Exploring the Spectrum: Debates and Approaches in Human Rights

When we talk about human rights, it is tempting to think of them as a fixed, agreed-upon list – a neat set of protections that everyone in the world enjoys equally. In reality, the field of human rights is shaped by deep, ongoing debates: What counts as a human right? Who gets to define it? Is the right to vote more fundamental than the right to eat? These are not merely academic questions. For students of law and criminal justice in India, understanding these debates is essential to grasping why legal systems respond differently to different kinds of harm – and why some violations go unaddressed entirely.

The traditional view: civil and political rights at the centre 🔗

The dominant tradition in human rights law, particularly as it developed after World War II, placed civil and political rights (CPR) at its core. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), adopted by the UN in 1966, codified these as the primary entitlements of individuals: the right to life, freedom from torture, freedom of speech, the right to a fair trial, and the right to vote.

In India, this tradition is reflected in Part III of the Constitution – the Fundamental Rights chapter. Key provisions include the right to equality under Article 14, freedom of speech and expression under Article 19, right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, and freedom of religion under Articles 25-28. These rights are directly enforceable in courts. A citizen can walk into the Supreme Court or a High Court and demand their protection – a powerful mechanism that gives CPR their legal teeth.

The 1973 landmark ruling in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala went further, establishing that certain fundamental rights form the “basic structure” of the Constitution, meaning Parliament itself cannot legislate them away. This cemented civil and political rights as the bedrock of India’s constitutional order.

The broader view: economic, social, and cultural rights 🔗

The limitation of focusing only on civil and political rights soon became apparent. Political freedom means little if a person is too hungry, illiterate, or sick to exercise it. This recognition gave rise to a second generation of rights – economic, social, and cultural rights (ESCR) – enshrined in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), also adopted in 1966.

In India, ESCR found their place in the Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV, Articles 36-51) of the Constitution. These include the right to work (Article 41), education (Article 45), and public health (Article 47). Crucially, however, these principles are not directly enforceable in courts the way Fundamental Rights are. They are guides for governance, not justiciable entitlements. The Indian Constitution’s initial prioritisation of civil and political rights reflected the historical context of the freedom struggle and the need for democratic governance – but it also drew criticism for neglecting socio-economic disparities.

Over time, however, Indian courts began bridging this gap. In the landmark case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the Supreme Court ruled that evicting pavement dwellers without alternative accommodation violated their right to life under Article 21 – effectively reading a socio-economic entitlement into a civil right. In a similar vein, in Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996), the Supreme Court recognized the right to emergency healthcare as part of the right to life. These rulings illustrate how judicial creativity has gradually narrowed the enforcement gap between the two categories of rights.

Legislative action has also played a role. The Right to Education Act, passed by Parliament in 2009, transformed the right to education from a Directive Principle into a Fundamental Right under Article 21A, making free and compulsory education for children aged 6 to 14 an enforceable legal guarantee. Similarly, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) gave rural households a legal entitlement to 100 days of wage employment per year – a statutory translation of the right to work.

The third generation: solidarity and collective rights 🔗

Beyond individual rights, a third generation of human rights has emerged, focusing on collective and solidarity rights: the right to development, the right to a clean environment, the right to peace, and the rights of indigenous peoples. These rights are not neatly captured by either the ICCPR or the ICESCR. They require cooperation between states and societies, not just restraint or provision by individual governments.

India’s debates over large infrastructure projects like the Sardar Sarovar Dam illustrate this tension: economic development goals (second generation rights) have often come into direct conflict with environmental protection and the rights of indigenous communities (third generation rights). How the law resolves such conflicts determines whose rights are ultimately protected – and whose are sacrificed in the name of progress.

India has consistently advocated for the right to development as a fundamental human right on international platforms. During its tenure at the UN Human Rights Council, India argued that civil and political rights must be complemented by efforts to address poverty, inequality, and underdevelopment – reflecting its broader philosophy that sustainable human development and the realisation of rights are inseparable.

The universalism vs. cultural relativism debate 🔗

Running through all these discussions is a more fundamental philosophical contest: Are human rights truly universal, or are they shaped by culture? This is the debate between universalism and cultural relativism.

Universalists argue that all human beings possess inherent rights simply by virtue of being human – regardless of nationality, religion, or culture. This view underpins the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948), which was designed as a common standard for all peoples and nations. Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan captured this position succinctly: the universality of human rights is precisely what gives them their strength.

Cultural relativists, by contrast, hold that human rights norms must be understood within their cultural context. They argue that Western liberal frameworks cannot be imposed on societies with fundamentally different values. Cultural relativists contend that cultures and religions of every society should be taken into account when applying universal human rights, rather than enforcing standards shaped primarily by Western countries.

The danger in cultural relativism, however, is that it can be used to justify practices that cause serious harm – particularly to women and marginalised groups. Critics argue that cultural relativism can become dangerous because it fundamentally justifies human rights abuses by linking them to the customs and traditions of a society – a concern that has particular resonance in the Indian context, where practices like caste discrimination and gender-based violence have at times been defended on cultural grounds.

The more productive approach, advocated by many legal scholars today, is to recognise that culture is not static. Rights frameworks can engage with cultural context without surrendering the universal floor of human dignity. India’s own Constitution reflects this tension: it both respects cultural and religious diversity and prohibits discrimination on the basis of caste, religion, sex, and place of birth.

From monitoring abuses to enabling rights: a comprehensive approach 🔗

A critical shift in contemporary human rights thinking is the move from a purely reactive model – documenting and publicising abuses after they occur – to a more enabling model that actively creates conditions in which people can exercise their rights.

In the Indian context, this distinction matters enormously. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), established under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, was initially conceived as a complaint-resolution body. The NHRC acts as a watchdog, intervening in cases of injustice and advocating for marginalized groups, ensuring constitutional rights are upheld. But the commission has increasingly been criticised for being reactive rather than preventive – responding to violations rather than addressing the systemic conditions that produce them.

The NHRC’s mandate extends beyond investigating complaints to encompass policy review, research, and recommendations for legislative reform – a broader conception of the human rights mandate. Similarly, specialized bodies such as the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, National Commission for Women, and National Commission for Minorities operate alongside the NHRC to address rights violations within particular communities.

Rights of marginalized groups and the multi-dimensional approach 🔗

The debate between different conceptions of human rights is not abstract – it has direct consequences for the most vulnerable members of society. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, women, religious minorities, persons with disabilities, children, and LGBTQ+ individuals all face barriers that go beyond the denial of formal legal rights. Their exclusion is structural, economic, and social.

A multi-dimensional human rights approach recognises that protecting these groups requires more than prohibiting discrimination. It requires enabling access to education, healthcare, employment, and justice – which is precisely what programmes like reservations in public employment and education, the MGNREGA, and the Right to Education Act are designed to do. While India’s Constitution provides a strong foundation for the protection of human rights, significant challenges remain in ensuring that these rights are upheld in practice – with discrimination, police brutality, and gender inequality continuing as major obstacles.

The Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, which decriminalised consensual same-sex relations between adults, is a landmark example of the courts using a multi-dimensional, dignity-centred reading of constitutional rights to extend protection to a historically marginalised group – without waiting for legislation.

Aligning human rights with sustainable development 🔗

One of the most significant contemporary developments in human rights thinking is its convergence with sustainable human development. The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) explicitly embed rights-based language – the goal of leaving no one behind is, at its core, a human rights commitment.

For India, this alignment is particularly significant. Lifting people out of poverty, ensuring clean water and sanitation, providing quality education, and building inclusive institutions are not just policy goals – they are the conditions that make civil and political rights meaningful in practice. India has framed its post-colonial journey as one of ensuring rapid socio-economic transformation within a democratic framework – encompassing political representation, social justice, gender empowerment, and the safeguarding of minorities. A purely civil-and-political rights framework cannot capture this journey in its entirety.

The human rights debate, then, is not simply a theoretical exercise. It shapes which harms the law recognises, which victims receive redress, and which communities are left without recourse. Moving toward a comprehensive, multi-dimensional view of human rights – one that treats civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights as equally important and mutually reinforcing – is not just an intellectual position. It is a legal and moral imperative for any society serious about justice.

What do you think? If economic and social rights like the right to food and healthcare are just as fundamental as the right to free speech, why does India’s Constitution treat them differently in terms of enforceability – and should that distinction be reconsidered? Also, given the tension between cultural relativism and universalism, how should Indian courts approach customs or practices that conflict with constitutional rights but are defended as part of cultural identity?

References

1. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights
2. https://polsci.institute/political-theory-concepts-debates/exploring-three-types-human-rights/
3. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-economic-social-and-cultural-rights
4. https://www.dalvoy.com/en/upsc/mains/previous-years/2023/law-paper-i/civil-political-economic-rights
5. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/civil-political-rights-vs-economic-social-amnesty
6. https://ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in/socp13/chapter/human-rights-discourse-and-education-in-india/
7. https://spmiasacademy.com/mains_exam/q-3-indias-participation-in-the-global-agreements-on-human-rights-reflects-its-commitment-to-promoting-a-just-and-equitable-world-order-discuss-this-statement-with-referen/
8. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
9. https://bakuresearchinstitute.org/en/the-universalism-of-human-rights-or-cultural-relativism/
10. https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/international-law/universalism-and-cultural-relativism-in-human-rights-international-law-essay.php
11. https://nhrc.nic.in/
12. https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/national-human-rights-commission-nhrc/
13. https://exploreanthro.com/anthropology-in-practice/role-of-nhrc-shrcs-upholding-human-rights-india/
14. https://www.jyotijudiciary.com/human-rights-in-india-status-and-challenges/
15. https://www.ungeneva.org/en/news-media/meeting-summary/2024/07/dialogue-india-experts-human-rights-committee-commend