Jou nal o Resea ch and De elopmen
A Mul idisciplina y In e na ional Le el Re e ed and Double Blind Pee Re iewed, Open Access
ISSN : 2230-9578 | Websi e: h ps://j d b.o g Volume-17, Issue-9(V)| Sep embe 2025
48
The Li ing Conscience: An Analysis o Human Righ s Ju isp udence unde he
Indian Cons i u ion D . Suchi a Su agihalli
Assis an P o esso (Poli ical Science)
Shahaji Law College, Kolhapu
Manusc ip ID:
JRD -2025-170912
ISSN: 2230-9578
Volume 17
Issue 9 (V)
Pp. 48-53
Sep . 2025
Submi ed:15 Aug. 2025
Re ised: 25 Aug. 2025
Accep ed: 10 Sep . 2025
Published: 30 Sep . 2025
Abs ac The Indian Cons i u ion is no me ely a legal documen bu a social con ac ha embodies he
aspi a ions o a na ion eme ging om colonial subjuga ion. I ep esen s a p o ound commi men o
secu ing jus ice, libe y, equali y, and a e ni y o all i s ci izens. This esea ch a icle del es in o he
in ica e ela ionship be ween he Indian Cons i u ion and he p o ec ion o human igh s. I aces he
his o ical e olu ion o igh s discou se in India, and analyses he undamen al igh s and di ec i e
p inciples ha o m he bed ock o human igh s p o ec ion. I examines pa h-b eaking cons i u ional
amendmen s, and e iews landma k judicial p onouncemen s ha ha e expanded he ho izons o igh s.
The a icle a gues ha h ough a dynamic p ocess o judicial in e p e a ion and cons i u ional mo ali y,
he Indian Cons i u ion has e ol ed in o a po en ins umen o he ad ancemen o human digni y.
Keywo ds: Cons i u ion, ci izens, digni y, equali y, legal, libe y, mo ali y
The His o ical An eceden s
Human igh s a e indigenous o India and no o Wes e n in luence. Ancien Indian
ex s like he Vedas and he A hashas a, and he edic s o Empe o Ashoka (c. 3 d cen u y
BCE) p opaga ing Dhamma, con ained ea ly no ions o Dha ma ( igh eous du y), compassion,
and wel a e, which a e p ecu so s o mode n human igh s p inciples. Howe e , he codi ied
amewo k is undeniably a p oduc o he eedom s uggle agains B i ish colonial ule, which
was inhe en ly a ba le o undamen al igh s—agains disc imina o y laws, o eedom o
exp ession and associa ion, and o equali y.
The Mo ilal Neh u Repo (1928) was he i s Indian a icula ion o a cons i u ional
amewo k gua an eeing undamen al igh s. The expe iences o he colonial e a—such as he
Rowla Ac and he supp ession o ci il libe ies—deeply in luenced he ame s o he
Cons i u ion. They we e de e mined o c ea e a epublic whe e s a e powe would be cons ained
by in iolable igh s. The Uni e sal Decla a ion o Human Righ s (UDHR), adop ed in 1948
concu en ly wi h he d a ing o he Indian Cons i u ion, also signi ican ly in luenced i s
p o isions, c ea ing a symbio ic ela ionship be ween in e na ional and Indian human igh s law.
The Cons i u ional Edi ice: A icles P o ec ing Human Righ s
The Indian Cons i u ion embeds human igh s p ima ily in wo pa s: Pa III
(Fundamen al Righ s) and Pa IV (Di ec i e P inciples o S a e Policy). While Fundamen al
Righ s a e jus iciable and en o ceable by cou s, he Di ec i e P inciples a e undamen al in he
go e nance o he coun y and p o ide a bluep in o he s a e o s i e owa ds es ablishing
social and economic democ acy. The Fundamen al Righ s in India se e as essen ial sa egua ds
o p o ec ing human igh s by gua an eeing eedoms and ci il libe ies o e e y ci izen,
en o ceable h ough judicial emedies agains s a e abuse o disc imina ion. These igh s o m
he backbone o India's democ a ic amewo k and unde pin he p o ec ion, de elopmen , and
digni y o indi iduals.
Quick Response Code:
Websi e:
h ps://j d b.o g/
DOI:
C ea i e Commons (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
This is an open access jou nal, and a icles a e dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons
A ibu ion-NonComme cial-Sha eAlike 4.0 In e na ional Public License, which allows o he s o emix,
weak, and build upon he wo k noncomme cially, as long as app op ia e c edi is gi en and he new
c ea ions ae licensed unde he iden ial e ms.
Add ess o co espondence:
D . Suchi a Su agihalli, Assis an P o esso (Poli ical Science)Shahaji Law College, Kolhapu
How o ci e his a icle:
Suchi a Su agihalli (2025). The Li ing Conscience: An Analysis o Human Righ s Ju isp udence
unde he Indian Cons i u ion. Jou nal o Resea ch & De elopmen , 17(9), 48-53
O iginal A icle
Jou nal o Resea ch and De elopmen
A Mul idisciplina y In e na ional Le el Re e ed and Double Blind Pee Re iewed, Open Access
ISSN : 2230-9578 | Websi e: h ps://j d b.o g Volume-17, Issue-9(V)| Sep embe 2025
49
Fundamen al Righ s
Fundamen al Righ s a e ensh ined in Pa III (A icles 12–35) o he Indian Cons i u ion and a e ega ded as
basic human eedoms necessa y o ha monious de elopmen and human digni y.The Fundamen al Righ s in he
Indian Cons i u ion include he igh o equali y, eedom o speech, eedom o associa ion, p o ec ion agains
exploi a ion, igh s o eligion and cul u e, and access o judicial emedies. Thei uni e sali y is e lec ed in non-
disc imina ion whe ein e e y ci izen is p o ec ed, ega dless o ace, cas e, eligion, gende , o place o bi h.
A unique ea u e o Fundamen al Righ s is jus iciabili y i.e., ci izens can di ec ly app oach he Sup eme o
High Cou s in case o igh s iola ion, secu ing access o jus ice h ough w i s such as habeas co pus and mandamus.
This amewo k p e en s a bi a iness o abuse by s a e au ho i ies, os e ing ule o law and go e nmen
accoun abili y. Public in e es li iga ion empowe s e en non-agg ie ed pa ies o g oups ep esen ing hose wi hou
means o seek p o ec ion, e ec i ely ad ancing he cause o collec i e human igh s.
Fundamen al Righ s a e balanced agains easonable es ic ions o public o de , s a e secu i y, and mo ali y,
ensu ing ha igh s a e no absolu e bu a e p ac ical wi hin socie al cons ain s. Du ing na ional eme gencies, mos
igh s may be suspended excep hose ensu ing p o ec ion agains a bi a y a es and pe sonal libe y, e lec ing hei
c i ical na u e o human igh s.
A) Righ s o Equali y
1) A icle 14: This is a wo- old gua an ee. Equali y be o e he law is a nega i e concep , which implies he absence o
any special p i ilege o any indi idual. I is based on he English Common Law doc ine o he ule o law, meaning
all a e equally subjec o he o dina y law o he land.
Equal p o ec ion o he laws is a posi i e concep , bo owed om he 14 h Amendmen o he U.S.
Cons i u ion. I implies ha among equals, he law should be equal and should be equally adminis e ed. I does no
mean iden ical ea men o all. Ou laws any o m o disc imina ion and abolishes un ouchabili y and a bi a y i les,
os e ing social jus ice.
2) A icles 15 & 16: P ohibi ion o Disc imina ion and Equali y o Oppo uni y
A icle 15 upholds he p inciple o equali y. I p ohibi s he s a e om disc imina ing agains any ci izen only
on g ounds o eligion, ace, cas e, sex, place o bi h, o any o hem. C ucially, i also empowe s he s a e o make
special p o isions o women and child en (Clause 3) and o he ad ancemen o any socially and educa ionally
backwa d classes (SEBCs), Scheduled Cas es (SCs), and Scheduled T ibes (STs) (Clauses 4 and 5). This is he
cons i u ional ounda ion o ese a ions and o he posi i e disc imina ion measu es.
A icle 16 p o ides gua an ee o equali y o oppo uni y in ma e s o public employmen . I o bids
disc imina ion on he same g ounds as A icle 15. Like A icle 15, i also allows o ese a ion o appoin men s o
pos s in a o o any backwa d class o ci izens ha is no adequa ely ep esen ed in he s a e se ices (Clause 4).
3) A icle 17: Aboli ion o Un ouchabili y
This is a unique and absolu e igh . I is no me ely a p ohibi ion agains he p ac ice o un ouchabili y; i is i s
aboli ion. I is a legal decla a ion o social e olu ion. To b ing i in o e ec , Pa liamen enac ed he P o ec ion o Ci il
Righ s Ac , 1955, which made he p ac ice o un ouchabili y a punishable o ence.
B) Righ o F eedom
A icle 19 o he Indian Cons i u ion is a co ne s one o he igh o eedom, o e ing six i al libe ies o
Indian ci izens: eedom o speech and exp ession, assembly, associa ion, mo emen , esidence, and p o ession. I s
u ili y lies in empowe ing indi iduals o pa icipa e ully in public li e, oice opinions, associa e o common causes,
and pu sue p o essions, hus os e ing democ acy and pe sonal de elopmen .
A icle 19 gua an ees six speci ic eedoms:
1) Speech and exp ession: Vi al o open deba e, c ea i i y, and a anspa en go e nmen .
2) Assembly and associa ion: Allow peace ul p o es and communi y building, c ucial o democ acy.
3) Mo emen and esidence: Enable mobili y and se lemen ac oss India, suppo ing uni y and economic oppo uni y.
4) P o ession: Upholds economic libe y and pe sonal g ow h.
While hese igh s a e ounda ional o pe sonal de elopmen and social p og ess, A icle 19 wisely pe mi s
easonable es ic ions o so e eign y, secu i y, public o de , decency, and mo ali y. This balance p e en s misuse,
such as inci emen , de ama ion, o h ea s o public sa e y, while p ese ing he essen ial cha ac e o eedom.
By p o ec ing hese eedoms and egula ing hei use, A icle 19 ac i ely p omo es a esponsible,
pa icipa i e, and lou ishing socie y, making i indispensable o sa egua ding democ acy and human digni y in India.
C) Indi idual Sa egua ds
A icles 20, 21, and 22 o he Indian Cons i u ion o m a c i ical io o igh s ha p o ide p ocedu al
sa egua ds o indi iduals, especially hose accused o de ained by he S a e.
1) A icle 20: A icle 20 p o ec s indi iduals in c iminal p oceedings by p ohibi ing e ospec i e c iminal laws
whe ein no one can be con ic ed o an ac ha was no an o ense when commi ed, double jeopa dy in which no
Jou nal o Resea ch and De elopmen
A Mul idisciplina y In e na ional Le el Re e ed and Double Blind Pee Re iewed, Open Access
ISSN : 2230-9578 | Websi e: h ps://j d b.o g Volume-17, Issue-9(V)| Sep embe 2025
50
pe son can be ied and punished o he same o ense mo e han once and sel -inc imina ion which p o ides ha
accused pe sons canno be o ced o es i y agains hemsel es. This a icle is an essen ial check agains misuse o s a e
powe and canno be suspended e en in eme gencies, e lec ing i s ounda ional ole in p o ec ing he accused.
2) A icle 21: A icle 21 b oadly s a es ha no pe son shall be dep i ed o li e o pe sonal libe y excep acco ding o
p ocedu e es ablished by law. Landma k judicial in e p e a ion has expanded his o include igh s such as digni y,
p i acy, a ai ial, and humane ea men , ensu ing ha bo h laws and p ocedu es a e ai and easonable.
3) A icle 22: A icle 22 es ablishes p ocedu al p o ec ions o a es ed indi iduals which include ha in o ma ion on
g ounds o a es mus be p o ided, ha he pe son has a igh o consul and be de ended by a legal p ac i ione ; ha he
should be p oduced be o e a magis a e wi hin 24 hou s and limi a ion on de en ion wi hou magis a e’s au ho i y. This
a icle also includes special p o isions which delinea e sa egua ds in cases o p e en i e de en ion, hough wi h ce ain
limi a ions. This a icle hus ensu es p o ec ion o ci izens agains a bi a y a es and de en ion
Collec i ely, A icles 20–22 p o ec agains a bi a y o unjus dep i a ion o libe y by holding he S a e
accoun able o ai p ocedu es, upholding human digni y, and p ese ing he ule o law. Thei con inued e olu ion by
he cou s shows hei dynamic ole in balancing s a e au ho i y and indi idual igh s in India’s democ acy.
D) Righ agains Exploi a ion:
The undamen al igh s ha p o ec om exploi a ion in India a e p o ided in A icles 23 and 24 o he
Cons i u ion. These p o isions a e c i ical in upholding human digni y and shielding indi iduals—bo h ci izens and
non-ci izens— om abusi e and un ai labo p ac ices.
1) A icle 23: P ohibi ion o Exploi a ion
A icle 23 p ohibi s Human a icking – he buying, selling, o anspo ing o indi iduals o o ced labo o
immo al pu poses; Bega – compulso y labo wi hou any paymen and o he o ms o o ced labo , including bonded
labo , ega dless o emune a ion. Viola ing hese p ohibi ions is a punishable o ense, and he S a e is empowe ed o
ake legal ac ion agains bo h p i a e indi iduals and au ho i ies who iola e hem. A icle 23 also applies o bo h
ci izens and non-ci izens, ensu ing a b oad shield agains exploi a ion.
2) A icle 24: P ohibi ion o Child Labo
A icle 24 p ohibi s employmen o child en below he age o 14 in any ac o y, mine, o o he haza dous
employmen . This p o ision is ins umen al in p o ec ing child en om haza dous wo k en i onmen s and economic
exploi a ion.
These igh s gua an ee eedom om sla e y, a icking, and exploi a i e labo , secu ing he digni y and
libe y o he indi idual. Empowe he S a e o legisla e and en o ce puni i e measu es agains exploi e s, suppo ing
social jus ice and equali y. Fos e a socie y based on ai ness and human igh s by exp essly ou lawing some o he
g a es o ms o social injus ice. Toge he , A icles 23 and 24 se e as powe ul cons i u ional sa egua ds agains
exploi a ion and a e cen al o India's commi men o a jus and humane socie y.
E) Cul u al and Educa ional Righ s
Cul u al and educa ional igh s, ensh ined in A icles 29 and 30 o he Indian Cons i u ion, ac as i al
sa egua ds o p ese ing India's immense di e si y and p o ec ing mino i y in e es s. They de end he in e es s o
mino i ies, enabling cul u al plu alism and p o ec ion agains assimila ion.
1) A icle 29: A icle 29 gua an ees he igh o any ci izens wi h a dis inc language, sc ip , o peculia cul u e o
p ese e i . This igh is no limi ed o mino i ies; any g oup wi h a unique cul u al iden i y is en i led o p ese a ion o
i s he i age. I also p ohibi s denial o admission o s a e- un o aided educa ional ins i u ions based solely on eligion,
ace, cas e, o language, ensu ing access o educa ion wi hou disc imina ion.
2) A icle 30: A icle 30 empowe s eligious and linguis ic mino i ies o es ablish and un educa ional ins i u ions o
hei choice. I u he s a es ha he S a e canno disc imina e while g an ing aid o such mino i y ins i u ions based on
eligion o language. This p o ision enables mino i ies o main ain educa ional au onomy and nu u e hei dis inc
iden i y. Toge he , hese igh s uphold India's plu alism, encou age inclusi i y, and p o ec mino i y g oups om
cul u al assimila ion. By ensu ing bo h p ese a ion and access, he Cons i u ion balances uni y wi h di e si y—
deepening social jus ice while celeb a ing he na ion’s composi e
F) Cons i u ional Remedies
The igh o cons i u ional emedies is i sel a undamen al igh , i al o de ending o he igh s and ec i ying
abuses. The Chai man o he d a ing commi ee o he Indian Cons i u ion, D . B.R. Ambedka e e ed o he
Cons i u ional Remedies hea and soul o he Cons i u ion. A icle 32 is a undamen al igh , gua an eeing he igh o
mo e he Sup eme Cou o he en o cemen o any o he o he Fundamen al Righ s. The Sup eme Cou can issue he
i e g ea w i s: Habeas Co pus ( o p oduce a de ained pe son), Mandamus ( o command a public du y), P ohibi ion ( o
Jou nal o Resea ch and De elopmen
A Mul idisciplina y In e na ional Le el Re e ed and Double Blind Pee Re iewed, Open Access
ISSN : 2230-9578 | Websi e: h ps://j d b.o g Volume-17, Issue-9(V)| Sep embe 2025
51
p ohibi a lowe cou om exceeding i s ju isdic ion), Ce io a i ( o quash he o de o a lowe cou ), and Quo
Wa an o ( o inqui e in o he legali y o a claim o a public o ice).
Rela ion o Human Righ s
The Fundamen al Righ s mi o in e na ional human igh s s anda ds such as hose in he Uni e sal
Decla a ion o Human Righ s (UDHR) and In e na ional Co enan s. They di ec ly en o ce igh s like equali y be o e
he law (A icle 14), p ohibi ion o disc imina ion (A icle 15), and p o ec ion o li e and pe sonal libe y (A icle 21),
which co espond o key ene s in global human igh s li e a u e. A icle 13 in alida es any law con a ening hese
igh s, ensu ing human igh s emain sup eme o e legisla ion.
Fundamen al Righ s in India a e mo e han legal p i ileges— hey ins i u ionalize human igh s, p o iding
e ec i e mechanisms o p o ec ion, en o cemen , and de elopmen o he indi idual. They keep s a e powe in check,
de end mino i ies and ma ginalized g oups, and c ea e he ounda ion o jus ice, libe y, and digni y in Indian socie y.
In essence, Fundamen al Righ s ans o m philosophical human igh s in o en o ceable gua an ees embedded in he
legal and poli ical o de .
Pa h-B eaking Amendmen s
While he Cons i u ion is amendable unde A icle 368, he Sup eme Cou has held ha amendmen s canno
iola e i s "basic s uc u e." Se e al amendmen s ha e o i ied human igh s:
1) The 1s Amendmen (1951): I onically, while i cu ailed eedom o speech by adding easonable es ic ions, i
also added A icle 15(4) o empowe he s a e o make special p o isions o he ad ancemen o socially and
educa ionally backwa d classes (SEBCs), a posi i e a i ma ion ool o equali y.
2) The 42nd Amendmen (1976): Enac ed du ing he Eme gency, i is o en c i icized o dilu ing igh s. Howe e , i
inse ed A icle 48A (P o ec ion o en i onmen ) and A icle 39A (Equal jus ice and ee legal aid), b oadening he
s a e's human igh s obliga ions.
3) The 44 h Amendmen (1978): A di ec esponse o he Eme gency's excesses. I es o ed he p imacy o
undamen al igh s by making i ha de o suspend A icle 19 du ing an eme gency and ensu ed ha he igh o li e and
libe y (A icle 21) could no be suspended e en du ing an eme gency.
4) The 86 h Amendmen (2002): Made educa ion a undamen al igh by inse ing A icle 21A, making he s a e
obliga ed o p o ide ee and compulso y educa ion o all child en aged 6-14.
Landma k Judgmen s: Judicial Ac i ism as a Ca alys
The Indian judicia y, pa icula ly he Sup eme Cou , has been a igilan gua dian o human igh s h ough
judicial ac i ism and an expansi e in e p e a ion o he Cons i u ion.
a) Expanding he Scope o 'Li e' and 'Pe sonal Libe y' (A icle 21):
1) Maneka Gandhi . Union o India (1978): This is he co ne s one o mode n Indian human igh s ju isp udence. The
Cou held ha he p ocedu e es ablished by law unde A icle 21 mus be " ai , jus , and easonable," no me ely a
p ocedu e legisla ed by Pa liamen . I also es ablished he doc ine o in e - ela ionship be ween Fundamen al Righ s,
making hem a cohesi e whole.
2) F ancis Co alie Mullin . The Adminis a o (1981): The Cou held ha he igh o li e includes he igh o li e
wi h human digni y and all ha goes wi h i , including adequa e nu i ion, shel e , and eading ma e ial.
b) Public In e es Li iga ion (PIL) and Epis ola y Ju isdic ion:
1) S.P. Gup a . Union o India (1981) & Bandhua Muk i Mo cha . Union o India (1984): The Cou elaxed he ule
o locus s andi, allowing any public-spi i ed indi idual o o ganiza ion o ile a pe i ion on behal o he opp essed and
ma ginalized. This democ a ized access o jus ice, leading o ulings on bonded labou , p ison e o ms, and
en i onmen al p o ec ion.
c) En i onmen al Righ s as Human Righ s:
1) M.C. Meh a . Union o India (1987) (Oleum Gas Leak case): The Cou in oduced he p inciple o absolu e
liabili y o indus ies engaged in haza dous ac i i ies.
2) Vello e Ci izens Wel a e Fo um . Union o India (1996): The Cou adop ed he "P ecau iona y P inciple" and he
"Pollu e Pays P inciple" as essen ial ea u es o sus ainable de elopmen , eading hem in o A icle 21.
d) Gende Jus ice and P i acy:
1) Vishakha . S a e o Rajas han (1997): The Cou laid down de ailed guidelines o p e en sexual ha assmen o
women a he wo kplace, illing a legisla i e acuum. This was la e codi ied in o he Sexual Ha assmen o Women a
Wo kplace (P e en ion, P ohibi ion and Red essal) Ac , 2013.
2) Jus ice K.S. Pu aswamy (Re d.) . Union o India (2017): A his o ic nine-judge bench unanimously held ha he
igh o p i acy is a undamen al igh in insic o A icle 21. This judgmen has a - eaching implica ions o da a
p o ec ion, bodily au onomy, and sexual o ien a ion.
Jou nal o Resea ch and De elopmen
A Mul idisciplina y In e na ional Le el Re e ed and Double Blind Pee Re iewed, Open Access
ISSN : 2230-9578 | Websi e: h ps://j d b.o g Volume-17, Issue-9(V)| Sep embe 2025
52
3) Na ej Singh Joha . Union o India (2018): Using he p i acy judgmen , he Cou dec iminalized homosexuali y
by s iking down Sec ion 377 o he Indian Penal Code, a i ming he igh s o digni y, p i acy, and equali y o he
LGBTQ+ communi y.
Di ec i e P inciples o S a e Policy - The Bluep in o a Wel a e S a e
The DPSPs a e guiding p inciples o he s a e in designing laws and policies. They a e mos signi ican in
ca ying ou he go e nance o he S a e. These p inciples hough, a e no en o ceable by any cou o he land. The aim
o DPSP is o es ablish social and economic democ acy wel a e s a e.
The Di ec i e P inciples o S a e Policy (DPSP), ensh ined in Pa IV o he Indian Cons i u ion, ep esen he
na ion's conscience and a bluep in o socio-economic jus ice. While no judicially en o ceable like Fundamen al
Righ s, hey a e undamen al in he go e nance o he coun y and se e as a c ucial, dynamic sou ce o human igh s.
They comple e he ision o human digni y a icula ed in he P eamble by mo ing beyond me e p o ec ion om s a e
opp ession (a nega i e igh ) o manda ing posi i e s a e ac ion o c ea e condi ions whe e indi iduals can uly enjoy
eedom and equali y. In his sense, hey a e he a chi ec s o he wel a e s a e, aiming o ans o m he socio-economic
ab ic o India o ealize igh s o adequa e li elihood, heal h, educa ion, and jus wo king condi ions o all ci izens.
The ue genius o he Indian Cons i u ion lies in he symbio ic ela ionship i o ges be ween Fundamen al
Righ s and DPSPs. Ini ially seen as being in po en ial con lic , he judicia y has mas e ully e ol ed he doc ine o
"ha monious cons uc ion," es ablishing ha hey a e complemen a y and oge he o m an in eg a ed scheme. The
DPSPs p o ide he goals— he 'wha '—while Fundamen al Righ s o en p o ide he 'how' by limi ing s a e powe o
ensu e hese goals a e pu sued jus ly. This in e play has allowed he cou s o expansi ely in e p e jus iciable igh s in
he ligh o di ec i e p inciples. Fo example, he igh o li e (A icle 21) has been inspi ed by he spi i o he DPSPs
o include wi hin i s pu iew he igh o heal h (A icle 47), he igh o educa ion (A icle 45, now 21A), as well as he
igh o a pollu ion- ee en i onmen (A icle 48A). As a esul he non-jus iciable p inciples a e con e ed in o legally
en o ceable human igh s.
I we iew he DPSPs as me e idealis ic in en ions, we misunde s and hei p o ound cons i u ional ole. They
a e he guiding s a o legisla i e and execu i e ac ion, a con inuous mo al and poli ical impe a i e on he s a e o
s i e owa ds es ablishing social and economic democ acy. They a e he sou ce om which a as body o social
wel a e legisla ion— om land e o ms and en i onmen al p o ec ion ac s o igh s-based laws on educa ion, wo k, and
in o ma ion—d aws i s inspi a ion. By se ing hese s anda ds, he DPSPs ensu e ha he concep o human igh s in
India is no s a ic o limi ed o ci il libe ies alone bu is an e e -e ol ing p ojec aimed a achie ing a mo e equi able
and jus social o de .
The Ha monious Cons uc ion: Con lic o Collabo a ion
Ini ially, he e was a pe cei ed con lic be ween jus iciable Righ s and non-jus iciable P inciples. Howe e ,
he judicia y, in a se ies o landma k judgmen s, has e ol ed he doc ine o ha monious cons uc ion. The Judicia y
has held ha he wo a e no only complemen a y bu also supplemen a y o each o he . They a e he conscience o he
Cons i u ion. I is impe a i e ha he s a e s i es o achie e he goals se ou in he DPSPs wi hou b eaching
Fundamen al Righ s. The Cou s now in e p e Fundamen al Righ s in he ligh o he DPSPs. Fo ins ance, he igh o
li e (A icle 21) has been expanded o include many DPSP ideals like ee legal aid (A icle 39A), a heal hy
en i onmen (A icle 48A), and humane condi ions o wo k (A icle 42).
The Indian Cons i u ion p o ides a obus and dynamic amewo k o he p o ec ion and p omo ion o human
igh s. Th ough i s enligh ened p o isions, co ec i e amendmen s, and mos impo an ly, a p oac i e judicia y, i has
p o en o be a li ing o ganism capable o adap ing o new challenges. F om p o ec ing indi iduals om s a e excesses
o manda ing he s a e o p o ide condi ions o a digni ied li e, i s scope is as .
Howe e , he Human Righ s p ojec is no wi hou ials. Challenges like cus odial iolence, disc imina ion
based on cas e and eligion, h ea s o eedom o exp ession, and he slow ealiza ion o socio-economic igh s pe sis .
The gap be ween legal p omise and li ed eali y o millions emains he cen al challenge. The u u e o human igh s
in India depends on a con inued iad o a conscious ci izen y, a esponsi e legisla u e, and a cou ageous judicia y, all
uni ed in hei commi men o he cons i u ional conscience.
Re e ences
Books:
1. Basu, D.D. (2022). In oduc ion o he Cons i u ion o India. LexisNexis.
2. Aus in, G an ille. (1966). The Indian Cons i u ion: Co ne s one o a Na ion. Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
3. Baxi, Upend a. (1985).Cou age, C a and Con en ion: The Indian Sup eme Cou in he Eigh ies. N.M. T ipa hi.
4. Sa he, S.P. (2002). Judicial Ac i ism in India: T ansg essing Bo de s and En o cing Limi s. Ox o d Uni e si y
P ess.
5. Singh, M.P. (2019). V.N. Shukla's Cons i u ion o India. Eas e n Book Company.
Jou nal o Resea ch and De elopmen
A Mul idisciplina y In e na ional Le el Re e ed and Double Blind Pee Re iewed, Open Access
ISSN : 2230-9578 | Websi e: h ps://j d b.o g Volume-17, Issue-9(V)| Sep embe 2025
53
B. Landma k Judgmen s (Case Ci a ions):
1. Maneka Gandhi . Union o India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
2. F ancis Co alie Mullin . The Adminis a o , Union Te i o y o Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746.
3. S.P. Gup a . Union o India, 1981 Supp SCC 87.
4. Bandhua Muk i Mo cha . Union o India, AIR 1984 SC 802.
5. M.C. Meh a . Union o India, AIR 1987 SC 1086.
6. Vishakha & O he s . S a e o Rajas han, AIR 1997 SC 3011.
7. Jus ice K.S. Pu aswamy (Re d.) . Union o India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
8. Na ej Singh Joha . Union o India, (2018) 10 SCC 1.
