Cow Vigilantism and India’s Evolving Human Rights Framework

2020 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ravindra Pratap

AbstractThe paper seeks to understand India’s evolving rights framework in the backdrop of cow vigilantism. To that end it discusses the human right to food and nutrition, international discussion on minority rights issues in India and the relevant legal and constitutional discussion in India. It finds that India’s rights framework has evolved since proclamation of India as a Republic in 1950 based on the supremacy of its written constitution containing fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy interpreted finally by its Supreme Court. The government took a wise step by not challenging a judicial rebalancing of the rights framework in response to certain executive measures and the Supreme Court interpreted the right to life to include not only the right to the choice of food but also the right to privacy and thereby underscored the obligation of the State to compensate the victims of cow vigilante violence. However, a constitutional polity and secular state would do all well if it did any further necessary to better guard against any recurrence of the breach of civil peace, much less violence, on purely secular issues, including by strengthening and increasing dialogue with all representative communities in all its decision-making on such matters.

2016 ◽  
pp. 709
Author(s):  
Graham Mayeda

Bill C-30 (the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act) and the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act are two recent attempts by the Canadian government to create incentives for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Online Service Providers (OSPs) to disclose the subscriber information of Internet users to government agencies. In this article, the author argues that while such provisions may not violate section 8 of the Charter based on current judicial interpretation, they ought to be found unconstitutional. To date, the Supreme Court of Canada’s search and seizure jurisprudence uses a normative framework that does not distinguish between defining the right to privacy and justifying limitations to it. This approach is not consistent with that taken for other Charter rights. The recent decisions of the Supreme Court in R v. Spencer and R v. Fearon may signal a slight shift, but they do not go far enough. If courts defined privacy interests more broadly than under current law and required the government to justify restrictions on these interests under section 1, this would create a legal regime that achieves a better balance between competing privacy and security interests.


Author(s):  
Akhileshwar Pathak

Ajay Hasia and few others failed to secure admission to Regional Engineering College, Srinagar. They challenged before the Supreme Court that the admission process was arbitrary and violative of the Fundamental Right of equality in Article 14 of the Constitution. The right, however, is available only against the ‘state’ as defined in Article 12. The definition of ‘state’ includes ‘other authorities.’ The term ‘other authorities’ has been subject to judicial interpretation and come to include instrumentality or agency of the government. The Ajay Hasia Case consolidated the developing law and formulated that not only the bodies created by an Act but also bodies created under a law, like societies under the Societies Registration Act can be ‘other authorities’.


2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. 291-296
Author(s):  
Anil Kumar Mohapatra

Long before India gained independence, M.K. Gandhi remarked that the availability of Sanitation facility is more important than gaining Independence for an Indian. Of late, it is now increasingly felt and realized in India that facilities like toilet, safe drinking water, accompanied by good hygienic conditions are fundamental necessities of a person. These are prerequisites of social and economic justice and genuine development. The Supreme Court of India in one judgement held that Right to life and personal liberty, should include right to privacy and human dignity etc. Despite that it has been an admitted shame that India still has the largest number of people defecating in open in the world. There are reported incidences of rape and murder of women in many places in India as women rely on open field for attending to the call of nature in morning and evening. The attempts like Community toi-let system, pay-and-use toilet system and schemes like ‘Mo Swabhiman -Mo Paikhana’ have been found to be less effective. In this connection the ‘Clean India Mission’ campaign launched by the Government of India in 2014 has been regarded as a right approach in that direction. Government of the day is actively considering the demand to convert the Right to Sanitation from a developmental right to a fundamental right. It would make the state more accountable and responsible. Against this background, the paper argues that spending huge money on that would yield good dividend in future for the country.


2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 399
Author(s):  
Akmal Adicahya

Access to justice is everyone rights that have to be fulfilled by the government. The regulation number 16 year 2011 of legal aid is an instrument held by the government to guarantee the right. The regulation allowed the participation of non-advocates to provide the legal aid. Through this policy, government emphasizes that:1) Indonesia is a state law which legal aid is an obliged instrument; 2) the prohibition of non-advocate to participate in legal aid is not relevant due to inadequate amount of advocate and citizen seek for justice (justiciabelen), and the advocate is not widely extended throughout Indonesia; 3) Non-Advocates, especially lecturer and law student are widely spread; 4) there are no procedural law which prohibits non-advocate to provide a legal aid. Those conditions are enough argument for government to strengthen the participation of non-advocates in providing legal aid. Especially for The Supreme Court to revise The Book II of Guidance for Implementing Court’s Job and Administration.Keywords: legal aid, non-advocate, justice


2017 ◽  
pp. 221-247
Author(s):  
Rajesh Chakrabarti ◽  
Kaushiki Sanyal

This chapter narrates the saga of the Right to Food Security. Briefly pointing out various prior food movements, the chapter dates the movement to 2001 in Rajasthan with a writ petition at the Supreme Court. The SC took up the issue with surprising enthusiasm issuing order after order to force the government to comply with reports and action. The government, while not antagonistic, was apathetic. Encouraged by the court orders the activists gathered under a single banner of Right to Food Campaign in 2004 and built on the campaign in court as well as on the ground. Political support finally came when the issue entered UPA’s election manifesto in 2009. Post UPA victory, the NAC submitted its draft bill in 2010 but a substantially altered bill finally got enacted in 2013. The movement reflects a combination of Punctuated Equilibrium Framework and Advocacy Coalition Framework.


Author(s):  
Akhileshwar Pathak

The case discusses the issues related to Zee Tele Films Limited's claims that the Board of Cricket Control of India was “state” and could act arbitrarily in the award of telecasting rights. The “state” as defined in Article 12 includes “other authorities”, and these are subject to the constitutional limitations. The right to equality requires them to not act arbitrarily. A body which is an instrumentality or agency of the government is “other authority”. The term has been subject to judicial interpretation. The Supreme Court, by a majority judgement, in the Zee Tele Films Case ruled that the Board is not “other authorities” within Article 12 of the Constitution.


2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Aufi Imaduddin

The national exam is a form of national level learning evaluation that has been set by the government to determine student learning outcomes. However, in the implementation of the national exam has a negative impact on students, teachers and schools. So lately there has been a renewed discourse about the elimination of the national examination, it began with the policy of the Indonesian Minister of Education and Culture to abolish the national examination in 2021. Especially if we examine further that legal efforts to stop the implementation of the national examination have existed since 2006 and the peak in 2009 was the decision of the Supreme Court number: 2596 K / PDT / 2008 which in essence required the government to stop the implementation of the national examination before resolving various existing problems. Therefore, the writer is interested in asking logically to think about the urgency of abolishing the national exam after the decision of the Supreme Court. In this paper, the method used by the author is a qualitative method based on social facts that occur based on juridical reasons based on the laws and regulations related to research. The results of this study found that the implementation of the national exam has claimed justice for students in obtaining their human rights in obtaining education that has been mentioned in the 1945 Constitution and is not in accordance with educational thought according to Ki Hajar Dewantara, as well as causing various depressive pressures which have an impact on their minds stressed and suicidal students. The implementation of national exams has also revoked justice for teachers, where teachers in their teaching are supposed to educate students well and develop their students' thinking instincts, with the national examination the teacher only drills students to memorize and do exercises that lead to the national exam. Recalling also that the implementation of national examinations in a juridical manner in the decision of the Supreme Court has violated various laws and regulations regarding education in Indonesia. Therefore, the elimination of the national exam will give back the right to justice for students, teachers and schools according to their respective proportions.


2019 ◽  
pp. 55-68
Author(s):  
HARSH PATHAK

The constitution and jurist characterized Article 21 as, “the procedural magna carta, protective of life and liberty”. This right has been held to be the heart of the constitution, the most organic and progressive provision in Indian constitution, the foundation of our laws. Article 21 can only be claimed when a person is deprived of his “life” or “personal liberty” by the “State” as defined in Article 12. Violation of the right by private individuals is not within the preview of it. Article 21 applies to natural persons. The right is available to every person, citizen or alien. It, however, does not entitle a foreigner the right to reside and settle in India, as mentioned in Article 19 (1) (e). Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person. The right to life is undoubtedly the most fundamental of all rights. All other rights add quality to the life in question and depend on the pre-existence of life itself for their operation. There would have been no fundamental rights worth mentioning if Article 21 had been interpreted in its original sense. This Article will examine the right to life as interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court of India.


Author(s):  
Raymond Wacks

Privacy is acknowledged as an essential human right, recognized by a number of international declarations, among which the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are the most significant. Interpreting these provisions, the European Court of Human Rights provides important guidance in respect of the attempt to balance privacy against competing rights and interests, and this is briefly discussed. Leading decisions of the courts of various jurisdictions illustrate the problems of definition and the attempt to balance privacy against other competing rights. Cases before the US Supreme Court have generated an enormous, divisive debate concerning, in particular, the subject of abortion, which the Court has conceived to be an element of the right to privacy. A discussion of the celebrated US Supreme Court judgement in Roe v Wade is fundamental to an analysis of the meaning and limits of individual privacy.


2017 ◽  
Vol 111 (4) ◽  
pp. 994-1000
Author(s):  
Menaka Guruswamy

On August 24, 2017, the Supreme Court of India issued a rare, unanimous nine-judge decision holding that the right to privacy is protected by the Constitution of India. The case is all the more noteworthy because the Court reversed its prior decisions holding that the right to privacy was not protected by the country's Constitution. It arose out of the government's creation of a national database of biometric and demographic information for every Indian. Rejecting the government's arguments, the Court found that the right to privacy applies across the gamut of “fundamental” rights including equality, dignity (Article 14), speech, expression (Article 19), life, and liberty (Article 21). The six separate and concurring judgments in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Ret'd) and Anr v. Union of India and Ors are trailblazing for their commitment to privacy as a fundamental freedom and for the judges’ use of foreign law across jurisdictions and spanning centuries.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document