Sie sind auf Seite 1von 18

1|Page

Jurisprudence Project

TOPIC: ILLUSTRATE AND COMPARE LEGAL RIGHTS, HUMAN RIGHTS, FUNDAMENTAL


RIGHTS, MORAL RIGHTS AND NATURAL RIGHTS.

NAME: UTKARSH JHINGAN

ROLL NO. 1178

SEMESTER; 4-B
2|Page

Contents
1. HUMAN RIGHTS ........................................................................................................................ 3

What are human rights? ..................................................................................................................... 3


Universal and inalienable .................................................................................................................... 3
Interdependent and indivisible ........................................................................................................... 3
Both Rights and Obligations ................................................................................................................ 4
2. MORAL RIGHT ........................................................................................................................... 4

3. NATURAL RIGHTS .......................................................................................................................... 8

Natural Rights Defined ........................................................................................................................ 8


Natural Rights Theory ......................................................................................................................... 9
4. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ................................................................................................................. 9

Right to Equality ................................................................................................................................ 10


Right to Freedom .............................................................................................................................. 11
Right Against Exploitation ................................................................................................................. 12
Right to Freedom of Religion ............................................................................................................ 12
Cultural and Educational Rights ........................................................................................................ 12
Right to Constitutional Remedies ..................................................................................................... 12
5. LEGAL RIGHTS............................................................................................................................. 13

Are Legal Rights Conceptually Related to Other Types of Rights?.................................................... 13


The Conceptual Analysis of Legal Rights ........................................................................................... 14
What Kinds of Entities Can be Legal Right-holders? ......................................................................... 15
6. COMPARISON OF RIGHTS ............................................................................................................ 16
3|Page

1. HUMAN RIGHTS

What are human rights?

H
uman rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place
of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other
status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These
rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible.

Universal human rights are often expressed and guaranteed by law, in the forms of treaties,
customary international law, general principles and other sources of international law.
International human rights law lays down obligations of Governments to act in certain ways or
to refrain from certain acts, in order to promote and protect human rights and fundamental
freedoms of individuals or groups.

Universal and inalienable

The principle of universality of human rights is the cornerstone of international human rights
law. This principle, as first emphasized in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights in 1948,
has been reiterated in numerous international human rights conventions, declarations, and
resolutions. The 1993 Vienna World Conference on Human Rights, for example, noted that it
is the duty of States to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms,
regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems.

All States have ratified at least one, and 80% of States have ratified four or more, of the core
human rights treaties, reflecting consent of States which creates legal obligations for them and
giving concrete expression to universality. Some fundamental human rights norms enjoy
universal protection by customary international law across all boundaries and civilizations.

Human rights are inalienable. They should not be taken away, except in specific situations and
according to due process. For example, the right to liberty may be restricted if a person is found
guilty of a crime by a court of law.

Interdependent and indivisible

All human rights are indivisible, whether they are civil and political rights, such as the right to
life, equality before the law and freedom of expression; economic, social and cultural rights,
4|Page

such as the rights to work, social security and education, or collective rights, such as the rights
to development and self-determination, are indivisible, interrelated and interdependent. The
improvement of one right facilitates advancement of the others. Likewise, the deprivation of
one right adversely affects the others.

The principle is present in all the major human rights treaties and provides the central theme
of some of international human rights conventions such as the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

The principle applies to everyone in relation to all human rights and freedoms and it prohibits
discrimination on the basis of a list of non-exhaustive categories such as sex, race, colour and
so on. The principle of non-discrimination is complemented by the principle of equality, as
stated in Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: All human beings are born
free and equal in dignity and rights.

Both Rights and Obligations

Human rights entail both rights and obligations. States assume obligations and duties under
international law to respect, to protect and to fulfil human rights. The obligation to respect
means that States must refrain from interfering with or curtailing the enjoyment of human
rights. The obligation to protect requires States to protect individuals and groups against human
rights abuses. The obligation to fulfil means that States must take positive action to facilitate
the enjoyment of basic human rights. At the individual level, while we are entitled our human
rights, we should also respect the human rights of others.

2. MORAL RIGHT

Copyright is a form of intellectual property protection granted under Indian law to the creators
of original works of authorship such as literary works (including computer programs, tables
and compilations including computer databases which may be expressed in words, codes,
schemes or in any other form, including a machine readable medium), dramatic, musical and
artistic works, cinematographic films and sound recordings.

Copyright law protects expressions of ideas rather than the ideas themselves. Under section 13
of the Copyright Act 1957, copyright protection is conferred on literary works, dramatic works,
5|Page

musical works, artistic works, cinematograph films and sound recording. For example, books,
computer programs are protected under the Act as literary works.

Copyright refers to a bundle of exclusive rights vested in the owner of copyright by virtue of
Section 14 of the Act. These rights can be exercised only by the owner of copyright or by any
other person who is duly licensed in this regard by the owner of copyright. These rights include
the right of adaptation, right of reproduction, right of publication, right to make translations,
communication to public etc.

Copyright protection is conferred on all Original literary, artistic, musical or dramatic,


cinematograph and sound recording works. Original means, that the work has not been copied
from any other source. Copyright protection commences the moment a work is created, and its
registration is optional. However it is always advisable to obtain a registration for a better
protection. Copyright registration does not confer any rights and is merely a prima facie proof
of an entry in respect of the work in the Copyright Register maintained by the Registrar of
Copyrights.

As per Section 17 of the Act, the author or creator of the work is the first owner of copyright.
An exception to this rule is that, the employer becomes the owner of copyright in circumstances
where the employee creates a work in the course of and scope of employment.

Copyright registration is invaluable to a copyright holder who wishes to take a civil or criminal
action against the infringer. Registration formalities are simple and the paperwork is least. In
case, the work has been created by a person other than employee, it would be necessary to file
with the application, a copy of the assignment deed.

Indian perspective on copyright protection:

The Copyright Act, 1957 provides copyright protection in India. It confers copyright protection
in the following two forms:

(A) Economic rights of the author, and

(B) Moral Rights of the author.


6|Page

(A) Economic Rights: The copyright subsists in original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic
works; cinematographs films and sound recordings. The authors of copyright in the aforesaid
works enjoy economic rights u/s 14 of the Act. The rights are mainly, in respect of literary,
dramatic and musical, other than computer program, to reproduce the work in any material
form including the storing of it in any medium by electronic means, to issue copies of the work
to the public, to perform the work in public or communicating it to the public, to make any
cinematograph film or sound recording in respect of the work, and to make any translation or
adaptation of the work. In the case of computer program, the author enjoys in addition to the
aforesaid rights, the right to sell or give on hire, or offer for sale or hire any copy of the
computer program regardless whether such copy has been sold or given on hire on earlier
occasions. In the case of an artistic work, the rights available to an author include the right to
reproduce the work in any material form, including depiction in three dimensions of a two
dimensional work or in two dimensions of a three dimensional work, to communicate or issues
copies of the work to the public, to include the work in any cinematograph work, and to make
any adaptation of the work. In the case of cinematograph film, the author enjoys the right to
make a copy of the film including a photograph of any image forming part thereof, to sell or
give on hire or offer for sale or hire, any copy of the film, and to communicate the film to the
public. These rights are similarly available to the author of sound recording.

In addition to the aforesaid rights, the author of a painting, sculpture, drawing or of a


manuscript of a literary, dramatic or musical work, if he was the first owner of the copyright,
shall be entitled to have a right to share in the resale price of such original copy provided that
the resale price exceeds rupees ten thousand.

(B) Moral Rights: Section 57 of the Act defines the two basic moral rights of an author.
These are:

(i) Right of paternity, and

(ii) Right of integrity.

The right of paternity refers to a right of an author to claim authorship of work and a right to
prevent all others from claiming authorship of his work. Right of integrity empowers the author
to prevent distortion, mutilation or other alterations of his work, or any other action in relation
to said work, which would be prejudicial to his honour or reputation. The proviso to section
7|Page

57(1) provides that the author shall not have any right to restrain or claim damages in respect
of any adaptation of a computer program to which section 52 (1)(aa) applies (i.e. reverse
engineering of the same). It must be noted that failure to display a work or to display it to the
satisfaction of the author shall not be deemed to be an infringement of the rights conferred by
this section. The legal representatives of the author may exercise the rights conferred upon an
author of a work by section 57(1), other than the right to claim authorship of the work.

Moral rights are rights that the creator of a work is automatically entitled to and which no one
else can claim. The moral rights of a work can even remain with the creator after their death.

Moral rights exist alongside copyright in certain types of work. Generally, moral rights remain
with the author of a work or pass to the authors estate on death. Unlike copyright, moral rights
cannot be assigned (legally transferred). However, they are frequently waived.

The existence of moral rights raises an important additional element in the negotiation and
drafting of certain agreements. Unfortunately, for many authors the transfer/licence of
copyright is often accompanied by the insistence of the purchaser on the waiver of those moral
rights.

Relating to duty or obligation; pertaining to those intentions and actions of which right and
wrong, virtue and vice, are predicated, or to the rules by which such intentions and actions
ought to be directed; relating to the practice, manners, or conduct of men as social beings in
relation to each other, as respects right and wrong, so far as they are properly subject to rules.

The definition of moral rights is given under many laws. Moral rights are the embodiment of
the natural rights of an artist has over what he has created. Moral rights are personal legal rights
belonging to the creator of copyright works and not be transferred, assigned or sold.

Moral in other words-Moral rights are the rights individual creators have in relation to
copyright works or films they have created. Moral rights are separate from the economic rights
of the copyright owner, such as the rights to reproduce the work or communicate it to the
public.
8|Page

Moral rights apply to:

Literary works such as most written material and including computer programs Artistic
works such as photographs, sketches, plans, maps, paintings, three dimensional works from
pottery to statuary and buildings, craft work and murals

Musical works
Dramatic works such as plays and screenplays
Cinematograph films both feature films and documentaries, as well as television
programs, commercials, and music videos.

Moral rights last for the same period as copyright protection. Generally that is for the lifetime
of the author plus 70 years. For films, copyright lasts for 70 years after first publication but the
right of integrity expires on the death of the authors.

The author of a film is deemed to be the director, the screen writer, and the producer. If the
producer is a company and there is no individual producer, the producer has no moral rights.

3. NATURAL RIGHTS

Almost every person realizes that they have rights. However, in today's world, it sometimes
becomes difficult to understand what those rights are. What are we able to do? What are we
entitled to? Well, in this lesson, our main focus is on those natural rights, which are based on
the idea that every person has basic rights that the government cannot deny. Natural rights are
basic rights that include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Sound familiar?
If you have ever read the American Declaration of Independence, they should.

Natural Rights Defined

The idea of a natural right is based on a political theory that every person has basic rights that
the government cannot deny, no matter where they live. It is important to point out that the
word 'natural' can take on a few different meanings depending on the context. 'Natural' can
mean being independent from society or, from a theological perspective, based on the
obligations God has given man, such as the right to life based on the commandment 'thou shalt
not kill.' No matter from what context the word 'natural' is derived, no government or society
9|Page

can deny these rights, especially if that denial is based on any discriminatory factors such as
age, gender, race, or nationality.

Natural Rights Theory

So where did the theory of natural rights come from? Well, back in ancient times there was a
doctrine known as the Doctrines of Natural Law. These doctrines held that because people are
creatures of God and nature, they should be able to live their lives based on the rule of God or
nature. As time went on, a man by the name of John Locke helped to modify these doctrines
of natural law, based on his belief that everyone was naturally good and rational. Because he
believed that the government was obligated to serve the people, and protect their natural rights,
he strived for a government that really represented the people and their interests. This lead to
the modern concept of natural rights -- not only do we have these rights, but no person or
society can violate or take those rights from us. Natural rights, are rights people have that are
not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs on a particular society. Some societies believe
there are no such things as natural rights. Some examples could be a right to worship, a right
to property, or a right to a voice in their own government.

4. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

We often talk about rights, but do you know what does the term rights mean? Rights are rules
of interaction between people. They place constraints and obligations upon the actions of the
state and individuals or groups. For example, if one has a right to life, this means that others
do not have the liberty to kill him or her. Rights are defined as claims of an individual that are
0essential for the development of his or her own self and that are recognized by society or
State. These are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement and are the
fundamental normative rules about what is allowed to people or owed to people, according to
some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory. Rights are often considered
fundamental to civilization, being regarded as established pillars of society and culture. But the
rights have real meaning only if individuals perform duties. A duty is something that someone
is expected or required to do. Parents, for example, have a duty to take care of their child. You
have duties towards your parents. A teacher has a duty to educate students. In fact, rights and
duties are two wheels on which the chariot of life moves forward smoothly. Life can become
10 | P a g e

smoother if rights and duties go hand in hand and become complementary to each other. Rights
are what we want others to do for us whereas the duties are those acts which we should perform
for others. Thus, a right comes with an obligation to show respect for the rights of others. The
obligations that accompany rights are in the form of duties. If we have the right to enjoy public
facilities like transport or health services, it becomes our duty to allow others to avail the same.
If we have the right to freedom, it becomes our duty not to misuse this and harm others.

As we have seen, rights are claims that are essential for the existence and development of
individuals. In that sense there will a long list of rights. Whereas all these are recognized by
the society, some of the most important rights are recognized by the State and enshrined in the
Constitution. Such rights are called fundamental rights. These rights are fundamental because
of two reasons. First, these are mentioned in the Constitution which guarantees them and the
second, these are justiciable, i.e. enforceable through courts. Being justiciable means that in
case of their violation, the individual can approach courts for their protection. If a government
enacts a law that restricts any of these rights, it will be declared invalid by courts. Such rights
are provided in Part III of the Indian Constitution. The Constitution guarantees six fundamental
rights to Indian citizens as follows:

(i) right to equality, (ii) right to freedom, (iii) right against exploitation, (iv) right to freedom
of religion, (v) cultural and educational rights, and (vi) right to constitutional remedies. While
these fundamental rights are universal, the Constitution provides for some exceptions and
restrictions.

Right to Equality (Articles 14-18):

Article 14 (Equality before law):

Article 14 says that state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the
equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
Art. 14 is available to any person including legal persons viz. statutory corporation,
companies, etc.
Art. 14 is taken from the concept of equal protection of laws has been taken from the
constitution of USA.

Article 15 (Prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of
birth):
11 | P a g e

Article 15 says that the state shall not discriminate against only of religion, race, sex, place of
birth or any of them.

Under Article 15 (3) & (4), the government can make special provisions for women & children
and for a group of citizens who are economically and socially backward.

Article 16 (Equality of opportunities in matters of public employment):

Article 16 says that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to
employment or appointment to any office under the state.

Article 17 (Abolition of Untouchability): Article 17 says that Untouchability is abolished and


its practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of any disability arising out of
untouchability shall be an offense punishable by law.

Article 18 (Abolition of titles):

Article 18 says that no title, not being a military or academic distinction, shall be conferred by
the State. No citizen of India shall accept any title from any foreign state.

The awards, Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhuhan, Padma Bhusan and Padma Shri, called as The
National Awards would not amount to title within the meaning of Article 18(i).

Right to Freedom (Articles 19-22):

Article 19 (Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.):

Article 19 says that all citizens shall have the right:

To freedom of speech and expression.

To assemble peacefully and without arms.

To form associations or unions.

To move freely throughout the territory of India.

To practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

Article 20 (Protection in respect of conviction for offenses):


12 | P a g e

Article 20 says that state can impose reasonable restrictions on the groups of security of the
state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, morality, contempt of court,
defamation, etc.

Article 21 deals with Protection of life and personal liberty.

Article 21A states that that state shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of
the age of 6-14 years.

Article 22 deals with protection against arrest and detention in certain cases.

Right Against Exploitation (Articles 23-24):

Article 23 deals with the prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour.

Article 24 deals with prohibition of employment of children in factories, etc.

Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-28):

Article 25 deals with freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of
religion.

Article 26 deals with freedom to manage religious affairs.

Article 27 deals with freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion.

Article 28 deals with freedom as to attendance at religious instructions or religious worship in


certain educational institutions.

Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29-30):

Article 29 deals with the protection of language, script, and culture of minorities.

Article 30 deals with the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.

Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32):


13 | P a g e

Article 32 deals with the right to move to the supreme court for the enforcement of Fundamental
Rights including the Writs of (i) Habeas corpus, (ii) Mandamus, (iii) Prohibition, (iv) Certiorari
and (iv) Quo warranto.

5. LEGAL RIGHTS

Legal rights are, clearly, rights which exist under the rules of legal systems or by virtue of
decisions of suitably authoritative bodies within them. They raise a number of different
philosophical issues. (1) Whether legal rights are conceptually related to other types of rights,
principally moral rights; (2) What the analysis of the concept of a legal right is; (3) What kinds
of entities can be legal right-holders; (4) Whether there any kinds of rights which are exclusive
to, or at least have much greater importance in, legal systems, as opposed to morality; (5) What
rights legal systems ought to create or recognise. Issue (5) is primarily one of moral and
political philosophy, and is not different in general principle from the issue of what duties,
permissions, powers, etc, legal systems ought to create or recognise. It will not, therefore, be
addressed here.

It has been suggested that even some sophisticated earlier systems, such as Roman law, had no
terminology which clearly separated rights from duties. The question is primarily one for legal
historians and will not be pursued here, but it may be remarked that it may still be legitimate
when describing those systems to talk of rights in the modern sense, since Roman law, for
example, clearly achieved many of the same results as contemporary systems. Presumably, it
did so by deploying some of the more basic concepts into which rights can, arguably, be
analysed.

Are Legal Rights Conceptually Related to Other Types of Rights?

The position of many important writers on legal rights is difficult to ascertain on this point,
because it is not one they addressed directly. Hohfeld (1919), for example, confined his
discussion entirely to legal rights and never mentioned moral ones. Hart did write about moral
rights (1955, 1979) as well as legal ones (1973, 1994), but not in a way that allows for much
direct comparison. Bentham (1970 [1782]) wrote extensively about the analysis of legal rights,
but, notoriously, thought that the idea of natural moral rights was conceptual nonsense.
14 | P a g e

Mill, whilst endorsing Bentham's overall Utilitarian position, did not share his scepticism about
moral rights, and seems to have thought that moral and legal rights were, analytically, closely
connected When we call anything a person's right, we mean that he has a valid claim on
society to protect him in the possession of it, either by the force of law, or by that of education
and opinion. Those things which ought to be so protected were, in his view, those which
concerned the fundamentals of human well-being, and were therefore a sub-set of those things
which a person ought to have on grounds of utility.

The Conceptual Analysis of Legal Rights

Not all philosophers have agreed that rights can be fully analysed. White (1984), for example,
argued that the task is impossible because the concept of a right is as basic as any of the others,
such as duty, liberty, power, etc (or any set of them) into which it is usually analysed. He
agreed, however, that rights can in part be explained by reference to such concepts. White's
approach, based largely on close linguistic analysis, has remained something of a minority one.

The remaining approaches can be categorised in different ways, but a main division is between
those who think that rights are singled out by their great weight as practical reasons, and those
who think that rights are not special in this regard, but instead are to be analysed into duties,
permissions, powers, etc, or some combination of these, perhaps with the addition of other
conditions.

Most writers have, instead, favoured the view that rights are to be analysed into other, more
basic, notions, principally those of duty, permission and power, with perhaps the addition of
other criteria. This means that not all rights will be of great importance. Their importance will
vary with the strength of the grounds for the duty, permission or power. Before looking more
closely at these accounts, another point should be mentioned. Theorists are divided between
those who think that rights are, as it were, the reflex of the duty, permission or power, and
those who think that the right has a priority over them. The question is whether the duty, etc,
grounds the right, or the right the duty. Most older writers (e.g., Bentham, Austin, Hohfeld,
Kelsen) appear to have adhered to the first view, whilst more recent writers (e.g., MacCormick,
Raz, Wellman) take the second. The second view has the implication that the force of a right
is not necessarily exhausted by any existing set of duties etc, that follow from it, but may be a
ground for creating new duties as circumstances change. This latter view seems to accord better
at least with the way that constitutional legal rights work.
15 | P a g e

A more modern version of this theory was proposed by MacCormick (1977), who argued that
a right-holder was the intended beneficiary of a specific share of benefit, rather than just being
a generalised beneficiary of the rules. However, even with this amendment, it remains difficult
to explain third party rights under contracts. Suppose X and Y enter into a contract which
imposes duties on each of them with the intention that performance of these will benefit Z.
According to the theory, Z must (conceptually) be a legal right-holder. But it is in fact an
entirely contingent matter as to whether Z is or not. Some legal systems recognise Z as having
rights in such a situation and others do not. In Britain, for example, Scots Law long recognised
such rights under certain conditions, but English Law did not until the position was changed
by statute in 1999.

What Kinds of Entities Can be Legal Right-holders?

There has been much dispute amongst philosophers as what to kinds of entities can be right-
holders. Corresponding pretty much to the general dispute about the very nature of rights, some
have argued that any entity which would benefit from the performance by others of legal duties
can be a right-holder; others that it has to be an entity which has interests; others that it has to
be an entity capable of exercising some kind of control over the relevant legal machinery. And
there are variants of all these positions.

There has to be a sense in which legal systems can confer rights on such entities as they please.
This is because it has long been recognised that legal systems can regard as legal persons such
entities as they please. In England, for example, the Crown has, for centuries, been regarded
as a legal entity, although what this means in terms of office-holders, far less the actual human
beings who occupied those offices, has changed greatly over that time. Likewise, all modern
societies recognise the legal existence as persons of companies or corporations and frequently
of such entities as trade unions, government departments, universities, certain types of
partnerships and clubs, etc.

One of the most contentious areas in recent years has been whether young children, the severely
mentally ill, non-human animals, areas of endangered countryside, etc, can properly be
regarded as legal right-holders. Clearly anyone who has locus standi before a court must be a
holder of some rights within the system. But it does not seem to follow automatically that an
entity which does not, or which is physically or mentally incapable of bringing a legal action,
is not thereby a right-holder. For it may be the intention of the system that the interests of that
16 | P a g e

entity should be represented by another person. Given then, that all these entities may be
protected by law, and that someone can bring some kind of legal action to ensure that those
duties are enforced, when would we say that the entity itself is a right-holder and when not?

The answer will often turn upon whether one embraces an interest- or a choice-theory of rights.
MacCormick (1976), for example, argued that any theory of rights which could not
accommodate childrens' rights must be deficient, and this was a reason, in his view, for
adopting an interest theory. Wellman (1995), on the other hand, claims that to assert that very
young children or the severely mentally ill can have legal rights is to distort the concept of a
right, since they lack the relevant control of the legal machinery. Instead, he argues, the relevant
rights should be seen as belonging only to those who can bring the relevant actions on their
behalf. For example, in his view a very young child would not have a right not to be negligently
injured by the conduct of another. Rather, it would be the case that the child's parent had a right
that their child not be negligently injured. One difficulty about this position appears to be that
it does not easily square with the relevent remedial rights (e.g., to damages) that the law would
recognise. In this example the law would clearly compensate the child's loss in being injured,
not the parent's loss in their child being injured (though the latter might be a separate ground
of action in some systems).

6. COMPARISON OF RIGHTS

Moral rights are rights accorded under some system of ethics. These might be grounded in mere
humanity they might be rights that all people deserve just because they are humans, or
because they are rational beings, or whatever. Examples might be the right to be treated fairly,
or the right to privacy. If I have a right to privacy, then you (and others) are obligated not to
invade my privacy.

(Not everyone believes in moral rights. The philosopher Jeremy Bentham, for example, once
wrote that moral rights were nonsense upon stilts in other words, the silliest kind of
nonsense. Bentham thought that all rights that made sense had to be legal rights.)

Legal rights are rights that people have under some legal system, granted by a duly authorized
legal authority or government. For example, where I live, kids have a legal right to an education
(Kindergarten up to Grade 12). And consumers have a legal right to know the basic ingredients
and nutritional profile of packaged foods.
17 | P a g e

There is likely to be lots of overlap between moral and legal rights. For example, in most places,
someone accused of a crime has a legal right to know what theyre accused of. But most people
would argue that the law here is merely recognizing what is really a moral right it would be
immoral to jail someone and put them on trial without letting them even know what they are
being charged with.

Natural and legal rights are two types of rights. Legal rights are those bestowed onto a person
by a given legal system (i.e., rights that can be modified, repealed, and restrained by human
laws). Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular
culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be
repealed or restrained by human laws).

The concept of natural law is closely related to the concept of natural rights. During the Age
of Enlightenment, the concept of natural laws was used to challenge the divine right of kings,
and became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law,
and government and thus legal rights in the form of classical republicanism. Conversely,
the concept of natural rights is used by others to challenge the legitimacy of all such
establishments.

The idea of human rights is also closely related to that of natural rights: some acknowledge no
difference between the two, regarding them as synonymous, while others choose to keep the
terms separate to eliminate association with some features traditionally associated with natural
rights. Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any government or
international body to dismiss. The 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human
Rights is an important legal instrument enshrining one conception of natural rights into
international soft law. Natural rights were traditionally viewed as exclusively negative rights,
whereas human rights also comprise positive rights. Even on a natural rights conception of
human rights, the two terms may not be synonymous.

The proposition that animals have natural rights is one that gained the interest of philosophers
and legal scholars in the 20th century and into the 21st.

Human rights are generally thought of as the most fundamental rights. They include the right
to life, education, and protection from torture, free expression, and fair trial. Many of these
18 | P a g e

rights bleed into civil rights, but they are considered to be necessities of the human existence.
As a concept, human rights were conceived shortly after World War II, particularly in regard
to the treatment of Jews and other groups by the Nazis. In 1948, the United Nations General
Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, cementing their foundation in
international law and policy.

Part III of the constitution is said to be Magna Carta of constitution because it contains a long
and elaborative list of fundamental rights which are justiciable and being set to grant political
freedom to all Indian citizens and also to foreigners up to a certain extent.

Fundamental rights are different from other legal and constitutional in many ways which are
as follows. FR are to abrogate or curtail the arbitrary power of state whereas others are for
remedy.FR are complete in nature which means that they do not require any other provision to
fulfil them whereas others requires. FR cannot be abridged except under certain conditions like
emergency under art 352 whereas other can be. FR can be enforced by highest court of law i.e
SC whereas others can be by ordinary process of judiciary and appeal.FR are negative in nature
because they stop the state from doing something whereas other rights are for providing remedy
to any mischief. FR can be amended to a limit not heartening basic structure of constitution
whereas others can be in total. Ordinary legislation is required for other rights which is not
applicable to FR. FR can continue during emergency as art 20 & 21 whereas legal and
constitutional rights cannot be.

Sources

http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=31546

www.iep.utm.edu/hum-rts/

Natural laws and natural rights John Finnis

http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/4907/1/JIPR%208(5)%20357-374.pdf

www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Pages/WhatareHumanRights.aspx

The Shorter Constiution of India DD Basu