A Study of Judicial Responses relating to Human Rights in India By *Ramesh Kumar **Dr. Janardan Kumar Tiwari | (Article by Ramesh kumar)| (Article by Dr. Janardan Kumar Tiwari )

 

Web: www.lrdjournal.com;  Email: journal1257@gmail.com

                                                                

 

A Study of Judicial Responses relating to Human Rights in India

*Ramesh Kumar

**Dr. Janardan Kumar Tiwari

Abstract

India is one of the largest democratic & sovereign countries in the world in which the Indian judiciary is also the integral foundation & structural pillar along with its unification & independency in the democratic system. Indian judiciary has the responsibility to deliver the fair & satisfactory justice to the people concerned in according to the provisions of Constitution of India as a protector of human rights which have been guaranteed as justiciable fundamental rights under Indian Constitutional Law by way of judicial responses but the Indian judiciary & judicial responses are subject to the exception and criticisms because both the same create the deepest effects & consequences on person individual & our society in the presence of rule of law for the purposes of the largest interest of public peace & fulfillment of the long cherished dream of welfare state with a view to accomplish the spirit of Constitutional Law of India and intention of the legislators. The responsibility for the enforcement of fundamental rights as human rights has only been furnished to the highest Court of India (Supreme Court under article-32) & High Courts in States (under article-226) of the Constitution of India. The People of our society repose the exclusive believe on the judiciary but the same is not free from the exclusions & exceptions it is absolutely relevant to place over here that delayed justice denied justice it has rightly said therefore due these reasons, in today’s scenario, in the world of globalization, people somewhere are losing their confidence and credibility because of the disadvantages exclusions & exceptions with the inclusion of other connected things which are not the good results for us, society, nation & the world. Corollary with regard to this, in according to the need of hour, the judicial accountability has not only become essential but also compulsory & mandatory in order to the answerability towards the paramount of transparent democracy under the Constitution of India where any person, society or system can never be free from the exceptions in the interest & welfare of world human, living creatures & creation.

Key words: Justiciable, fundamental rights, judicial responses, fundamental rights, protector of human rights, Indian judiciary, Indian Constitutional Law.

1. Introduction

With respect to the Judicial Response (s) relating to Human Rights has the greatest importance & significance in India which has created or gone down the history in the interest & welfare of people & the country beyond all kinds of biases. The Judicial Response (s) which has been given by the hon’ble Indian Judiciary namely the Supreme Court of India as an apex or highest Court of India (Under Chapter-04 Articles 124 to 147), The High Courts in the States (Under Chapter -05 Articles 214 to 232) & Subordinate Courts (Under Chapter-06 Articles 233 to 237).The Indian Judiciary is one of the main foundation pillars of the democratic India by which the Justice is delivered in the existence of Rule of Law, subjecting to the Constitution of India which is the ‘Supreme Law’ of India. The Indian Judiciary is also independent, Unified & impartial. The golden historical background & responses of the Indian Judiciary is remarkable, unforgettable, leading & landmark. The Supreme Court of India is the protector & watchful sentinel of fundamental rights as enforceable human rights in India. The contribution of the Judiciary is also having the crucial & most important role in our Country. Our Judiciary has played & is playing the most effective, vital role in respect of the fundamental rights as human rights and others also in India. A number of important, leading & landmark cases or judgments have been delivered by the Judiciary. Many cases have been delivered timely but many after a long time which effected to people respective by its consequences but the Indian Judiciary is not free from the exceptions in accordance with the time, circumstances, people, Nation and other connected things. Many people have been deprived from their life & personal liberty in spite of the existence of Enforcement system. The conditions of the human rights & its Enforcement system are not as there should be in today’s scenario. The judicial responses are also responded by the means of Judicial Activism, Judicial Review, Public Interest Litigation, Curative petitions and others also by exercising its required Jurisdiction. This is related to the Judicial Responses by the ways of Public Interest Litigation, Judicial Activism, Epistolary Jurisdiction, Judicial Review, Doctrine of Prospective Overruling, the Basic Structure of the Constitution, Curative Petition, the Relevant, Important & the Recent Case Laws, Conclusion & other connected things as the consequences of the Judicial responses or functions or procedures and all the same ensured the specific & historic place of the Indian judiciary with the view of human rights & its Enforcement system in India.

2. Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is having its own specific place in respect of the protection & preservation of fundamental or human rights of people who can not approach to the Court due to poverty, disability or others reasons consequently on behalf of them any person may file the PIL in the Supreme Court of India or High Court respective under articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution but the personal interest should not be involved of the person who is filing such PIL. It is very beneficial for those people but the same has also been abused by people. In the case of People Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India[1] held that “According to the traditional rule of locus standi the right to move the Court for judicial redressal is available to those whose legal right or legally protected interest has been infringed. This rule results in denial of equal access to justice to those who because of their poverty, socially, economically disadvantageous position, are unable to approach the Court for relief. “Lest the golden key to unlock the doors of justice remain only with the moneyed people” The Supreme Court took the dynamic approach and pioneered the concept of the PIL, permitting litigation at the instance of ‘Public Spirited persons for the enforcement of rights of any other persons.[2] The PIL has also been explained by the Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India[3]which also known the first Judges Transfer case. In Judges Transfer Case[4] has firmly established that any member of public having the ‘sufficient interest’ can approach to the court for enforcing the constitutional or legal rights of other persons and redressal of a common grievance.[5]

In this connection, the PIL was abused by the persons therefore as a result hon’ble Justice Bhagwati expressed the caution note & observed that but “we must be careful to see that the member of public, who approaches the court in case of this kind, is acting bonafide and not for personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court must not allow its process to be abused by politicians and others.[6] Hon’ble Justice Bhagwati[7] declared that “No State has right to tell its citizens that because a large number of cases of the rich are pending in our Courts we will not help the poor to come to the Court for seeking justice until the staggering load of cases of people who can afford rich lawyers is disposed of.”[8]M.C. Mehta v. Union of India[9]The apex court of India has further widened the scope of PIL or Social interest litigation under article 32. The relevant case laws are as- Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India[10], A.B.S.K. Sangh v. Union of India[11], Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhari[12] and etc. In this respect, the concept of PIL is one of consequences of the judicial responses which are highly worth appreciating.

3. Judicial Activism

In this relation, the power or jurisdiction has the Supreme Court of India under article 32 for the enforcement of the fundamental rights as human rights which have been placed under the Part-03 of the Constitution. This article 32 is guaranteed in itself and also furnishes the guarantees of the rights as mentioned under the Part 03; to enforce the rights as above; the Supreme Court shall issue the writs, order or directions which may appropriate, this power of the Court, makes a sentinel on the qui vive to the Supreme Court. In this regard, any person takes the protection of the Court or file petition in the Court on behalf of other persons as who belongs to disadvantageous group as- poor, Children Women, SC, ST, persons with disability, victim of natural calamities and others on which or otherwise or Suo-motu, the Court can interfere in the matters for the protection of the rights and the Constitution & also in the arbitrary functions or actions of executive or legislature under Rule of Law that is the Judicial Activism.[13] Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras[14] was held that the Supreme Court is the protector of Fundamental Rights. State of Madras v. B. G. Rao[15] was held that the Supreme Court is a watchful sentinel of Fundamental Rights.      

4. Epistolary Jurisdiction

With regard to this Epistolary Jurisdiction has been created & developed by the Judiciary which reveals that any person can write a letter to the Supreme Court of India or High Court concerned &seek the justice from the Courts. The hon’ble Court (s) can start or initiate the process (es) as required without the formalities or technicalities which are fulfilled for the writ petition or Petition; the same shall be called as Epistolary Jurisdiction of the Court. In this connection, the jurisdiction has been laid down in the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India[16] & M.C. Mehta v. Union of India[17]in this case; the Supreme Court of India held that the poor persons can seek the enforcement of their fundamental rights from the Supreme Court by writing a letter to any judge also such a letter does not have to be accompanied by an affidavit. Hon’ble Justice Pathak in the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India[18] expressed that such letter should not be addressed to any individual judge but only to the Court held that such an approach would deny easy access to the Court to the poor and disadvantaged persons or by social action group who might not know the proper form of address to the Court. They may know only the particular judge who comes from their State and they may therefore address the letter to him. This is the most effective judicial response for the guaranteed fundamental rights or the rights under the Constitution of India.[19]

5. Judicial Review

The power or jurisdiction of the Judicial Review is having to Supreme Court of India (Under Article-32) or High Courts (Under Article-226) respective only which has been vested under article 13 of the Constitution, this article provides this Judicial Review of all legislations in India of past & future time. The Courts exercise the power to inquire into the constitutionality of the Legislation (s) but if the same is inconsistent & derogatory with the provisions of the Part-03 of the Constitution, the Courts may declare the legislation unconstitutional.[20]

In the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India[21] this power or jurisdiction of the Judicial Review is one of the parts of ‘Basic Structure’ of the Constitution which can not be excluded & destroyed. The relevant cases are I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu[22], Keshwanand Bharati v. State of Kerala[23], M. H. Quareshi v. State of Bihar[24], Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India[25], A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras[26] & etc.

6. The Declared, Invalid & Unconstitutional Provisions of the Constitution by the Supreme Court of India or High Courts

With respect to this the provisions of Constitution of India which have been declared invalid or null or void & unconstitutional by hon’ble Supreme Court of India or the High Court (s) which is follows

S.No.	Name of the Cases	Articles of the Constitution
1.	Keshvanand Bharti v. State of Kerala[27]	Article- 31C
2.	Indra Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain[28]	Article- 329
3.	Minerva Mills Limited v. Union of India[29]	Article- 368 (4) and (5)
4.	Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachilhu & others[30].	Schedule- 10 Paragraph- 07
5.	Supreme Court on Record Association and others v. Union of India[31]	On 16 October, 2015, the 99thConstitutionAmendment[32] in relation to ‘the National Judicial Appointment Commission’ which has been declared unconstitutional and void by hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

In the light of all above said, it can be said that this is all the strongest judicial responses & the power of judicial review is very worth admiring or appreciating in the interest and welfare of all people for the protection, preservation and promotion of fundamental or human or other rights.

7. Doctrine of Prospective Overruling

It is also one of the integral parts of the judicial response. This has meaning that ‘to overrule or reverse the previous decision (s).’ In this regard, the Supreme Court of India has right to overrule or reverse its decisions or judgments. The law which shall be made by the Supreme Court of India shall have the binding force on all the Courts of India.[33] A number of decisions or judgments have been overruled by the Court. In case of Golak Nath v. State of Punjab[34] the Supreme Court reversed its previous two decisions as- Shankri Prasad v. Union of India[35] case & Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan[36] case in these cases the Court had held that the power to amend the Constitution was mentioned in article 368 in Golak Nath case the Court reversed its decision and held that the power to amend the fundamental rights is not found in article 368 but in the residuary power of Legislation, therefore a law made under article 368 is subject to article 13 in the Court had applied the ‘Rule of Prospective Overruling’ and again in Keshvanand Bharti v. State of Kerala[37] The Court reconsidered its decision ofthe Golak Nath case and overruled the same. The majority held that the Golaknath case was decided wrongfully and the word law in article 13 did not include an amendment of the Constitution passed in article 368. Justice Chemleshwar in his dissenting judgment in Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam v. Election Commission of India[38] said there is nothing in the constitution that prevents the Supreme Court from departing from the previous decisions of its own if it is satisfied its error and of its harmful effect on the general interest of the public.

8. The Basic Structure of the Constitution

The Basic Structure of the Constitution is also one of part & parcel organs & consequences of the judicial response which is most appreciable in the interest & welfare of all. The power of Parliament of India in respect of the amendment in the Constitution & its procedure has been contained under article 368 by the Parliament may amend the Constitution & also the fundamental rights but subjecting to ‘the Basic Structure of the Constitution’ which can not be destroyed by the Parliament. The terms the ‘Basic Structure’ first of all have been used in the case of Keshvanand Bharti v. State of Kerala.[39] Therefore the Basic Structure of the Constitution[40] which covers the following things as under

S.No.	The Basic Structure of the Constitution	Name of the Cases
1.	The Supremacy of the Constitution	Keshvanand Bharti v. State of Kerala.[41]
2.	Republican & Democratic form of Government	Indra Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain[42] Kihota Hollohon v. Zachillu[43] T.N. Seshan v. Union of India[44] Keshvanand Bharti v. State of Kerala.[45] People Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India[46]
3.	Secularism	S.R. Bommai v. Union of India[47] Keshvanand Bharti v. State of Kerala.[48] I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu[49]
4.	Federalism	Keshvanand Bharti v. State of Kerala.[50] Kuldip Nagar v. Union of India[51]
5.	Sovereignty	Keshvanand Bharti v. State of Kerala.[52]
6.	Judicial Review	L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India[53] Keshvanand Bharti v. State of Kerala[54] Indra Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain[55] Minerva Mills Limited v. Union of India[56]Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachilhu & others[57]
7.	Free and Fair Election	Indra Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain[58]
8.	Article 32 & 226	L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India[59]
9.	Rule of Law	I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu[60] L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India[61] Advocate on Record v. Union of India[62]
10.	Right to Equality	Indra Sawhney v. Union of India[63] Indra Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain[64] I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu[65]
11.	Democracy	P.U.C.L. v. Union of India[66] Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachilhu & others[67]
12.	The harmony & Balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principle of State Policy	Minerva Mills Limited v. Union of India[68]
13.	The Limited Amendment power of the Parliament of India	Minerva Mills Limited v. Union of India[69]
14.	The Separation of Power among Executive, Legislature & Judiciary	State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Kerala[70] I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu[71] Keshvanand Bharti v. State of Kerala.[72]
15.	Independent Judiciary	Shri Kumar Padma Prasad v. Union of India (1992) 2 SCC 428 State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Sah[73]
16.	The Parliamentary Democracy	Kuldeep Nayar v. Union of India[74] People Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India[75] P.V. Narsimha Rao v. State[76]
17.	The Power or Duties of the CAG under article 149	Association of Unified Tele Services Provider v. Union of India[77]

 

With regard to it, this Basic Structure of the Constitution is not exhausted. This Basic Structure has been created and developed by the Indian Judiciary by means of the judicial responses which is historic, leading, landmark & protective in democratic & republic India for all in the protection, promotion and preservation of the fundamental or human or other rights of people.

9. Curative Petition

This Curative Petition is one of the greatest achievements which are the result of the judicial response namely this petition is most effective remedy for the people respective in the democratic system. This concept has been created & developed in the case of ‘Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra[78] the five Judges Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has unanimously held that for the purposes of rectification of miscarriage of the Justice in its final judgments which can not be challenged again, the Court will allow the Curative Petition by the Victim of miscarriage of the Justice to seek a second review of the final order of the Court, the five Judges Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court under the headship of the Chief Justice S.P. Bharucha said, “we are of the view that though Judges of the Highest Court do their best subject to the limitation of human fallibility yet situations nay arise in the rarest of rare cases which would require reconsideration of a final judgment to set right of miscarriage of justice.” The Court expressed that it would be the legal and moral obligation of the Apex Court to rectify the error in the decision that otherwise would have remained under the cloud of uncertainty. The Judgment was given in a bunch of petitions on the question whether a petition could question a final judgment even after dismissal of a review petition. Justice Quadri said, “We are persuaded to hold that the duty to do justice in these rarest of rare cases shall have to prevail over the policy over the policy of certainty of judgment as though it is essential in public interest that a final judgment of the final court in the Country should not be opened to challenge.” But the Court’s concern for recording justice in a cause was not less important than the principle of certainty of its judgment because there could be grounds that such a decision was in the violation of natural justice and that there was an abuse of the court’s process. However the Court laid down the certain specific conditions for the Court to entertain such a petition as follows

1.      The Court reaffirm that litigants are barred on challenging final decisions.

2.      But in the cases of miscarriage of justice it would be its legal and moral obligation for the rectification of error.

3.      The petitioner will have to establish that there was a genuine violation of the principle of natural justice & fear of the bias of the Judge and Judgment that adversely affected him.

4.       The Curative Petition must accompany certification by a senior lawyer with regard to the fulfillment of the requirements.

5.      The petition is to be sent to three judges of the Bench who passed the judgment affecting the petition.

6.      If the majority of judges on this Bench conclude that the matter needed hearing before the same Bench as far as possible which may pass appropriate order it should be listed.

7.      They could also impose “Exemplary Costs” of the petitioner if his pleas lacked merit.’[79]

With respect to all, this petition has the most important significance for the interest & welfare of people which has been provided by the medium of the judicial response in the Indian democracy.

10. The Relevant & Important Case Laws

The Indian Judiciary have delivered many most important, leading & landmark decisions or judgments which have created the history by way of its judicial response therefore the Relevant & Important Case Laws are under

The Relevant & Important including the Recent Case Laws

Sr. No.	Name of the Cases	Declared or Held Rights
1.	Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras[80] State of Madras v. B. G. Rao[81]	Supreme Court is the protector of Fundamental Rights. Supreme Court is a watchful sentinel of Fundamental Rights.
2.	Parmananad Katara v. Union of India[82]	Right to Medical Aid
3.	Francis Koreli Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory, Dehli[83]	Right to Minimum wage
4.	Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar[84]	Right of Protection from poverty
5.	Unnikrishan v. State of Andhra Pradesh[85]	Right to Education
6.	Menka Gandhi v. Union of India[86]	Right to life with dignity
7.	M. C. Mehta v. Union of India[87]	Right to Public health and Environment
8.	Olga Telis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation[88]	Right to Livelihood
9.	P.U.C.L. v. Union of India[89]	Right to food
10.	Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar[90]	Right to enjoy of Climate free from pollution
11.	In Ree Noise Pollution[91]	Right to life free from Noise Pollution
12.	M.M. Haskat v. State of Maharashtra[92]	Right to free Legal Aid
13.	Husn Aara Khatoon v. State of Bihar[93] Abdul Rahman Antule v. R.S. Nayak[94]	Right to speedy Trial
14.	Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh[95]	Right to shelter.
15.	Murli S. Devna v. union of India[96]	Prohibition of Smoking on Public Places
16.	Bodhistav Gautam v. Subhra Chakravarti[97]	Right to Interim Compensation of Rape victim Woman
17.	Prem Shankar v. Dehli Administration[98]	Right against handcuffing
18.	Vishakha and others v. State of Rajasthan and others[99]	Protection from sexual harassment of women at work place
19.	Kishore Singh v. State of Rajasthan [100]	Protection from Inhuman Behaviour
20.	Nilbati Behra v. State of Orissa[101]	Protection against Police Custodial death
21.	Jogindra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh[102]	Protection from illegal arrest and inhuman behavior of Police
22.	Attorney journal of India v. Laxmi Devi[103]	Right against Public Hanging
23.	Swapan Kumar Saha v. South Point Mantesary School[104]	Right to safe travel in school buses
24.	P.U.C.L. v. Union of India 2006 (5) scale 30	Right of hunger victim to get edible things free of cost
25.	S.P. Gupta v. Union of India [105] M.C. Mehta v. Union of India[106]	Any person can write a letter to the Supreme Court of India or High Court respective and seek the justice. The Hon’ble Court can initiate or start the required procedure; the same shall be called as Epistolary Jurisdiction of the Court.
26.	D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal[107]	The Protection from police atrocities, custodial death and others related things
27.	Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra[108]	The concept of Curative petition
28.	Menka Gandhi v. Union of India[109]	Hon’ble the Apex Court said that the origin of Human rights is freedom movement. The major purpose to place Human Rights in Constitution of India has to develop the Banyan tree of freedom in India.
30.	National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh[110] National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India & others[111]	This Court observed: “We are a country governed by the Rule of Law. Our Constitution confers certain rights on every human being and certain other rights on citizens. Every person is entitled to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.” Relating to the Third gender/Transgender/Hijras
31.	Kharak Singh v. The State Of U. P. & Others.[112] In R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamilnadu[113] this case is also known as ‘Auto Shankar Case’, Mr. X v. Hospital Z[114] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union of India And Ors[115]	Right to Privacy the Supreme Court held that ‘right to privacy’ or ‘right to be let alone’ is included in article 21 which are guaranteed.
32.	In Surjit Singh Thind v. KanwaljitKaur[116]	Right to privacy and Virginity Test- the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that allowing medical examination of a woman for her virginity would amount to violation of her right to privacy and personal liberty as contained in article 21.
33.	In Malak Singh v. State of Punjab[117]	Right to privacy and Surveillance- held that the rule of natural justice was not attracted but it made the law on the subject clear and laid down the guidelines with respect to the mode of Surveillance by the police.
34.	People’s Union for civil liberties v. Union of India[118]	Telephone Tapping- An invasion on right to privacy- this case is also known as ‘Phone Tapping case’ the Supreme court held that Telephone Tapping is serious invasion of an individual’s right to privacy which is a part of right to life and personal liberty in article 21 of the Constitution of India.
35.	Gyanjeet Kaur v. State of Punjab[119] (Overruled in the case of as following) Common Cause v. Union of India[120]	Right to Life does not include right to die. (Reversed). The Right to die with dignity as Fundamental Right & permitted the Passive Euthanasia
36.	Supreme Court on Record Association and others v. Union of India[121]	On 16 October, 2015, the 99thConstitutionAmendment[122] in relation to ‘the National Judicial Appointment Commission’ which has been declared unconstitutional and void by hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
37.	Shayara Bano v. Union of India[123]	Triple Talaq has been set aside
38.	Dr. Subash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra[124]	In respect of the abuse of Law relating to the Arrest under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 for the avoidance of false implication of Innocent.
39.	In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India[125] (The Mandal Commission Case) (The First Case) Sawhney v. Union of India[126] (Second case), M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore[127] Jarnail Singh & Others v. Lachchmi Narain Gupta & Others[128]	Relating to the Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe Reservation
40.	Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union of India And Ors[129]	With regard to the Adhaar Validation
41.	Social Action forum for Manav Adhikar& Others v. Union of India[130]	In relation to the section 498A of IPC, FIR, Arrest, Bail
42.	Navtej Singh Johar& Others v. Union of India[131]	Homosexuality decriminalized under section 377 of IPC above 18 years with free consent & completely voluntary for human.
43.	Joseph Shine v. Union of India[132]	Adultery under section 497 of IPC has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of India because it was in the violations of articles 14, 15, 21 of the Constitution and the section 198 (2) of Cr. P.C. is also declared unconstitutional only up to the extension of the procedure for prosecution of the adultery.
44.	In Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh[133]	Right to shelter- was held that Right to shelter is one of fundamental rights under article 21 of the Constitution of India.
45.	Suchitra Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration[134]	Right of women to produce child or refuse to participate in sexual acts- The hon’ble Supreme court of India held that the personal liberty covers the right to make reproductive choice or to produce child or not to produce. In view of this Woman’s right to privacy, dignity and bodily integrity should be respected and the Court said that a woman has right of choice to have personal liberty as placed in article 21. There should be no restriction on the exercise of reproductive choice she can refuse to participate in sexual acts…
46.	In Ramlila Maidan v. Home Secretary, Union of India[135],	Right to sleep- the Suo motu cognizance was taken by the Supreme Court of India and issued the necessary directions and held the Right to sleep.
47.	M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1)[136]	The Apex court of India passed the orders that the closures of tanneries at Jajmau near Kanpur, polluting the river Ganga.
48.	M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2)[137]	In it passed the directions by the Supreme Court regarding Ganga River pollution.
49.	M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (3)[138]	The hon’ble Supreme Court passed the orders or directions with respect to shifting of 168 hazardous industries operating in Delhi as they were causing danger to the ecology and directed that they be reallocated land to the National Capital Region as provided in the master plan for Delhi. The court directed these industries to close down with effect from 30 November 1996.
50.	M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (4) [139]- Indian Council for Enviro-Legal action v. Union of India[140]	Mining in Aravalli Hills range banned in it. The Supreme Court held that if by the action of private corporate bodies fundamental right of a person is violated the court would not accept the argument that it is not state within the meaning of article 12 and therefore action can not be taken against it. If the court finds that government or authorities concerned have not taken required of them by law and this has resulted in violation of right to life of citizens. It will be duty of court to intervene.
51.	In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1)[141]	The Right against solitary confinement-
	Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (2)[142]	The court held that the practice of keeping under trials with convicts in jail offended the test of reasonableness in article 19 and fairness in article 21 of the Constitution of India.
52.	Moses Wilson v. Karturba[143]	Speedy justice- Delay violates article 21 was held
53.	Vakil Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar[144]	The Court again emphasized the need for speedy investigation and trial of constitutional protection mentioned under article 21.
54.	Mohammad Hussain alias Julfikar Ali v.  State (Government of N.C.T. Delhi)[145]	The Lapse of several years since the commencement of prosecution is not justify discontinuance of prosecution or dismissal of indictment
55.	Rattiram v. State of Madhya Pradesh through Inspector of police[146]	The Right to fair trial
56.	State of Haryana v. Ram  Mehr[147]	The Fair trial does not mean limitless stretching of trial.
57.	Hardeep Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh[148]	Compensation for denial of speedy trial
58.	Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal[149]	Rehabilitation of sex workers
59.	Naval Union of India[150]	Compensation for medical negligence
60.	Mithu v. State of Punjab[151]	Section 303 of IPC struck down & declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of India.

 

In addition to the above said, a number of cases also is in existence which have been delivered by way of judicial responses of the Indian Judiciary but due to the limitations, convenience and other related things the same can not be placed over here, subjecting to the objectives of this research. The aforesaid list is only illustrative but not exhaustive in this regard. 

11. Conclusion & Suggestions

In the light of all above said, it can be briefed that the things which have been mentioned heretofore are the consequences of the judicial responses on perusal of the same, it reveals that the hon’ble Indian Judiciary is playing the most important & vital role in Indian democratic country for the protection, promotion, preservation and other connected things of the human rights which is remarkable, historic & highly worth appreciating in the Indian Welfare & Republic State. The Judicial responses in respect of the human rights & its Enforcements system and others things also is & has been very positive and worth admiring but the same is not also free from the exceptions in according to the time, circumstance, requirements or necessities of people & other connected things for the interest & welfare of all without all kinds of discriminations in Democratic, Republic, Sovereign, Secular & Socialist India, subjecting to the mandates & spirit of the Constitution of India and other applicable Laws. The implementation of the human rights as much must be as much in accordance with the time, circumstance, requirements or necessities of people and mandates of the applicable or enforceable laws as is not found which shows the worst & miserable conditions of human rights & its Enforcement system in India, subjecting to the all justified & required exceptions, Interest & welfare of Public & the Nation.[152]

---

*LL.B. (University Topper), LL.M. (Human Rights Law), UGC-NET (Law), UGC- Accredited- MP-SET (Law) MPPSC.

**Assistant Professor in Law, Institute of Law, Jiwaji University, Gwalior, (Mp).

[1] AIR SC 1473 (1982)

[2] Narendra Kumar, Constitutional Law of India: Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad, Haryana 10^th Editions page no. 511 (2018)

[3] AIR SC 149 (1982)

[4] Ibid SC 149 (1982)

[5] J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India: Central Law Agency, Allahabad 55^th Editions page no. 429 (2018)

[6]Pandey, supra 430

[7]People Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India AIR SC 1473 (1982)

[8] J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India: Central Law Agency, Allahabad 55^th Editions page no. 432 (2018)

[9] AIR SC 1087 (1987)

[10] Ibid SC 802 (1984)

[11] Ibid SC 298 (1981)

[12] 4 SCC 305 (1992)

[13] J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India: Central Law Agency, Allahabad 37^th Edition 2014 page no. 392 (2018)

[14]AIR SC 124 (1950)

[15]Ibid SC 196 (1952)

[16]Ibid  SC 149 (1982)

[17]Ibid SC 1087 (1987)

[18] Ibid SC 802 (1984)

[19] J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India: Central Law Agency, Allahabad 55^th Editions 2018 page no. 433 2018

[20]Ibid Page No. 76

[21] AIR SC 1125 (1988)

[22] Supra SC 861 (2007)

[23] Supra SC 1461 (1973)

[24] Supra SC 731 (1958)

[25] Supra SC 41 (1951)

[26] Supra 1SC 27 (950)

[27] AIR SC 1461 (1973)

[28] Supra SC 2299 (1975)

[29] Supra SC 1789 (1980)

[30]1 SCC 309 (1992)

[31] AIR SCW 5457 JLT (2015) SCJ 0 4 Nov. (2015)

[32]Act 2014

[33]The Constitution of India, Article 141

[34] AIR SC 1643 (1967)

[35] Ibid 1951 SC 458

[36] AIR SC 845 (1965)

[37] Supra  SC 1461(1973)

[38] Supra 2012 SC 2191()

[39]Supra 1973 SC 1461()

[40]Narendra Kumar, Constitutional Law of India: Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad, Haryana 10^th Editions Page No. 1171-1175 (2018)

[41] AIR SC 1461 (1973)

[42] Supra  SC 2299 (1975)

[43] Supra  SC 412 (1993)

[44] SCC(4)  611 (1995)

[45] AIR  SC 1461 (1973)

[46] JT  (2) SC 528 (2003)

[47] AIR  SC 1918 (1994)

[48] Supra  SC 1461(1973)

[49] Supra  SC 861 (2007)

[50] Supra  SC 1461 (1973)

[51]Supra  SC3127 (2006)

[52] Supra  SC 1461 (1973)

[53] Supra SC 1125 (1988)

[54] Supra SC 1461 (1973)

[55] Supra SC 2299 (1975)

[56] Supra SC 1789 (1980)

[57] SCC 1, 309 (1992)

[58] AIR SC 2299 (1975)

[59] Supra SC 1125 (1988)

[60] AIR  SC 861 (2007)

[61] Supra  SC 1125 (1988)

[62] Supra  SC 268 (1994)

[63] Supra  SC 498 (2000)

[64] Supra  SC 2299 (1975)

[65] Supra  SC 861 (2007)

[66] Supra  SC 2363 (2003)

[67]SCC 1, 309 (1992)

[68] AIR  SC 1789 (1980)

[69] Supra  SC 1789 (1980)

[70] Supra SC 2407 (2014)

[71] Supra  SC 861 (2007)

[72] Supra SC 1461 (1973)

[73] Supra SC 1296 (2000)

[74] Supra  SC 3127 (2006)

[75] Supra SC 2363 (2003)

[76] Supra SC 2120 (1998)

[77] Supra SC 1984 (2014)

[78] AIR SC1771 (2002)

[79]Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India: Central Law Agency, Allahabad 55^th Editions page no. 560-561 (2018)

[80]AIR SC 124 (1950)

[81]Supra SC 196 (1952)

[82] Supra SC 2039 (1989)

[83]Supra SC 746 (1981)

[84]Supra SC 420 (1991)

[85]SCC 4,  645 (1993)

[86]AIR SC 507 (1978)

[87]SC 4, 711 (1988)

[88]AIR SC 180 (1986)

[89]SC (5) 30 (2000)

[90]AIR SC 420 (1991)

[91]Supra SC 3036 (2005)

[92]Supra SC 1548 (1978)

[93]Supra SC 1360 (1979)

[94](1992) 1 SCC 225

[95] SCC 549 (1996)

[96]AIR SC 4 (2002)

[97]SCC 1, 490 (1996)

[98]AIR SC 898 (1980)

[99]Supra SC 3011 (1997)

[100]AIR  SC 625 (1981)

[101]SCC 2, 746 (1993)

[102]SCC 260 (1994)

[103]AIR 1986 SC 467

[104]Supra Notes on Cases 236 (2008)

[105]Supra SC 149 (1982)

[106]Supra SC 1087 (1987)

[107]Supra  SC 610 (1997)

[108]Supra  SC1771 (2002)

[109]AIR SC1643 (1967)

[110] Supra SC 1234 (1996)

[111] A Writ Petition  SC (Civil) No- 400 of 2012 with also Writ Petition (Civil) No- 604 of 2013 decided on 15 April, 2014

[112]18 December, (1962), Equivalent citations: (1963) AIR 1295, SCR (1) 332 (1964)

[113] SCC 6, 632 (1994)

[114] AIR SC 495 (1999)

[115]Writ Petition SC (Civil), 494 of (2012) decided on 24 August, 2017

[116] AIR Punjab & Haryana High Court, 353 (2003)

[117] Ibid SC 760 (1981)

[118] AIR SC 568 (1997)

[119] SCC 2, 649 (1996)

[120] A Writ Petition  (Civil) SC No- 215 of 2005 decided on 09 March, 2018

[121] AIR SCW 5457 (2015) JLT (2015) SCJ 0 4 Nov decided on 16 October, 2015

[122] Act 2014

[123] A Writ Petition  SC (Civil) No-118 of 2016 decided on 22 August, 2017

[124] Criminal Appeal No-416 of 2018 arisen out from SLP (Criminal) No-5661 of 2017decided on 20 March, 2018

[125] AIR SC 477 (1973)

[126] Ibid SC 498 (2000)

[127] Ibid SC 649 (1963)

[128] SLP (Civil) SC No-30621 of 2011 decided on 26 September, 2018

[129] Writ Petition SC (Civil) No-494 of 2012 decided on 26 September, 2018

[130] Writ Petition SC (Civil) No-73 of 2015 decided on 14 September, 2018

[131] Writ Petition SC (Criminal) No-76 of 2016 decided on 06 September, 2018

[132] Writ Petition SC (Criminal) No-194 of 2017 decided on 27 September, 2018 Point No-18 Page No-62

[133] SCC 2, 549 (1996)

[134] AIR SC 235 (2010)

[135] Cr. LJ 3516 (SC) (2012)

[136] 4 SCC 463 (1987)

[137] 1 SCC 471 (1988)

[138] 4 SCC 750 (1996))

[139] AIR SC 4016 (2004)

[140] SCC 3 212 (1996)

[141] AIR SC 1575 (1978)

[142] Ibid SC 1579 (1980)

[143] AIR SC 379 (2008)

[144] Ibid SC 1822 (2009)

[145] Ibid SC 3860 (2012)

[146] Ibid SC 1485 (2012)

[147] Ibid SC 3942 (2016)

[148] Ibid SC 1751 (2012)

[149] Ibid SC 2636 (2011)

[150] Ibid Raj 63 (2009)

[151] Ibid SC 473 (1983) decided on 07 April, 1983

[152]Ramesh Kumar, The Role of Indian Judiciary with respect to Human Rights Law in India: JMSG an International Multidisciplinary e- Journal: Impact Factor: 4.032: UGC Approved e- Journal No.43919: ISSN- 2454-8367: Vol: II Issue III January: page no.01-09 (2017)