Human Rights Law: Complete Notes

About this subject

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (00:00)

Human Rights Law runs, across six units, from what makes a right a human right to newer issues such as artificial intelligence, corruption, business power, and the rights of transgender persons and prisoners. Human rights are engaged whenever a person speaks out, visits a government hospital, stands in a ration queue or meets a police officer.

The subject moves between two worlds: the international world of treaties, United Nations bodies and regional courts, and the Indian world of the Constitution, statutes, commissions and courts.

What Makes a Right a Human Right

A tenant's or employee's rights depend on a role or a contract. A human right belongs to a person simply because he or she is a human being. It is not earned by citizenship, religion, caste, wealth or good behaviour; even a person accused of a serious crime keeps it.

The foundation of all human rights is human dignity: every person has an inner worth that the State cannot take away. Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 (UDHR) opens: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." Dignity comes first; rights follow from it.

Characteristics

• Universal: belong to every person everywhere.
• Inherent: the State does not grant them; it only recognises and protects them.
• Inalienable: cannot be sold, surrendered or simply taken away. Some may be lawfully limited: a convict may lose liberty after a fair trial but keeps dignity and the right not to be tortured, even in prison.
• Indivisible and interdependent: the Vienna Declaration of the World Conference on Human Rights, 1993, says all human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated.
• Equality and non-discrimination run through every right.

The individual is the right-holder; the State is mainly the duty-bearer, and must also protect people against private actors.

Human Rights and Fundamental Rights

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (03:28)

Human rights	Fundamental rights (India)
Rights every human being holds, as recognised in international law	Rights in Part III of the Constitution
Some, like the right to work, appear in India mainly as Directive Principles (Part IV), not directly enforceable	Directly enforceable in the Supreme Court (Article 32) and the High Courts (Article 226)
Belong to every human being	Some only for citizens (Article 19 freedoms); others for every person, including a foreigner (Article 14 equality before the law; Article 21 life and personal liberty)

Why human rights matter

• They limit power: even a huge majority cannot vote away a minority's dignity.
• They give a common standard for judging laws.
• They give a voice to the weakest: prisoners, children, refugees, Dalit communities and women facing violence.
• They drive constitutional litigation, public interest litigation and policy work, and are tested in judiciary examinations, UGC NET and CLAT PG.

Universality and cultural relativism

In the early 1990s some governments argued that human rights reflect Western values and must yield to local traditions (cultural relativism). The Vienna Declaration answered that national, regional, historical, cultural and religious differences must be borne in mind, but States, whatever their systems, must promote and protect all human rights.

The Global Story of Human Rights

• Code of Hammurabi (Babylon): preventing the strong from oppressing the weak.
• Greek and Roman Stoics: all humans share reason; this grew into natural law, a higher law binding even rulers.
• Magna Carta, 1215: King John accepted that no free man could be imprisoned except by the lawful judgment of his peers or the law of the land. It protected mainly the barons but planted the idea that even the king is under the law. The Habeas Corpus Act, 1679 and Bill of Rights, 1689 followed.
• John Locke: government exists to protect the natural rights of life, liberty and property.
• American Declaration of Independence, 1776 and French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, 1789: spoke of men and in practice excluded women, enslaved and colonised peoples. Olympe de Gouges replied with the Declaration of the Rights of Woman, 1791. Human rights history is also the history of excluded groups demanding inclusion.
• League of Nations, 1920: no general list of rights in its Covenant, but it supervised minority-protection treaties and treated the well-being of peoples in certain former colonies as a sacred trust of civilisation. The International Labour Organization (ILO), founded in 1919, began setting labour standards. The League could neither stop aggression nor protect individuals against their own governments.

The Second World War and the Holocaust (about six million Jews and millions of others murdered) showed what happens when a State may treat its own people as it pleases. The UN Charter, signed on 26 June 1945, responded: its Preamble reaffirms faith in fundamental human rights and the dignity and worth of the human person; Article 1 makes respect for human rights, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion, a UN purpose; under Articles 55 and 56 members pledge joint and separate action. The Charter did not list the rights; the UDHR (10 December 1948) filled that gap.

The Indian Story of Human Rights

Indian traditions spoke of dharma (righteous duty), rajdharma (the king's duty to rule justly) and Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the world is one family). Buddhism and Jainism taught compassion and non-violence; Emperor Ashoka preached tolerance and humane treatment even of prisoners. Yet the same society practised rigid caste hierarchy, untouchability and subordination of women: ancient thought gave ideas of duty and compassion, not a full theory of equal rights. Kabir and Guru Nanak challenged caste pride; Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Jyotirao Phule and Savitribai Phule fought for widows, girls and oppressed castes.

Colonial rule brought the rule of law but also repression, so the freedom struggle became a struggle for rights:

• Rowlatt Act, 1919: detention without trial; the Jallianwala Bagh massacre came the same year.
• Nehru Report, 1928: demanded fundamental rights.
• Karachi Resolution of the Congress, 1931: joined civil liberties with economic rights such as free primary education and protection of workers.
• Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar led the fight against untouchability, including the Mahad Satyagraha, 1927, for access to a public water tank.

The Constitution came into force on 26 January 1950, soon after the UDHR. Civil and political rights became enforceable Fundamental Rights (Part III); economic and social rights became Directive Principles (Part IV), which under Article 37 are fundamental in governance but not enforceable by any court. The Preamble assures the dignity of the individual; Article 17 abolishes untouchability; Article 51 asks the State to foster respect for international law and treaty obligations.

How International Law Enters Indian Law

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (10:38)

A ratified treaty does not automatically become Indian law. India is dualist for treaties: a ratified treaty binds India internationally, but changing rights inside India needs legislation, and Article 253 empowers Parliament to implement treaties. Courts still use international human rights law to interpret the Constitution and statutes where there is no conflict with Indian law.

Sources of Human Rights Law

Article 38 of the ICJ Statute lists: (1) treaties; (2) international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law; (3) general principles of law; and (4) as subsidiary means, judicial decisions and the writings of the most highly qualified scholars.

Formal source	Material source
Gives a rule binding force: State consent for a treaty; State practice with a belief that it is legally required for custom	Supplies content without binding anyone, e.g. the UDHR, a General Assembly resolution, an expert report

Human Rights Law strains this theory: it protects individuals against their own States and grows through declarations, resolutions and expert interpretations.

Treaties and custom

Under Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, every treaty in force binds its parties and must be performed in good faith: pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept). A treaty binds only its parties; for a non-party, the question is whether the rule exists in customary law, which binds all States. Custom needs (1) a general practice of States and (2) opinio juris, the belief that the practice is required by law.

Is Human Rights Law customary law?

Partly. The prohibitions of genocide, slavery, torture, systematic racial discrimination and prolonged arbitrary detention clearly are, and bind every State. Not every treaty Article has become custom, and proof is hard because many States break these rules while denying it.

Peremptory Norms: Torture as Jus Cogens

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (17:15)

Reservations to Human Rights Treaties

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (22:18)

Ordinary treaties	Human rights treaties
Exchange benefits between States	Create duties owed to individuals
Reservations work on reciprocity: if one State limits its obligation, others may limit theirs towards it	Reciprocity fails: if one State refuses to protect free speech, no other State will silence its own citizens in response

Reservations encourage wider participation; the question is how far they are acceptable.

Who decides compatibility?

Approach	Position
States	Each State decides by objecting, but States seldom object, so human rights bodies stepped in
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 24 (1994)	No reservation of the right to torture, enslave, arbitrarily kill or detain, or deny minorities their culture. An invalid reservation is normally severable: the State stays bound without its benefit. The United States, United Kingdom and France objected.
International Law Commission, Guide to Practice on Reservations (2011)	Middle path: the author of an invalid reservation is presumed to remain a party without its benefit, unless it has shown a contrary intention

The Common Law of Human Rights

Human Rights Law also grows through interpretation: courts, treaty bodies and expert committees borrow each other's reasoning, building a common law of human rights or jus commune (a law common to many systems). The European Court drives it by treating its Convention as a living instrument read in present-day conditions and insisting that rights be practical and effective, not theoretical or illusory, balanced by a margin of appreciation leaving States some room to strike the balance locally.

UN treaty bodies issue General Comments explaining their treaties: not binding like judgments, but treated as authoritative guidance.

The Generations of Human Rights

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (33:09)

In the late 1970s the jurist Karel Vasak proposed three generations of rights, matching the French revolutionary ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity.

Generation	Rights	Examples	Label
First (liberty)	Civil and political	Life, freedom from torture, liberty, fair trial, privacy, religion, expression, the vote	"Negative": mainly ask the State not to interfere
Second (equality)	Economic, social and cultural	Work, fair wages, social security, food, housing, health, education	"Positive": need State action and resources
Third (fraternity)	Collective or solidarity	Self-determination, development, peace, a healthy environment	Solidarity rights

The two Covenants of 1966 contain the first two generations. The General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Right to Development in 1986 and in 2022 recognised the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. Some now speak of a fourth generation of digital rights.

• History is not neat: the ILO protected labour rights (second generation) from 1919, long before most civil rights were protected internationally.
• Politics: the two separate 1966 Covenants reflected the Cold War; Western States stressed civil rights, socialist States social rights.
• Labels are too simple: a fair trial needs courts, judges and legal aid; the right to health also requires the State not to interfere.

Likewise, education became a fundamental right in Article 21A through an amendment of 2002 that took effect only in 2010.

Unit Two: Jurisdiction and State Responsibility

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (36:27)

Unit Two deals with the application and restriction of human rights law. It asks two practical questions: when is a State responsible for a violation, and when may a State lawfully restrict a right?

The notion of jurisdiction

• Article 2, ICCPR — each State undertakes to respect and ensure the Covenant rights to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction.
• Article 1, European Convention on Human Rights — States must secure the Convention rights to everyone within their jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction is the gateway: if a person is not within a State's jurisdiction, that State's treaty duties towards the person do not arise.

When is a State responsible?

Under the International Law Commission's Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001), a State commits a wrongful act when conduct attributable to it breaches an international obligation.

• Conduct of any State organ (police, army, court) is attributable to the State, even when the officer exceeds authority.
• Private conduct is attributable when done on the State's instructions or under its direction or control.

Territorial and extraterritorial jurisdiction

Jurisdiction is primarily territorial; a State is presumed to have jurisdiction over its whole territory. It can also exist abroad in two main situations:

Spatial model	Personal model
Effective control over an area	Authority and control of State agents over a person
e.g. a State's army occupies part of another country	e.g. officials arrest someone abroad

Economic, social and cultural rights abroad: the Maastricht Principles

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has no jurisdiction clause; its Article 2 asks States to act individually and through international assistance and co-operation. In September 2011, experts meeting in Maastricht adopted the Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (food, water, health, housing). A State must respect, protect and fulfil these rights:

1. where it exercises authority or effective control;
2. where its acts or omissions have foreseeable effects on these rights, inside or outside its territory;
3. where it can exercise decisive influence.

They are not a treaty but an expert restatement — persuasive soft law.

The Obligations to Respect, Protect and Fulfil

The Norwegian expert Asbjorn Eide developed this three-layer typology in his United Nations work on the right to food in the 1980s. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted it in General Comment No. 12 on the right to food (1999).

Duty	Meaning
Respect	The State itself must not interfere — the police must not torture; the State must not bulldoze homes arbitrarily.
Protect	The State must prevent third parties (employers, companies, landlords, violent family members) from violating rights — make laws, investigate, punish, provide remedies.
Fulfil	The State must take positive steps so people can actually enjoy the right: it facilitates (land reform, irrigation) and provides directly when people cannot help themselves (rations during a famine).

The pattern applies to civil rights too: the right to life requires the police not to kill unlawfully, the State to protect people from killers, and the State to train the police and run working courts. The Indian Constitution reflects it: Part III mostly stops the State from interfering, the Directive Principles push it to provide, and the Supreme Court has read positive duties into Article 21.

Emergencies and Derogation

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (48:25)

Conditions under Article 4, ICCPR

1. A public emergency which threatens the life of the nation,
2. officially proclaimed;
3. measures only as far as strictly required by the exigencies of the situation;
4. no conflict with the State's other obligations under international law;
5. no discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin;
6. the State must immediately inform the other parties, through the UN Secretary-General, of the provisions suspended and the reasons.

Non-derogable rights

Article 4 lists rights that can never be suspended: the right to life; freedom from torture and ill-treatment; freedom from slavery; freedom from imprisonment for inability to fulfil a contract; freedom from retroactive criminal law; recognition as a person before the law; and freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

General Comment No. 29 (2001) of the Human Rights Committee added guarantees that cannot be set aside in practice — e.g. humane treatment of detainees, the ban on hostage-taking and unacknowledged detention, and the right to challenge detention before a court.

Article 15, European Convention allows derogation in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation, but never from the right to life (except deaths from lawful acts of war), or from the bans on torture, slavery and retroactive punishment.

Derogation, restriction and absolute rights

Derogation	Restriction (limitation)	Absolute right
Exceptional, temporary suspension of obligations during a proclaimed emergency	Ordinary part of a qualified right, allowed even in peaceful times — e.g. limiting speech to protect someone's reputation	Cannot be restricted or suspended at all — the ban on torture is the clearest example

India's experience

During the Emergency of June 1975, thousands were detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), and a Presidential order suspended the right to move courts to enforce Articles 14, 21 and 22.

The Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 responded. Under Article 359, enforcement of Articles 20 and 21 cannot now be suspended in any emergency. An internal emergency can now be proclaimed only for armed rebellion.

The Absolute Prohibition of Torture and Non-Refoulement

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (53:29)

Article 7, ICCPR and Article 3, European Convention prohibit torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 2, Convention against Torture: no exceptional circumstances whatsoever — war, threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency — may justify torture; nor may an order from a superior officer.

Torture	Inhuman treatment	Degrading treatment
Deliberate inhuman treatment causing very serious and cruel suffering, usually for a purpose such as extracting a confession	Causes intense physical or mental suffering	Humiliates or debases a person

All three are prohibited absolutely.

Non-refoulement

Expulsion of Aliens

An alien is a foreign national. Under Article 13, ICCPR, an alien lawfully in a State's territory may be expelled only by a decision reached in accordance with law. Unless compelling reasons of national security require otherwise, the alien must be allowed to submit reasons against expulsion, to have the case reviewed by a competent authority, and to be represented. The European system also bans collective expulsion of aliens.

Above these procedural guarantees stands the stronger rule of non-refoulement:

Refugee Convention, 1951	Ban on return to torture
Protects refugees from return to persecution	Protects any person facing a real risk of torture
Exceptions: a refugee who is a danger to national security, or who has been convicted of a particularly serious crime and is a danger to the community	No exception

India's position

• Not a party to the Refugee Convention.
• On joining the ICCPR, India declared that it reserves the right to apply its own law relating to foreigners in respect of Article 13. That law is now mainly the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, in force from 1 September 2025, which replaced the Foreigners Act, 1946 and three older laws.
• Foreigners enjoy Article 14 (equality) and Article 21 (life and personal liberty), but not the right to reside and settle under Article 19, which belongs only to citizens.

Limitations on Rights: Legality, Legitimacy and Necessity

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (1:00:29)

Most rights are qualified rights that the State may limit in ordinary times — privacy, manifestation of religion, expression, peaceful assembly, association, movement. Every limitation must pass a three-part test:

1. Legality — provided by law; the law must be accessible and precise enough for a person to foresee its consequences. A vague law, or one giving officials unlimited discretion, fails.
2. Legitimacy — a legitimate aim listed in the treaty: national security, public order, public health or morals, or the rights and reputations of others.
3. Necessity — necessary in a democratic society: meets a pressing social need and is proportionate, i.e. the least restrictive measure that works, striking a fair balance between the individual and the community.

General Comment No. 34 (2011), Human Rights Committee

Explains Article 19, ICCPR (freedom of opinion and expression):

• Freedom of opinion permits no restriction at all.
• Expression may be restricted only if the three conditions are met; restrictions must never put the right itself in jeopardy. The relation between right and restriction, norm and exception, must not be reversed.
• Laws must be precise and must not confer unfettered discretion.
• Imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty for defamation; blasphemy laws are generally incompatible with the Covenant.
• Unlike the European Court, the Committee uses no margin of appreciation; it makes its own assessment of necessity.

Indian law

Article 19(2) allows only reasonable restrictions on speech on listed grounds.

European Court (S.A.S., 2014)	Human Rights Committee (2018)
No violation	Violation of religion and equality
Accepted "living together"; wide margin of appreciation	Rejected security and living together; noted disproportionate impact
Binding judgment	Views not formally binding

Checklist for problem questions

1. Was the person within the State's jurisdiction?
2. Which duty — respect, protect or fulfil?
3. Is the right absolute (like the ban on torture), so no justification is possible?
4. Has the State validly derogated during a real emergency?
5. If the right is qualified: is the restriction provided by law, aimed at a legitimate aim, and necessary and proportionate?

Unit Three: The United Nations and Human Rights

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (1:05:43)

Unit Three covers the international human rights framework and implementation mechanisms: who watches over human rights at the international level, and how. Rights written on paper need machinery to make them real.

• The UN Charter placed human rights among the purposes of the Organization.
• Article 13 — the General Assembly may make recommendations on human rights.
• Articles 55 and 56 — members pledge joint and separate action.
• Article 68 — the Economic and Social Council was to set up a human rights commission.
• Article 2(7) — the UN may not intervene in matters essentially within a State's domestic jurisdiction. Governments long used it as a shield; today serious violations are accepted as a matter of international concern.

The General Assembly adopts declarations and treaties; the Security Council can act when violations threaten peace (as when it created the tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda); the ICJ decides disputes between States.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Drafting and adoption

In 1946 the Economic and Social Council created the Commission on Human Rights, chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt (United States). In the drafting group, John Humphrey (Canada), head of the UN human rights division, prepared the first draft; René Cassin (France) gave it its structure; Peng Chun Chang (China) and Charles Malik (Lebanon) shaped its philosophy. India's delegate Hansa Mehta replaced "all men are born free and equal" with "all human beings", so that women would not be left out.

Adopted by the General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 by 48 votes to none, with 8 abstentions (the Soviet Union and five other socialist States, Saudi Arabia and South Africa) — hence Human Rights Day on 10 December. Its purpose: to give meaning to the Charter's promise by setting a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations.

Structure

A Preamble followed by 30 Articles:

Articles	Content
1–2	Foundations: equal dignity; all rights without distinction of any kind
3–21	Civil and political: life, liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, equality before law, fair hearing, privacy, movement, asylum, nationality, marriage, property, religion, expression, assembly, participation in government
22–27	Economic, social and cultural: social security, work, rest, adequate standard of living, education, cultural life
28–30	A just social and international order; duties of every person to the community; limits on rights

Article 29 allows only limitations determined by law, for respecting the rights of others and meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

Legal status

• A General Assembly resolution, not a treaty — not binding when adopted. Eleanor Roosevelt told the Assembly it was not a treaty or a statement of legal obligation, but might become an international Magna Carta for all people everywhere.
• States treat it as the authoritative interpretation of the Charter's human rights provisions.
• The Proclamation of Teheran (1968) declared that it constitutes an obligation for the members of the international community.
• Many provisions — bans on torture, slavery and arbitrary detention — now reflect customary international law.

With the two Covenants of 1966 and their protocols, the UDHR forms the International Bill of Human Rights. It inspired regional treaties and many national constitutions, and Indian courts use it.

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

• Recommended by the World Conference on Human Rights, Vienna (1993); post created by the General Assembly on 20 December 1993.
• Appointed by the Secretary-General with General Assembly approval, for four years, renewable once.
• First: José Ayala Lasso (Ecuador), from 1994. Present: Volker Türk (Austria), in office since October 2022; in July 2026 the General Assembly approved his reappointment for a second term.

The OHCHR, part of the UN Secretariat in Geneva, is the main UN human rights office. It serves the Human Rights Council, the treaty bodies and the Special Procedures; runs field offices; helps governments (drafting laws, training police); supports national human rights institutions; and the High Commissioner speaks publicly about violations anywhere.

From the Commission on Human Rights to the Human Rights Council

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (1:12:45)

The Commission on Human Rights (1946–2006)

• A body of the Economic and Social Council, with 53 member States by the end; drafted the UDHR and the two Covenants.
• At first declared it had no power to act on complaints. ECOSOC Resolution 1235 (1967) allowed public debate on gross violations; Resolution 1503 (1970) created a confidential complaint procedure. It also created the first Special Procedures.
• Criticised for politicisation and selectivity, and because States with poor records joined it to shield themselves. Last session: March 2006.

The Human Rights Council

• Created by General Assembly resolution of 15 March 2006 (170 to 4, 3 abstentions); a subsidiary body of the General Assembly, based in Geneva.
• 47 members, elected directly and individually by secret ballot by a majority of all GA members. Seats: Africa 13, Asia-Pacific 13, Eastern Europe 6, Latin America and Caribbean 8, Western Europe and others 7.
• Three-year terms; no immediate re-election after two consecutive terms.
• The GA, by two-thirds majority, may suspend a member committing gross and systematic violations — Libya (2011), Russia (2022).
• At least three sessions a year, no less than ten weeks; special sessions on urgent situations.
• Politics persists: the United States announced its withdrawal in February 2025.

Main tools: the Universal Periodic Review; the Special Procedures; an Advisory Committee of experts; a confidential complaint procedure for consistent patterns of gross violations; and commissions of inquiry and fact-finding missions (e.g. Syria, Myanmar).

Human Rights Council	Human Rights Committee
Political body of 47 governments	Body of 18 independent experts
Created by the General Assembly	Created by the ICCPR to supervise that treaty
Think: governments and politics	Think: experts and a treaty

The Universal Periodic Review

The UPR is the Council's most original invention: every UN member State, big or small, has its whole human rights record reviewed by other States once every cycle of about four to five years — like a class where every student's report card is discussed openly by classmates. Standards: the Charter, the UDHR, treaties ratified, voluntary pledges and applicable humanitarian law.

Procedure

1. Three documents: a national report; a compilation of UN information by the OHCHR; a summary of stakeholder information (NGOs, national human rights institutions).
2. Review in a Working Group of the 47 Council members; any UN member may speak.
3. Three States chosen by lot — the troika — act as rapporteurs.
4. After an interactive dialogue, States make recommendations; the State under review supports or notes each.
5. The Council adopts the outcome in plenary; the next cycle focuses on what the State actually did.

India has been reviewed four times — 2008, 2012, 2017 and 10 November 2022; its next review falls in the fifth cycle.

Strengths	Weaknesses
Universality, equal treatment, peer pressure	Recommendations not binding; friendly States praise each other; many recommendations vague

It is best seen as a regular public conversation that builds pressure over time.

The Special Procedures

Independent human rights experts appointed by the Council to examine a theme or a country: Special Rapporteurs, Independent Experts, and Working Groups of five (one from each region). In 2026 there were more than fifty mandates, mostly thematic (torture, freedom of expression, arbitrary detention, adequate housing, privacy), some on particular countries. Mandate holders serve in a personal capacity, are unpaid, and serve a maximum of six years.

1. Country visits, only with the State's consent. India extended a standing invitation to the thematic Special Procedures in 2011.
2. Communications to governments on individual cases or laws, including urgent appeals where a person faces imminent harm.
3. Thematic studies and annual reports to the Council.

The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention even gives opinions on whether a particular detention is arbitrary. Findings are not binding but bring facts into the open.

The Treaty Bodies and State Reporting

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (1:18:59)

Each core treaty has a treaty body of independent experts elected by the States parties, serving in a personal capacity, not as government representatives. There are ten: the Human Rights Committee; the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture; and the committees on economic, social and cultural rights; racial discrimination; discrimination against women; torture; rights of the child; migrant workers; persons with disabilities; and enforced disappearances.

Task 1: State reporting

1. Initial report soon after joining, then periodic reports on how the State gives effect to the treaty.
2. Often a list of issues in advance.
3. NGOs and national human rights institutions send shadow reports.
4. Public constructive dialogue with a government delegation in Geneva.
5. Concluding observations — positive steps, concerns, recommendations; some followed up after a year or two.

Problems: overdue reports, heavy backlog, weak follow-up — but it gives civil society a powerful platform.

Task 2: Interpretation

General Comments (called General Recommendations by the committees on women and racial discrimination) explain treaty provisions — e.g. the Human Rights Committee's General Comment on the right to life; the women's committee's General Recommendation that gender-based violence is a form of discrimination.

Individual Communications

Task 3 is deciding individual complaints (communications) — possible only if the State has accepted the procedure, by ratifying an Optional Protocol (e.g. the First Optional Protocol to the ICCPR) or by a declaration (e.g. Article 22, Convention against Torture).

Admissibility: domestic remedies exhausted; complaint not anonymous; same matter not under examination in another international procedure. The procedure is written; the committee may request interim measures (e.g. no deportation while pending); finally it adopts views on violation and may recommend a remedy.

Are views binding? Not like a court judgment. But General Comment No. 33 (2008) says they show important characteristics of a judicial decision — reached in a judicial spirit by independent members, an authoritative determination by the body the Covenant established — so States must consider them in good faith.

Two other procedures: some treaties allow a committee to inquire on its own into grave or systematic violations; some allow inter-State complaints, which States rarely use.

International Human Rights Courts and Their Effectiveness

There is no world court of human rights. Globally only the ICJ decides legal disputes, only between States, and hears human rights disputes when a treaty gives it jurisdiction.

The International Criminal Court tries individuals for crimes such as genocide; it is not a human rights court.

Real human rights courts are regional: the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights. Their effectiveness depends on:

Factor	Position
Binding force	Judgments legally binding, unlike treaty-body views
Compliance	Supervised by a political body in Europe; by the Court itself in the Americas
Remedies	Europe: usually compensation. Americas: wide reparations — public apologies, memorials, changes in law
Access	Europe: individuals go directly. Americas: first to the Inter-American Commission
Workload and resistance	Tens of thousands of pending cases in Europe; some judgments unimplemented for years; some States have left the system

Yet these courts have changed laws on torture, detention, privacy, amnesty and discrimination across two continents.

The European System

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (1:24:46)

• Council of Europe: founded 1949, separate from the European Union, 46 member States.
• European Convention on Human Rights: signed in Rome, 4 November 1950; in force 1953. Originally a European Commission of Human Rights filtered complaints, and individual petition and the Court's jurisdiction were optional.
• Protocol No. 11 (in force 1998): a single full-time Court with compulsory jurisdiction, to which individuals apply directly.

The Strasbourg Court

• One judge per member State, elected by the Parliamentary Assembly for a single nine-year term.
• Formations: single judge (rejects clearly inadmissible cases); Committees of three (routine cases); Chambers of seven (most others); Grand Chamber of seventeen (most serious).
• Admissibility: application within four months of the final domestic decision (reduced from six by Protocol No. 15, applied since February 2022); domestic remedies exhausted; significant disadvantage.
• Article 41: just satisfaction. Article 46: States must abide by final judgments; the Committee of Ministers supervises execution.
• Pilot judgments for systemic problems, requiring general reforms.
• Protocol No. 16 (in force 2018): highest national courts may request advisory opinions, which are not binding.

Russia was expelled from the Council of Europe in March 2022 and ceased to be a party to the Convention in September 2022. The European Social Charter is supervised by the European Committee of Social Rights — an expert body, not a court — which examines State reports and, under a 1995 protocol, collective complaints from trade unions and NGOs.

The Inter-American System

• The Organization of American States adopted the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man in May 1948, some months before the UDHR.
• Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: created 1959, based in Washington, seven members; receives individual petitions against all OAS member States, makes country visits, publishes reports.
• American Convention on Human Rights (Pact of San José): signed 1969, in force 1978; created the Inter-American Court in San José, Costa Rica, with seven judges.
• Contentious jurisdiction only over States that accept it; only States parties and the Commission can bring cases — individuals cannot go directly.
• The United States and Canada are not parties to the Convention.

Advisory opinions include those of 2017 on the environment and human rights and on gender identity and same-sex couples, and one made public in July 2025 on the climate emergency and human rights.

The African System

The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (1981, in force 1986) protects individual rights and also peoples' rights, such as the right to development, and lists the duties of individuals. It is supervised by the African Commission and the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights (protocol in force 2004). Asia, including South Asia, has no regional human rights court.

The Core International Human Rights Treaties

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (1:31:19)

Beyond the machinery of supervision lie the main treaties themselves, and discrimination, the violation that cuts across all of them.

The United Nations recognises nine core human rights treaties, each supervised by its own committee. Five are studied closely here:

• the two Covenants of 1966 (ICCPR and ICESCR);
• the convention on women (CEDAW);
• the convention on the child (CRC);
• the convention against torture (CAT).

Two more are added later: the convention on racial discrimination (ICERD), and the Genocide Convention, which is not one of the nine and has no committee of its own.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

• Adopted: by the General Assembly on 16 December 1966.
• In force: 23 March 1976.
• Rights protected: the classic civil and political rights, such as life, freedom from torture and slavery, liberty and fair trial; also privacy, religion, expression, assembly, association, family life, political participation, equality before the law, and the rights of minorities.
• State obligations (Article 2): each State must respect and ensure these rights without discrimination, adopt the necessary laws, and provide an effective remedy. These obligations are immediate, not progressive.
• Monitoring: the Human Rights Committee of 18 independent experts.
• First Optional Protocol (adopted with the Covenant): allows individual communications.
• Second Optional Protocol (1989): aims at abolishing the death penalty.

India and the ICCPR

India acceded to the ICCPR on 10 April 1979, with some declarations. One of them, which works in effect as a reservation, said that the Indian legal system recognises no enforceable right to compensation for unlawful arrest or detention, which Article 9(5) requires. India has not joined either Optional Protocol.

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)

• Adopted: on the same day as the ICCPR (16 December 1966).
• In force: 3 January 1976.
• Rights protected: work, just conditions of work, forming trade unions, social security; protection of the family; an adequate standard of living including food, clothing and housing; health; education; and taking part in cultural life.
• Key obligation (Article 2(1)): each State must take steps, individually and through international assistance and co-operation, to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realisation of these rights.

Does progressive realisation allow the State to wait forever?

No. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in General Comment No. 3 (1990), explained that some duties are immediate:

• the duty not to discriminate is immediate;
• the duty to take deliberate, concrete and targeted steps is immediate;
• every State has a minimum core obligation to ensure at least minimum essential levels of each right, such as essential food, primary health care, basic shelter and the most basic education;
• deliberately backward (retrogressive) steps need the fullest justification.

India acceded to this Covenant also in April 1979. Many of its rights appear in the Directive Principles or have been read into Article 21.

Point	ICCPR	ICESCR
Adopted	16 December 1966	Same day
In force	23 March 1976	3 January 1976
Nature of obligation	Immediate (Article 2)	Progressive realisation to the maximum of available resources (Article 2(1)), with certain immediate duties
Monitoring body	Human Rights Committee (18 experts), created by the Covenant	Committee on ESCR (18 experts), created by ECOSOC in 1985
Individual communications	First Optional Protocol (adopted with the Covenant)	Optional Protocol of 2008, in force 2013
India	Acceded 10 April 1979; not joined either Optional Protocol	Acceded April 1979

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)

Adopted in 1979 and in force from 1981, CEDAW is often called an international bill of rights for women.

Three features of this definition:

1. The words effect or purpose cover indirect discrimination.
2. The words any other field reach into private and family life.
3. The goal is real equality, not only equal laws.

Main obligations

• Article 2: States must embody equality in their laws and eliminate discrimination by any person, organisation or enterprise.
• Article 4: allows temporary special measures to speed up real equality.
• Article 5: requires States to change social and cultural patterns based on stereotyped roles for men and women.
• Other Articles cover political life, education, employment, health, rural women, equality before the law and, in Article 16, marriage and family.

Monitoring

• The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has 23 experts.
• General Recommendation No. 19 (1992) declared that gender-based violence is a form of discrimination; General Recommendation No. 35 (2017) updated it.
• An Optional Protocol of 1999 allows individual communications and inquiries.

India and CEDAW

India ratified CEDAW on 9 July 1993, with these declarations and reservation:

• it would apply Article 5(a) and Article 16(1) in conformity with its policy of non-interference in the personal affairs of any community without its initiative and consent;
• compulsory registration of marriages, though desirable in principle, was not practical in a vast country like India;
• a reservation to the clause that sends disputes to the ICJ.

India has not joined the Optional Protocol. Yet the Convention has shaped Indian law, most famously in the Vishaka case.

Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)

• Adopted: 20 November 1989; in force: 1990.
• It is the most widely ratified human rights treaty. The United States is the only member of the United Nations that has not ratified it.
• Child: every human being below 18 years, unless majority is attained earlier under national law.
• It protects children against abuse and exploitation, and forbids the death penalty and life imprisonment without possibility of release for offences committed below 18.
• Its Committee has 18 experts.
• Two Optional Protocols of 2000 deal with (i) children in armed conflict and (ii) the sale and sexual exploitation of children; a third, of 2011, creates a communications procedure.

India: acceded to the CRC in 1992 and ratified the first two Protocols in 2005. The Juvenile Justice Act of 2015, the POCSO Act and the right to education in Article 21A reflect these commitments.

Convention against Torture (CAT)

The fifth core treaty is the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), adopted in 1984 and in force from 1987. Its definition and duties are discussed below with the Genocide Convention. Three facts to remember:

• the Committee against Torture of 10 experts monitors it;
• its Optional Protocol of 2002 created a system of preventive visits to places of detention;
• India signed the Convention on 14 October 1997, but has still not ratified it.

The Prohibition of Discrimination

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (1:40:20)

Equality and non-discrimination are not just one right among many; they run through every human rights treaty.

Meaning of discrimination

The Committee added an important qualification: not every difference in treatment is discrimination. A difference is lawful if the criteria are reasonable and objective, and if the aim is legitimate under the Covenant.

Where the prohibition is found

Instrument	Provision and scope
UN Charter	Articles 1 and 55: human rights for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.
UDHR	Article 2: rights for everyone without distinction of any kind; Article 7: equality before the law.
ICCPR	Article 2: forbids discrimination in the enjoyment of the Covenant's own rights; Article 26 goes further.
American Convention on Human Rights	Article 24: equality before the law and equal protection of the law without discrimination.
European Convention	Article 14: protects against discrimination only in the enjoyment of Convention rights. The complaint must fall within the ambit of another right, although that right need not itself be violated. Protocol No. 12 adds a free-standing ban, but fewer States have ratified it.
CEDAW	Gives the fullest definition of discrimination for women.

Article 26 of the ICCPR: four distinct duties

All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground.

1. Equality before the law: officials and courts must apply the law equally to everyone.
2. Equal protection of the law: the content of the law itself must not be discriminatory; this binds the legislature.
3. Duty to prohibit any discrimination: the State must enact laws forbidding discrimination, including by private actors.
4. Duty to guarantee equal and effective protection: the State must provide real remedies and enforcement, and sometimes positive measures.

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution uses the same two phrases: equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws.

Formal and Substantive Equality

Formal equality	Substantive equality
Treating like cases alike and applying the same rule to everyone.	Looks at the real situation and the result.
Necessary, but it can hide injustice.	Recognises that people start from different positions and that historical disadvantage continues.
Same rule for all, whatever the effect.	Sometimes requires different treatment, reasonable accommodation, or special measures.

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in General Comment No. 20 (2009), explained that States must eliminate two kinds of discrimination:

• Formal discrimination – found in laws and policies.
• Substantive discrimination – exists in practice, especially against groups that suffer historical or persistent prejudice.

Direct and Indirect Discrimination

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (1:48:29)

Direct discrimination	Indirect discrimination
A person is treated less favourably than another in a similar situation because of a prohibited ground.	A law, policy or practice looks neutral but has a disproportionate effect on people with a protected characteristic, without objective justification.
Example: a notice saying that a flat will not be rented to a particular religious community.	Example (General Comment No. 20): requiring a birth registration certificate for school enrolment may discriminate against ethnic minorities or non-nationals who do not have such certificates.

Discrimination in the Private Sphere and the Duties of the State

Human rights law can reach discrimination by private persons, such as a landlord, an employer or a restaurant owner, through the State's duty to protect:

• Article 26 of the ICCPR requires the law to prohibit any discrimination.
• CEDAW reaches any person, organisation or enterprise.
• General Comment No. 20 asks States to act against discrimination in housing, employment and other private spheres.

General Comment No. 20 also:

• recognises systemic discrimination, rooted in social behaviour and organisation;
• reads other status to include grounds such as disability, age, nationality, sexual orientation, gender identity, health status, place of residence, and economic and social situation.

Indian constitutional tools

• Article 15(2): forbids discrimination in access to shops, public restaurants, hotels, wells and public places, even by private persons.
• Article 17: abolishes untouchability altogether.
• Articles 15 and 16: allow special measures for women, children and disadvantaged classes.

Racial Discrimination

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD)

• Adopted on 21 December 1965; in force in 1969.
• It was the first of the core United Nations human rights treaties. India ratified it in 1968.

State obligations

• End racial discrimination in their own practice.
• Review discriminatory laws.
• Prohibit racial discrimination by private persons and groups.
• Article 4: punish the spreading of ideas of racial superiority and incitement to racial discrimination, with due regard to freedom of expression.
• Article 5: lists rights to be enjoyed without racial discrimination, including access to any place or service intended for the public.

Monitoring

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) has 18 experts. It examines reports, issues General Recommendations, runs an early warning procedure, and hears individual complaints against States that accept its competence.

Does ICERD cover caste?

This question matters greatly for India. The Convention covers discrimination based on descent.

CERD Committee's view	Government of India's view
In its concluding observations on India in 1996, the Committee said that the term descent does not refer solely to race, and affirmed that the situation of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes falls within the scope of the Convention.	India has consistently disagreed. It argues that caste is not race and so falls outside Article 1.
General Recommendation No. 29 (2002) confirmed that descent includes discrimination based on caste and similar systems of inherited status.	India stresses its own protections, such as Article 17 and the Atrocities Act.

UNESCO Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice

Adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO on 27 November 1978.

• Article 1: all human beings belong to a single species and are descended from a common stock, and are born equal in dignity and rights. All individuals and groups have the right to be different, but difference can never be a pretext for racial prejudice.
• Article 2: any theory claiming that racial or ethnic groups are inherently superior or inferior has no scientific foundation and is contrary to the moral and ethical principles of humanity.

Freedom from Torture and the Crime of Genocide

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (1:59:38)

The Genocide Convention of 1948 and the Convention against Torture of 1984 both deal with the gravest attacks on human dignity, and both prohibitions have the rank of jus cogens. But they are different legal concepts and must never be treated as the same.

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

• Adopted on 9 December 1948, one day before the UDHR; in force in 1951.
• Article 1: the parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

The five acts:

1. killing members of the group;
2. causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction;
4. imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

• Conspiracy, direct and public incitement, attempt and complicity are also punishable, whether committed by rulers, officials or private individuals.
• What is left out: political and social groups are not protected by this definition.
• Article 9: disputes about the Convention, including the responsibility of a State for genocide, go to the ICJ.
• India ratified the Convention in 1959 but has not enacted a separate law making genocide a specific crime.

Convention against Torture: definition and duties

Four elements of torture:

1. severe pain or suffering;
2. intention;
3. a purpose;
4. official involvement.

Duties of States

• No exceptional circumstance can justify torture, and superior orders are no defence.
• No person may be sent to a State where there are substantial grounds for believing they would face torture.
• Torture must be made a crime; a State that finds a suspected torturer in its territory must prosecute or extradite.
• Complaints must be investigated promptly and impartially, and victims must receive redress.
• Statements made under torture cannot be used as evidence, except against the torturer.
• The State must also prevent other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Monitoring

• The Committee against Torture examines reports, conducts confidential inquiries, and hears individual complaints against States that accept them.
• The Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture, working with national preventive mechanisms, visits places of detention.

Genocide and torture compared

Point	Genocide	Torture
Who is protected	Groups (national, ethnical, racial or religious)	Every individual
Mental element	Special intent to destroy a protected group as such	Intentional infliction of severe suffering for a purpose
Official involvement	Not required; rulers, officials or private individuals can commit it	Required (public official or person acting in an official capacity)
Nature of the instrument	Mainly an instrument of international criminal law and State responsibility	A core human rights treaty with its own monitoring committee
Year	1948	1984

Genocide can be committed without any torture, for example by forcibly transferring children, and most torture has nothing to do with genocide. But the two can overlap: torturing members of a group with intent to destroy the group can be genocide, through causing serious bodily or mental harm.

India and torture

• India signed the Convention against Torture in 1997 but has not ratified it.
• The Prevention of Torture Bill, passed by the Lok Sabha in 2010, lapsed.
• The Law Commission of India, 273rd Report (October 2017), recommended that India ratify the Convention and enact a separate law against torture. It proposed compensation for victims and a presumption against the police when a person is injured in custody.
• Until then, protection comes mainly from Article 21, the ban on compelled self-incrimination in Article 20(3), the custody safeguards laid down in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, and the criminal law.

Protection of Human Rights in India: The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (2:05:18)

India protects human rights inside its own borders through four layers:

1. the Constitution and the courts;
2. special statutes;
3. the human rights commissions; and
4. other national commissions for particular groups.

Background and commencement

By the early 1990s there was concern, at home and abroad, about custodial deaths, disappearances and abuses in areas of conflict. The United Nations was also encouraging every country to create an independent national human rights institution. India responded with the Protection of Human Rights Act, which is deemed to have come into force on 28 September 1993. It was amended in 2006 and in 2019, and is studied here as it stands today.

Definitions: the link with international treaties

• Section 2(d), human rights: 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.
• Section 2(f), International Covenants: the ICCPR and the ICESCR, and any other Covenant or Convention adopted by the General Assembly that the Central Government notifies.

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)

Composition (Section 3, as amended in 2019)

The NHRC has its headquarters in Delhi.

• Chairperson: must have been a Chief Justice of India or a Judge of the Supreme Court.
• One Member who is or has been a Judge of the Supreme Court.
• One Member who is or has been a Chief Justice of a High Court.
• Three Members with knowledge of, or practical experience in, human rights, of whom at least one must be a woman.
• Deemed members: the Chairpersons of seven bodies are deemed members for most functions, but not for inquiring into complaints. They are the national commissions for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Women, Minorities, Backward Classes and the Protection of Child Rights, and the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities.
• Secretary-General: the chief executive officer.

Appointment (Section 4)

The President appoints the Chairperson and Members on the recommendation of a committee chaired by the Prime Minister. The other members of the committee are:

• the Speaker of the Lok Sabha;
• the Union Home Minister;
• the Leaders of the Opposition in both Houses; and
• the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.

Removal (Section 5)

• The President can remove a Chairperson or Member for proved misbehaviour or incapacity, but only after the Supreme Court, on a reference from the President, has inquired and reported in favour of removal.
• The President may also remove them directly on specific grounds, such as insolvency, outside paid employment, unsoundness of mind, or conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude.

Term (Section 6)

Three years, or until the age of seventy, and they are eligible for reappointment.

Functions (Section 12)

• Inquiring into complaints of violation of human rights, or of negligence by a public servant in preventing such a violation. It may act on its own motion, on a petition by a victim or someone on the victim's behalf, or on a court's direction.
• Intervening in court proceedings, with the court's approval.
• Visiting jails and other institutions where people are detained.
• Reviewing legal safeguards.
• Studying factors, such as terrorism, that inhibit the enjoyment of human rights.
• Studying international treaties and recommending their implementation.
• Promoting research, human rights literacy and the work of non-governmental organisations.

Powers

• Section 13: while inquiring, the Commission has the powers of a civil court, such as summoning witnesses and requiring documents, and its proceedings are treated as judicial proceedings. It can transfer a complaint to the State Commission concerned.
• Section 14: it can use the investigating agencies of governments.
• Section 17: it can call for government reports.
• Section 18 (the key provision): if the inquiry discloses a violation, the Commission may recommend compensation, prosecution of the persons concerned, or other action. It may approach the Supreme Court or the High Court for directions, and at any stage it may recommend immediate interim relief. The government must send its comments and the action taken within one month, and the Commission publishes its report with those comments.

Limitations

1. Armed forces (Section 19): for complaints against the armed forces, the Commission cannot inquire itself. It can only seek a report from the Central Government and make recommendations.
2. Section 36: it cannot take up a matter pending before a State Commission or another commission. No commission can inquire into a matter after one year from the date of the alleged violation.
3. Recommendatory outcome: its final outcome is a recommendation.

Are the Commission's recommendations binding?

Indian courts are divided.

By contrast, the Patna High Court, in decisions of 2024 and 2025, has stressed that a State Commission only recommends and cannot issue directions, and that the government must consider its recommendations; it has not expressly held that the government may refuse to follow them.

The State Human Rights Commissions

• Constitution (Section 21): a State Government may constitute a State Human Rights Commission.
• Chairperson: must have been a Chief Justice or a Judge of a High Court.
• Members: one Member who is or has been a High Court Judge, or a District Judge with at least seven years' experience as District Judge; and one Member with knowledge or experience of human rights.
• Jurisdiction: it can inquire only into matters in the State List and the Concurrent List.
• Appointment: the Governor appoints the Chairperson and Members on the recommendation of a committee chaired by the Chief Minister. The other members are the Speaker, the State Home Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and, where there is a Legislative Council, its Chairman and its Leader of the Opposition.
• Removal: only by the President, and only after a Supreme Court inquiry, just as for the national body.
• Term: three years or until seventy; eligible for reappointment.
• Union Territories: since 2019, the Central Government may give the human rights functions of a Union Territory to a State Commission, while those of Delhi stay with the NHRC.

Human Rights Courts (Section 30)

A State Government, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, may specify a Court of Session in each district as a Human Rights Court, for the speedy trial of offences arising out of human rights violations. In practice, this provision has remained weak.

The Paris Principles and National Human Rights Institutions

The credibility of a national human rights institution is measured by the Paris Principles. They were drafted at an international workshop in Paris in October 1991, and the General Assembly endorsed them on 20 December 1993. They require:

1. A broad mandate based on universal human rights standards, set out in the constitution or a statute.
2. Independence from the government, guaranteed by law, including a stable term for members.
3. Pluralism: the membership should reflect the diversity of society.
4. Adequate resources, so that the institution cannot be controlled through its budget.
5. Adequate powers to investigate, to advise the government and to engage with the United Nations system.

Accreditation and the NHRC's status

Compliance is assessed by a Sub-Committee on Accreditation of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions. A status means full compliance and allows the institution to take part in the work of the Human Rights Council.

• The NHRC of India first received A status in 1999 and kept it after later reviews.
• Since 2023 its review has been deferred repeatedly, and in 2025 the Sub-Committee recommended downgrading it to B status.
• The concerns included heavy reliance on police officers for investigations, a lack of diversity among members and staff, a non-transparent appointment process, and a weak response to serious violations.
• The Commission challenged the recommendation, and a final decision was expected in November 2026.
• The 2019 amendments, which widened eligibility and added a woman member, were made partly to answer such concerns.

Domestic Courts and Quasi-Judicial Institutions

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (2:15:25)

The constitutional courts

The strongest protectors of human rights in India are the constitutional courts.

• Article 32 makes the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcing fundamental rights itself a fundamental right.
• Article 226 gives the High Courts even wider writ powers.
• Public interest litigation: the courts relaxed the rules of standing, so that a public-spirited person can approach them on behalf of people who cannot, and they even treated letters as petitions.
• Compensation as a public law remedy for violation of fundamental rights, as in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983) and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993).
• Detailed guidelines, such as the custody safeguards in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal.

Commissions as quasi-judicial institutions

Commissions such as the NHRC have some powers of a civil court and follow a fair procedure, but they are not courts, and their final outcome is a recommendation, not a decree.

	Commissions (quasi-judicial)
Strengths	Accessibility, low cost, expertise, power to act on their own motion
Weaknesses	Dependence on the government for staff and money; lack of direct enforcement

The two systems, courts and commissions, work best together.

Five decisions showing the courts at work

Later developments on the right to food:

• In the right to food case, People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, begun in 2001, the Supreme Court issued continuing orders on food schemes.
• Parliament enacted the National Food Security Act, 2013.
• Internationally, the Council of the Food and Agriculture Organization adopted non-binding Voluntary Guidelines on the right to adequate food in November 2004.

Special Statutes Protecting Vulnerable Groups

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (2:23:34)

Three statutes protect particular groups. Each gives effect to the State's duty to protect people against private violence and discrimination.

The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

Article 17 abolished untouchability, and the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 punished its practice. But violence and humiliation against Dalit and Adivasi communities continued, so Parliament enacted this Act, often called the Atrocities Act.

• Atrocities: the Act defines a long list of specific offences committed against members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by persons outside those communities. Examples: parading a person naked, forced labour, denying access to public places or water sources, and intentionally insulting a person to humiliate them in public view.
• Amendment in force from 26 January 2016: added many new offences, such as imposing a social or economic boycott; created Exclusive Special Courts; and added a chapter on the rights of victims and witnesses.
• Section 18: excludes anticipatory bail.

The anticipatory bail controversy

• After nationwide protests, Parliament inserted Section 18A in August 2018, removing any need for a preliminary inquiry or approval, and again excluding anticipatory bail.
• The Court recalled its directions on review in October 2019.

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act)

• In force from 14 November 2012; gives effect to India's duties under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
• Gender-neutral; protects every person below eighteen years.
• Offences: penetrative sexual assault, sexual assault, sexual harassment and the use of a child for pornographic purposes.
• Aggravated forms carry higher punishment, for example when the offender is a police officer, a teacher or a relative.
• An amendment of 2019 increased punishments, including the death penalty for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
• Reporting of offences is mandatory.
• Child-friendly procedure: the child's statement is recorded at the child's home or chosen place, preferably by a woman police officer not in uniform; the child's identity must not be disclosed; the trial is held in camera before a Special Court.
• Presumption: a person charged with the main offences is presumed to have committed them, unless the contrary is proved.

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

In force from 26 October 2006, the Act reflects the view that domestic violence is a human rights issue. Its Statement of Objects and Reasons invokes the CEDAW Committee's recommendation to protect women against violence within the family. It mainly provides civil remedies.

• Domestic violence (Section 3) is defined widely, to include physical, sexual, verbal and emotional, and economic abuse, and harassment for dowry.
• Aggrieved person: a woman who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the respondent, covering relationships by blood, marriage, adoption, and relationships in the nature of marriage.
• Reliefs by a magistrate: protection orders, residence orders, monetary relief, custody orders and compensation.
• Protection Officers help women to use the law.
• Section 17: every woman in a domestic relationship has the right to reside in the shared household.
• Section 31: breach of a protection order is a criminal offence.

Three Supreme Court decisions that widened the Act

The NCW, the NCM, the NCSC and the NCST

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (2:30:39)

Besides the NHRC, India has national commissions for particular groups.

National Commission for Women (NCW)

• Constituted in January 1992 under the National Commission for Women Act, 1990.
• Composition: a Chairperson committed to the cause of women; five Members, including at least one from the Scheduled Castes and one from the Scheduled Tribes; and a Member-Secretary.
• Functions: examines the legal safeguards for women; reviews laws and suggests amendments; looks into complaints; takes notice on its own of the deprivation of women's rights; can inspect jails and other places where women are held.
• Powers: while investigating certain matters, it has the powers of a civil court.

National Commission for Minorities (NCM)

• Works under the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992.
• Composition: a Chairperson, a Vice-Chairperson and five Members; at least five of them, including the Chairperson, must come from minority communities.
• Notified minorities (six): Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and Parsis (1993), and Jains (2014).
• Functions: monitors the working of safeguards for minorities, looks into specific complaints, and makes recommendations.

National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) and National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST)

• Constitutional bodies, created by Articles 338 and 338A.
• Originally there was one joint commission; the Constitution (Eighty-ninth Amendment) Act, 2003 split it into two, and the separate commissions began work in 2004.
• Composition: each has a Chairperson, a Vice-Chairperson and three other Members, appointed by the President.
• Functions: investigate and monitor the safeguards for these communities, inquire into specific complaints, advise on their socio-economic development, and report to the President. Their reports are laid before Parliament with a memorandum of action taken.
• Powers: while investigating or inquiring into a complaint, each has all the powers of a civil court.
• Consultation: the Union and State governments must consult them on all major policy matters affecting these communities.

Comparison of the commissions

Commission	Coverage	Nature	Source
NHRC	Human rights of everyone	Statutory	Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
NCW	Women	Statutory	National Commission for Women Act, 1990
NCM	Minorities	Statutory	National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992
NCSC	Scheduled Castes	Constitutional	Article 338
NCST	Scheduled Tribes	Constitutional	Article 338A

Emerging Areas of Human Rights

Human Rights Law is not frozen. New technologies, new forms of power, and old injustices seen in a new light keep testing it. Five such areas are studied: artificial intelligence, corruption, business, the rights of transgender persons, and the rights of prisoners.

Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights

Governments and companies increasingly use AI to decide who gets a loan, a job, a welfare benefit or police attention. The question is not whether AI is good or bad, but how existing human rights apply when machines make or shape decisions.

Rights affected

1. Privacy: AI runs on huge amounts of personal data, often collected without real consent. Privacy is protected by Article 17 of the ICCPR and, in India, by Article 21 after the Puttaswamy judgment.
2. Equality: an algorithm learns from past data, and past data often carries past discrimination. This algorithmic bias is often indirect discrimination.
3. Surveillance: facial recognition in public places can track everyone and chill free expression and peaceful assembly.
4. Due process: many systems are a "black box", so a person refused a benefit cannot understand or challenge the decision.
5. Dignity: a person must not be reduced to a data profile, and a human being must remain responsible for decisions that seriously affect a person's life.

How AI is governed

Binding law

• Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law (adopted May 2024): the first binding international treaty on AI, but by September 2026 it had not yet entered into force.
• European Union AI Act, 2024: a risk-based approach. It bans certain practices, such as social scoring, and imposes duties of risk management, data quality, transparency and human oversight on high-risk systems in areas like employment, education, credit, policing and migration. Amendments of 2026 postponed most of these duties to 2027 and 2028.

Soft law

• The UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, 2021.
• General Assembly resolutions of 2024 and 2025; the second created a scientific panel and a global dialogue on AI governance.

India

• India has no specific statute on AI yet.
• The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 is coming into force in phases, under rules notified in November 2025, with the main duties applying from May 2027.
• When the State itself uses AI, for example for police facial recognition, the Puttaswamy tests of legality, legitimate aim and proportionality apply.

Human Rights and Corruption

Corruption is not only a crime; it is increasingly seen as a serious obstacle to human rights, in four ways:

1. It blocks access to public services. When a poor woman must pay a bribe to get her child admitted to a government hospital, or to receive her ration, her rights to health and food depend on money.
2. It drains resources. Under the ICESCR, a State must use the maximum of its available resources for economic and social rights; stolen public money is money not spent on schools, clinics and water.
3. Corruption in the police and the courts destroys equality before the law and the right to a fair trial.
4. It creates impunity for violators, and danger for journalists, whistleblowers and human rights defenders who expose it.

International law

• United Nations Convention against Corruption: adopted in 2003, in force since 2005; India ratified it in 2011. It is an anti-corruption treaty, not a human rights treaty. It requires States to prevent and criminalise bribery and embezzlement, to co-operate internationally, and to recover stolen assets.
• Human Rights Council: has repeatedly addressed the negative impact of corruption on the enjoyment of human rights.
• Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: adopted a resolution on corruption and human rights in March 2018, stressing the rights of victims and the duty of States to investigate.

India

• The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which since 2018 also punishes the giving of bribes.
• The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
• The Right to Information Act, 2005, which lets citizens demand records of how public money is spent.
• In the right to food case, the Supreme Court set up a vigilance committee to examine leakages and corruption in the public distribution system.

Transparency laws are therefore also human rights laws.

Business and Human Rights

Some companies today are richer than many States, and their factories, mines, supply chains and digital platforms affect millions of lives. But international human rights treaties bind States, not companies. The question is how Human Rights Law reaches business.

The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

The key international text was prepared by Professor John Ruggie, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, building on his "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of 2008. The Human Rights Council endorsed the Guiding Principles on 16 June 2011. They rest on three pillars:

Pillar	Content
1. State duty to protect	States must protect people against human rights abuse by business, through laws, regulation, policies and adjudication. This is the State's general duty to protect.
2. Corporate responsibility to respect	Every business, whatever its size, should avoid infringing human rights and should address the harm it causes or contributes to, through a policy commitment, human rights due diligence (identifying, preventing, mitigating and accounting for its impacts), and processes to remedy harm.
3. Access to remedy	Victims must have effective remedies, through courts, non-judicial bodies, and grievance mechanisms run by the companies themselves.

Turning the responsibility into law

• The European Union adopted a Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive in 2024, requiring large companies to carry out human rights and environmental due diligence; amendments of 2026 postponed its application to 2029.
• At the United Nations, a working group has negotiated a binding business and human rights treaty since 2014, but none has been agreed.
• India adopted National Guidelines on Responsible Business Conduct in 2019, and the securities regulator requires the largest listed companies to report on their human rights and sustainability performance.

The Rights of Transgender Persons

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (2:46:21)

Three concepts to keep apart

Concept	Meaning
Sex assigned at birth	What is recorded when a child is born
Gender identity	A person's deeply felt internal sense of being a man, a woman, both, neither, or another gender
Sexual orientation	Whom a person is attracted to

Internationally, the Yogyakarta Principles of 2006, prepared by experts, explain how existing human rights law applies to sexual orientation and gender identity. They are soft law, but courts, including the Supreme Court of India, have relied on them.

Sexual orientation and Section 377: four decisions

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code punished carnal intercourse against the order of nature, and it was used to harass gay men and transgender persons.

The Indian Penal Code has since been replaced by the B.N.S., which has no provision corresponding to Section 377.

Decision	Court and date	Outcome on Section 377
Naz Foundation	Delhi High Court, 2 July 2009	Violated Articles 14, 15 and 21 for consensual adult acts in private
Suresh Kumar Koushal	Supreme Court (two judges), 11 December 2013	Reversed Naz; left the matter to Parliament
K.S. Puttaswamy	Supreme Court (nine judges), 24 August 2017	Privacy a fundamental right; sexual orientation an essential attribute of privacy; Koushal criticised
Navtej Singh Johar	Supreme Court (five judges), 6 September 2018	Unconstitutional for consensual adult conduct; Koushal overruled

The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019

• In force from January 2020.
• Wide definition of transgender person: trans men, trans women, persons with intersex variations, genderqueer persons, and socio-cultural identities such as Kinnar and Hijra.
• Prohibits discrimination in education, employment, health care, housing and public facilities.
• Self-perceived gender identity, certified by the District Magistrate, although recognition as male or female required proof of surgery.

The 2026 amendment

In March 2026, Parliament passed an amendment that changes direction sharply:

• it removes trans men, trans women and genderqueer persons from the listed categories;
• it makes the District Magistrate's certificate depend on a medical board's recommendation;
• it adds severe punishments for forcing a person to assume a transgender identity.

Critics argue that this conflicts with the self-identification principle of the NALSA judgment, so the issue is likely to return to the courts.

The Rights of Prisoners

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (2:53:42)

• Article 10 of the ICCPR: all persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person; the prison system must aim at reformation and social rehabilitation.
• United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, revised in 2015 and called the Nelson Mandela Rules: detailed standards on dignity, health care, family contact and the limits of solitary confinement. They are not a treaty, but Indian courts rely on them.

Solitary confinement, fetters and prison grievances

Death row and delay in execution

Case	Bench	Position on delay
T.V. Vatheeswaran (16 February 1983)	Two judges	Delay over two years entitles commutation
Sher Singh (24 March 1983)	Three judges	No fixed period; delay a relevant factor only
Triveniben (1988, 1989)	Constitution Bench	Only delay after final verdict counts, mainly unexplained executive delay on mercy petitions; not delay caused by the prisoner
Shatrughan Chauhan (21 January 2014)	Three judges	Commuted sentences for unexplained mercy-petition delay; safeguards laid down

Custodial violence

Everyday dignity inside prison: decisions of 2019

Three decisions of 2019 show courts protecting everyday dignity inside prison. The first is on parole.

Prisoners' Rights and Custodial Safeguards (continued)

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (2:53:42)

Prisoner's choice of prison and proximity to family

Contact with a spouse: a right, not a privilege

Caste discrimination in prison manuals

Undertrials: Section 479 of the B.N.S.S.

The concern of the Hussainara Khatoon case, undertrials waiting endlessly in jail, has returned in a new form.

• Section 479 of the B.N.S.S. (in force since July 2024): a first-time offender who has spent one third of the maximum sentence in custody as an undertrial must be released on bond by the court. This does not apply to offences punishable with death or life imprisonment, or where investigation, inquiry or trial is pending in more than one offence or case.
• In August 2024, the Supreme Court directed jail superintendents across India to apply this rule even to cases registered before the new law began, as the Union Government had accepted.

Connecting the themes: an example

Course Conclusion and Exam Strategy

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (3:03:54)

Human Rights Law runs from the idea of human dignity all the way to artificial intelligence and the rights of prisoners. For the examination, three habits matter.

1. Frame every problem with three questions: which State had jurisdiction, which duty was breached, and whether any restriction was lawful, legitimate and necessary.
2. Cite precisely: always name the treaty or the Article, support it with the leading case, and say which body decided it, a court or a committee.
3. Distinguish similar concepts: whenever two concepts look similar, such as derogation and restriction, or direct and indirect discrimination, write their differences clearly, with an example.

Quick revision

• V. Radhakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu (Madras High Court, 19 July 2019): applying proportionality and the Nelson Mandela Rules, the authorities must respect a prisoner's choice of prison, subject to security, discipline and the public interest.
• Rahmath Nisha v. Additional Director General of Prisons (Madras High Court, 28 May 2019): escorted visit to a critically ill wife allowed; officers need not be present at meetings between spouses; such contact is the wife's right, not the prisoner's privilege.
• Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India (Supreme Court, 3 October 2024): caste-based segregation and caste-based allotment of work in State prison manuals struck down; States directed to revise their manuals.
• Section 479 of the B.N.S.S.: a first-time offender who has spent one third of the maximum sentence in custody as an undertrial must be released on bond by the court (not for offences punishable with death or life imprisonment, or where more than one case is pending); by the Supreme Court's August 2024 direction, this applies even to cases registered before the new law began.
• The course runs from the idea of human dignity to artificial intelligence and the rights of prisoners.
• In every problem ask: which State had jurisdiction, which duty was breached, and whether any restriction was lawful, legitimate and necessary.
• Always name the treaty or Article, support it with the leading case, and state the deciding body (a court or a committee).
• Write the differences between similar concepts (derogation and restriction; direct and indirect discrimination) clearly, with an example.