Hello students, welcome to today's lesson on Democratic Rights, which is Chapter 5 of your Civics textbook. I am so happy to be here with you to explore this very important chapter. Before we begin, let me tell you why this chapter is so crucial. In the previous chapters, we learned about how democracy works through elections and institutions. But do you know what makes a democracy truly democratic? It is the rights that citizens have. So let's begin our journey into understanding democratic rights.
Let me start by asking you to recall what we have learned in the earlier chapters. In Chapter 1, we discussed that a comprehensive definition of democracy includes the protection of rights and freedoms. In Chapter 2, you learned that our Constitution makers believed that fundamental rights are essential for the all-round development of individuals. In Chapter 3, we saw that every adult citizen of India has the right to vote and to be elected to government. And in Chapter 4, we understood that if a law is against the Constitution, every citizen has the right to approach the courts. So you see, rights have been mentioned in each chapter. Today we will study them in detail.
Now students, let us imagine what it would be like to live without rights. This will help us understand why rights are so important. Let me share three real-life examples from different parts of the world.
The first example is about Prison in Guantanamo Bay. About six hundred people were secretly picked up by US forces from all over the world and put in a prison in Guantanamo Bay, which is an area near Cuba controlled by the American Navy. One of these prisoners was Anas's father, Jamil El-Banna. The American government said these people were enemies of the US and linked to the attack on New York on 11th September 2001. In most cases, the governments of their countries were not asked or even informed about their imprisonment. Like other prisoners, El-Banna's family got to know he was in that prison only through the media. Families of prisoners, media, or even United Nations representatives were not allowed to meet them. The US army arrested them, interrogated them, and decided whether to keep them there or not. There was no trial before any magistrate in the US. Nor could these prisoners approach courts in their own country.
Amnesty International, which is an international human rights organisation, collected information on the condition of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and reported that the prisoners were being tortured in ways that violated US laws. They were being denied the treatment that even prisoners of war must get as per international treaties. Many prisoners had tried protesting against these conditions by going on a hunger strike. Prisoners were not released even after they were officially declared not guilty. An independent inquiry by the United Nations supported these findings. The UN Secretary General said the prison in Guantanamo Bay should be closed down. But the US government refused to accept these pleas.
Now students, think about this. These people were arrested without any trial, they could not meet their families, they could not approach any court, and they were tortured. This is what it means to live without rights. This is a clear violation of basic human rights.
The second example is about Ethnic massacre in Kosovo. You might think that this kind of thing happens only in absolute monarchies, not in countries that choose their rulers through elections. But let me tell you about what happened in Kosovo. This was a province of Yugoslavia before its split. In this province, the population was overwhelmingly ethnic Albanian. But in the entire country, Serbs were in majority. A narrow-minded Serb nationalist Milosevic had won the election. His government was very hostile to the Kosovo Albanians. He wanted the Serbs to dominate the country. Many Serb leaders thought that ethnic minorities like Albanians should either leave the country or accept the dominance of the Serbs.
This is what happened to an Albanian family in a town in Kosovo in April 1999. A seventy-four-year-old woman named Batisha Hoxha was sitting in her kitchen with her seventy-seven-year-old husband Izet, staying warm by the stove. They had heard explosions but did not realise that Serbian troops had already entered the town. The next thing she knew, five or six soldiers had burst through the front door and were demanding, "Where are your children?" They shot Izet three times in the chest. With her husband dying before her, the soldiers pulled the wedding ring off her finger and told her to get out. She said, "I was not even outside the gate when they burned the house." She was standing on the street in the rain with no house, no husband, no possessions but the clothes she was wearing.
This news report was typical of what happened to thousands of Albanians in that period. Remember students, this massacre was being carried out by the army of their own country, working under the direction of a leader who came to power through democratic elections. This was one of the worst instances of killings based on ethnic prejudices in recent times. Finally, several other countries intervened to stop this massacre. Milosevic lost power and was tried by the International Court of Justice for crimes against humanity.
The third example is about Citizens' Rights in Saudi Arabia. The case of Guantanamo Bay looks like an exception because it involves the government of one country denying rights to citizens of another country. So let us look at the case of Saudi Arabia and the position of citizens with regard to their government. Consider these facts. The country is ruled by a hereditary king and the people have no role in electing or changing their rulers. The king selects the legislature as well as the executive. He appoints the judges and can change any of their decisions. Citizens cannot form political parties or any political organisations. Media cannot report anything that the monarch does not like. There is no freedom of religion. Every citizen is required to be Muslim. Non-Muslim residents can follow their religion in private, but not in public. Women are subjected to many public restrictions. The testimony of one man is considered equal to that of two women.
This is true not just of Saudi Arabia. There are many countries in the world where several of these conditions exist.
Now students, after reading these three examples, I want you to think about what you would have wished if you were in their position. If you could, what would you do to ensure that such things do not happen to anyone? You would perhaps desire a system where security, dignity and fair play are assured to everyone. You might want, for example, that no one should be arrested without proper reason and information. And if someone is arrested, he or she should have a fair chance to defend themselves. You might agree that such assurance cannot apply to everything. One has to be reasonable in what one expects and demands of everyone else, for one has to grant the same to everyone. But you might insist that the assurance does not remain on paper, that there is someone to enforce these assurances, that those who violate these are punished. In other words, you might want a system where at least a minimum is guaranteed to everyone, powerful or weak, rich or poor, majority or minority. This is the spirit behind thinking about rights.
Now let us understand what exactly are rights. Students, rights are claims of a person over other fellow beings, over the society and over the government. All of us want to live happily, without fear and without being subjected to degraded treatment. For this we expect others to behave in such a way that does not harm us or hurt us. Equally, our actions should not harm or hurt others. So a right is possible when you make a claim that is equally possible for others. You cannot have a right that harms or hurts others. You cannot have a right to play a game in such a way that it breaks the neighbour's window. The Serbs in Yugoslavia could not have claimed the whole country for themselves. The claims we make should be reasonable. They should be such that can be made available to others in an equal measure. Thus, a right comes with an obligation to respect other rights.
Just because we claim something does not become our right. It has to be recognised by the society we live in. Rights acquire meaning only in society. Every society makes certain rules to regulate our conduct. They tell us what is right and what is wrong. What is recognised by the society as rightful becomes the basis of rights. That is why the notion of rights changes from time to time and society to society. Two hundred years ago, anyone who said that women should have the right to vote would have sounded strange. Today, not granting them vote in Saudi Arabia appears strange.
When the socially recognised claims are written into law, they acquire real force. Otherwise they remain merely as natural or moral rights. The prisoners in Guantanamo Bay had a moral claim not to be tortured or humiliated. But they could not go to anyone to enforce this claim. When law recognises some claims, they become enforceable. We can then demand their application. When fellow citizens or the government do not respect these rights, we call it violation or infringement of our rights. In such circumstances, citizens can approach courts to protect their rights. So, if we want to call any claim a right, it has to have these three qualities. Rights are reasonable claims of persons recognised by society and sanctioned by law.
Now students, let me ask you a very important question. Why do we need rights in a democracy? Rights are necessary for the very sustenance of a democracy. In a democracy, every citizen has to have the right to vote and the right to be elected to government. For democratic elections to take place, it is necessary that citizens should have the right to express their opinion, form political parties and take part in political activities.
Rights also perform a very special role in a democracy. Rights protect minorities from the oppression of majority. They ensure that the majority cannot do whatever it likes. Rights are guarantees which can be used when things go wrong. Things may go wrong when some citizens may wish to take away the rights of others. This usually happens when those in majority want to dominate those in minority. The government should protect the citizens' rights in such a situation. But sometimes elected governments may not protect or may even attack the rights of their own citizens. That is why some rights need to be placed higher than the government, so that the government cannot violate them. In most democracies, the basic rights of the citizen are written down in the constitution.
Now let us focus on India. In India, like most other democracies in the world, these rights are mentioned in the Constitution. Some rights which are fundamental to our life are given a special status. They are called Fundamental Rights. We have already read in Chapter 2 the preamble to our Constitution. It talks about securing for all its citizens equality, liberty and justice. Fundamental Rights put this promise into effect. They are an important basic feature of India's Constitution.
Now students, you might wonder, everyone knows that the rich can have better lawyers in the courts. What is the point in talking about equality before law? This is a very good question. But let me explain. The Constitution says that the government shall not deny to any person in India equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws. It means that the laws apply in the same manner to all, regardless of a person's status. This is called the rule of law. Rule of law is the foundation of any democracy. It means that no person is above the law. There cannot be any distinction between a political leader, government official and an ordinary citizen.
Every citizen, from the Prime Minister to a small farmer in a remote village, is subjected to the same laws. No person can legally claim any special treatment or privilege just because he or she happens to be an important person. For example, a few years ago a former Prime Minister of the country faced a court case on charges of cheating. The court finally declared that he was not guilty. But as long as the case continued, he had to go to the court, give evidence and file papers, just like any other citizen.
This basic position is further clarified in the Constitution by spelling out some implications of the Right to Equality. The government shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. Every citizen shall have access to public places like shops, restaurants, hotels, and cinema halls. Similarly, there shall be no restriction with regard to the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads, playgrounds and places of public resorts maintained by government or dedicated to the use of general public. This might appear very obvious, but it was necessary to incorporate these rights in the Constitution of our country where the traditional caste system did not allow people from some communities to access all public places.
The same principle applies to public jobs. All citizens have equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment or appointment to any position in the government. No citizen shall be discriminated against or made ineligible for employment on the grounds mentioned above. You have read in Chapter 4 that the Government of India has provided reservations for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. Various governments have different schemes for giving preference to women, poor or physically handicapped in some kinds of jobs. Are these reservations against the right to equality? They are not. For equality does not mean giving everyone the same treatment, no matter what they need. Equality means giving everyone an equal opportunity to achieve whatever one is capable of. Sometimes it is necessary to give special treatment to someone in order to ensure equal opportunity. This is what job reservations do. Just to clarify this, the Constitution says that reservations of this kind are not a violation of the Right to Equality.
Let me give you an example to understand this better. Think about a four hundred metre race. Why are the competitors in the outer lane placed ahead of those in the inner lane at the starting point of the race? What would happen if all the competitors start the race from the same line? If all start from the same line, the competitor in the outer lane would have to run a longer distance than the one in the inner lane. That would not be an equal and fair race. So, in a fair race, competitors in outer lanes start ahead so that everyone runs the same distance. Similarly, job reservations are like giving some people a head start to ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity to compete. This is the principle behind equality.
Similarly, observe any big public building. Is there a ramp for physically handicapped? Are there any other facilities that make it possible for physically handicapped to use the building in the same way as anyone else? Should these special facilities be provided if it leads to extra expenditure on the building? Do these special provisions go against the principle of equality? The answer is no. These special provisions actually promote equality by ensuring that everyone can use the building equally, regardless of their physical abilities.
The principle of non-discrimination extends to social life as well. The Constitution mentions one extreme form of social discrimination, the practice of untouchability, and clearly directs the government to put an end to it. The practice of untouchability has been forbidden in any form. Untouchability here does not only mean refusal to touch people belonging to certain castes. It refers to any belief or social practice that violates others' right to freedom.
In 1999, P. Sainath wrote a series of news reports in The Hindu describing untouchability and caste discrimination that was still being practiced against Dalits or persons belonging to Scheduled Castes. He travelled to various parts of the country and found that in many places, tea stalls kept two kinds of cups, one for Dalits and one for others. Barbers refused to serve Dalit clients. Dalit students were made to sit separately in the classroom or drink water from separate pitchers. Dalit grooms were not allowed to ride a horse in the wedding procession. Dalits were not allowed to use common handpumps, or if they did, the handpump was washed to purify it. All these fall under the definition of untouchability.
Now let us move on to the Right to Freedom. Freedom means absence of constraints. In practical life, it means absence of interference in our affairs by others, be it other individuals or the government. We want to live in society, but we want to be free. We want to do things in the way we want to do them. Others should not dictate us what we should do. So, under the Indian Constitution, all citizens have the right to freedom of speech and expression, assembly in a peaceful manner, form associations and unions, move freely throughout the country, reside in any part of the country, and practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
Freedom of speech and expression is one of the essential features of any democracy. Our ideas and personality develop only when we are able to freely communicate with others. You may think differently from others. Even if a hundred people think in one way, you should have the freedom to think differently and express your views accordingly. You may disagree with a policy of government or activities of an association. You are free to criticise the government or the activities of the association in your conversations with parents, friends and relatives. You may publicise your views through a pamphlet, magazine or newspaper. You can do it through paintings, poetry or songs. However, you cannot use this freedom to instigate violence against others. You cannot use it to incite people to rebel against government. Neither can you use it to defame others by saying false and mean things that cause damage to a person's reputation.
Citizens have the freedom to hold meetings, processions, rallies and demonstrations on any issue. They may want to discuss a problem, exchange ideas, mobilise public support to a cause, or seek votes for a candidate or party in an election. But such meetings have to be peaceful. They should not lead to public disorder or breach of peace in society. Those who participate in these activities and meetings should not carry weapons with them.
Citizens also can form associations. For example, workers in a factory can form a workers' union to promote their interests. Some people in a town may come together to form an association to campaign against corruption or pollution.
As citizens, we have the freedom to travel to any part of the country. We are free to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India. Let us say a person who belongs to the state of Assam wants to start a business in Hyderabad. He may not have any connection with that city, he may not have even seen it ever. Yet as a citizen of India, he has the right to set up base there. This right allows lakhs of people to migrate from villages to towns and from poorer regions of the countries to prosperous regions and big cities. The same freedom extends to choice of occupations. No one can force you to do or not to do a certain job. Women cannot be told that some kinds of occupations are not for them. People from deprived castes cannot be kept to their traditional occupations.
The Constitution says that no person can be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. It means that no person can be killed unless the court has ordered a death sentence. It also means that a government or police officer cannot arrest or detain any citizen unless he has proper legal justification. Even when they do, they have to follow some procedures. A person who is arrested and detained in custody will have to be informed of the reasons for such arrest and detention. A person who is arrested and detained shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of arrest. Such a person has the right to consult a lawyer or engage a lawyer for his defence.
Now students, let me ask you to recall the cases of threat to the most basic of all, Guantanamo Bay and Kosovo. The liberties, the protection of victims in both these cases faced a threat to their individual life and personal liberty. Are these cases instances of violation of right to freedom? If yes, which constitutional provision does each of these violate?
Let us look at some more examples. The government of India banned Salman Rushdie's book Satanic Verses on the ground that it was disrespectful to Prophet Mohammed and was likely to hurt the feelings of the Muslim community. This is a restriction on freedom of speech and expression, but it may be justified under reasonable restrictions. Every film has to be approved by the Censor Board of the government before it can be shown to the public. But there is no such restriction if the same story is published in a book or a magazine. This is a restriction on freedom of expression through visual medium. The government is considering a proposal that there will be industrial zones or sectors of economy where workers will not be allowed to form unions or go on strike. This would violate the right to form associations. City administration has imposed a ban on use of public microphones after 10 p.m. in view of the approaching secondary school examinations. This is a reasonable restriction in the interest of public peace and students' welfare.
Now, let me tell you about the Right against Exploitation. Once the right to liberty and equality is granted, it follows that every citizen has a right not to be exploited. Yet the Constitution makers thought it was necessary to write down certain clear provisions to prevent exploitation of the weaker sections of the society.
The Constitution mentions three specific evils and declares these illegal. First, the Constitution prohibits traffic in human beings. Traffic here means selling and buying of human beings, usually women, for immoral purposes. Second, our Constitution also prohibits forced labour or begar in any form. Begar is a practice where the worker is forced to render service to the master free of charge or at a nominal remuneration. When this practice takes place on a life-long basis, it is called the practice of bonded labour. Finally, the Constitution also prohibits child labour. No one can employ a child below the age of fourteen to work in any factory or mine or in any other hazardous work, such as railways and ports. Using this as a basis, many laws have been made to prohibit children from working in industries such as beedi making, firecrackers and matches, printing and dyeing.
Now let me share some news reports with you. A petition was filed in the Madras High Court. The petitioner said a large number of children aged between seven and twelve were taken from villages in Salem district and sold at auctions at Olur Nagar in Kerala's Thrissur district. The petitioner requested the courts to order the government to check these facts. This is a clear case of violation of the right against exploitation, specifically the prohibition on traffic in human beings and child labour.
In another case, children from the age of five were employed in the iron ore mines in the Hospet, Sandur and the Ikal areas in Karnataka. Children were forced to carry out digging, breaking stones, loading, dumping, transporting and processing of iron ore with no safety equipment, fixed wages and working hours. They handled a high-level of toxic wastes and were exposed to mine dust, which was above the permissible level. The school dropout rate in the region was very high. This is a clear violation of the prohibition on child labour and also the right to freedom.
The latest annual survey conducted by the National Sample Survey Organisation found that the number of female child labourers was growing both in rural and urban areas. The survey revealed there were forty-one female child labourers per thousand worker population in rural areas as against the previous figure of thirty-four per thousand. The figure for male child had remained at thirty-one. This is a matter of great concern.
Now let us discuss the Right to Freedom of Religion. Right to freedom includes right to freedom of religion as well. In this case too, the Constitution makers were very particular to state it clearly. You have already read in Chapter 2 that India is a secular state. Most people in India, like anywhere else in the world, follow different religions. Some may not believe in any religion. Secularism is based on the idea that the state is concerned only with relations among human beings, and not with the relation between human beings and God. A secular state is one that does not establish any one religion as official religion. Indian secularism practices an attitude of a principled and equal distance from all religions. The state has to be neutral and impartial in dealing with all religions.
Every person has a right to profess, practice and propagate the religion he or she believes in. Every religious group or sect is free to manage its religious affairs. A right to propagate one's religion, however, does not mean that a person has right to compel another person to convert into his religion by means of force, fraud, inducement or allurement. Of course, a person is free to change religion on his or her own will. Freedom to practice religion does not mean that a person can do whatever he wants in the name of religion. For example, one cannot sacrifice animals or human beings as offerings to supernatural forces or gods. Religious practices which treat women as inferior or those that infringe women's freedom are not allowed. For example, one cannot force a widow to shave head or wear white clothes.
The Constitution does not give people their religion. Then how can it give people the right to practise their religion? Thus, the government cannot compel any person to pay any taxes for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious institution. There shall be no religious instruction in the government educational institutions. In educational institutions managed by private bodies, no person shall be compelled to take part in any religious instruction or to attend any religious worship.
Now let us look at some news reports and identify the right that is being debated in each case. An emergency session of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee rejected the proposal to form a separate body to manage the affairs of Sikh shrines in Haryana. It warned the government that the Sikh community would not tolerate any interference in their religious affairs. This is about the right to manage religious affairs, which comes under the right to freedom of religion.
The Allahabad High Court quashed the Central law which gave Aligarh Muslim University its minority status, and held illegal the reservation of seats for Muslims in its postgraduate medical courses. This is about the cultural and educational rights of minorities.
The Rajasthan Government has decided to enact an anti-conversion law. Christian leaders have said that the Bill would aggravate the sense of insecurity and fear in the minds of minorities. This is about the right to freedom of religion, specifically the right to propagate one's religion.
Now let us discuss Cultural and Educational Rights. You might wonder why the Constitution makers were so particular in providing written guarantees of the rights of the minorities. Why are there no special guarantees for the majority? Well, for the simple reason that the working of democracy gives power to the majority. It is the language, culture and religion of minorities that needs special protection. Otherwise, they may get neglected or undermined under the impact of the language, religion and culture of the majority. That is why the Constitution specifies the cultural and educational rights of the minorities.
Any section of citizens with a distinct language or culture have a right to conserve it. Admission to any educational institution maintained by government or receiving government aid cannot be denied to any citizen on the ground of religion or language. All minorities have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
Here, minority does not mean only religious minority at the national level. In some places, people speaking a particular language are in majority; people speaking a different language are in a minority. For example, Telugu speaking people form a majority in Andhra Pradesh. But they are a minority in the neighbouring State of Karnataka. Sikhs constitute a majority in Punjab. But they are a minority in Rajasthan, Haryana and Delhi.
Now students, how can we secure these rights? Fundamental Rights are guaranteed against the actions of the Legislatures, the Executive, and any other authorities instituted by the government. There can be no law or action that violates the Fundamental Rights. If any act of the Legislature or the Executive takes away or limits any of the Fundamental Rights, it will be invalid. We can challenge such laws of the central and state governments, the policies and actions of the government or the governmental organisations like the nationalised banks or electricity boards. Courts also enforce the Fundamental Rights against private individuals and bodies. The Supreme Court and High Courts have the power to issue directions, orders or writs for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights. They can also award compensation to the victims and punishment to the violators.
If rights are like guarantees, they are of no use if there is no one to honour them. The fundamental rights in the Constitution are important because they are enforceable. We have a right to seek the enforcement of the above mentioned rights. This is called the Right to Constitutional Remedies. This itself is a Fundamental Right. This right makes other rights effective. It is possible that sometimes our rights may be violated by fellow citizens, private bodies or by the government. When any of our rights are violated, we can seek remedy through courts. If it is a Fundamental Right, we can directly approach the Supreme Court or the High Court of a state. That is why Dr. Ambedkar called the Right to Constitutional Remedies, the heart and soul of our Constitution.
Can the President of India stop you from approaching the Supreme Court to secure your fundamental rights? The answer is no. The President cannot stop you because the Right to Constitutional Remedies is itself a Fundamental Right that cannot be taken away.
Now let me tell you about the National Human Rights Commission. Many cases of human rights violations in diverse fields are being brought to the public notice from across India. Human rights organisations and the media often criticise government agencies for not seriously pursuing these cases or catching the culprits. Someone had to intervene on behalf of the victims. This is where the National Human Rights Commission stepped in. This is an independent commission set up by law in 1993. Like the judiciary, the Commission is independent of the government. The Commission is appointed by the President and includes retired judges, officers and eminent citizens. Yet it does not have the burden of deciding court cases. So it can focus on helping the victims secure their human rights. These include all the rights granted to the citizens by the Constitution. For NHRC, human rights also include the rights mentioned in the UN sponsored international treaties that India has signed.
The NHRC cannot by itself punish the guilty. That is the responsibility of courts. The NHRC is there to make independent and credible inquiry into any case of violation of human rights. It also inquires into any case of abetment of such violation or negligence in controlling it by any government officer and takes other general steps to promote human rights in the country. The Commission presents its findings and recommendations to the government or intervenes in the court on behalf of the victims. It has wide ranging powers to carry out its inquiry. Like any court, it can summon witnesses, question any government official, demand any official paper, visit any prison for inspection or send its own team for on-the-spot inquiry.
Any citizen of India can write a letter to this address to complain against the violation of human rights: National Human Rights Commission, G.P.O. Complex, INA, New Delhi 110023. There is no fee or any formal procedure to approach the NHRC. Like NHRC, there are State Human Rights Commissions in all the 28 states of the country.
Now let us discuss the Expanding Scope of Rights. We began this chapter by discussing the significance of rights. In much of the chapter, we have focussed only on Fundamental Rights in the Constitution. You might think that Fundamental Rights granted by the Constitution are the only rights citizens have. This is not true. While Fundamental Rights are the source of all rights, our Constitution and law offers a wider range of rights. Over the years, the scope of rights has expanded.
Sometimes it leads to expansion in the legal rights that the citizen can enjoy. From time to time, the courts gave judgments to expand the scope of rights. Certain rights like right to freedom of press, right to information, and right to education are derived from the Fundamental Rights. Now school education has become a right for Indian citizens. The governments are responsible for providing free and compulsory education to all children up to the age of 14 years. Parliament has enacted a law giving the right to information to the citizens. This Act was made under the Fundamental Right to freedom of thought and expression. We have a right to seek information from government offices. Recently, the Supreme Court has expanded the meaning of the right to life to include the right to food. Also, rights are not limited only to Fundamental Rights as enumerated in the Constitution.
Constitution provides many more rights, which may not be Fundamental Rights. For example, the right to property is not a Fundamental Right but it is a constitutional right. Right to vote in elections is an important constitutional right.
Sometimes the expansion takes place in what is called human rights. These are universal moral claims that may or may not have been recognised by law. In that sense, these claims are not rights going by the definition that we presented earlier. With the expansion of democracy all over the world, there is greater pressure on governments to accept these claims. Some international covenants have also contributed to the expansion of rights.
Thus the scope of rights has been expanding and new rights are evolving over time. They are result of struggle of the people. New rights emerge as societies develop or as new constitutions are made. The Constitution of South Africa guarantees its citizens several kinds of new rights, like the right to privacy, so that citizens or their home cannot be searched, their phones cannot be tapped, their communication cannot be opened. The right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being. The right to have access to adequate housing.
Many people think that the right to work, right to health, right to minimum livelihood and right to privacy should be made Fundamental Rights in India as well. What do you think?
Now students, let us solve the exercises given at the end of the chapter.
Exercise 1: Which of the following is not an instance of an exercise of a fundamental right?
Option a is Workers from Bihar go to the Punjab to work on the farms. This is an exercise of the right to move freely throughout the country and the right to reside in any part of the country, which are Fundamental Rights.
Option b is Christian missions set up a chain of missionary schools. This is an exercise of the right to establish and administer educational institutions, which is a cultural and educational right under Fundamental Rights.
Option c is Men and women government employees get the same salary. This is an exercise of the right to equality, specifically equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment.
Option d is Parents' property is inherited by their children. This is not a Fundamental Right. The right to property was removed from the list of Fundamental Rights by the 44th Amendment in 1978. It is now a constitutional right under Article 300A, but not a Fundamental Right. So the answer is d.
Exercise 2: Which of the following freedoms is not available to an Indian citizen?
Option a is Freedom to criticise the government. This is available as part of freedom of speech and expression.
Option b is Freedom to participate in armed revolution. This is not available. The Constitution does not allow violent means to change the government. The right to constitutional remedies provides peaceful ways to address grievances.
Option c is Freedom to start a movement to change the government. This is available as part of the right to form associations and the right to assemble peacefully.
Option d is Freedom to oppose the central values of the Constitution. This is not available. The Constitution itself provides the framework of values, and while you can criticise specific policies, you cannot oppose the central values of the Constitution itself.
So the answer could be b or d. But looking at the options more carefully, freedom to participate in armed revolution is clearly not available. Also, freedom to oppose the central values of the Constitution is not available as it would undermine the very foundation of the democratic system. Between these two, the more direct answer is b, as armed revolution involves violence which is not protected under any fundamental right.
Actually, let me reconsider. The question asks which freedom is not available. Both b and d are not available. But the most direct answer is b because armed revolution is explicitly not permitted. The answer is b.
Exercise 3: Which of the following rights is available under the Indian Constitution?
Option a is Right to work. This is not explicitly mentioned as a Fundamental Right. It is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy.
Option b is Right to adequate livelihood. This is also part of the Directive Principles, not a Fundamental Right.
Option c is Right to protect one's culture. Yes, this is available under Cultural and Educational Rights, which is a Fundamental Right.
Option d is Right to privacy. This is not explicitly mentioned as a Fundamental Right in the Constitution. While the Supreme Court has interpreted that privacy may be protected under Article 21, it is not listed as a separate Fundamental Right in the original Constitution.
So the answer is c.
Exercise 4: Name the Fundamental Right under which each of the following rights falls.
a Freedom to propagate one's religion. This falls under the Right to Freedom of Religion.
b Right to life. This falls under the Right to Freedom, specifically Article 21 which deals with protection of life and personal liberty.
c Abolition of untouchability. This falls under the Right to Equality.
d Ban on bonded labour. This falls under the Right against Exploitation.
Exercise 5: Which of these statements about the relationship between democracy and rights is more valid? Give reasons for your preference.
Option a says Every country that is a democracy gives rights to its citizens. This is not always true. There have been instances where democracies have violated rights or not given full rights to all citizens.
Option b says Every country that gives rights to its citizens is a democracy. This is also not always true. Some non-democratic countries might give certain rights to their citizens, but they may not have democratic elections or other democratic institutions.
Option c says Giving rights is good, but it is not necessary for a democracy. This is not accurate because without rights, a system cannot truly be called a democracy.
The most valid statement is actually a, with some caveats. Democracy requires certain basic rights like the right to vote and freedom of expression. However, the statement should be understood as saying that a true democracy must give rights to its citizens. So the answer is a.
Exercise 6: Are these restrictions on the right to freedom justified? Give reasons for your answer.
a Indian citizens need permission to visit some border areas of the country for reasons of security. This is justified because the government has a reasonable interest in protecting national security. The restriction is reasonable and in the larger interest of the country.
b Outsiders are not allowed to buy property in some areas to protect the interest of the local population. This is a controversial issue. Some states have restrictions on outsiders buying agricultural land to protect the interests of local farmers. This could be justified as a reasonable restriction to prevent exploitation of local people, but it also limits the freedom to own property.
c The government bans the publication of a book that can go against the ruling party in the next elections. This is not justified. This is a clear violation of freedom of speech and expression. Banning a book simply because it is critical of the government is not a reasonable restriction. It is an abuse of power.
Exercise 7: Manoj went to a college to apply for admission into an MBA course. The clerk refused to take his application and said, "You, the son of a sweeper, wish to be a manager! Has anyone done this job in your community? Go to the municipality office and apply for a sweeper's position." Which of Manoj's fundamental rights are being violated in this instance? Spell these out in a letter from Manoj to the district collector.
The fundamental rights being violated are:
1. Right to Equality under Article 14, which guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws. 2. Right against Discrimination under Article 15, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. 3. Right to Equality of Opportunity in matters of public employment under Article 16. 4. Right to Freedom under Article 19, which includes the freedom to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
Here is a letter that Manoj could write:
"Dear Sir,
I am writing to bring to your attention a grave violation of my Fundamental Rights. I am Manoj Kumar, son of Ram Singh, who works as a sweeper in the Municipal Office. I belong to the Scheduled Caste community.
Recently, I went to apply for admission to the MBA course at your college. The clerk at the admission office refused to accept my application and made highly discriminatory remarks. He said, 'You, the son of a sweeper, wish to be a manager! Has anyone done this job in your community? Go to the municipality office and apply for a sweeper's position.'
This behavior is a clear violation of my Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. First, it violates my Right to Equality under Article 14, which guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws. Second, it violates Article 15, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of caste. Third, it violates Article 16, which guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Fourth, it violates Article 19, which gives me the freedom to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation.
The Constitution of India clearly states that all citizens have equal access to public places and equal opportunity in matters relating to employment. The practice of untouchability has been abolished. The clerk's behavior reflects a deeply entrenched casteist mindset that the Constitution seeks to eliminate.
I request you to take strict action against the clerk and ensure that I am allowed to apply for admission on the same basis as any other citizen. I also request you to direct the college authorities to sensitize their staff about the Fundamental Rights of citizens.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely, Manoj Kumar"
Exercise 8: When Madhurima went to the property registration office, the Registrar told her, "You can't write your name as Madhurima Banerjee d/o A. K. Banerjee. You are married, so you must give your husband's name. Your husband's surname is Rao. So your name should be changed to Madhurima Rao." She did not agree. She said, "If my husband's name has not changed after marriage, why should mine?" In your opinion who is right in this dispute? And why?
In my opinion, Madhurima is right. This is a matter of gender equality. The Registrar's demand reflects a patriarchal mindset that treats women as subordinate to men. The Constitution guarantees equality before law and prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex. The Right to Equality includes equal opportunity in all spheres. There is no legal requirement in India for a married woman to change her name or take her husband's surname. This is a social custom, not a legal obligation. Madhurima has the right to retain her maiden name and continue using her father's name. The Registrar's insistence is a violation of Madhurima's Fundamental Right to Equality and also her right to freedom of expression. She should be allowed to register the property in her preferred name.
Exercise 9: Thousands of tribals and other forest dwellers gathered at Piparia in Hoshangabad district in Madhya Pradesh to protest against their proposed displacement from the Satpura National Park, Bori Wildlife Sanctuary and Panchmarhi Wildlife Sanctuary. They argue that such a displacement is an attack on their livelihood and beliefs. Government claims that their displacement is essential for the development of the area and for protection of wildlife. Write a petition on behalf of the forest dwellers to the NHRC, a response from the government and a report of the NHRC on this matter.
Here is a petition on behalf of the forest dwellers:
"To, The National Human Rights Commission G.P.O. Complex, INA New Delhi 110023
Subject: Petition regarding violation of Fundamental Rights of tribal and forest dwellers in Piparia, Hoshangabad district, Madhya Pradesh
Respected Sir,
We, the undersigned representatives of the tribal and forest dweller communities of Piparia in Hoshangabad district, Madhya Pradesh, humbly submit this petition before your esteemed Commission to seek justice against the violation of our Fundamental Rights.
We have been living in the forests of Satpura National Park, Bori Wildlife Sanctuary and Panchmarhi Wildlife Sanctuary for generations. Our livelihood depends on the forest. We collect minor forest produce, practice shifting cultivation, and live in harmony with nature. Our cultural and religious beliefs are deeply connected to these forests.
The Government of Madhya Pradesh has proposed to displace us from these areas in the name of development and wildlife protection. We have been given notices to vacate our homes and lands. This displacement is an attack on our Fundamental Rights:
1. Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21: Our livelihood and cultural identity are intimately connected to these forests. Displacing us would deprive us of our means of survival and destroy our traditional way of life.
2. Right to Equality under Article 14: We are being discriminated against without any reasonable classification. The government is treating us differently from other citizens.
3. Right against Exploitation under Article 23: Displacement without proper rehabilitation would force us into bonded labour or other forms of exploitation.
4. Cultural and Educational Rights under Article 29: We have a distinct culture and language that we have the right to conserve. Displacement would lead to the destruction of our cultural heritage.
5. Right to Freedom under Article 19: Our freedom to reside and settle in any part of the country is being violated.
We request the Commission to: 1. Conduct an inquiry into this matter 2. Direct the government to suspend the displacement until proper rehabilitation is ensured 3. Direct the government to consult with us and obtain our free, prior and informed consent before any displacement 4. Ensure that our Fundamental Rights are protected
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully, Representatives of Forest Dwellers of Piparia"
Here is a possible response from the government:
"The Government of Madhya Pradesh respectfully submits its response to the petition filed by the forest dwellers of Piparia.
The government acknowledges that the tribal and forest dwellers have been living in the forest areas for generations. However, the displacement is being carried out in accordance with the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
The primary objective of the displacement is to protect the wildlife and preserve the ecological balance. The area houses several endangered species, and human presence has been detrimental to their habitat.
The government has made adequate rehabilitation provisions for the displaced families, including: 1. Alternative land for settlement 2. Monetary compensation 3. Employment opportunities 4. Access to basic amenities like schools, hospitals and roads
The government maintains that the displacement is in the larger public interest and is essential for the protection of wildlife. The government has followed all legal procedures and has not violated any Fundamental Rights of the petitioners.
The government requests the Commission to dismiss the petition."
Here is a possible report of the NHRC:
"NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Report on the Matter of Forest Dwellers of Piparia, Hoshangabad District, Madhya Pradesh
The Commission has carefully examined the petition filed by the forest dwellers and the response submitted by the Government of Madhya Pradesh.
The Commission observes that:
1. The forest dwellers have been living in the area for generations, and their livelihood is intimately connected to the forest.
2. While the protection of wildlife is important, it cannot be achieved at the cost of violating the Fundamental Rights of the tribal communities.
3. The government has not demonstrated that it has obtained the free, prior and informed consent of the tribal communities before proposing the displacement.
4. The rehabilitation provisions, as stated by the government, appear inadequate and do not address the cultural and religious needs of the tribal communities.
The Commission recommends:
1. The government should immediately suspend the displacement process.
2. The government should conduct a comprehensive impact assessment of the displacement on the tribal communities.
3. The government should explore alternative conservation strategies that do not require the displacement of tribal communities.
4. If displacement is unavoidable, the government should ensure proper rehabilitation that respects the cultural identity and traditional way of life of the tribal communities.
5. The government should consult with the tribal communities and obtain their free, prior and informed consent before proceeding with any displacement.
The Commission directs the government to submit a compliance report within three months.
Sd/- Chairperson National Human Rights Commission"
Exercise 10: Draw a web interconnecting different rights discussed in this chapter. For example, right to freedom of movement is connected to the freedom of occupation. One reason for this is that freedom of movement enables a person to go to place of work within one's village or city or to another village, city or state. Similarly, this right can be used for pilgrimage, connected with freedom to follow one's religion. Draw a circle for each right and mark arrows that show connection between or among different rights. For each arrow, give an example that shows the linkage.
Since this is a written exercise asking you to draw a diagram, I will describe the web of connections:
The main Fundamental Rights and their connections are:
1. Right to Equality connects to: - Right to Freedom of Occupation: Equality ensures that everyone has equal opportunity to choose any occupation. - Right to Freedom of Religion: Equality ensures that people of all religions are treated equally. - Cultural and Educational Rights: Equality ensures that all citizens have equal access to educational institutions.
2. Right to Freedom of Movement connects to: - Right to Freedom of Occupation: To take up a job in another city or state, you need freedom to move. - Right to Freedom of Religion: To go on pilgrimage to any part of the country, you need freedom of movement. - Right to Residence: Freedom to move is connected to the right to reside anywhere.
3. Right to Freedom of Occupation connects to: - Right to Equality: Equality of opportunity in employment. - Right to Freedom of Movement: To go to the place of work. - Right against Exploitation: To prevent forced labour in any occupation.
4. Right to Freedom of Religion connects to: - Right to Freedom of Movement: To travel to religious places. - Cultural and Educational Rights: To conserve one's religious culture. - Right to Equality: No discrimination on grounds of religion.
5. Cultural and Educational Rights connects to: - Right to Freedom of Religion: To preserve religious culture. - Right to Equality: Equal access to educational institutions. - Right to Freedom of Expression: To express one's cultural identity.
6. Right against Exploitation connects to: - Right to Freedom: To prevent forced labour. - Right to Equality: To ensure equality for weaker sections. - Right to Life: To protect life and dignity.
Now students, let me also tell you about the newspaper activity. In every chapter, we have done an exercise on reading the newspaper. Let us now try to write for the newspaper. Take any example from the reports discussed in the chapter or any other local example that you are familiar with and write the following:
1. Letter to the editor highlighting a case of human rights violation. 2. Press release by a human rights organisation. 3. A headline and a news item concerning a Supreme Court order related to Fundamental Rights. 4. Editorial on growing incidents of custodial violence.
Let me give you examples of each:
Letter to the editor:
"Dear Editor,
I am writing to bring to your attention a case of human rights violation that I recently witnessed in my neighborhood. A migrant worker from Bihar was beaten up by the local police on the suspicion of theft. He was not given any opportunity to explain his side. He was detained without proper legal procedures and was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours as required by law. This is a clear violation of his Fundamental Rights under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and the procedural safeguards under Article 22.
I request you to highlight this issue so that the authorities take action against the guilty police officers.
Yours sincerely, [Your Name]"
Press release:
"Human Rights Organisation condemns custodial death
The People's Rights Association today condemned the custodial death of a suspect in police custody in Delhi. The victim was allegedly tortured during interrogation and died due to injuries. This is a grave violation of human rights. We demand immediate action against the guilty officers and reforms in the police system to prevent such incidents."
Headline and news item:
"Supreme Court declares right to privacy as Fundamental Right
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has declared that the right to privacy is a Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court held that privacy is an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty. This judgment will have far-reaching implications for the protection of individual freedoms in India."
Editorial:
"The growing incidents of custodial violence are a matter of great concern. Every year, several prisoners die in police custody due to torture and neglect. This is a serious violation of human rights and undermines the rule of law. The government must take immediate steps to prevent custodial violence, including better training for police officers, installation of CCTV cameras in police stations, and strict action against those responsible for such crimes."
Now students, let me give you a brief summary of everything we have learned in this chapter.
In this chapter, we started by understanding what it means to live without rights through three examples: Guantanamo Bay prison, Kosovo massacre, and the situation in Saudi Arabia. We learned that rights are reasonable claims of persons recognised by society and sanctioned by law. We need rights in a democracy to protect minorities from the oppression of majority and to ensure that the government does not violate the basic freedoms of citizens.
We then studied the Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution. The Right to Equality ensures equality before law, prohibits discrimination, abolishes untouchability, and allows for reasonable reservations for disadvantaged groups. The Right to Freedom includes freedom of speech and expression, assembly, association, movement, residence, and profession. The Right against Exploitation prohibits traffic in human beings, begar or forced labour, and child labour. The Right to Freedom of Religion ensures that every person can profess, practice and propagate their religion, while the state maintains equal distance from all religions. Cultural and Educational Rights protect the language and culture of minorities and give them the right to establish educational institutions.
We also learned about the Right to Constitutional Remedies, which allows citizens to approach courts if their Fundamental Rights are violated. Dr. Ambedkar called this the heart and soul of the Constitution. We learned about the National Human Rights Commission and how it helps in protecting human rights.
Finally, we discussed how the scope of rights has been expanding over time. New rights like the right to education, right to information, and right to privacy have been recognized. The courts have played an important role in expanding the scope of rights.
Students, remember that rights come with responsibilities. We must respect the rights of others while enjoying our own rights. Democracy is not just about elections and institutions; it is about ensuring that every citizen has the freedom to live with dignity. Thank you for listening. I hope you now have a thorough understanding of Democratic Rights.