module 13-17 Flashcards
Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP)
(Articles 36-51) of the Indian Constitution
KeyFeatures:
1. Economic Principles: Promote welfare of the people by securing a social order through justice—social, economic, and political. E.g., Article 39(b) & (c) direct the State to ensure equitable distribution of wealth.
- Gandhian Principles: Focus on promoting cottage industries (Article 43), promoting educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Article 46).
- Liberal Principles: Include securing a uniform civil code (Article 44),
organizing village panchayats (Article 40), and ensuring separation of the
judiciary from the executive (Article 50)
Case Law: Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): The Supreme
Court held that the Constitution’s balance between Fundamental
Rights and DPSPs should be maintained and that neither part has
supremacy over the other
Serve as guidelines to the State in the governance of the country but are non
justiciable, meaning they are not enforceable by any court
Article 38 and 39 of DPSP
Article 38- promote the welfare of people by securing social and political economic justice to minimize inequalities in income
REFLECTED iN: MNREGA, Establishment of the National Commission of Schedule
Castes/tribes
Article 39- To secure the right to adequate means of livelhoodfor
all citizens, equitable distribution
REFLECTED IN= Maternity Benefit Act, minimum wage Act,
39A- Equal Justice and Free legal Aid
Art 42
Article 43
Art 43 A
Art 47
Art 42= just humane conditions of work and maternity benefit
Art 43= Living wage, decent standard of living and opportunity for workers
Reflected IN: Industrial Relations Code, Social Security Code,
Art 43A= workers participation in management of Industries
Reflected IN= Trade Unions Act
Art 47= focuses on nutrition and standard of living of people and on improving public health
REFLECTED IN : National Food Security Act, One Nation One Ration Card
Fundamental Duties
Incorporated by the 42nd Amendment- non justiciable
but act as moral obligations for citizens.
Duties include respecting the Constitution, the National Flag and
National Anthem, promoting harmony , protecting the environment , and
developing scientific temper, Safeguard public property and avoid violence
serve as a reminder to citizens that while
enjoying rights, they should also perform their responsibilities.
* Helps in promoting a spirit of patriotism and upholding the unity
and integrity of the nation
Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
Article 32 (Right to Constitutional Remedies)or Article 226
PIL is a legal mechanism in India that allows any public-spirited
citizen to approach the court for a public cause by filing a petition.
Evolved to protect the rights of disadvantaged and marginalized
sections of society
Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979): The
Supreme Court used PIL to address the issue of undertrials
languishing in jail due to the non-availability of legal assistance
Derogable and Non-Derogable Rights under the Indian
Constitution
Derogable Rights:
These are rights that can be suspended or restricted during emergencies under Article 352 (National Emergency)
= Rights under Article 19 (Freedom of Speech, Assembly, Movement, etc.) can be restricted during a national emergency
Non-Derogable Rights:
These rights cannot be suspended even during an emergency and are
considered fundamental to human dignity and liberty.
Examples:
Article 20: Protection in respect of conviction for offenses (includes protection against double jeopardy, self-incrimination, etc.).
Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty, which cannot be suspended even in times of emergency.
Article 22: Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases.
Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018)
In Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India, the Supreme Court addressed the rise in lynchings and mob violence in
India, particularly targeting religious minorities, Dalits, and marginalized communities. The case arose amid rising
incidents of mob violence, often triggered by rumors spread on social media platforms.
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court condemned mob lynchings and laid down detailed guidelines for the
central and state governments to curb such violence. The Court emphasized that law and order are the state’s
responsibility and urged Parliament to create a specific law against lynching. It also recommended measures like the
appointment of nodal officers in each district, fast-tracking of trials, and victim compensation schemes.
Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court ruled on the rights of tribal communities over land
ownership and exploitation of natural resources. The case arose when Samatha, a non-profit organization, challenged
the state government’s decision to lease tribal land to private mining companies in Andhra Pradesh, arguing that it violated constitutional protections for tribal lands.
HELD: t tribal lands could not be leased to private companies for mining or other non-tribal purposes. It
declared that under the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, tribal lands are to be protected to ensure that they benefit the local tribal communities rather than exploit them for commercial gain. The judgment mandated that any lease or land use must be for the benefit of the tribal population, and prevents commercial exploitation of land
Vedanta Case (Orissa Mining Corporation v. Ministry of Environment and Forests, 2013)
The Vedanta Case- The tribe protested, claiming that mining would not
only devastate the local ecosystem but also violate their religious and cultural rights.
The Supreme Court, in its 2013 verdict, upheld the tribal community’s right to decide on the mining project under the Forest Rights Act, 2006. The Court directed the Gram Sabhas (village councils) of the affected areas to decide whether the mining project could proceed. The Gram Sabhas overwhelmingly voted against it, effectively halting the project.
This case was significant in recognizing the rights of indigenous people to preserve their land and culture.
Safety of Women
1. POSH Act, 2013- The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act The POSH Act was enacted in 2013 following the landmark Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan case, which highlighted
workplace harassment. It applies to all workplaces in India and mandates preventive and remedial measures.
Section 3: Stipulates that no woman shall be subjected to sexual harassment at her workplace and outlines duties of employers to create a safe environment.
Section 4: Mandates employers to form an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) with a female chairperson and other members, including one external member from a non-governmental organization to ensure impartiality.
POSH empowers women to report workplace harassment and holds employers accountable for ensuring a safe environment. However, challenges remain in implementation, especially in informal sectors where enforcement is weak.
**2. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 **
-Provides women with the right to reside in their shared household, regardless of ownership or rental status.
- Allows courts to issue protection orders to prevent further violence and restrain the abuser from contacting the woman.
- Grants women access to monetary relief, custody orders, and medical and legal support.
-
The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, was passed following the 2012 Nirbhaya gang rape incident -Expands the definition of rape under Section 375 of IPC to include non-penetrative acts.
Introduces stringent punishments for sexual assault, acid attacks, stalking, voyeurism, and harassment.
Mandates immediate medical and psychological assistance for rape victims.
Establishes fast-track courts for prompt handling of sexual violence cases.
Enforces stricter sentencing, including the death penalty in cases where the victim dies or is left in a
vegetative state.
4. Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006
Declares child marriage voidable at the discretion of minors.
Defines legal age for marriage as 18 for women and 21 for men.
Empowers district magistrates to prohibit child marriages and provides for the arrest of violators.
Ensures rehabilitation of girls affected by child marriage, offering support for education and protection.
Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
- Decriminalization of Section 377
- Naz Foundation Case (2009)
The Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi case was a crucial moment for LGBTQ+ rights in India. The Delhi High Court decriminalized consensual homosexual acts between adults, declaring that Section 377 violated constitutional rights to equality and privacy.
- Naz Foundation Case (2009)
- Navtej Johar v. Union of India (2018)
In 2018, the Supreme Court revisited Section 377 in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India. The Court ruled that
consensual same-sex relations between adults are not criminal,
- Navtej Johar v. Union of India (2018)
- NALSA v. Union of India (2014)- Court recognized transgender individuals as a “third gender” and affirmed their right to self-identify as male, female, or third gender. provide reservations and welfare measures for transgender individuals, aligning with the constitutional right to equality
Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019
Right to Self-Identify: Allows individuals to self-identify as transgender. However, it requires a certificate
for a change in gender identity.
Prohibition of Discrimination: Outlaws discrimination in areas such as employment, education, and
healthcare.
Healthcare Access: Mandates government and private sector healthcare services to provide equal access to
transgender individuals.
Welfare Measures: Directs states to create welfare schemes to address issues like unemployment, education,
and housing.
Custodial Violence in India
Despite international commitments, such as India being a signatory to the United Nations Convention against Torture (UNCAT), custodial violence persists due to inadequate implementation mechanisms and poor accountability measures.
No Law against Torture- Internationally, India is obligated to adopt anti-torture legislation under the UN Convention against Torture
(UNCAT), which it signed but has not yet ratified
In the absence of such legislation, custodial violence is often inadequately addressed under existing legal provisions, such as the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which only loosely covers offenses related to wrongful confinement and causing
hurt.
The Torture Bill, 2022 - This proposed bill aims to criminalize torture, define custodial violence more explicitly, and establish strict penalties for law enforcement officials who engage in or are complicit in acts of torture.
establishment of a special investigative body dedicated to handling cases of custodial torture. This body would be empowered to investigate complaints independently of local law enforcement, ensuring that cases are handled impartially and transparently
custodial violence case law
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal
The landmark Supreme Court judgment in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) laid down guidelines
for arrest and detention procedures to prevent custodial violence. This case arose after D.K. Basu, an activist, wrote a letter to the Supreme Court highlighting instances of custodial deaths and torture. The Court treated the letter as a writ petition,
The guidelines mandated that police officers carry identification, record all detentions in a diary, inform a detainee’s family, and conduct medical examinations of detainees at regular intervals.
In Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court examined the limits of police authority in interrogation. The Court found that the accused had been subjected to extreme torture to extract a confession, resulting in serious
injuries. The Court condemned custodial violence, stating that torture for confession was unacceptable and
emphasized the need for humane treatment of individuals in custody.
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa
The Court held that the right to life under
Article 21 includes the right to safety and dignity, even while in custody. It ordered the state to pay compensation, underscoring that the government is liable for human rights violations by its officials, and highlighting that monetary compensation is a remedy for violations of fundamental rights.
The National Human Rights Commission
Guidelines on Custodial Violence
- Installation of CCTV cameras in all police stations and custodial settings,
- regular medical examinations of detainees, and
- prompt action in cases of alleged abuse
- report any custodial deaths within 24 hours
- NHRC also has the authority to investigate complaints of custodial violence and recommend action against those responsible
recommendations are not legally binding
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of India
Established under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (PHRA)
1. Composition: The NHRC is composed of a Chairperson and members. The Chairperson is a former Chief Justice of India or a judge of the Supreme Court of India
2. Investigative Powers: The NHRC can summon individuals, demand records, and conduct inquiries into complaints of human rights violations. It can also recommend compensation to victims
3. Independence and Funding: Although the NHRC is an autonomous body, it is funded by the central government.
