Role of Indian Judiciary for the Protection of Human Rights

TANMOY MUKHERJEE INSTITUTE OF JURIDICAL SCIENCE

Dr. Tanmoy Mukherjee

[ Advocate]

Role of Indian Judiciary for the Protection of Human Rights-

Tanmoy Mukherjee

      [Advocate]

 A public interest litigation (PIL) can be filed in any High Court under Article 226 or directly in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. It is not necessary that the petitioner has suffered a grievance to litigate.

PIL is a right given to the socially conscious members of a public spirited NGO to file a petition on a public cause by seeking judicial redressal for public injury.

Judicial Pronouncements-

 Harbindar Kaur V. Harmendar Singh AIR 1983 SC-

-The court rejected the plea. The personal law was discriminatory towards gender inequality in India. It also observed that introduction of Constitutional Law into the home was most inappropriate.

 Md. Ahmed Khan V. Saha Banu Begam AIR 1985 SC-

-It was held that the Muslim Personal Law was challenged. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Saha Banu and granted alimony which the Muslim community failed as an encroachment on Muslim Law.

 M.C. Mehta Vs Union of India AIR 1986 SC-

-The petitioner filed a PIL for the escape of poisonous gases by a plant. The Court in this case extended the scope of Article 21 and Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Olga Tellis V. Bombay Municipal Corporation AIR 1986-

-It was held that right to livelihood is a right to life under Article 21.

Sarala Mudgal Vs Union of India AIR 1995 SC-

- If a Hindu converts to Muslim and then have a second marriage, he cannot do so, irrespective of the fact that polygamy is allowed in the Islamic Law.

Vishaka V. State of Rajasthan AIR 1997 SC-

- The petitioners demanded enforcement of fundamental rights for working women under Article 14, Article 15, and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court issued the guidelines for the women for workplace. The Supreme Court also provided the definition of sexual harassment at the workplace along with guidelines to deal with the same.

 Selvi vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC-

- The Supreme Court in this case held that brain mapping, lie detector tests and Narco analysis as unconstitutional and violative under Article 20(3).

 NALSA vs Union of India AIR 2014 SC-

-The court recognized the rights of the transgender as a third gender. Also ordered the Government to treat them as minorities.

Shreya Singal vs Union of India AIR 2015 SC-

-The Apex Court held Section 66(A) of the Information Technology Act which allowed arrest for objectionable content posted on the internet as unconstitutional and hence struck down by the impugned.

Paramanand Khatara vs. Union of India AIR 1989-

-The Supreme Court held that every doctor whether at a Government hospital or otherwise has a professional obligation to extent his or her services with the expertise for protecting life.

Hussainara Khatun vs. State of Bihar AIR 1979 SC-

 -Speedy trial is also included in Right to Life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.