Comparative Study With International Human Rights Law
I. Introduction to Comparative Study
Human Rights are universal rights inherent to all individuals, irrespective of nationality, race, or gender. While India has its own constitutional framework, it is also a signatory to international human rights instruments, which influence domestic law.
1. Key International Human Rights Instruments
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), 1948
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), 1989
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), 1979
Convention Against Torture (CAT), 1984
2. Key Indian Constitutional Provisions
Fundamental Rights (Part III)
Article 14 – Right to equality
Article 19 – Freedom of speech, movement, assembly
Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty
Article 23 & 24 – Prohibition of forced labor and child labor
Directive Principles (Part IV) – Reflect international human rights ideals
II. Comparative Study: Key Themes
1. Right to Life and Personal Liberty
International Law:
ICCPR, Article 6: Right to life is inherent; deprivation only in accordance with law.
UDHR, Article 3: Right to life, liberty, and security.
Indian Law:
Article 21 of the Constitution: “No person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
Expanded by Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) to include dignity, privacy, and due process.
Case Law Comparison:
A. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Indian Supreme Court expanded Article 21 to include due process and procedural fairness, in line with ICCPR principles.
B. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
Right to livelihood included in right to life.
Aligns with ICCPR Article 6, emphasizing economic, social, and cultural rights.
Significance:
India’s judiciary actively harmonizes domestic rights with international human rights norms, even if not explicitly incorporated.
2. Protection Against Torture and Cruel Treatment
International Law:
CAT (1984), Article 1: Torture prohibited under any circumstances.
UDHR Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or cruel treatment.
Indian Law:
Article 21: Right to life includes protection against torture and degrading treatment.
Section 330–331 IPC: Punishes voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession.
Case Law Comparison:
A. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
Supreme Court laid down safeguards for arrest and detention, including:
Police must inform reason for arrest.
Detainee must have access to legal counsel.
Proper medical examination to prevent torture.
B. Naga People’s Movement v. Union of India (1997)
Allegations of torture under preventive detention challenged. Court emphasized Advisory Board review, aligning with international prohibition of arbitrary detention.
Significance:
Shows convergence of domestic law with CAT and ICCPR norms.
3. Child Rights and Protection
International Law:
CRC (1989): Children have rights to survival, education, protection from exploitation and abuse.
Indian Law:
POCSO Act, 2012 – Protection from sexual offenses.
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 – Rehabilitation and care for children.
Case Law Comparison:
A. MC Mehta v. Union of India (1987)
Children employed in hazardous industries. Supreme Court banned such labor.
Aligns with CRC Article 32, protecting children from economic exploitation.
B. Vishal Jeet v. State of Haryana (2012)
Sexual abuse case under POCSO. Court ensured child-friendly procedures.
Aligns with CRC principles and ICCPR Article 24 (protection of minors).
Significance:
Indian courts use child protection laws in sync with international obligations, even if treaties are not self-executing.
4. Rights of Women and Gender Equality
International Law:
CEDAW (1979): Eliminates discrimination against women in all spheres.
UDHR Article 2 & 16: Right to equality and marriage without discrimination.
Indian Law:
Articles 14 & 15 – Equality before law and prohibition of discrimination on sex.
POCSO & Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Protect women from violence and harassment.
Case Law Comparison:
A. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
Guidelines for sexual harassment at the workplace; aligns with CEDAW obligations.
B. Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017)
Court struck down marital rape exemption for girls under 18, reinforcing international gender protection standards.
Significance:
Shows Indian law evolving in harmony with CEDAW principles, emphasizing equality and protection.
5. Right Against Discrimination
International Law:
ICCPR Article 26: Equal protection of the law and prohibition of discrimination.
UDHR Article 7: Equal protection without discrimination.
Indian Law:
Articles 14–18 of the Constitution guarantee equality and non-discrimination.
Case Law Comparison:
A. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)
Mandal Commission reservation upheld with safeguards to ensure proportionate affirmative action.
Aligns with ICCPR principles of positive measures for marginalized groups.
B. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)
Section 377 decriminalized consensual same-sex relations.
Upholds right to equality and privacy, consistent with UDHR and ICCPR.
Significance:
Indian courts interpret fundamental rights broadly to comply with international equality norms.
6. Freedom of Expression
International Law:
ICCPR Article 19: Right to freedom of opinion and expression.
Indian Law:
Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of speech and expression.
Reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).
Case Law Comparison:
A. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Struck down Section 66A IT Act as vague and overbroad.
Aligns with ICCPR Article 19, ensuring freedom with clear restrictions.
III. Observations from Comparative Study
| Theme | International Standard | Indian Law | Alignment / Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to Life | ICCPR, UDHR | Article 21 | Expanded through Maneka Gandhi & Olga Tellis |
| Protection from Torture | CAT | Article 21 + IPC | D.K. Basu safeguards, Advisory Boards |
| Child Rights | CRC | POCSO Act, JJ Act | MC Mehta & Vishal Jeet |
| Women’s Rights | CEDAW | Articles 14,15, DV Act | Vishaka & Independent Thought |
| Non-Discrimination | ICCPR Art. 26 | Articles 14–18 | Indra Sawhney & Navtej Singh Johar |
| Freedom of Expression | ICCPR Art. 19 | Article 19(1)(a) | Shreya Singhal |
Key Takeaways:
Indian law generally reflects international human rights obligations, though most treaties are not self-executing.
Judicial interpretation bridges gaps between domestic law and international standards.
India’s courts actively protect vulnerable populations (children, women, minorities) in line with global norms.
The dynamic interplay between domestic statutes and international law strengthens human rights enforcement.
RELATED Blog
0 comments