UGC-NET (NTA) Human Rights and Duties, June-2023

Madan Mohan Malviya's resolution for the removal of untouchability faced a pivotal moment of setback in 1923 when it was dropped by the Hindu Mahasabha, primarily due to staunch opposition from the orthodox faction within the organization.
This internal resistance reflected a clash of ideologies within the Hindu Mahasabha, where the conservative elements resisted the proposed resolution aimed at eradicating untouchability.
The orthodox section, adhering to traditional beliefs and practices, was hesitant to embrace social reforms that challenged deeply ingrained discriminatory customs.
The abandonment of Malviya's resolution highlighted the intricate dynamics within the organization and the broader societal struggle to address age-old social issues.
It underscored the formidable challenges faced by reformers within their own communities, where resistance to change often emanated from deeply rooted cultural and traditional norms.
This episode serves as a poignant illustration of the complexities inherent in attempting to bring about transformative social change, particularly when met with internal opposition from those within the very organizations advocating for societal reform.

The foundational document that unequivocally establishes the rule of criminal liability for grave crimes under International Law is the Rome Statute of 1998. Conceived and adopted in Rome, this treaty is a landmark instrument that gave rise to the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The Rome Statute delineates the jurisdiction, structure, and functions of the ICC, creating a comprehensive legal framework to address some of the most egregious violations of human rights and humanitarian law. It specifically identifies and defines four core international crimes:
genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. The statute places emphasis on individual criminal responsibility, holding individuals accountable for their actions regardless of their official capacity. This shift in international law marked a departure from the traditional focus on state responsibility, introducing a groundbreaking mechanism to ensure justice for victims and combat impunity at the individual level.
The Rome Statute stands as a testament to the international community's commitment to upholding human dignity and enforcing accountability for those who perpetrate the gravest crimes known to humankind.
Its establishment reinforced the global legal architecture for addressing atrocities, emphasizing the principle that no one, regardless of their position or nationality, should be immune from prosecution for such heinous acts.

The pivotal World Conference on Human Rights, held in Vienna in 1993, emerged as a defining moment in reinforcing the Right to Development as a universal and inalienable right, seamlessly integrated into the broader framework of fundamental human rights.
This historic conference brought together representatives from around the globe to deliberate on crucial human rights issues. It not only emphasized the indivisibility and interdependence of human rights but also explicitly underscored the Right to Development as a cornerstone of these rights.
The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted at the conference, articulated that the Right to Development is an integral part of the overall human rights spectrum.
This marked a significant paradigm shift, recognizing that development is not merely an economic endeavour but an essential element of ensuring the dignity and well- being of individuals worldwide.
The Vienna Conference solidified the international community's commitment to addressing development challenges within the human rights framework, acknowledging that sustainable and equitable development is a prerequisite for the realization of all human rights.

The principles and values attached to the idea of legality find their embodiment in the concept of the "Rule of Law". The Rule of Law signifies a fundamental and overarching principle that ensures governance and societal order based on a set of transparent, predictable, and just laws.
It implies that all individuals, including government officials and institutions, are bound by and accountable under the law. This concept safeguards against arbitrary exercise of power, emphasizing the supremacy of law over individuals, ensuring equal protection and application of laws for everyone.
In a system guided by the Rule of Law, legal processes and decisions are fair, consistent, and accessible, providing a framework where justice prevails and individual rights are protected.
This principle stands in contrast to mere "Rule by Law", where legal mechanisms might exist, but they are wielded arbitrarily or selectively, lacking the foundational principles of fairness, equality, and accountability that define the Rule of Law.

The provisions of the Constitution of India that are considered relevant for the criminalization of certain human rights violations are articulated in both Article 17 and Article 23. Article 17 specifically addresses the abolition of untouchability, declaring it unlawful and prescribing penalties for its practice.
This constitutional provision not only reflects a commitment to eradicating a deeply entrenched form of discrimination but also underscores the legal consequences, including criminal charges, for those perpetuating untouchability. Similarly, Article 23 focuses on the prohibition of forced labour, emphasizing the fundamental right of individuals to be free from exploitation and coercion in employment.
Violations of this provision can lead to legal repercussions, and the Constitution's stance against forced labour aligns with the broader international human rights framework.
While the Constitution establishes the bedrock of fundamental rights, the criminalization of specific human rights violations is further addressed through statutory laws, ensuring a comprehensive legal framework to safeguard individuals from various forms of discrimination and exploitation.

Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) comprehensively addresses sexual harassment, encompassing unwelcome conduct in its physical, verbal, or virtual forms. This legal provision recognizes that harassment extends beyond mere physical contact and includes unwarranted advances, comments, or online interactions that violate an individual's dignity and personal space.
By explicitly incorporating verbal and virtual aspects, Section 354A acknowledges the evolving nature of interactions in the contemporary world, especially in the digital realm.
The law thus underscores the importance of protecting individuals from various forms of harassment, promoting a safe and respectful environment by criminalizing not only unwelcome physical advances but also inappropriate verbal remarks and virtual interactions that compromise the well-being and autonomy of the victim.
The holistic approach of Section 354A reflects a commitment to addressing the multi-faceted nature of sexual harassment in its various manifestations.

In the Indian context, the Rule of Law represents a foundational principle that establishes the supremacy of law over arbitrary rule or individual authority. It fundamentally implies that no one, including the government and its officials, is above the law, emphasizing the equality of all individuals before the legal framework.
The Constitution of India serves as the paramount legal document, and adherence to its provisions ensures the Rule of Law prevails. This principle safeguards against arbitrary exercise of power, ensuring that decisions and actions are guided by established laws rather than the whims of individuals or authorities.
It upholds the idea that justice should be dispensed fairly and transparently, and the legal system should operate with predictability and consistency. The Rule of Law, therefore, encompasses the notion that the legal system, underpinned by constitutional principles, serves as the ultimate authority, providing a framework that governs the behaviour of individuals, institutions, and the government, fostering a society where the rights of citizens are protected and justice is accessible to all.

Article 352 of the Indian Constitution provides the framework for the proclamation of a National Emergency, and it can be invoked on the grounds of war, external aggression, or armed rebellion.
The provision empowers the President to declare a state of emergency when the security and integrity of the nation are threatened by any of these exceptional circumstances. The declaration vests the central government with special powers to address the crisis effectively.
In the context of Article 352, "war" refers to a war-like situation, "external aggression" pertains to an attack from a foreign nation, and "armed rebellion" relates to an internal armed resistance against the state.
The imposition of a National Emergency is a serious step, and it temporarily allows for the central government to take extraordinary measures to safeguard the sovereignty and security of the country.
The declaration is subject to parliamentary approval, and its continuation requires periodic parliamentary affirmation, ensuring a checks-and-balances. mechanism even during times of crisis.

The Kyoto Protocol, adopted in 1997, aimed at addressing the critical issue of global warming by establishing binding targets for industrialized countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
The protocol marked a significant milestone in international efforts to combat climate change and was an extension of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
It set specific emission reduction targets for developed nations, collectively committing to reducing their emissions by an average of 5.2% below 1990 levels during the first commitment period from 2008 to 2012. The focus on global warming acknowledged the urgent need to mitigate climate change impacts and limit the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The Kyoto Protocol also introduced market-based mechanisms like emissions trading and the Clean Development Mechanism to enhance flexibility in meeting the targets.
While the protocol had limitations, including the non-binding commitments for developing nations and the withdrawal of some major emitters, it laid the groundwork for subsequent international climate agreements, shaping the ongoing discourse on sustainable development and environmental responsibility.

The Right to Information Act (RTI) was a result of the demand by the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), a grassroots organization that has been at the forefront of advocating for transparency and accountability in governance. The MKSS, formed in the early 1990s, played a pivotal role in mobilizing a nationwide movement for the right to information. The demand for the RTI emerged as a crucial component of the broader struggle for social justice, transparency, and citizen empowerment.
The MKSS, led by social activists such as Aruna Roy, sought to address the information asymmetry between the government and its citizens by campaigning for a legislation that would grant individuals the right to access government records and information.
This grassroots movement gained momentum, eventually leading to the enactment of the Right to Information Act in 2005.
The RTI Act marked a transformative shift in India's governance landscape, empowering citizens to seek information, question authorities, and participate actively in the democratic process by holding public officials accountable for their actions.