The Role of Judiciary in Protecting Human Rights
In any democracy, institutions speak through their actions, but the judiciary speaks through its conscience. India’s judiciary, more than any other institution, has repeatedly stepped in when rights were threatened, voices were silenced, or the balance of power tilted dangerously towards the State. The protection of human rights is neither an abstract aspiration nor a ceremonial duty; it is a continuous, sometimes uncomfortable, process of ensuring that constitutional promises translate into lived realities.
The framers of the Constitution were acutely aware that rights mean little without remedies. This is why Articles 32 and 226 were placed at the heart of constitutional design, giving citizens direct access to courts when liberty is under threat. Over the years, these provisions have shaped a culture where people instinctively turn to the judiciary not simply for dispute resolution, but for justice itself. That moral authority
has become the judiciary’s greatest source of strength.
One of the defining features of India’s rights jurisprudence has been the judiciary’s willingness to interpret rights expansively. The right to life under Article 21, once narrowly understood, has now become a reservoir of human dignity. It has grown to include the right to clean air and water, the right to privacy, the right to education, the right to legal aid, and even the right to a dignified death. This evolution reflects a broader belief: that rights are not static clauses but living commitments.
Equally significant is the rise of Public Interest Litigation (PIL). At a time when poverty, illiteracy and systemic inequality prevented many from approaching courts, the judiciary opened its doors wider. In treating letters as writ petitions and appointing commissions to gather facts, courts acknowledged that access to justice is itself a human right. PILs exposed bonded labour, custodial violence, environmental degradation, and the plight of undertrial prisoners. They forced governments to react, reform, and sometimes simply account for their inaction.
Yet, it would be naïve to assume that the judiciary has always been flawless. The shadow of the Emergency-era ADM Jabalpur decision still serves as a cautionary tale of what happens when courts surrender their vigilance. Even in recent years, delays in hearing matters related to mass surveillance, internet shutdowns, or prolonged detentions have led to concerns that rights sometimes wait too long for judicial attention. A right delayed can easily become a right denied.
At the same time, Indian courts have also shown remarkable courage in confronting difficult issues. From decriminalising homosexuality to affirming privacy, from recognising the rights of transgender persons to safeguarding free speech online, the judiciary has displayed a willingness to challenge both legal stagnation and societal prejudice. These decisions have done more than resolve disputes; they have reshaped public morality and reaffirmed the Constitution’s progressive spirit.
As India steps into an era defined by technology, surveillance, and rapid political shifts, the judiciary’s role becomes even more crucial. The threats to human rights are no longer limited to physical coercion; they extend to data misuse, algorithmic bias, environmental collapse, and shrinking civic spaces. Courts will need new tools, sharper tests of proportionality, and deeper sensitivity to ensure that digital convenience does not overshadow democratic rights.
Ultimately, the judiciary’s responsibility is not to govern but to guard — to ensure that no majority, no institution, and no authority becomes powerful enough to erode the dignity of individuals. Human rights survive when courts remain independent in judgment, fearless in reasoning, and compassionate in outcome. They fade when the judiciary becomes hesitant, politicised, or overly deferential.
The real measure of a democracy is not how loudly it celebrates its freedoms, but how faithfully its institutions protect them. As long as the Indian judiciary continues to uphold the Constitution with clarity and conviction, the promise of human rights will remain not just a constitutional ideal, but a lived and enduring truth.
