Protecting civil liberties is
Enhancing democratic space
Text of the talk given by Mr. Ravi
Nair of the South Asian Human Rights Documentation Centre (SAHRDC) at the 44th
JP Memorial Lecture at 3 pm on 23 March 2025.
The venue being the Gandhi Sangrahalaya[1],
Patna, Bihar state.
It is good to be here this afternoon.
Firstly, the meeting is being organized by the Peoples Union for Civil
Liberties (PUCL)[2].
Secondly, it is named after none other than Jayaprakash Narayan who needs no
introduction to any Indian or any freedom loving citizen of this world. He established two
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to support and protect civil rights:
Citizens for Democracy in 1974 and the People's Union for Civil Liberties in
1976. I have the privilege of being one of the earliest members of the
organizations. Jayaprakashji’s life was one life long quest to enlarge human freedoms.
Every year, PUCL celebrates 23rd March as JP Memorial Day,
to commemorate the withdrawal of Emergency[3] on
this day in 1977. This year is also of
significance as it is the 50th year of the declaration of Emergency, the 75th
year of the Indian Constitution[4]
and 45th year since PUCL was formally constituted as an organization.
I have chosen the topic of my talk
with a purpose. “Protecting civil liberties is Enhancing democratic State"
as the title of my talk”.
Contrary to popular belief, I do not
believe that the work of protecting civil liberties ever ends. Democratic
societies only provide space to build strong democratic institutions that keep
checks and balances on all parts of the state. Irrespective of the political
ideology, executive caprice must constantly be brought to account in the bar of
informed public opinion. As Jayaprakash ji put it succinctly, “Rajya Shakti par Lok Shakti ka ankush jaruri hai.”
Meaning, State Power must be accountable to the peoples’ will.
The ill-informed will claim that
periodic elections put the imprimatur of democratic approval on the functioning
of state power! The record is very different. Whether it be India or other
major democracies. For reasons of time and brevity, I shall only dwell on the
experience of India. Most alleged
democracies, with notable exceptions, have been exposed, warts and all by their
attitudes to the Palestinian genocide.
The pre-Independence record
As early as 1919, an illustrious
Indian, Sundara Sastri Satyamurti [5], wrote
a seminal essay, titled, Rights of Citizens[6]. stated “It is often forgotten
that the modern political' state is only a voluntary combination of individuals
who have agreed to certain restrictions being placed on their freedom for
certain specific purposes.”[7] Yet
this remains forgotten both by the Indian state and the average citizen. Mere
expression of peaceful dissent is seen as anti-national or anti state! Please
read the text of the Rowlatt Act.[8] Now
read the text of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in its latest
incarnation[9]. You
tell me what is more draconian! As Mr. Satyamurthy thundered, “…discretionary
authority on the part of the Government means insecurity for legal freedom on
the part of subjects. This is the besetting sin of all Indian coercive
legislation…”[10]
Civil Liberties follows the laws of
physics. If you do not fill the vacuums in a society that seeks to be
democratic in the true sense of the word, others who mouth the words but have
little faith in its practice will have filled the vacuum, as has been done.
Lest it be forgotten, the Indian
Civil Liberties Union was formed in 1936. Jawaharlal Nehru wrote the foreword
to the important booklet, The Struggle for Civil Liberties written by no less
than Dr. Rammanohar Lohia[11].
“….The Law courts acquit but the executive detains, and so the seeming
liberality of justice is fully offset by executive fiats. Only an insistent
demand of the people for their civil liberties and an agitation to curtail
State-authority can bring about the relaxation of the repressive regime in this
country.”[12]
Written in 1936. It is 2025. Spot the difference!
Post-Independence
India is in the shadow of
majoritarian community and State-imposed constraints on freedom, reminding us
of the debates of the 1950 constitution drafting process[13].
The lessons of the 1975-1977 spell of authoritarianism were forgotten so
quickly, it is embarrassing to mention it.
We have “turned into an electoral
autocracy”[14].
Autocratisation begins with governments attacking the media and civil society,
followed by polarization of the society by “disrespecting opponents and
spreading false information” and culminates in elections being undermined”.[15]
Some of us, human rights activists
in India have been saying this for years. Large sections of the population live
in Emergency-type conditions, enduring debilitating restrictions on their civil
and political liberties[16] .
Post 1947
The colonial Indian state gave way
to an elite upper class and caste Indian state.
Given that post 1947, India was a
successor state, it was little surprise that the not too democratic Indian
Civil Service (ICS) gave way to an equally undemocratic Indian Administrative
Service (IAS).
The security apparatus arrangement
was even more bizarre. The pre-Independence Indian Political Intelligence (IPI)
was now rechristened as the Intelligence Bureau (IB). All those who repressed
freedom fighters during the independence movement suddenly became the
guardians! Alchemy!
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar was not
elected to the Constituent Assembly (CA) from Bombay Presidency on the express
instructions of Vallabhbhai Patel for insisting that Dalits were not Hindus. It
was only due to the intervention of Jogendra Nath Mandal of the Scheduled
Castes Federation (SCF) that Dr. Ambedkar was elected to the CA from Bengal
with the support of the Muslim League. [17]
Dr. Ambedkar’s presence in the CA
was miraculous and beneficial. in spite of Patel’s strong reservations,
universal adult suffrage was instituted with Jawaharlal Nehru’s support. [18].
The abolition of untouchability in
spite of the constitutional provision is still a work in progress. In many
parts of India, it is only the mobilization of the Dalits and other backward
castes that has actualized this right in the face of dogged upper caste
intransigence.
The 5th and 6th Schedules of the
Indian Constitution held out the promise of special rights to tribal
communities in the North East and other parts of India. It was hobbled from day
one[19]. Central India is presently witnessing the
biggest land grab in human history since the Europeans allegedly discovered the
Americas and Australia was declared Terra
Nullus[20]
The adventurist armed insurrection
of the Communists and the ill-considered boycott by the socialists of the
Constituent Assembly denied the democratic leavening so necessary for the
drafting process. A few liberals like H.N. Kunzru and H.V. Kamath had the
prescience to predict that President’s Rule and preventive detention might be
employed to subvert the democratic features of the Constitution. Henry Hart, an
eminent legal commentator observed that in 1949, at a crucial stage in the
Constituent Assembly debates, Dr. Ambedkar yielded to pressure for preventive
detention by submitting a mild amendment merely permitting detainees a hearing
before an advisory board, not a court, if they were to be held in jail longer
than three months.
This had to be referred to the Home
Ministry officials for comment. Their response reveals where the real power lay
then and lies till date. “It would not be possible for the Executive to
surrender their judgment to an Advisory Board as a matter of constitutional
compulsion.”[21] .
“Ambedkar's proviso stands incorporated in
the constitution, so does a contradictory clause permitting Parliament and the
state legislatures to authorize imprisonment longer than three months without
reference to advisory boards merely by-passing laws to that effect” [22]. And
we know the havoc it has caused to civil liberties, both at the union and state
level.
Two of Mr. Hart’s findings have
proved prophetic. One, the need for preventive detention is seen by governments
not so much to preempt incitement to communal violence or borderland
insurrections, as to preempt agitation, or what he identifies as “coercive
public protest”. The other finding is contained in his last paragraph: The more
unrestricted becomes the use of power, the greater de facto is the reliance of
a country upon the character of its leaders. ”[23]
. The less said of the sagacity of India’s present ruling political leadership,
the better today.
The student of Constitution-building
can discern here institutions such as the police at the orders of an imperious
executive, asserting themselves over newer elected legislatures and independent
judges and leadership styles. One must, however, infer that there was a
difference in the immanence of the control and consent elements in the minds of
the nationalist leadership. The Indian
Constitution accepted the need for control of the people by the ordered force
of the government because the people were not ready to control themselves. Not
yet, it was said. But by being trusted with elections, that were less than what
they ought to be!
The changes in the Constitution
(Forty Second Amendment Act, 1976) (42nd Amendment), which was enacted under
the Emergency in 1976, were ominous. “That amendment required the President to
act in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister and the cabinet. It
enlarged central power to intervene in the states, extending the term of
President’s rule from six months to a year and authorizing the use of any
central military force “for dealing with any grave situation of law and order
in any State” [24].
Seven of the thirteen provisions of
the 42nd Amendment hoped to do away with judicial review. “No law could be
found un-constitutional for violating the individual liberties specified in the
bill of rights if the law gave effect to the "constitution's directive
principles of state policy." One of those principles, as we have noted,
calls upon "the State" to create a social order providing social,
economic, and political justice. If any law declares that it is affecting such
an objective, no court may question the
fact. Laws against "anti-national activities" also made proof against
court findings that they violate the bill of rights. Anti-national activities
may include not only threatening, but also questioning, "the security of the
state, or disrupting, or intending to disrupt, public services." (My
emphasis. Now you know where the present vocabulary comes from!) Only the
Supreme Court, not the High Courts, may hear a case contesting the
constitutionality of a national government act. Any finding of
unconstitutionality requires a two- thirds vote among at least seven justices[25] .
Post Emergency
Once again in 1977, as in the
1946-1950 period, preventive detention was retained in the constitution by
those who knew well the unwarranted suffering it caused. But the Janata
government leaders felt they could not govern without the power to imprison
without trial. They did circumscribe it. No person may be detained for more
than two months without review of his case by an advisory board of judges
recommended by the chief judge of the High Court and Parliament is deprived of
its power.
The powers of the Union government
to intervene in the states were slightly softened. President's rule was limited to a one year
maximum; the central power of military intervention in a state was strictly
circumscribed. The 1972 amendment allowing the imposition of the Disturbed
Areas Act without state government consent was conveniently overlooked.
A big myth of the ability to
tolerate peaceful nonviolent protest was shattered in 1974 during the railway
strike and more recently in the protests against the Citizenship (Amendment)
Act, 2019 and the National Register of Citizens (CAA-NRC) and the turning of
Delhi into a fortress against the farmers.
India in 2025 suffers from a deluge
of legislation that restricts fundamental liberties. Laws purporting to
safeguard national security and public order have been employed to counter
ambiguously defined threats. Applied over large areas of the country – from the
now union territory of Kashmir in the north to several states in the northeast
as well as in central India – these acts contain provisions that are
incompatible with the principles that form the basis of a democratic State. No
political party having been in power in the centre or in the states comes to
the table with clean hands. Most importantly, the permanent, unaccountable
bureaucracy is a stumbling block to the creation of a truly democratic state.
If India is to ever be democratic in
the real sense of the term, some key issues will need urgent addressal.
Key civil and political rights
issues that need resolution
The attempt here is draw attention
to a few structural and thematic issues that have not received adequate
national attention.
Eliminating Sovereign and Official
Immunity
Although the Constitution includes
the rights to be free from torture, summary killings and other violations of
basic human rights, it does not always guarantee effective recourse when these
rights are violated by government actors. Various laws, passed pursuant to the
Constitution, grant government personnel “official immunity” -- effectively
protecting them from criminal prosecution or civil suit -- if they commit human
rights abuses. The Constitution suggests a strong form of “sovereign immunity”
-- preventing the Government and its entities from being sued for damages for
abuses committed by public officials[26];
see also[27].
Given these Constitutional and statutory allowances, officials can commit gross
human rights violations shielded from prosecution, leaving victims without
legal remedies [28].
Official immunity
In terms of official immunity, the
Constitution does not directly grant immunity as in the case of sovereign
immunity, but allows Parliament to provide effective immunity through
legislative enactments. Admittedly, Article 34 of the Constitution provides
immunity for acts of officials in areas under martial law. Still, the main
aspects of official immunity are contained in various provisions in an array of
legislative acts. Due to these provisions and the silence of the Constitution
on anything to the contrary, the Parliament has effectively prevented officials
from being sued.
The new BNSS is no improvement in
this regard[29]
The Protection against Prosecution
According to the National Police
Commission (NPC), these protections should be withdrawn in order to allow
private complainants to be able to press charges against any police official
for a ‘judicial pronouncement without there being a provision to obtain prior
permission of the competent authority for such prosecution’[30]
. This will go a long way to reducing the immunity of the police and making
them more accountable for their crimes, should it be implemented in the near
future
However, in Prakash Singh v. Union
of India, the petitioners were silent on this specific recommendation of the
NPC[31] . The
court also did not rule on this.
Having a revamped, revitalized
police force will go a long way in protecting victims and their rights, and the
rigorous implementation of the NPC recommendations must be the first step in
this respect.
Sedition
Sedition charges were misused during
earlier governments; however, the present Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)
government has used it in a manner that the worst authoritarian anywhere would
find difficult to emulate [32]. Section
124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which was introduced in 1870 by the
British via an amendment in the Penal Code, was also used to imprison Bal
Gangadhar Tilak and charge Mahatma Gandhi and Maulana Azad for allegedly
causing “disaffection” towards the Government [33].
It is a cognizable, non-bailable and
a non-compoundable offence.
Preventive detention
The Indian Constitution is one of
the few in the world that provides for preventive detention. It also sacrificed
due process of law to “procedure established by law”[34].
“Procedure Established by Law” means that a law is duly enacted by the
legislature is valid only if the correct procedure has been followed to the
letter.”
The concept has been enshrined in
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which states that “No person shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure
established by law”.
“Due Process of Law” is a doctrine
that not only checks if there is a law to deprive the life and personal liberty
of a person but also ensures that the law is fair and just[35].
In 1978, the government adopted the
Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 (44th Amendment) to the
Constitution, which included amongst other provisions significant limitations
on the Constitutional authorization of preventive detention. Although most of
the 44th Amendment was brought into force with effect in 1979, over 45 years
later the preventive detention components were never given effect even though
the entire Amendment was passed by both houses of Parliament and signed by the
President!
Laws continue to be enacted and
abused by the Central and state governments to preventively detain individuals
for years on end without even charging them with a crime. These include the
Disturbed Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1976, the National Security Act, 1980,
the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 the Armed Forces (Special Powers)
Act, 1958 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
In its Concluding Observations after
having considered India’s Third Periodic Report in July 1997, the UN Human
Rights Committee expressed its concern “at the continuing reliance on special
powers under legislation such as the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, the
Public Safety Act and the National Security Act.” The Committee also expressed
regret that by applying legislation such as the AFSPA, the State party was “in
effect using emergency powers without resorting to Article 4, paragraph 3, of
the Covenant.” It recommended the close monitoring of the application of “these
emergency powers” to ensure strict compliance with the provisions of the
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (UN Human Rights Committee, 1997[36].
Torture
The systematic use of torture by
police as a tool of interrogation, or even as a form of summary punishment
against detained individuals, is evident throughout India. Several legislations
provide impunity to perpetrators of torture and thwart the investigation of
abuses. The impunity conferred on the armed forces is especially troubling
given the powers granted to security forces under laws such as the Armed Forces
(Special Powers) Act 1958 [37].
India is yet to ratify the UN
Convention against Torture (CAT) after 28 years of having signed it.
Ratification of the Convention is important if India wants to demonstrate a
commitment to eradicating torture. Further, the Government of India must extend
a standing invitation to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture to
visit all parts of the country. National security is not threatened by visits
of independent human rights experts. Nor is it an affront to national honor; in
fact, it will serve to demonstrate that India is a transparent society, open to
international scrutiny and constructive criticism[38]
.
Caste discrimination
The Indian Government has sought to
frame caste-based discrimination as a social issue of purely domestic concern,
rather than a human rights problem warranting international attention. This
argument ignores indications that comparable kinds of discrimination exist in
numerous countries in Asia and Africa. Even so, the Indian Government was
successful in ensuring caste-based discrimination was omitted from the agenda
of the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and
All Related Forms of Intolerance, held in late 2001[39]
.
However, this reasoning has been
unequivocally rejected by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination, the monitoring body established under the UN Convention on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) which India has ratified. The
Committee has recognized caste-based discrimination as a form of discrimination
based on descent and has passed a general recommendation reiterating this view,
putting the question of the scope of the ICERD beyond doubt[40]
. India owes it to those suffering from caste-based discrimination to provide
access to international redress mechanisms[41]
. This will reaffirm India’s commitment to addressing a historical wrong and
reinforce affirmative action mechanisms that are in place at the domestic
level.
Freedom of association and the Right
to Peaceful Protest
The right to peaceful assembly is recognized under the
Constitution of India, there is a serious gap between legal rhetoric and
implementation. There have been many violations of the right to peaceful
assembly.
The
UNHRC stated that India should take all measures necessary to guarantee the
full enjoyment of freedom of expression by everyone, in accordance with Article
19 of the ICCPR and the UNHRC’s General Comment 34 (2011), and that any
restrictions comply with the strict requirements of Article 19 (3) of the
ICCPR.
It
is to be noted that as the State loses legitimacy because of its widespread and
endemic failure on both the political governance and developmental fronts, it
increasingly takes recourse to law and order in dealing with any protest
Policing
The anti-minority violence in Gujarat
in 2002 not only brought to the fore once again the communal bias and virulent
prejudices of the state bureaucracy and the judiciary, but also put the actions
of the police in the spotlight.
Policing in India is plagued by
political interference, a lack of basic training, the virtual absence of
accountability and a poor public image. Brutality has become endemic in police
work. The police force, on the other hand, must contend with low pay, poor
working and living conditions and high levels of stress[42]
.
The National Police Commission (NPC)
-- set up in 1977 to examine all aspects of the Indian Police Service and to
“re-define the role, duties, powers and responsibilities of the police” -- made
numerous far-reaching and promising recommendations concerning the functions,
procedures and perceptions of the police force in India and the Indian system
of justice in general. The NPC produced a total of eight reports; the eighth
and concluding report proposed a new Police Act to replace the Police Act of
1861. However, India’s State and Central governments have shown no signs of
implementing the important recommendations. On the contrary, both State and
clueless non-governmental organisations mistakenly place emphasis on the
Prakash Singh judgment that will mean the death knell of democratic political
control[43].
Democratic Accountability and
Intelligence Agencies
One of the first tasks of any
functional democracy would be to bring Intelligence agencies under the control
of a parliamentary committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General of India
(CAG).
The Supreme Court of India did
little for democracy on 23 February 2016 when in a terse order it stated, “We
find no merit in the writ petition as well as in the transferred case. The writ
petition and the transferred case are dismissed accordingly” [44].
No reasoning, no analysis. The writ
petition filed by the Center for Public Interest Litigation had sought
Parliamentary control of Intelligence Agencies and fiscal oversight through the
Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG). Under Section 14 of the
Comptroller & Auditor General of India (Duties, Powers and Conditions of
Service) Act, 1971 all entities that draw monies from the Consolidated Fund of
India are to be audited by the CAG.
The judiciary plays an important
role in ensuring the accountability of intelligence agencies. Its core tasks
are to determine whether intelligence activities conform to constitutional and
statutory law and to compensate individuals for inappropriate infringements on
civil liberties. Judicial oversight is crucial in maintaining the appropriate
balance between security and civil liberties, “Such judicial scrutiny has two
clear strengths: first, judges are perceived to be independent of government,
while, second, the traditional role of the courts is to protect individual rights.
Therefore, they are well-suited to oversight tasks in areas such as the
surveillance of individuals.”[45]
India’s executive midwifed the
intelligence community into existence and is wholly responsible for its
oversight. This situation has led to an ineffective
and unaccountable intelligence community that resorts to increasingly intrusive
tactics, often based on little more than a political whim, and without regard
for fundamental rights and constitutional niceties [46].
Rights of Minorities
The
United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) has been concerned about the
high levels of violence against religious minorities, such as the incidents in
Manipur since May 2023 and the riots in Gujarat in 2002, and the resulting lack
of accountability for human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings[47].
The
UNHRC was also concerned about other violent incidents, such as the demolitions
of places of worship and homes of religious minorities— most Muslim and the
reports of violence and lynching by ‘cow vigilantes’ against Muslims and
Christians.
The
UNHRC was also concerned about the application of national security and
counter-terrorism laws to target religious minorities and about reports of
public officials engaging in hate speech and inciting public violence against
religious minorities.
The
UNHRC stated that in accordance with Article 18 of the ICCPR and General
Comment 22 on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion of 1993,
India should ensure respect for freedom of thought, conscience and religion for
all and prevent combat and address all forms of discrimination and violence
against religious minorities.
Anti-conversion laws
The
UNHRC was concerned about provisions that require individuals to notify
authorities of their intention to convert; contain vague wording that gives
officials broad power to decide on religious conversions; impose enhanced
punishments for conversion by minority groups; consider interfaith marriages as
presumptively unlawful; or shift the burden of proof to the accused to show
that a conversion was not coerced.
The
UNHRC was also concerned about vigilante attacks against religious minorities.
The UNHRC was concerned about ‘ghar wapsi’
(homecoming) ceremonies, where religious minorities are allegedly coerced to convert
to Hinduism; according to reports received, over the past decade, thousands of
Christians and Muslims have been converted to Hinduism during these ceremonies.
The
UNHRC stated that India should guarantee, in law and practice, the effective
exercise of freedom of religion and belief and refrain from imposing any
restrictions on those rights beyond the narrow limitations permitted under
Article 18(3) of the ICCPR.
The establishment of a National Commission for Minorities is
inadequate to protect the rights of the minorities as envisaged in Article 27
of the ICCPR. There is glaring gap between what the Government of India states
to the Human Rights Committee and what really exists.
Conclusion
The are many issues that need to be
addressed – the state of the judiciary, the right to strike, the condition of
prisons, the mandatory right to compensation,
the abolition of the Death Penalty, Refugee rights, national human
rights institutions, India’s approach to international engagement on human
rights, and the continuing resort to extrajudicial executions across India,
particularly in Manipur, Kashmir and Uttar Pradesh,
Other issues, both ongoing and
emerging include internet freedoms, major violations in Kashmir, and laws
pertaining to citizenship, the list goes on. That would require a tome not a
talk.
Today is also the birth anniversary
of Dr Rammanohar Lohia. "The concept of civil liberties is essentially a
liberal concept which acts as a shock-absorber of the cruel impact between.
State tyranny and mass revolts. It enables society's march towards progress to
proceed on orderly lines." Lohia questioned: 'How should civil liberties
be defended?' He asserts: "The special front of civil liberties maintains
the back-bone of the people. The spirit of opposition against injustice is kept
intact. The individual gets strength from the knowledge that his resistance to
police or executive oppression will awaken common interest, ... Such a common
interest serves to convulse the conscience of the people against encroachment
of their liberties. The people are taught to be vigilant and, so they clear the
road. In this age of great mass efforts and people's awakening, the liberties
of opinion and assembly are as important as those of person and dwellings. The
standard in regard to freedom of expression by speech or press is the American
dictum that no opinion, whatever its revolutionary import, may be punished
unless it is accompanied by an overt act of revolt. The standard in regard to
freedom of assembly and processions is the English doctrine that, unless
serious obstruction to traffic can be proved, the police or the executive may
not take any action. These doctrines imply the abolition of sedition laws and
of censorship over press, books, post and radio. Ban orders on meetings and
processions are also impermissible. Equal rights shall be granted to everyone
to hold meetings in public halls and such areas in every town and village as
are traditionally used for purposes of assembly.”
Lohia concludes: "It defines state
authority within clear limits. It assigns well defined liberties to the people.
The task of the State is to protect these liberties."[48]
If we are to make sure that
democracy is not to be snuffed out in the next few years, tweet, but also hit
the dusty lanes of rural India to educate, propagate and peacefully agitate for
the continuation of democracy and strengthening civil liberties.
Need one say more. Thank you.
[1] https://gandhisangrahalayapatna.org/
[2] https://pucl.org/
[3]
https://www.britannica.com/event/the-Emergency-India
[4]
https://www.theweek.in/theweek/cover/2025/01/25/the-strength-of-the-indian-constitution.html
[5]
http://www.hindu.com/2006/08/22/stories/2006082204290200.htm
[6]
http://cscs.res.in/dataarchive/textfiles/textfile.2007-09-20.9768664644/file
[7]
https://www.indianculture.gov.in/rarebooks/rights-citizens
[8]
https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/the-rowlatt-act/232071368
[9]
https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/1470
[10]
ttps://www.indianculture.gov.in/rarebooks/rights-citizens
[11]
https://archive.org/details/struggleforcivil00lohi/page/n5/mode/2up
[12] ibid
[13] Hart, H. (1980). The Indian Constitution:
Political Development and Decay. Asian Survey, 20(4), 428-451.
[14] V-Dem Institute (2021). Autocratization
Turns Viral: Democracy Report 2021. https://www.v-dem.net/stati
[15]Xv ibid
[16] SAHRDC. (2002, January 30). Emerging
State of Insecurity: India’s War Against Itself. http://hrdc.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=131:emerging-state-of-insecurity-india-s-war-against-itself&catid=12&Itemid=109
[17] Apurva, A. (2021, October 5). Remembering
Jogendra Nath Mandal’s unwavering fight for the oppressed. Justice News.
https://www.justicenews.co.in/remembering-jogendra-nath-mandals-unwavering-fight-for-the-oppressed/
[18] Bhagat, P. (2020, July 26). Adult
Suffrage. Indian Law Portal. https://indianlawportal.co.in/adult-suffrage/
[19] Pandey, K. (2021, March 22). 25 years on,
many Indian states haven’t implemented a law that empowers Adivasi communities.
Scroll.
https://scroll.in/article/988729/25-years-on-many-indian-states-havent-implemented-the-law-that-empowers-adivasi-communities
[20] https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/terra-nullus
[21]
Hart, H. (1980). The Indian Constitution: Political Development and Decay.
Asian Survey, 20(4), 428-451.
[22] Hart, H. (1980). The Indian Constitution:
Political Development and Decay. Asian Survey, 20(4), 428-451.
[23] ibid
[24] India Today (2015, April 22). 42nd
amendment reduced powers of the judiciary, took away all human rights.
https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/cover-story/story/19770415-42nd-amendment-reduced-powers-of-the-judiciary-took-away-all-human-rights-818864-2015-04-22
[25] ibid
[26] SAHRDC. (2001). Eliminating Sovereign and
Official Immunity in Fundamental Human Rights Cases.
https://www.hrdc.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=382:eliminating-sovereign-and-official-immunity-in-fundamental-human-rights-cases&catid=41&Itemid=117
[27] The Times of India (2000, December 29).
Immunity from the Rule of Law.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/immunity-from-the-rule-of-law/articleshow/14063651.cms.
[28] Human Rights Watch (2006, September).
Legal Causes of Abuses and Impunity.
https://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/india0906/4.htm
[29]
https://idronline.org/article/rights/how-indias-new-criminal-laws-curb-civil-liberties/
[30] Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
(2010, September). Seven Steps to Police Reform.
https://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/aj/police/india/initiatives/seven_steps_to_police_reform.pdf
[31] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1090328/
[32] https://lawfullegal.in/evolution-of-sedition-provisions-indian-criminology/
[33] Hari, A. (2022, January 23). Explainer:
How the Sedition Law Has Been Used in the Modi Era. The Wire.
https://thewire.in/law/explainer-how-the-sedition-law-has-been-used-in-the-modi-era
[34] https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/DUE-PROCESS-OF-LAW-VS-PROCEDURE-ESTABLISHED-BY-LAW-AND-INDIAS-POSITION
[35]
https://www.theindiaforum.in/law/curious-case-due-process-indian-constitution
[36] SAHRDC. (2000). The National Security Act
of 1980: Time to end the abuses.
https://www.hrdc.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=394:the-national-security-act-of-1980-time-to-end-the-abuses&catid=41&Itemid=117
[37] Ramachandran, S. (2021, November 8).
India’s Sedition law needs to be buried. The Diplomat. https://thediplomat.com/2021/11/indias-sedition-law-needs-to-be-buried/.
[38] Nair, R. (2017, September 22). Once
again, India promises to ratify Torture convention in Geneva. The Indian
Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/once-again-india-promises-to-ratify-torture-convention-in-geneva-4855487/
[39] EPW Engage (2021, August 20). Caste and
Race: Discrimination Based on Descent’.
https://www.epw.in/engage/article/caste-and-race-discrimination-based-descent
[40] Mathrani, S. (2007, March 30). Caste
system is racial discrimination: UN rights panel. The Economic Times.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/caste-system-is-racial-discrimination-un-rights-panel/articleshow/1830276.cms?from=mdr
[41] Nasir, A. and Anuragini, P. (2017,
December 26). India Must Not Shield Itself From International Scrutiny on Caste
Discrimination. The Wire.
https://thewire.in/caste/india-must-not-shield-itself-from-international-scrutiny-on-caste-discrimination
[42] Chaturvedi, A. (2017). Police Reforms in
India. PRS Legislative Research.
https://prsindia.org/policy/analytical-reports/police-reforms-india
[43] Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
(2010, September). Seven Steps to Police Reform.
https://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/aj/police/india/initiatives/seven_steps_to_police_reform.pdf
[44] Sedhuraman, R. (2016, February 24). SC
rejects plea for CAG audit of intelligence agencies. The Tribune.
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/nation/sc-rejects-plea-for-cag-audit-of-intelligence-agencies-200393
[45] Hannah, G., O’Brien, K. & Rathmell,
A. (2005). Intelligence and Security Legislation for Security Sector Reform.
Rand Europe.
https://www.academia.edu/333821/Intelligence_and_Security_Legislation_for_Security_Sector_Reform
[46] Nair, R. (2013b). Civil Rights and
Parliamentary oversight of intelligence agencies. HRF Monthly.
http://www.hrdc.net/Files/HRF/Monthly/HRF225.pdf.
[47]
https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/concluding-observations/ccprcindco4-concluding-observations-fourth-periodic-report-india
[48]
https://seramporegirlscollege.org/dept/upload/Political%20Science/rammanohar%20Lohia.pdf
Posts
