Types of rights, different types of rights, types of legal rights, types of human rights, human rights in india, fundamental rights (2023)

What are rights?A right is described as a legitimate right or claim to some kind of positive or negative treatment by others, support from others, or non-interference from others. In other words, a right is something to which every individual in the community has a moral right and therefore that community has the right to ignore or forcefully remove anything that stands in the way of an individual individual's achievement. Rights belong to individuals and no organization has rights that do not derive directly from those of its members as individuals; And just as the rights of one person cannot go so far as to infringe on the rights of another, so the rights of an organization must give way to those of an individual, whether inside or outside the organization. Rights are those important conditions of social life without which no human being in general can achieve his best self. These are the essential conditions for the health of the individual and its society. Only when people obtain and enjoy rights can they develop their personality and provide their best service to society.

In short, rights are the common demands of people, which every cultural society recognizes as essential demands for its development and which, therefore, are demanded by the State.

1. According to Laski, "rights are the conditions of social life without which no human being in general can attempt to be himself at his best."
2. T. H. Green explained that "rights are powers necessary for the fulfillment of man's calling as a moral being."
3. Beni Prasad explained that "rights are nothing less than those social conditions that are necessary or conducive to the development of personality."

Other moral theorists like Isaiah Berlin define rights in terms of positive liberties and negative liberties. A positive right is a right to; The right to freedom of expression, for example, gives you the right to express your opinion publicly. A negative right is a freedom from; Personal freedom is the right to be free from physical interference. Most rights are both positive and negative.

Main characteristics of rights:

1. Rights only exist in society. These are the products of social life.
2. Rights are claims of the individual for their development in society.
3. Rights are recognized by society as common rights of all people.
4. Rights are rational and moral claims that people make in their society.
5. Since rights only exist in society, they cannot be exercised against society.
6. Rights must be exercised by people for their development, which actually means their development in society promoting the common good. Rights can never be exercised against the social good.
7. All people have equal rights.
8. The content of rights changes over time.
9. Rights are not absolute. These always include restrictions considered essential for the maintenance of public health, security, order and morals.
10. Rights are inextricably linked to duties. There is a close relationship between them “Without duties, there are no rights. No rights, no duties." “If I have rights, it is my duty to respect the rights of others in society.”
11. Rights have to be exercised and only then can they be really used by people. These are protected and enforced by state laws. It is the duty of the State to protect the rights of individuals.

legal theories:

There are compelling theories about rights offered by various theorists.

Utilitarianism:

For the utilitarian, a just action is one that maximizes utility or "good" (the definition of "good" is a matter of philosophical conjecture and beyond our grasp) compared to all other possible actions. This is the principle of utility. Utilitarianism is only consequentialist; the justice or injustice of an action or fact is determined solely by the consequences it entails. If an action maximizes utility, it is fair. In this sense, rights are purely instrumental. It is also worth noting that many in the utilitarian tradition have expressed hostility to the notion of rights of any kind. The utilitarian will recognize a right if and only if it leads to utility maximization. This statement also points out the limitations of all rights. If a particular person's exercise does not maximize utility, the utilitarian is bound to violate that person's rights for the sake of utility. The point at which the letter of the right defeats the purpose (that is, the point at which the exercise of a particular right does not maximize utility) is the point at which society can legitimately limit that right.

Rights are limited by the principle of utility. If the exercise of a right maximizes the good, the right must prevail. If you don't do this, the right can be severed properly.

Those who question the utilitarian view of rights argue that in some cases it overextends them and in others it unfairly restricts them.

Kantianism (deontology):

Kant proposes that the essence of morality is captured by what is called the categorical imperative. The following paraphrase says:

He acts only in accordance with the rules of action, which may be universal laws.

The categorical imperative is a rule for proving rules of conduct. It will exclude as immoral any rule of conduct that implies that one person can do something but another in similar circumstances cannot. In other words, it requires consistency. What is right for me is right for you if our relevant circumstances are similar. If I can dump my toxic waste in the river to save money, so can you. But of course I wouldn't want that, so it would be wrong for me.

This is relevant to human rights because we consider human rights to be universal to human beings. And Kant says that what is morally permissible applies to all rational beings. It is also relevant that this test tends to confirm rules of action that protect our most basic interests, the same type of things that protect rights.

Kantianism is an explicitly non-consequentialist ethics. Kant believed that the consequences of our actions are often determined by contextual factors beyond the control of individuals. Honor and guilt are only coherent concepts where the subject is responsible for what he did. Inevitably, in all appeals to consequences, the locus of responsibility must shift to a variety of factors, only one part of which is the agency of the individual concerned. Moral responsibility for consequences is therefore inconsistent. Ethics should be a matter of intentions, because only these can be judged without external influence. The correct action, therefore, is the one that is carried out in accordance with our moral duty, regardless of the consequences.

In Foundation for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant argued that one must "act only in accordance with that maxim through which one can at the same time will it to become a general law." In other words, our own behavior is only fair if we have a good conscience that everyone else must do the same. In the same work he also professes "never to treat people as a mere means to an end, but always at the same time as an end." Likewise, our behavior is only fair if we do not use another person as an instrument to achieve our own ends in our actions. Normally, our moral duty is to act only if our actions meet the two tests described: universalizability and end/means requirement.

Laski's Theory of Rights: Harold Laski, an influential figure in political science and creative writer, author of some 20 books, expounded the legal theory and is, in many ways, a classic exposition. He describes rights as "the conditions of social life without which no human being in general can seek to be himself at his best." Laski calls rights conditions of social life. Rights are a social concept and are closely linked to social life. The materiality of the rights is established by the individuals who claim them for the development of their best self. He puts rights, individuals, and the state on the same chessboard in the sense that they cannot be separated and there is no antagonism between them. Laski recommends the longstanding view that the state has a very important role to play in the realization and, above all, in the recognition of human rights. With respect to legal theories, Laski examines the legal theory of the State. The central tenet of the legal theory of rights is their total dependence on state institutions and their recognition. A person cannot assert rights if they are not recognized by the state. Furthermore, mere acknowledgment is not sufficient for the exercise of a right. The state must enforce rights through laws and institutions.

The most important part of Laski's theory is the functional aspect of rights. He highlights the relationship between right and duty. He explained that rights correlate with functions. The functional theory emphasizes that an individual is entitled to claim rights only when he fulfills his duty, otherwise the claim or demand for rights cannot be satisfied. This definitely contradicts the well-known theory of legal theory of law. But today, rights are recognized and protected primarily through political considerations.

Barker's legal theory: Barker's view is theoretically no different from Laski's. Both are liberal philosophers, but Barker has a clear tendency toward idealism. The main objective of any political organization called a state is to give the personality of the individual enough space to develop. It is the responsibility of the State to ensure and guarantee the essential conditions for this. These secure conditions are called rights. The personality of the individual cannot develop automatically even in the most adverse or antagonistic conditions. Personal development requires favorable framework conditions that must be guaranteed by state laws.

Barker also discusses the moral aspect of rights. He says that state laws help me secure rights. But rights are titles and the source is the individual himself, the individual is a moral person and is determined to develop his moral personality through rights. His purpose is not to harm society. The implication of the moral being is: spend your best efforts for the general good of society.

Types of rights:

1. Natural rights:

Many researchers believe in natural rights. They claimed that humans inherit various rights from nature. Before entering society and the state, they lived in the state of nature. In it they valued certain natural rights, such as the right to life, the right to liberty and the right to property. Natural rights are part of nature and human reason. Political theory holds that an individual enters society with certain basic rights and that no government can deny those rights.

In classical political philosophy, "natural law" denotes the objective rightness of right things, be it the virtue of a soul, the rightness of an act, or the excellence of a regime. Aristotle stated in Politics (1323a29-33) that no one would call happy a man who lacked courage, moderation, justice, or wisdom. A man who was easily frightened, unable to control any urge to eat or drink, willing to ruin his friends for a pittance, and generally insignificant, he couldn't have a good life. Although chance may occasionally prevent good deeds from having their normal consequences, so that cowards fare better than brave ones, courage is still objectively better than cowardice. The virtues and actions that contribute to a good life and the activities that go with a good life are, of course, correct.

The modern idea of ​​natural rights arose from ancient and medieval natural law doctrines, but to other scholars the concept of natural rights is unrealistic. Rights are products of social life. These can only be used in one company. The rights are backed by the recognition of common development demands by society and therefore the State protects these rights. John Locke (1632-1704), the most influential political philosopher of modern times, argued that human beings have rights, such as the rights to life, liberty, and property, that are established independently of the laws of any society in particular. Locke asserted that men are inherently free and equal as part of the logic for understanding legitimate political government as the result of a social contract whereby people in the state of nature conditionally delegate some of their rights to government to better ensure stability. . comfortable enjoyment of his life, liberty and property. Since governments exist with the consent of the people to protect the rights of the people and promote the common good, governments that fail to do so may be rejected and replaced by new governments.

2. Moral rights:

Moral rights are based on human conscience. They are sustained by the moral force of the human spirit. These are based on the human sense of goodness and justice. These are not supported by the force of law. Benevolence and public opinion are the sanctions behind moral rights.

If someone violates a moral right, no legal process can be brought against him. The state does not enforce these rights. Your courts do not recognize these rights. Moral rights include rules of good behavior, courtesy, and moral conduct. These represent the moral perfection of the human being.

Moral rights were first recognized in France and Germany before being incorporated into the 1928 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. Canada recognized moral rights in its copyright law. The United States became a signatory to the convention in 1989 and incorporated a version of moral rights into its copyright law under Title 17 of the United States Code. There are two main moral rights under United States copyright law. These are the right of attribution, also known as the right of paternity, and the right to integrity.

Right:

Legal rights are those rights recognized and enforced by the state. Any infringement of a right is punishable. State courts enforce legal claims. These rights can be asserted against both individuals and the government. This is how legal rights differ from moral rights. All citizens have the same rights before the law. All citizens follow legal rights without discrimination. They can go to court to assert their legal rights.

Legal rights are of three types:

1. civil rights:

   Civil rights are those rights that give every human being the opportunity to lead a civilized life in society. These satisfy the basic needs of human life in society. The right to life, liberty and equality are civil rights. Civil rights are protected by the state.

2. Political rights:

   Political rights are those rights by virtue of which residents participate in the political process. This allows them to actively participate in the political process. These rights include the right to vote, the right to be elected, the right to hold public office, and the right to criticize and oppose the government. People in a democratic state actually have political rights.

3. Economic rights:

   Economic rights are those rights that provide economic security to people. These allow all citizens to exercise their civil and political rights adequately. The basic needs of every human being are related to food, clothing, housing and medical treatment. Without complying with them, no one can truly enjoy their civil and political rights. Therefore, it is essential that every person has the right to work, the right to a decent wage, the right to leisure and recreation, and the right to social security in case of illness, disability and old age.

Human and legal rights:

There is a certain difference between moral or human rights and legal rights. Legal claims require an existing legal system to be justified. Statutory rights are roughly what is required by law, at least to the extent that the law is applied. Statutory rights come into effect primarily through laws or regulations issued by a statutory authority. Those who support the passage of legislation establishing statutory rights often invoke a notion of human rights. Anti-theft laws may invoke notions of a moral right to property. But human or moral rights must derive their validity from a source other than legal rights, since people can invoke human or moral rights to criticize the law or defend changes in the law (or legal rights), and people cannot they could do this if moral rights were based in law.

Contract rights:

Contractual rights derived from the practice of fulfilling promises. They apply to specific persons with whom contractual commitments have been made. Contract rights result from certain acts of contract design. They usually arise at the time of entering into the contract and reflect the contractual obligation that another party has acquired at the same time. For example, as a result of a contract, Party A is obligated to deliver a good or service to Party B, who has a contractual right to the good or service. Contract rights may be enshrined in law and as such based on legal rights, but it is possible to design contracts outside of a legal framework and based solely on moral principles. However, such contracts are less secure than contracts entered into within a legal framework for obvious reasons. There are numerous examples of contractual rights, such as:

- Rights to purchase a specific product or service

-Rights to sell a product or service.

-Rights to be the sole seller or buyer

- Delivery rights and punctual payment

-Right to Returns or Repairs

-Different rights according to the specific intentions of each party

Human rights concept:

Human rights are those moral rights that are morally important and fundamental and that are the property of every human being because he possesses them by virtue of the universal moral status of human beings. Human rights are one of the essential aspects of human political reality. They are moral rights of the first order. Human rights develop out of self-respect. It is inherent to all human beings without discrimination based on race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, skin color, etc. It took a new form when people began to think for themselves. Everyone is entitled to these rights without discrimination. Human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and freedom of expression; and social, cultural and economic rights, including the right to cultural participation, the right to food and the right to work and education.

Human rights are protected and defended by international and national laws and treaties. The UDHR was the first international document to define the "fundamental civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights that all human beings should enjoy". The declaration was ratified without opposition by the UN General Assembly on December 10, 1948. Under human rights treaties, governments have the primary responsibility for protecting and promoting human rights. However, governments are not the only ones responsible for guaranteeing human rights. The UDHR explains:

"All individuals and all organs of society should strive to promote respect for these rights and freedoms through teaching and education and to ensure their universal and effective recognition and observance through progressive national and international measures."

In the theoretical review, many theorists expressed their views on human rights. S. Kim interpreted human rights as "essential claims and demands to protect human life and enhance human dignity, and therefore should enjoy full social and political sanctions." According to Subhash C. Kashyap, human rights are those “fundamental rights to which every human being, living anywhere in the world, should be entitled by virtue of his human birth”. Milne held that "Human rights are simply what all human beings owe to all other human beings, and as such represent a universal moral obligation." According to Nickel, human rights are defined norms of high priority, universal, existing and valid regardless of their recognition or implementation in the legal or customs system of a particular country.

The Law for the Protection of Human Rights of 1993 establishes that "human rights are the rights related to freedom of life, equality and dignity of persons guaranteed by the Constitution or incorporated into international agreements and enforceable by the courts of the India".

The United Nations Center for Human Rights defines human rights as "the rights that are inherent in our nature and without which we as human beings cannot live."

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, defines human rights as "rights derived from the inherent dignity of the human person."

Historical Origin of Human Rights: Records indicate that while modern historians trace the 1521 "Magna Carta" as the historical beginning of human rights, its true origin dates back to 539 BC. BC. When Cyrus the Great (king of ancient Persia) conquered the city of Babylon, he freed all the slaves to return home and declared that people would choose their own religion and even stand for racial equality. The idea of ​​human rights spread rapidly from Babylon to many nations, notably India, Greece, and eventually Rome, where the concept of natural law arose from noting the fact that throughout life people tended to follow certain laws. not written. The term "natural law" arose considering the fact that throughout life people tended to follow certain unwritten laws, and Roman law was based on rational ideas derived from the nature of things.

Documents affirming individual rights such as the Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right (1628), the United States Constitution (1787), the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789), and the Declaration of Rights (1791) are the written precursors to many of today's human rights documents.

Magna Carta or "Great Charter" was arguably the most important early influence in the vast historical process that led to the constitutional rule of law in the English-speaking world today. In 1215, after King John of England violated several ancient laws and customs by which England was governed, his subjects forced him to sign Magna Carta, which lists what were later considered human rights. These included the right of the church to be free from state interference, the right of all free citizens to own and inherit property, and to be protected from excessive taxes. It established the right of wealthy widows to choose not to remarry and established principles of due process and equality before the law. It also contained provisions prohibiting bribery and misconduct. The Magna Carta was a turning point in the struggle to assert freedom.

Another advance in the development of human rights was the Petition of Rights, drawn up by the English Parliament in 1628 and sent to Charles I as a declaration of civil liberties. Parliament's refusal to finance the king's unpopular foreign policy led his government to impose forced loans and station troops in the homes of subjects as economic measures. Arbitrary arrests and imprisonment for opposing this policy led to intense hostility in Parliament towards Charles and George Villiers, the Duke of Buckingham. The Right Petition, introduced by Sir Edward Coke, built on previous statutes and statutes and set out four principles:

1. No tax can be imposed without the consent of Parliament.
2. No subject may be detained without just cause (reaffirmation of habeas corpus).
3. No soldier will be able to stay among the citizens.
4. Martial law cannot be applied in peacetime.

In 1789, the French people carried out the abolition of absolute rule and prepared the ground for the creation of the first French Republic. Some time after the storming of the Bastille and just three weeks after the abolition of feudalism, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (French: La Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen) was approved by the National Constituent. Assembly as the first step in the drafting of a constitution for the Republic of France.

The declaration stipulates that all residents must be guaranteed the rights to "liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression." He argues that the need for the law arises from the fact that "the exercise of the natural rights of every human being is limited only by the limitations that ensure other members of society the enjoyment of those same rights." Therefore, the declaration conceives the law as an "expression of the general will" that promotes this equality and prohibits "only actions that are detrimental to society."

In 1864, at the initiative of the Geneva Committee, sixteen European countries and several American states participated in a conference in Geneva at the invitation of the Swiss Federal Council. The Diplomatic Conference was held to adopt a convention for the treatment of soldiers wounded in combat. The main ideologies established in the Convention and maintained by the subsequent Geneva Conventions included the obligation to provide assistance to wounded and sick soldiers without discrimination, and the respect and marking of the transport and equipment of medical personnel with the distinctive sign of the Cross. Red on a white background.

In 1948, the new United Nations Commission on Human Rights attracted worldwide attention. Under the dynamic leadership of Eleanor Roosevelt, widow of President Franklin Roosevelt, advocate for human rights, and United States delegate to the United Nations, the commission began drafting the document that became the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Roosevelt, who is credited with motivating it, called the declaration the international Magna Carta for all mankind. It was accepted by the United Nations on December 10, 1948. In its prelude and article 1, the Declaration unequivocally proclaims the inherent rights of all human beings: “Contempt and contempt for human rights resulted in barbaric acts that have outraged the conscience of humanity, and the advent of a world in which people will enjoy freedom of expression and belief and freedom from fear and want was proclaimed as the highest aspiration of ordinary people. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

United Nations Member States have pledged to work together to promote the thirty articles of human rights, which for the first time in history have been consolidated and codified in a single document. As a result, many of these rights, in various forms, are part of the constitutional laws of democratic nations as they are.

In short, the inventors who wrote for modern human rights documents are the English Bill of Rights (1689), the United States Declaration of Independence (1776), the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789 ), the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution of the United States (1791 Bill of Rights), and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

Human rights are the fundamental rights and freedoms of all human beings, including the right to life, liberty, freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and equality before the law. It is unitary, interdependent and indivisible.

Rights correspond to duties in three ways:

1. Individual obligations of tolerance (non-interference)
2. Institutional Help Tasks
3. Individual obligations to cooperate

When we consider the right to property, it is primarily understood as the right to have your personal property not appropriated without your consent. This implies that

1. Other people are obligated not to take someone's property without their consent.
2. Institutions, like governments, must enact and enforce anti-theft laws, and they must do so in all neighborhoods where theft is possible.
3. Government officials, as employees, have an individual duty to support and/or enforce these laws.

Individual duties of care are exercised in a variety of ways: if the government is lax in this area, citizens may have a positive duty to pressure the government to pass appropriate legislation if it is missing, or to enforce existing legislation.

In addition, individual citizens who know people with sticky fingers, so to speak, have a duty to prevent acts of theft if they can do so at reasonable cost.

Many theories have been developed to explain human rights. After consulting with the doctor. Judge Durga Das Basu: “Human rights are the minimum rights that every individual, as a 'member of the human family', must have vis-à-vis the State or any other public authority, regardless of any consideration. The philosopher John Finnis argues that human rights are reasonable because of their instrumental value in creating the conditions necessary for human well-being.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948 declared that human rights are “rights derived from the inherent dignity of the human person”. Human rights, when guaranteed by a written constitution, are called "fundamental rights" because a written constitution is the fundamental law of the state.

Characteristics of human rights:

1. Human rights are inalienable: Human rights are granted to an individual by the nature of their existence. They are inherent in all human beings, regardless of caste, creed, religion, gender and nationality. Human rights are granted to a person even after his death. Different rituals in different religions testify to this.
2. Human rights are essential and necessary: ​​Human rights are necessary to sustain the moral, physical, social and spiritual well-being of an individual. Human rights are also essential, since they create the right conditions for the material and moral elevation of people.
3. Human rights are linked to human dignity: treating another human being with dignity, whether male or female, rich or poor, is all about human dignity.
4. Human rights are irrevocable: Human rights are irrevocable since they cannot be taken away by any power or authority because these rights derive from the social nature of man in the society of men and are due to a person simply because he is a being. human. As such, human rights have similarities to moral rights.
5. Human rights are essential for the fulfillment of the purpose of life: Human life has a purpose. The term "human right" is applied to those essential conditions for the fulfillment of that purpose. No government has the power to restrict or withdraw rights that are sacrosanct, inviolable and immutable.
6. Human rights are universal: human rights are not the domination of any privileged class of people. Human rights are universal in nature, without reward and without exception. The values ​​such as divinity, dignity, and equality that form the basis of these rights are inherent in human nature.
7. Human rights are never absolute: Man is a social being and lives in a civil society that has always imposed certain limitations on the enjoyment of his rights and freedoms. Human rights as such are those faculties or limited faculties that contribute to the common good and that are recognized and guaranteed by the State through its laws to individuals. Therefore, each right has certain limitations.
8. Human rights are dynamic: human rights are not stationary, they are dynamic. Human rights continue to expand with the socio-eco-cultural and political developments of the state. Judges must interpret laws to reflect changing social values.
9. Rights as limits of state power: Human rights imply that every individual has legitimate rights to certain freedoms and advantages in relation to their society. Therefore, human rights limit the power of the state. These may take the form of negative restrictions on the powers of the state, interference with the inalienable liberties of the individual, or demands on the state, that is, positive obligations of the state.

Principles of human rights:

- universality

-Inviolable

-Inalienable

-Indivisible

-Interdependent

- consistent

- universality

-Inviolable

-Inalienable

-Indivisible

-Interdependent

- consistent

-Equality

-Non-discriminatory

Positive Rights:

Positive rights, first proposed by the Czech jurist Karel Vasak in 1979, can include other civil and political rights, such as housing, public education, employment, national security, the military, health care, social security , Internet access and a minimum standard of living.

Negative rights:

Negative rights are an absolute right, the slightest violation of which violates that right. right not to be tortured. The duty bearer must refrain.

Distinctions between negative and positive rights:

Many authors distinguish between negative rights and positive rights.

Negative rights would correspond to obligations of toleration: if X has a negative right to V, then others have an obligation not to impair X's enjoyment of V.

Positive rights would correspond to duties of care: if X has a positive right to V, then others (perhaps the government) have a (positive) duty to provide V to X.

It can also be used to advocate giving people what they need to function as rational beings.

Types of human rights:

Human rights can be classified into the following categories or types:

- Civil human rights

- Political human rights

- Economic human rights

- Social and cultural human rights

- Development-oriented human rights

1. In the era of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, civil and political rights that ensured civil and political liberties were strengthened. Civil and political human rights are collectively known as “freedom-oriented human rights” because they secure, protect, and guarantee an individual's freedom from the state and its agencies. Civil liberties, also known as Blue Rights, are the first generation of human rights.

2. In the 20th century, economic, social, cultural and minority rights were also developed. The purpose of these rights is to promote economic and social security through the economic and social progress of the most vulnerable sectors of society. These rights are essential for the dignity of the person and for the full and free development of the human personality in all possible directions. These rights guarantee a modicum of economic prosperity for the masses and their basic material needs, which society recognizes as essential for a cultured life.

Economic, social and cultural rights, including minority rights, are collectively referred to as "security-oriented human rights" because together these rights provide and guarantee essential security in an individual's life. Without these rights, human existence would be in danger. These are also known as “second generation human rights”. They are also known as red rights or positive rights. These rights were declared, along with civil and political rights, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and later recognized in December 1966 by the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

3. Development-oriented human rights emerged at the end of the 20th century. These rights allow people to participate in the entire development process and include environmental rights that allow people to use all natural resources such as air, water, food, and natural resources free from pollution and contamination. These are known as Third Generation Human Rights or Green Rights. They are also known as solidarity rights because their implementation depends on international cooperation.

Solidarity rights are of immense importance in developing countries because these countries want the creation of an international order that guarantees them the right to development, the right to assistance in case of disaster, the right to peace and the right to good government.

Brian Orend, a Canadian philosopher, develops this idea in his Human Rights: Concept and Context in the direction of human rights as follows: Respecting people as an end means respecting their interests, being protected from serious harm.

Orend lists five vital needs that he believes are common to all human beings. If these needs were not met at some basic level, we would not be able to function as rational beings. They are security, livelihood, freedom, equality and recognition. It would be interesting to compare this list with Martha Nussbaum's list of basic skills in her account of what human rights entitle us to do.

Human rights in India:

Human rights are crucial for the integral development of the individual. The Indian Constitution establishes fundamental rights, also known as fundamental rights, for both its citizens and foreigners. The Supreme Court of India is the guarantor of the rights enshrined in the Constitution. The court takes into account fundamental duties when interpreting constitutional law. In the Indian Constitution, rights are mainly divided into three broad categories: (a) civil (b) political (c) economic and social. Fundamental rights in India recognize certain civil rights. Certain political, economic and social rights are recognized by other provisions of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of India recognizes the fundamental right as a "natural right".

The Indian Constitution defines fundamental rights as the basic human rights of all citizens. These rights are defined in Part III of the Constitution without regard to race, place of birth, religion, caste, creed or sex.

Guha quoted: “The demand for a declaration of fundamental rights arose from four factors:

-Lack of civil liberties in India during British rule.

- Deplorable social conditions, which particularly affect the untouchables and women.

-Existence of different religious, linguistic and ethnic groups promoted and exploited by the British.

- Exploitation of tenants by owners.

Fundamental rights include:-

Equality right:

The right to equality is one of the most important guarantees in the Indian Constitution. Articles 14 to 18 of the Constitution emphasize the right to equality. It refers to equality before the law without distinction of caste, race and religion, place of birth or gender. In evaluating the Indian Constitution Act, it can be stated that Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal legal protection not only for the citizens of India but for all persons within the sovereign territory of India. This includes the equal submission of all persons to the authority of the law and the equal treatment of persons in similar situations. The State cannot deny this right. But no person or group of people can claim special treatment or special privileges.

Article 15prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or any of these. This right applies only to residents of India and can be exercised against the State as well as individuals, individuals, in connection with free access to public places of entertainment or public places of recreation that are maintained in whole or in part. with government funds. The state has the right to make special treatment for women, children and for the development of backward classes, castes or ranked tribes.

Article 16promises equal opportunity in public service. Prevents the state from discriminating against anyone in employment based on religion, race, caste, sex, ancestry, and place of birth or residence. However, the State may grant a special reserve in the case of a religious institution to people from backward classes, castes or superior tribes for the elevation of weaker strata, as well as to people who profess that particular religion.

Article 17abolishes the practice of untouchability. It has been declared a punishable offence. Parliament passed the Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955, which provides penalties for refusing a person entry to a place of worship and for drawing water from a well or pond.

Article 18it prohibits the state from awarding degrees other than military or academic decorations, awards, and even citizens of India cannot accept degrees from a foreign state. This abolished Indian peerages and British-granted peerages.

Right to Liberty:

The right to liberty is mentioned in articles 19 to 22 in order to guarantee individual rights. However, some of the rights are subject to State security, friendly relations with foreigners, public order, decency or good customs and may, under certain conditions, be imposed by the State with certain limitations on freedom. individual.

Article 19guarantees the citizens of India the following six fundamental freedoms, subject to certain limitations:

- Freedom of expression and opinion.

-Freedom of assembly

-Freedom of association

-Freedom of movement

- Freedom of residence and freedom of establishment

- Freedom of occupation, employment, commerce and business.

Article 20provides certain protections against criminal convictions, including rights against ex post facto laws, double jeopardy, and freedom from self-incrimination.

Article 21prevents usurpation/protection of life or personal liberty by the state. No one should be deprived of life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law.

Article 22confers certain rights on arrested and detained persons, d. h the right to be informed of the reasons for the arrest, to be detained, to consult a lawyer of their choice, to be brought before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest and to be free from detention beyond of that period without an order from the magistrate. Article 22 also provides that the state can detain a person detained under a pretrial detention law without trial for only three months, and any detention for a longer period must be approved by an advisory council. The detained person has the right to be informed as soon as possible of the reasons for the arrest and to file a complaint against them.

Law Against Exploitation: The Law Against Exploitation contained in articles 23 to 24 establishes certain provisions to prevent the exploitation of the most vulnerable sectors of society by individuals or the State. Child labor and begging are prohibited by the anti-exploitation law.

Article 23prohibits trafficking in persons and forced labor or any act to force a person to do unpaid work when they have a legal right not to work or to receive remuneration for doing so. Every offense leads to a crime. However, it allows the state to impose compulsory service for public purposes, including conscription and community service. The Bonded Labor System (Abolition) Act 1976 was passed by Parliament to give effect to this section.

Article 24prohibits the employment of children under the age of 14 in factories, mines and other hazardous work. Parliament passed the Child Labor Act (Prohibition and Regulation Ordinance) in 1986, which sets standards for the abolition and penalties for the use of child labor and provisions for the reinstatement of former child laborers. The Child Employment Act of 1938 was the first law to prevent child labor.

Right to freedom of religion:

The right to freedom of religion contained in theArticles 25 to, offers freedom of religion to all citizens and guarantees a secular state in India. According to the constitution, there is no official state religion, and the state has an obligation to treat all religions impartially and neutrally.

Article 25promises all people freedom of conscience and the right to preach, practice and propagate any religion of their choosing. However, this right is subject to public order, morality and public health, and to the power of the State to take welfare and social reform measures. The law in this article does not affect the application of existing laws or prevent the State from enacting new laws.

Article 26guaranteed to all religious denominations or to any section, subject to public order, morality and health; Manage their own affairs in matters of religion, religion, create or manage their own charitable or religious institutions, and own, acquire and manage property in accordance with law. These provisions do not affect/instruct the authority of the state to acquire property belonging to a religious denomination.

Article 27guarantees tax exemption. No one will be required to pay taxes for the promotion or maintenance of a particular religion or religious institution.

Article 28prohibits religious instruction in educational institutions fully funded by the state, and educational institutions receiving state subsidies may not compel any of their members to attend religious instruction or worship without their consent or the consent of the educator in the minor case .

Cultural and educational rights: The cultural and educational rights referred to in articles 29 and 30 are measures aimed at protecting the rights of cultural, cultural, linguistic and religious minorities, allowing them to preserve their heritage and protecting them from discrimination.

Article 29it grants each sector of citizens their own language, a written culture and the right to preserve and develop it, thus defending the rights or interests of minorities, preventing the State from imposing a foreign culture on them. It also prohibits discrimination against citizens for admission to educational institutions maintained or financed by the state on the basis of religion, race, caste, language, or any of these. However, the prerequisite for this is a state reservation for the socially and educationally disadvantaged classes and a reservation of up to 50 percent of the places in all educational institutions of a minority community for members of this community.

Article 30promises the right of minorities to establish and manage educational institutions of their choice to preserve and develop their own culture, and prohibits the state from discriminating in making grants to an institution because it is owned or operated by a religious or cultural minority.

Right to constitutional remedies:

The right to a constitutional remedy is provided in Article 32. It empowers residents to appeal to the Supreme Court of India for enforcement, enforcement or protection against violation of their fundamental rights. Article 32 establishes a guaranteed remedy for the application of all other fundamental rights, and the Supreme Court is designated by the Constitution to protect these rights. The Supreme Court has power to make orders applying fundamental rights, namely habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition and quo-warrant, while the Supreme Courts have power under section 226, which in itself is not a fundamental right.

India is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

low hill:Civil and political rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Constitution of India:

It also shows that most of the economic, social and cultural rights proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have been incorporated into Part IV of the Indian Constitution.

Box: Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Constitution of India:

The Supreme Court of India recognizes these fundamental rights as “natural rights” or “human rights”. The judiciary in India plays an important role in protecting human rights. Human rights are implicit in the Indian Constitution as civil liberties and democratic rights (Asish Kumar Das, 2007).

In short, rights are considered fundamental to civilization and are seen as established pillars of society and culture. Traditionally, rights are moral laws that define what a person should be free to do and that comes from God. On the other hand, rights are political laws that define what a person is allowed to do and are created by governments. The third category describes that rights are moral laws that define what a person should be free to do and that are inherent in human nature. The concept of human rights is described as rights are moral principles or norms that describe certain standards of human behavior and are regularly protected as legal assets in local and international law. These are undeniable moral claims inherent in all human beings solely by virtue of being a member of humanity. Today these demands are articulated, formulated and called human rights. It can be assumed that human rights reproduce the minimum essential standards for a safe life for people. Human rights give people the freedom, among other things, to choose how to live, how to express themselves, and what kind of government to support. Human rights also guarantee people the necessary means to satisfy their basic needs such as food, housing and education.