Legal Realist Theory of Rights is of recent origin. It mainly originated in U.S.A. with the
expansion of regulatory activities followed by president Roosevelt’s “New Deal Policy."A group
of jurists such as Karl Liewellyn, Roscoe Pound and others discussed the point as to what law
does, rather than what law is, in a highly complex and industrialized society. These theorists did
not propound a common theory of rights. Rather, they considered rights as the end product of
both the interaction of prevailing moral values of the society as well as the broad-based
international sharing of values. So human rights, as they argue, are nothing but a manifestation of
an on-going process rather than a theoretical debate.

This kind of a new approach to the concept of rights does away with the problems relating to the
abstract nature of the concept. However, this theory goes about questioning the existing laws,
their values and the actions, so far enacted upon the society. In other words, it questions the
shortcomings and ineffectiveness of the existing laws does not prescribe any solution in the form
of super-value of a human being.
The Marxist Theory of Rights
Rights, according to Marx are simply concept and a product of bourgeois capitalist society
primarily designed to maintain and reinforce the predominant position of the ruling class. This
theory of rights is very simple and to a certain extent convincing too. Marx regards the state as a
coercive agency to uphold the particular type of social organization and law is a tool of the state
that perpetuates and safeguards the interest of the dominant group in the society. He firmly
believes that rights can exist and flourish only in a classless society where all are equal and no
one is an exploiter.

Social and economic rights are, thus, the main concern of this theory. However, the contribution
of Marxist thought to the development of international covenant on economic, social and cultural
rights has been found in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(ICESCR) in 1966. This theory, however, does not include religion, customs, traditions and
mortality as integral components of human rights.

To sum up, “There is not a single theory which can adequately explain the origin and nature of
rights. Each theory is the product of its own time and in conformity with the genius of the people
with whom the propounders of the theory were associated. There is some element of in all these
theories. But there is one eternal truth which cannot be ignored that individual good and social
good go together. Society is an organic unit and welfare of the community is built upon the
welfare of the individuals, and both go hand in hand. Hence ,a good theory of rights should take
into consideration the most conductive variable essential for the welfare of all members of a
society.
(8) CLASSIFICATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Human Rights broadly can be classified from two different perspectives: Firstly, from the
perspective of different aspects of human life, civil, political moral, social, economical; and
secondly from the perspective of the ways of securing them. The human rights can be classified
as under:

Natural Rights
Natural rights are those rights which are considered to be inherent and integral to human nature.
In fact, every individual, by nature, is given an individual property of his own which cannot be
taken away by any authority. Such rights include intellectual rights, rights of the mind and also
rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness, provided they are not
injurious to the natural rights of others.

Moral Rights
These rights are based on the general principles of fairness and justice. These are simply
aspirations and ideals of the people who claim for it. Sometimes, people justify these rights on
the ground of the role they perform or the position they occupy in society. For example, the
mother of a family might complain that she has the right to be consulted about what is going on
in her family. In this case, she is applying the principle that parents are entitled to be consulted
when family decisions affect the members. So it is them oral duty of other members to do the
same.

Fundamental Rights
There are certain rights which are more important and basic than the others. For example, right to
life is the most basic of all rights upon which the enjoyment of other rights depends. Among
other basic rights to be recognized as a person before the law, the right to equal protection under
law, and freedom from illegal arrest or detention. These rights never be restricted or taken away
by any authority. That is why, every society has a fundamental duty to protect these at all times.
Legal Rights
Legal rights are otherwise known as positive rights. These rights are laid down in law. They are
also guaranteed and protected by the law of the State. Thus, legal rights are uniform and open to
all irrespective of the caste, color, race or culture.

Civil and Political Rights

Rights that are granted by government or civil society are called civil and political rights. These
rights provide the basis for the fulfillment of elementary conditions of the social life. Without
them, civilized life is not possible and they are ,therefore, considered very essential for the free
and progressive life of man. Civil and political rights, however, include the right to the freedom
of speech, of assembly the right to move freely, to hold property and practice trade or profession,
and the right to take part in the government of one’s country.

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

These are entitlements of the individual vis-a-vis the State, in order to eradicate social
inequality, economic imbalances and to limit disadvantages caused by nature, age and so on.
These rights, however are bestowed by the State.

The State is not bound to meet these entitlements all at once. Most of the socialist states
recognize these rights as fundamental rights of the people. Right to equality, right to work, right
to have family, right to privacy, right to information, right to public assistance during old age and
sickness, right to health-care, right to special care during childhood and during motherhood are
some of the examples of these rights.

The rights mentioned above do not fully serve the purpose in the sense that rights have tendency
to grow with the corresponding changes in the society. Some of the rights are of recent origin
like the right to development ,the right to knowand right to self determination.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
WEBSITES-

[Link]

BOOK- Dr. S.K KAPOOR,HUMAN RIGHTS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW AND

INDIAN LAW ,7 TH EDITION 2017,CENTRAL LAW AGENCY