Do you agree with the statement that "all human rights are fundamental rights protected and recognised by the Constitution of India". Discuss with reference to statutory provisions and case laws.

Defining Human Rights and Fundamental Rights

Understanding the distinction is crucial. Human rights are universal and inalienable, arising from the mere fact of being human. They include civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. Fundamental rights are those rights specifically guaranteed by a nation's constitution and enforceable by its courts. India's Constitution does not explicitly incorporate *all* human rights as fundamental rights, but aims to provide a framework for their protection.

Constitutional Provisions Protecting Human Rights

The Indian Constitution, particularly Part III, guarantees a range of fundamental rights that overlap significantly with human rights. These include:

• Right to Equality (Articles 14-18): Protects against discrimination and ensures equality before the law. This aligns with the human right to non-discrimination.
• Right to Freedom (Articles 19-22): Guarantees freedom of speech and expression, freedom of association, and freedom of movement, mirroring the human rights to freedom of opinion and expression.
• Right Against Exploitation (Articles 23-24): Prohibits forced labor, trafficking, and child labor, reflecting the human rights to work and be free from exploitation.
• Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-28): Guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to practice one’s religion.
• Constitutional Remedies (Article 32): Provides the right to approach the courts for enforcement of fundamental rights, a critical mechanism for protecting human rights.

Statutory Provisions and Human Rights

Beyond the constitutional framework, several statutory provisions address human rights concerns:

• The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993: Established the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and State Human Rights Commissions to investigate human rights violations. While not directly creating fundamental rights, it provides a mechanism for redressal.
• Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 & Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006: Address specific societal issues impacting women and children, aligning with human rights principles of gender equality and child protection.
• Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Protects vulnerable groups from discrimination and violence, upholding the right to equality and non-discrimination.

Case Laws and Expanding the Scope

Indian courts have played a vital role in expanding the interpretation and application of fundamental rights to encompass broader human rights concerns. Key case laws include:

• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Broadened the interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) to include the right to a fair procedure and protection against arbitrary state action. This case significantly expanded the scope of fundamental rights and incorporated principles of natural justice.
• Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992): The "Creamy Layer" concept introduced to implement reservations, highlighted the importance of balancing affirmative action with equality.
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): Recognized the right to a safe workplace free from sexual harassment, based on international conventions like the CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women), even though India hadn't ratified it. This exemplifies judicial activism in incorporating international human rights norms.

Limitations and Gaps

Despite the constitutional and statutory protections, there are limitations:

• Not all human rights are fundamental rights: Rights like the right to development or the right to a healthy environment are not explicitly enshrined as fundamental rights.
• Restrictions on Fundamental Rights: Fundamental rights are subject to reasonable restrictions as prescribed by law. These restrictions can sometimes curtail the exercise of rights.
• International Law Incorporation: While Indian courts often draw inspiration from international human rights law, direct incorporation requires legislative action. India has not ratified several key international treaties like the ICESCR (International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights).
• Implementation Challenges: Even when rights are recognized, effective implementation and access to justice remain challenges.

The Influence of International Law

International human rights law significantly influences the interpretation of fundamental rights in India. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), while not legally binding, serves as a guiding principle. The Indian judiciary often refers to international covenants and conventions to interpret constitutional provisions and address emerging human rights concerns. The Vishaka judgment is a prime example.

Table: Comparison of Human Rights & Fundamental Rights

Feature	Human Rights	Fundamental Rights
Universality	Universal, applicable to all	Specific to a nation, enshrined in its constitution
Enforceability	Generally, requires international mechanisms	Enforceable by national courts
Scope	Broader, includes economic, social, cultural rights	More limited, primarily civil and political rights

In conclusion, while the Indian Constitution provides robust protections for numerous human rights through fundamental rights and statutory provisions, the assertion that *all* human rights are protected and recognized is an overstatement. Significant gaps remain, particularly concerning economic, social, and cultural rights. The judiciary's role in expanding the scope of fundamental rights through interpretations and incorporating international norms is undeniable. Moving forward, India needs to consider ratifying key international conventions, strengthening implementation mechanisms, and continually evolving its legal framework to ensure full realization of human rights for all its citizens.