Political rights include natural justice (procedural fairness) in law, such as the rights of the accused, including the

right to a fair trial; due process; the right to seek redress or a legal remedy; and rights of participation in civil society and politics such as freedom of association, the right to assemble, the right to petition, the right of self-defense, and the right to vote. Right to fair Trial The right to fair trial is very helpful in numerous declarations which represent customary international law, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).[1] Though the UDHR enshrines some fair trial rights, such as the presumption of innocence until the accused is proven guilty, in Articles 6, 7, 8 and 11,[2] the key provision is Article 10 which states that: "Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him."[3] Some years after the UDHR was adopted it was decided that the right to a fair trial should be defined in more detail in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The right to a fair trial is protected in Articles 14 and 16 of the ICCPR which is binding in international law on the 72 states that have ratified it.[4] Article 14(1) establishes the basic right to a fair trial, article 14(2) provides for the presumption of innocence, and article 14(3) sets out a list of minimum fair trial rights in criminal proceedings. Article 14(5) establishes the right of a convicted person to have a higher court review the conviction or sentence, and article 14(7) prohibits double jeopardy.[5] Article 14(1) states that: "All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice; but any judgement rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children."[6]

Freedom of association
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Not to be confused with The Freedom Association or Free association (communism and anarchism). Freedom of association is the right to join or leave groups of a person's own choosing, and for the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of members.[1] It is both an individual right and a collective right, guaranteed by all modern and democratic legal systems, including the United States

Bill of Rights, article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and international law, including articles 20 and 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Conventions 87 and 98 of the International Labour Organization. Freedom of association is primarily manifested through the right to join a trade union, free speech or debating societies, political parties, or any other club or association such as religious groups, fraternities, or sport clubs. It is closely linked with the freedom of assembly, particularly under the US Bill of Rights. More specifically the freedom of assembly is understood in a political context, although depending on the source (constitution, human rights instrument, etc.) the right to freedom of association may be understood to include the right to freedom of assembly.

Freedom of assembly
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Right to assemble) Jump to: navigation, search Janitorial workers striking in front of the MTV building in Santa Monica, California. Striking in a trade union is a way of exercising freedom of assembly and freedom of association. Freedom of assembly, sometimes used interchangeably with the freedom of association, is the individual right to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests.[1] The right to freedom of association is recognized as a human right, political right and civil liberty. Freedom of assembly and freedom of association may be used to distinguish between the freedom to assemble in public places and the freedom of joining an association. Freedom of assembly is often used in the context of the right to protest, while freedom of association is used in the context of labor rights and the Constitution of the United States, is interpreted to mean both the freedom to assemble and the freedom to join an association.[2][not in citation given] The United States Constitution explicitly provides for 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances'" in the First Amendment.

Right to petition
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search The right to petition government for redress of grievances is the right to make a complaint to, or seek the assistance of, one's government, without fear of punishment or reprisals. The Article 44 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union ensures the right to petition to the European Parliament.[1]

United States
Main article: Right to petition in the United States The prohibition of abridgment of the "right to petition" originally referred only to the federal legislature, Congress, and the US federal courts. The incorporation doctrine later expanded the protection of the right to its current scope, over all state and federal courts and legislatures, and the executive branches of the state[2] and federal governments. The right to petition includes, under its umbrella, the petition. For example, in January 2007, the US Senate considered S. 1,[3] an omnibus "ethics reform" bill. This bill contained a provision (Section 220)[4] to establish federal regulation, for the first time, of certain efforts to encourage "grassroots lobbying". The bill said that "'grassroots lobbying' means the voluntary efforts of members of the general public to communicate their own views on an issue to Federal officials or to encourage other members of the general public to do the same".[this quote needs a citation] This provision was opposed by a broad array of organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Right to Life Committee, and the National Rifle Association.[citation needed] On January 18, 2007, the US Senate voted 55-43 to strike Section 221 from the bill. However, other proposed regulations on "grassroots lobbying" remain under consideration in the 111th Congress. [needs update] There are ongoing conflicts between organizations that wish to impose greater restrictions on citizen's attempts to influence or "lobby" policymakers, and groups that argue that such restrictions infringe on the constitutionally protected right to sue the government,[5] and the right of individuals, groups, and corporations (via corporate personhood[citation needed]), to lobby[2] the government.

Right of self-defense
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This article and defense of property deal with the legal concept of "justified" acts that might otherwise be illegal. For the general act of protecting one's person from attack, see Self-defense. For the 1983 Canadian action-thriller film, see Self Defense (1983 film). The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (January 2010)

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
(September 2008)

Criminal defenses Part of the common law series Insanity Immunity Mental disorder Diminished responsibility Intoxication Infancy Automatism Alibi Consent Mistake Duress Necessity Provocation Self defense False confession Entrapment See also Criminal law and procedure Other common law areas Criminal Contract Tort Property wills Trusts and estates Evidence Portals Law

 Criminal justice v t e Rights Theoretical distinctions Claim rights and liberty rights Individual and group rights Natural and legal rights Negative and positive rights

Human rights Civil and political Economic, social and cultural Three generations Rights by claimant Animals Authors Children Consumers Fathers Fetuses Humans Natives Kings LGBT Men Minorities Mothers Plants Students Women Workers Youth Disabled persons

Other groups of rights Civil liberties Digital Linguistic

 Reproductive v t e The right of self-defense (according to U.S. law) (also called, when it applies to the defense of another, alter ego defense, defense of others, defense of a third person) is the right for civilians acting on their own behalf to engage in a level of violence, called reasonable force or defensive force, for the sake of defending one's own life or the lives of others, including, in certain circumstances, the use of deadly force. Right to Vote:

Suffrage
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Suffrage universel ddi Ledru-Rollin, Frdric Sorrieu, 1850 Suffrage, political franchise, or simply franchise, distinct from other rights to vote, is the right to vote gained through the democratic process. In English, suffrage and its synonyms are sometimes also used to mean the right to run for office (to be a candidate), but there are no established qualifying terms to distinguish between these different meanings of the term(s). The right to run for office is sometimes called (candidate) eligibility, and the combination of both rights is sometimes called full suffrage.[1] In many other languages, the right to vote is called the active right to vote and the right to be voted for (to run for office) is called the passive right to vote. In English, these are sometimes called active suffrage and passive suffrage.[2] Suffrage is often conceived in terms of elections for representatives; however, suffrage applies equally to initiatives and referenda. Suffrage describes not only the legal right to vote, but also the practical question of whether a question will be put to a vote. The utility of suffrage is reduced when important questions are decided unilaterally by elected or non-elected representatives. In most democracies, eligible voters can vote in elections of representatives. Voting on issues by initiative may be available in some jurisdictions but not others. For example, Switzerland permits initiatives at all levels of government whereas the United States does not offer initiatives at the federal level or in many states. British citizens become eligible to vote after their eighteenth birthday, the voting age. Most democracies no longer extend different rights to vote on the basis of sex or race. Resident aliens can vote in some countries, and in others, exceptions are made for citizens of countries with which they have close links (e.g. some members of the Commonwealth of Nations, and the members of the European Union).

Criminal procedure
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Rights of the accused) Jump to: navigation, search This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
(April 2013)

Criminal procedure refers to the adjudication process of the criminal law. While criminal procedure differs dramatically by jurisdiction, the process generally begins with a formal criminal charge and results in the conviction or acquittal of the defendant.

Contents
1 Basic rights 2 See also 3 Referen ces 4 Further reading

Basic rights
Currently, in many countries with a democratic system and the rule of law, criminal procedure puts the burden of proof on the prosecution that is, it is up to the prosecution to prove that the defendant is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, as opposed to having the defense prove that s/he is innocent, and any doubt is resolved in favor of the defendant. This provision, known as the presumption of innocence, is required, for example, in the 46 countries that are members of the Council of Europe, under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and it is included in other human rights documents. However, in practice it operates somewhat differently in different countries. Similarly, all such jurisdictions allow the defendant the right to legal counsel and provide any defendant who cannot afford their own lawyer with a lawyer paid for at the public expense (which is in some countries called a "court-appointed lawyer").

Natural justice
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search A tondo of an allegory of justice (1508) by Raphael in the Stanza della Segnatura (Room of the Apostolic Signatura) of the Apostolic Palace, Vatican City Administrative law General principles Administrative court Delegated legislation Exhaustion of remedies Justiciability Legitimate expectation Ministerial act Natural justice Nondelegation doctrine Ouster clause (privative clause) Patently unreasonable Polycentricity Prerogative writ Certiorari Habeas corpus Mandamus Prohibition Quo warranto Rulemaking Ultra vires Administrative law in common law jurisdictions Australia Canada Singapore South Africa United Kingdom Scotland United States Administrative law in civil law jurisdictions

 China Mongolia Ukraine Related topics Constitutional law Judicial review v t e In English law, natural justice is technical terminology for the rule against bias (nemo iudex in causa sua) and the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem). While the term natural justice is often retained as a general concept, it has largely been replaced and extended by the more general "duty to act fairly". The basis for the rule against bias is the need to maintain public confidence in the legal system. Bias can take the form of actual bias, imputed bias or apparent bias. Actual bias is very difficult to prove in practice while imputed bias, once shown, will result in a decision being void without the need for any investigation into the likelihood or suspicion of bias. Cases from different jurisdictions currently apply two tests for apparent bias: the "reasonable suspicion of bias" test and the "real likelihood of bias" test. One view that has been taken is that the differences between these two tests are largely semantic and that they operate similarly. The right to a fair hearing requires that individuals should not be penalized by decisions affecting their rights or legitimate expectations unless they have been given prior notice of the case, a fair opportunity to answer it, and the opportunity to present their own case. The mere fact that a decision affects rights or interests is sufficient to subject the decision to the procedures required by natural justice. In Europe, the right to a fair hearing is guaranteed by Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is said to complement the common law rather than replace it.

Article 1

India: Undermining equal opportunities to all citizens

The Proposed Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Reservation in Posts and Services) Bill, 2008
by Subhash Gatade,

Send by email printable version

other articles by the author Viva Academic Untouchability ? Jantar Mantar, a unique historical place in the capital, which today acts as a sanctioned abode of protest under a liberal bourgeois regime, witnessed a protest dharna in the first week of February. Looking at the participation level, one could easily say that, it was indistinguishable from similar protest actions held on the same date. But it is incontestable that the raison detre for the dharna carried very large import which pertained to the entitlements of dalits, tribals or OBCs in higher education. It brought forth the surreptitious manner in which the Congress led UPA government is pushing a bill which would do away with reservation at faculty level in institutions of national importance. As expected for the media managers and the pen pushers (or byte takers) employed by them the whole protest action was a non event. Question is why the articulate sections of our society, which yearn for justice, peace and progress, has joined the conspiracy of silence about this particular issue. The return of academic untouchability with due sanction of the parliament and the further legitimisation it would provide to the merit versus quota debate need to be questioned and challenged uncompromisingly. 1. What is common between Professor Sukhdeo Thorat, present Chairperson of the University Grants Commission; Dr Mungekar who is a member of the Planning Commission and Professor Ramdayal Munda, the ex Vice Chancellor of Ranchi University ? A thing which is easily noticeable is the fact that all of them happen to be masters in their respective fields, but a lesser known aspect is that if the newly independent India had not followed its own mode of affirmative action programmes in the form of reservation for the socially oppressed sections at various levels, it would have been very difficult for this triumvirate to prove their mettle. And if the proposed bill Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation in Posts and services) 2008 tabled and passed by the Congress led UPA government on the last day of the session of the upper house ( Rajya Sabha) becomes a reality then many such meritorious students coming from similar sections would not be able to even think of occupying any important position on the faculties of eminent educational institutions.The bill talks of doing away with reservation at the faculty level for the

scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and OBCs in institutions of national importance. Close watchers of the reservation debate in our country would tell you that the proposal was very much in the air and there is nothing surprising about it. In fact the directors of different IITs had been campaigning hard so that the Human Resource Development Ministry drop its proposal to reserve posts for SCs, STs and OBCs in faculty recruitment. Directors of the IIMs also which churn out hundreds of managers yearly for the likes of Rajus and for similar Corporate honchoos had also expressed their resistance in no uncertain terms to any such proposal which would disturb the PLUs (People Like Us) in the faculty. The sole argument peddled by the directors of these prestigious institutions revolved around the supposed negative impact on faculty quality if the reservation in faculties is not done away with. The Prime Minister in his visit to Guwahati IIT few months back had dropped enough hints that the concern expressed by the various directors would be given sympathetic consideration. It is difficult to comprehend the utter silence even among the selfprofessed champions of dalits or tribals or backwards over this disturbing development. Can it be said to be a sign of the emergent consensus among the entire spectrum of political parties who do not want to be seen singing a different tune. As things stand today, with complete absence of any national uproar over this step, there is a strong possibility that the bill moved by the Department of Personnel and Training in the Rajya Sabha in December 2008 would be passed in the February session of the lower house as well. And the long cherished demand of the "institutes of national importance" that they be exempted from reservation of posts at the faculty level would be fulfilled. The 47 institutes that will similarly skip faculty reservation once the legislation gets Parliamentary approval include the seven older IITs, the seven IIMs, Aligarh Muslim University, Allahabad University, AIIMS. Also excluded from the faculty reservation ambit are 19 National Institutes of Technology (NITs), Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research in Pondicherry, Banaras Hindu University, Delhi University, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research in Chandigarh, Visva Bharati in West Bengal, Victoria Memorial, National Library, Indian Museum, all in Kolkata, and the Indian War Memorial in New Delhi. 2. Apart from closing the doors to these 47 institutes to the historically oppressed, within one single stroke this move would drive under the carpet many related issues around reservation. It is for everyone to see that of late, the non-filling of reserved seats or the rampant use of false caste certificates by non-dalits and non-tribals to snatch posts reserved for them, have slowly emerged as key issues of social movement. We have been witness to actions at individual or collective level which have not only questioned non-implementation of reservations but have also brought forth innumerable cases of phoney dalits and fake tribals enjoying the fruits of reservation at various levels. Of course, the problem of false caste certificates, though brought into public focus by the media, is not unknown to policy-makers also. The question of non-fulling of posts is also a grave one. In fact, here one has been witness to the strange phenomenon of the reserved posts for the fourth class getting filled with eligible candidates but as one moves up the matrix one notices a reduction in fulfillment of seats meant for them. Look at Delhi University. Few years old figures tell us that in the year 2001 out of a total strength of 6,500 of teachers one needed minimum 1,500 teachers from this section of society. The situation on the ground was entirely unsatisfactory, when merely 100 teachers were on the job at the time of survey (which later shot upto 400). Delhi School of Economics, which had once witnessed the Prime Minister himself or Prof Amartya Sen as teachers also, fared no better. It had only a single dalit teacher out of sanctioned strength of 4. (1999).

The 1999-2000 year report of the National Commission on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes provide the details of the total posts and the no of people working on the reserved posts ( which has been provided with 15 % reservation and the Scheduled tribe section is provided with 7.5 per cent) Professor : BHU 1/360, Aligarh 0/233, JNU, 2/183, Delhi Uni 3/332, Jamia 0/80, Visva Bharati 1/148, Hyderabad Central Uni 1/72 Reader : BHU 1/396, Aligarh 0/385, JNU 3/100, Delhi Uni 2/197, Jamia 1/128, Visva Bharati 1/70, Hyderabad Central Uni 2/87 Lecturer : BHU 1/329, Aligarh 0/521, JNU, 11/70, Delhi Uni 9/140, Jamia 1/216, Visva Bharati 16/188, Hyderabad Central Uni 13/44 Even a cursory glance over the figures pertaining to central universities ( although the data is decade old) makes it clear why despite 50 year old history of UGC since its inception in 1959, the more than 250 universities and the innumerable no of colleges under them, have not bothered to fill the 75,000 posts meant for the Scheduled Castes ? It becomes clear why they have turned a blind eye towards the fact that people belonging to the upper castes or other non-dalits have occupied these positions. Leave the enlightened sections, one notices that there is a general disapproval among Varna society about providing reservation to the historically oppressed sections. Ofcourse, there are rare occasions when the disdain they entertain about these sections becomes public. Interestingly in formal discussions they would have no qualms in singing paens to the tolerance as virtue practised in their ageold civilisation, but in practice they would be ruthless in sticking to the graded hierarchy as preached by Manu. 3. Looking at the fact that most of such people, the practitioners of Varnadharma, look towards USA as a model country it would be opportune to know how does the US society itself or the big capitalists there view the affirmative action programme there. It is well-known that sixties witnessed launching of affirmative action programme at the national level in US to provide equal opportunities to minorities especially blacks. The impetus towards affirmative action was twofold: to maximize the benefits of diversity in all levels of society, and to redress disadvantages due to overt, institutional, or involuntary discrimination. Of course it was no gift by the US ruling classes to the blacks and other minorities, rather it was a direct fallout of the civil rights movement there led by the legendary Martin Luther King. The year 2002 witnessed the biggest challenge in recent times to this policy when two white students who did not get admission to the Michigan University went to Supreme Court to challenge this policy itself. Their main contention was that they did not get admission because of the discriminatory policy of affirmative action and therefore it should be scrapped. It was an issue which literally saw vertical division in US society. The Supreme Court ultimately gave its consent to the continuation of this policy. Interestingly many corporate leaders ranging from the Microsoft to the smaller ones had clearly taken pro-affirmative action positions. For instance, 65 of these companies (boasting a collective revenue of well over a trillion dollars) jointly filed a amicus curiae(friends of the court) brief with the Supreme Court in 2003. In this brief, these corporations maintained that a racially and ethnically diverse student body is "vital" to maximizing the potential of "this countrys corporate and community leaders of the next half-century." 4. The debate around denial of entitlements to the dalits, tribals and the OBCs in higher education would be incomplete if two issues remain unaddressed. Firstly, one needs to expose the various mythologies around merit which the Varna society keeps peddling to buttress its case.

Secondly, it is important to problematise the whole definition of institutions of national importance and show how the hard earned monies made available by the public exchequer to these institutes (at the cost of basic educational needs of the deprived sections) end up creating doctors, engineers and other learned professionals whose majority (more than fifty percent) have no qualms in immediately moving to greener pastures -especially the USA - for good. The Economist (September 26, 2002) cited an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) survey that found that over 80 per cent of Indian students in the U.S. planned to stay on after the completion of their studies. The survey also revealed that Indians students were more likely to remain in the U.S. after higher studies than students from any other country. Few recent studies on these institutions of national importance can help create a better picture about the overall impact of such ventures. Media Studies Group - a Delhi based group of media professionals and social activists did a study about the 42 batches of passed out students of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) since its inception in 1956. In this particular study they looked at the information about the working places of passed out students from this institute. The Telegraph had carried a detailed report about their findings. New Delhi, Dec. 26, 2006 : The All India Institute of Medical Sciences produces the countrys top doctors, but more than half of them work abroad, mostly in the US. A study on the current whereabouts of most AIIMS graduates released today by the Delhi-based Media Study Group shows that the brain drain in the medical sciences may be more severe than earlier believed. Of the 2,129 students who passed out in the first 42 batches of the MBBS programme at AIIMS from its inception in 1956 to 1997 the researchers could trace 1,477. Of them, 780, or 52.81 per cent, are working abroad. Interestingly coming to IITs a very similar picture emerges. In an informative and thought provoking article in The Frontline, Kanta Murali (The IIT Story : Volume 20 - Issue 03, February 01 - 14, 2003) had analysed the IIT experience in great details. The article starts with a piercing comment : JAWAHARLAL NEHRU could not have imagined that the golden jubilee of Indias finest academic institution, the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), which he was instrumental in founding, would be celebrated in the Silicon Valley. The IITs involve a considerable burden to the Indian taxpayer and this raises the important question of how the country should direct its educational investment. In a country with a woeful primary education record, government funding of the IITs is significant. In 2002-2003, the Central governments budgetary allocation to the IITs was Rs.564 crores compared with a total elementary education outlay of Rs.3,577 crores. A few pertinent points emerge in the article : One glaring failure of the IIT system has been its inability to attract Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and women students in a progressive way. Studies suggest that close to half the seats reserved for S.C.s and S.T.s remain vacant and that of those admitted a significant proportion, perhaps up to 25 per cent, is obliged to drop out The typical IIT student is male, hails from an urban middle class family, and does not belong to S.C./S.T. ranks. The IITs have an even more dismal record in admitting women. It is likely that close to half the annual undergraduate output of the seven IITs, that is, anything

between 1,500 and 2,000 young men and women, go abroad every year overwhelmingly to the U.S. It is estimated that there are some 25,000 IIT alumni in the U.S. 5. Everybody is aware that when Congress led UPA government came to power, it made all sorts of prosocial justice noises to demarcate itself from the earlier dispensation. Apart from raising the question of providing reservation in private sector, it also talked about making the atrocity laws more stringent and even announced that it would make reservation a statutory right. The proposed bill Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation in Posts and services) 2008 is being projected as elevating the provisions of reservations to a statutory right and supposedly instill greater sense of confidence among members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. As discussed earlier the bill is based on an unreasonable presumption that members of the SCs and STs are incapable of handling higher posts. It thus bars them from making any claims for adequate representation in appointments to such posts. One can see that the bill lacks the constitutional spirit of providing equal opportunities to all citizens. To conclude, the bill has the potential of undoing in one stroke what has been done so far for improving the representation of SCs and STs in services by successive governments and is certainly a retrograde and regressive piece of legislation.