The Complex Dynamics Between the State and Human Rights in India

The relationship between the state and human rights in India presents a profound paradox. On one hand, the Indian Constitution provides one of the most comprehensive human rights frameworks in the world. On the other, the state’s monopoly over legitimate violence and its extraordinary powers have historically enabled serious violations of the very rights it is meant to protect. Understanding this tension is essential for anyone studying law, governance, or human rights in India.

The state as protector of rights 🔗

The Indian state emerged from a freedom struggle that placed human dignity at its core. The Constitution reflects values of empathy and compassion, drawing from India’s ancient philosophical traditions that emphasized equality and collective well-being. The Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution represent the state’s commitment to protecting civil liberties for all citizens.

The Supreme Court and High Courts can issue writs under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution to enforce these rights whenever they are violated. This judicial mechanism transforms abstract constitutional promises into enforceable protections. Rights such as equality before law, freedom of speech and expression, and the right to life and personal liberty form the bedrock of India’s democratic framework.

Beyond constitutional guarantees, India has established multiple institutional safeguards. The National Human Rights Commission, along with various commissions for women, children, minorities, and marginalized communities, works to investigate complaints and recommend actions against human rights violations. These bodies represent the state’s institutional commitment to protecting vulnerable populations.

The monopoly over violence and its dangers 🔗

However, the state possesses something that makes it fundamentally different from other institutions: a monopoly over legitimate violence. This means the state alone can legally deploy force through its police, military, and security apparatus. While this power is essential for maintaining order and protecting citizens, it also creates opportunities for abuse.

The state’s coercive power becomes particularly concerning when combined with laws that grant extensive detention powers, limit judicial oversight, or provide immunity to security forces. Throughout India’s history, this combination has led to systematic violations of the very rights the Constitution promises to protect.

The Emergency: when the state turned against rights 🔗

No discussion of state power and human rights in India is complete without examining the Emergency period from 1975 to 1977. On June 25, 1975, President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed declared a state of emergency under Article 352 of the Constitution on the advice of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. This 21-month period represents the darkest chapter in India’s democratic history.

Constitutional safeguards were systematically suspended through Articles 358 and 359, affecting fundamental freedoms including speech, expression, assembly, and movement. Citizens were barred from approaching courts for the enforcement of their rights, including the right to life and liberty under Article 21.

Arbitrary detention and press censorship 🔗

More than 100,000 political opponents, journalists, and dissenters were imprisoned during the Emergency. The Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) became a tool for preventive detention without trial. Opposition leaders including Jayaprakash Narayan, Morarji Desai, and Atal Bihari Vajpayee found themselves behind bars.

The press faced unprecedented censorship. Power supply to newspaper offices was cut during the early days, and content was strictly controlled. Parliamentary and judicial proceedings were censored, fundamentally undermining democratic accountability.

The judicial failure in ADM Jabalpur 🔗

Perhaps most troubling was the Supreme Court’s decision in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla. The Court ruled by a 4-1 majority that even the right to life under Article 21 could be suspended during an emergency. This decision legitimized arbitrary detention and effectively removed legal protections for thousands of citizens. Only Justice H.R. Khanna dissented, and his lone voice became a symbol of judicial independence.

Forced sterilization and demographic violence 🔗

The Emergency also witnessed horrific violations through the forced sterilization campaign. Over 1.07 crore sterilizations were performed in two years, with people denied access to rations, housing, jobs, and healthcare unless they complied. This campaign disproportionately affected poor and marginalized communities, representing state violence at its most intimate and brutal.

Draconian laws: the continuing legacy 🔗

While the Emergency ended in 1977, the structure enabling state excesses remained embedded in Indian law. Several laws grant the state extraordinary powers that curtail constitutional rights in the name of national security.

The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 🔗

The UAPA allows the government to arrest citizens for crimes they might possibly commit in the future, effectively bypassing constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties. The law criminalizes not just actions but opinions and even possession of literature that might cause “disaffection” with the state.

Under the amended UAPA, individuals can be held in police custody for 30 days and in judicial custody without charge for up to 180 days. This extended pre-charge detention period far exceeds international standards and significantly increases the risk of torture and ill-treatment. The law also creates a presumption of guilt under certain circumstances, reversing the fundamental principle that an accused person is innocent until proven guilty.

Torture in custody 🔗

The National Human Rights Commission reported 2,739 custodial deaths in 2024, following approximately 2,400 cases in 2023. These staggering numbers reflect the routine use of torture as a tool of law enforcement. Mistreatment of suspects occurs at every stage of custody, from police lockups where many are tortured to courthouses where magistrates often ignore their complaints.

Accounts by those incarcerated under UAPA reveal that neglect, mistreatment, and torture are common, including the use of solitary confinement even during pre-trial police custody. The case of Professor G.N. Saibaba, a 90% disabled academic held in cells without ramps or toilets and denied medical care, exemplifies how draconian laws facilitate inhuman treatment.

Armed Forces Special Powers Act 🔗

The AFSPA, operational in Kashmir and Northeast India, grants security forces power to arrest without warrant, enter property without permission, and shoot to kill even when not facing imminent danger. The Act has facilitated grave human rights abuses including extrajudicial execution, disappearance, rape, and torture. The immunity it provides to armed forces makes accountability nearly impossible.

Constitutional safeguards and their limits 🔗

Despite these concerning patterns, India’s constitutional framework does provide important protections. Article 21, which protects life and personal liberty, has been interpreted expansively by the courts. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that any law depriving a person of life or liberty must meet standards of fairness and reasonableness.

Public Interest Litigation has emerged as a powerful tool, allowing any concerned citizen to approach the courts on behalf of those who cannot access justice themselves. The judiciary has used this mechanism to address violations affecting vulnerable populations.

The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 established both national and state human rights commissions to investigate violations and recommend remedial action. These bodies provide an institutional mechanism for accountability outside the regular criminal justice system.

The persistent tension 🔗

What emerges from this examination is a fundamental tension. The Indian state has created one of the most progressive human rights frameworks through its Constitution and institutions. Yet this same state possesses and frequently exercises powers that systematically violate these rights.

The Emergency demonstrated how quickly constitutional protections can collapse when the state prioritizes its own survival over citizens’ rights. Draconian laws like UAPA show that extraordinary powers, once granted, tend to become permanent features rather than temporary measures. The persistence of torture in custody reveals how institutional violence operates below the level of formal law.

This tension is not unique to India, but the scale of India’s democracy and the comprehensiveness of its constitutional rights make the gap between promise and practice particularly stark. Understanding this dynamic requires recognizing that states are not monolithic entities. They contain both protective institutions and coercive apparatus, and the balance between these determines whether rights are realized or violated in practice.

What do you think? How can India strengthen accountability mechanisms to prevent the misuse of state power while maintaining necessary security? Can institutional reforms alone address violations rooted in broader patterns of discrimination and impunity?

References

1. https://nhrc.nic.in/human-rights-framework
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_rights_in_India
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emergency_(India)
4. https://www.pib.gov.in/FactsheetDetails.aspx?Id=149224&reg=3&lang=2
5. https://finsindia.org/the-national-emergency-in-india-(1975%E2%80%931977)-constitutional-breakdown-authoritarianism-and-democratic-redemption.html
6. https://indiacivilwatch.org/uapa/
7. https://www.hrw.org/report/2010/07/27/back-future/indias-2008-counterterrorism-laws
8. https://www.omct.org/site-resources/files/factsheets/Factsheet-India.2025.pdf
9. https://www.hrw.org/report/2011/02/01/anti-nationals/arbitrary-detention-and-torture-terrorism-suspects-india
10. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/lib-docs/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/Session1/IN/LIB_IND_UPR_S1_2008_Liberation_uprsubmission.pdf
11. https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/Protection%20of%20HR%20Act1993_0.pdf