INTRODUCTION
Freedom, dignity, and equality are not abstract ideals; they are basic rights of every human being. After the First World War ended in 1918, a renewed understanding of human rights began to take shape.[1]. The League of Nations attempted to safeguard these rights, but limited participation, like the United States, opted not to be a member.[2], weakened its effectiveness.
Since 1945, the United Nations has worked to strengthen global commitment to human rights, recognising that every individual is entitled to certain protections. These rights are commonly grouped into three generations as established by French jurist Karle Vaska:
- First‑generation civil and political rights,
- Second‑generation social, economic, and cultural rights, and
- Third‑generation collective rights, such as the right to development and a healthy environment[3].
While the principles of respect, dignity, and freedom are not always upheld in practice, they remain central to the institutions responsible for enforcing human rights — including the United Nations, national constitutions, and domestic legislations around the world.
HOW EFFECTIVE ARE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS institutions IN PROTECTING CITIZENS’ RIGHTS?
Human rights are essential to every individual, as affirmed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Although the UDHR is not legally binding, it remains a foundational document for promoting and protecting human rights worldwide. In India, the Constitution guarantees fundamental rights[4], supported by additional legislation such as the Protection of Human Rights Act[5], which broadens the reach of these protections.
The NHRC serves as the country’s primary human rights watchdog. In the Punjab Mass Cremation case, where state authorities cremated bodies without consent, the NHRC ensured accountability and compensation for the families.[6]. During the 2002 Gujarat riots, the Commission facilitated justice and protection for the victims. In the case of National Human Rights Commission v. State of Gujarat (2009), the court further mandated the reopening of cases to overcome previous defective investigations.[7]. It also routinely addresses violations such as custodial deaths and unlawful detention, reflecting its efforts in responding to systemic human rights abuses. Beyond the NHRC, India has also set up several specialised bodies—the National Commission for Women, the National Commission for Minorities, the National Commissions for SC/ST, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, and disability rights commissions—to safeguard the rights of marginalised groups.
Although the UDHR outlines widely accepted human rights, it is non‑binding and often applied at the court’s discretion. However, the fundamental rights guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution do make it enforceable, as they are built on the same principles.[8]. As the Supreme Court observed in Keshavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, ‘The UDHR may not be a legally binding instrument, but it shows how India has understood the nature of human rights at the time the Constitution was adopted.[9]’
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UDHR, and the Indian Constitution together form a unified framework for protecting citizens’ rights, with several provisions directly aligning. Article 14(1) of the ICCPR mirrors Article 14 of the Constitution on equality before the law[10], while Article 25(c) on equal opportunity in public services[11] corresponds to Article 16(1). Fundamental freedoms—speech, assembly, association, movement, and personal liberty—are reflected in both instruments, reinforcing a shared rights commitment.
CHALLENGES IN IMPLEMENTING HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION DOMESTICALLY
Despite the fundamental importance of human rights, introducing and passing related legislation in India remains challenging. Article 245(1) of the Constitution empowers Parliament and state legislatures to make laws.[12], but every bill must move through multiple drafts, secure approval from both Houses, and finally receive the President’s assent. These procedural steps become even more difficult when proposed laws attract criticism or face practical barriers to implementation.
India’s wide income inequality and deep social disparities mean that nearly 20% of the electorate remains illiterate, and elected representatives emerge from the same electorate.[13]. Limited awareness of the purpose and impact of human rights laws, combined with persistent social attitudes, contributes to a significant comprehension gap. Even though the NALSA v. Union of India judgment eventually recognized transgender individuals as a third gender[14]This recognition came decades after the UDHR had already advanced broader principles of equality. Deep‑rooted stigma still results in social exclusion and frequent violations of their rights, despite multiple laws and judicial precedents intended to protect them.[15].
Impunity is another challenge that undermines the authority of the legislature.[16]. All human rights hold equal value, and the same principle applies to communities, states, genders, regions, and other identities. Granting impunity based on these distinctions is unconstitutional and strikes at the core of basic human rights. Impunity can take two forms: de facto impunity, where authorities fail to prosecute due to political interests or lack of will, and de jure impunity, where legal immunity or amnesty provisions make prosecution difficult.[17].
After 2019, in Kashmir, military and parliamentary personnel are liable under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. And Section 45 of the Code of Criminal Procedure still shields segments of these forces from prosecution for acts committed in the line of duty.[18]. Further, the Jammu and Kashmir Disturbed Areas Act and the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act — statutes no longer used to declare the region “disturbed,” yet alive in law — is a legal architecture that has been criticized for enabling human rights violations in the region[19]. When laws designed for extraordinary circumstances outlive their purpose, when accountability becomes optional, and when victims are left without redress
The Commitment Gap remains a major barrier for effective human rights legislation. As noted in the report, in larger Freedom There is a persistent failure to ‘implement in full the commitments already made,’ leading to a situation where promises are not delivered. This responsibility further weakens under institutional pressures, resulting in gaps in implementing and mainstreaming human rights. Research also shows that international human rights treaties, though important, lack strong enforcement mechanisms, leading to decades of uneven implementation. Current trends indicate this gap will continue.[20], limiting the practical realisation of human rights at international, national, and local levels.
Another major challenge is the Security and Responsibility Gap. Human security spans political, economic, cultural, and religious spheres, so any violation of human rights directly undermines broader security. Yet many states commit to international treaties without translating those promises into real legal or institutional change. Hathaway’s study[21] Of 160 countries over four decades, there has been no consistent link between treaty ratification and national reform.
CONCLUSION:
While the evolution of human rights from the League of Nations to the United Nations has established a robust global framework of the three generations of rights, various challenges persist in implementing them through domestic legislation. In India, although constitutional guarantees and legislative frameworks provide a foundational structure, they are often overshadowed by a lack of strong enforcement mechanisms. Therefore, the authority of the legislature is undermined by both de facto and de jure impunity, and human rights continue to face challenges in being implemented. Bridging this gap requires moving towards concrete accountability, ensuring that human rights function not as abstract ideals. But it is a reality for every individual.
Author(s) Name: Arush Shenoy
References:
[1] The United Nations Office at Geneva, ‘The League of Nations’ <https://www.ungeneva.org/en/about/league-of-nations/overview>accessed 16 December 2025.
[2] Office of the Historian, ‘Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign relations’< https://history.state.gov/milestones> accessed 16 December 2025.
[3] Burns H Weston, ‘Human Rights’ (Encyclopaedia Britannica) <https://www.britannica.com/topic/human-rights> accessed 16 December 2025.
[4] Constitution of India 1950.
[5] The Protection of Human Rights Act 1993.
[6] Paramjit Kaur v State of Punjab (1996) 7 SCC 20
[7] National Human Rights Commission v State of Gujrat (2009) 6 SCC 767.
[8] Constitution of India 1950, ch III.
[9] Keshavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225.
[10] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171 (ICCPR) art 14(1).
[11] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171 (ICCPR) art 25(c).
[12] Constitution of India 1950, art 245(1).
[13] Janardan Singh Sigriwal, Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No 100, ‘Low Literacy Rate’ (21 July 2025).
[14] National Legal Services Authority v Union of India AIR 2014 SC 1863.
[15] Tanya Arora, ‘Reflecting on Transgender Rights in 2023: Have Legal Recognition and Advocacy Efforts Broken the Cycle of Discrimination and Ostracism’ (Citizens for Justice and Peace 31 March 2023) <https://cjp.org.in/reflecting-on-transgender-rights-in-2023-have-legal-recognition-and-advocacy-efforts-broken-the-cycle-of-discrimination-and-ostracism/> accessed 16 December 2025.
[16] Secretary-General, In large freedom: towards development, security, and human rights for all, Addendum: Human Rights Council (A/59/2005/Add.1, 23 May 2005).
[17] Human Rights Watch, ‘Everyone Lives in Fear’: Patterns of Impunity in Jammu and Kashmir (report, September 2006) ch III.
[18] Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, s 45.
[19] Armed Forces Special Powers Act 1958.
[20] Xinyuan Dai, ‘The “compliance gap” and the efficacy of international human rights institutions’ in Thomas Risse, Stephen C Ropp and Kathryn Sikkink (eds), The Persistent Power of Human Rights: From Commitment to Compliance (CUP 2013) 85.
[21] Oona A. Hathaway, ‘Security and Human Rights’< https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/Faculty/SecurityandHumanRights.pdf > accessed 16 December 2025.
