We have already pointed out in Asiad construction workers case (AIR 1982 SC 1473) that the state is under

a constitutional obligation to see that there is no violation of the fundamental right of any person, particularly when he belongs to the weaker sections of the community and is unable to wage a legal battle against a strong and powerful opponent who is exploiting him. the central government is therefore bound to ensure observance of various social welfare and labour laws enacted by parliament for the purpose of securing to the workmen a life of basic human dignity in compliance with the Directive Principles of State Policy. 1) PANDEY .J. N Constitutional Law of India, 48th Edition, Central Law Agency , Allahabad Pg 240,246,251 Central Law Agency 2) JAIN. M. P Indian Constitutional Law, 6th Edition, Wadhwa and Company, Nagpur 3) T.V. Sibba Rao. Vijender Kumar, Family law in India 10th Edition, Hyderabad Pg 202, 203

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Actual protection of human rights requests logically clear legal concepts legally established or thoroughly discussed in legal doctrine that would be equally understood in different applicable situations and would presuppose rights and duties of unambiguous behavior. Human dignity and right to dignity are concepts also bound to such discussion. The view of dignity largely centered around an individual whereas modern concept of human dignity as a human right and constitutional value has a strong communitarian basis and requires the state to create and protect appropriate conditions for the realization of dignity. After the bleeding aftermath and colossal scourge of First and Second World War, the world states began to comprehend and sanction the importance and meaning of human dignity. Therefore the concept of human dignity was timely conceived and was given significant place in all non-diplomatic and humane International documents. It is to be noted that this intrinsic worthiness has been further widely recognized by International Law as a source and focal point of all human rights.

Again, Justice Bhagwati, in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India1 reiterated that Article 21of the Indian constitution is the fountain head of the right to human dignity .The right to dignity has been elucidated by the Supreme Court that the right to life does not mean only animal existence but to live with dignity, Since the term human dignity is incapable of exact definition it has been used, defined and illustrated by the Court depending on the fact and circumstances and socio-cultural milieu. Looking to the development of the human dignity at international arena and the need of the sociopolitical and cultural environment, the court has explained and articulated the right to human dignity in various forms. These instances ranges from right to adequate nutrition ,clothing shelter freedom from exploitation, right to food, water and decent environment, right to medical facilities , right to medical and social security before and after retirement and right to decent burial of dead human body.

Ashmita Bisarya Assistant Professor, Course chief faculty for

BIBLIOGRAPHY CERTIFICATE COMPARISON BETWEEN RIGHT DIGNITY AND CONJUGAL RIGHTS

Constitutional Law
Date: 21st November, 2011 Definition of Right to Dignity in International Legal Draft: Mere reading of the international instruments relating to human rights reveals that the recognition and declaration of human rights is based on the common sense idea that human rights are founded on the inherent dignity of every person. Thus human dignity and right to freedom and equality that derive from it are undeniable. Freedom from repression and oppression, freedom of expression, freedom of economic security, right to equality and other analogous rights are central to human dignity. Rather right to human dignity is the best soother and greatest guarantor of all these human rights.

TO

PRIVACY,

Designation and official address of research guide Division B. Roll No 45.Class BBA LLB of
Immense concerns are already prevailing with respect to the protection of personal data and information, in essence the right to ones privacy. The right to privacy refers to the specific right of an individual to control the collection, use and disclosure of personal information. Personal information could be in the form of personal interests, habits and activities, family records, educational records, communications (including mail and telephone) records, medical records and financial records, to name a few. Further, the convergence of technologies has spawned a different set of issues concerning privacy rights and data protection. Innovative technologies make personal data easily accessible and communicable
1

1984 SC 802

In
In widening the scope of liberty under Article 21, the Court held that personal liberty is contained in Article 21 as a compendious term to include within itself all varieties of rights which go to make up the personal liberty of man other than those dealt with in several clauses of Article 19(1).26 However, notwithstanding this, it concluded that this right to privacy is not in existence under the Constitution, with Ayyangar, J laying down that: The right of privacy is not guaranteed under our Constitution and therefore the attempt to ascertain the movements of an individual which is merely a manner in which privacy is invaded is not an infringement of fundamental right guaranteed by Part III India and Right to Dignity: India has been the great champion and votary of this concept from times immemorial. Various texts of earlier Indian civilization bring forth the testimony of Indian peoples serious concern over this valuable issue. As the frontrunner of human values and human norms, India has made abundant contribution in this field and has acted as the torchbearer for others in this venture. Hence, the concept of dignity is not new for Indian society and culture. The term Garima is the Hindi counterpart of the term dignity. In this backdrop, the makers of the Constitution has given due place to dignity in the Constitution. The drafters of Constitution were aware of the significance of human dignity and worthiness and therefore they incorporated this term in the preamble of the constitution. This shows that the framers showed an uncompromising respect for human dignity.

INTRODUCTION TO RIGHT TO DIGNITY INTRODUCTION TO RIGHT TO PRIVACY

It is a great pleasure for me to put on records my appreciation and gratitude towards Dr. C.J. Rawandale, Director for his immense support and encouragement all through the preparation of this report. I would like to thank my faculty Prof Vikram Singh and Prof Ashok Wadje (Project Guide) for his valuable support and suggestions for the improvement and editing of this project report. Last but not the least, I would like to thank all the friends and others who directly or indirectly helped me in completing our project report. It is also to be remembered that India delegated a present to UDHR as it was prepared after making of Indian Constitution and passed on Dec10, 1948. But like the Constitutions of Germany, Canada, Africa, China, Poland, Israel, Sweden and other countries, Indian Constitution has not explicitly provide a specific provision for the preservation and protection of the human dignity.

LEGAL ISSUES
Modern constitutionalism and concept of human rights jurisprudence both heavily rely on the concept of human dignity but the precise meaning of this concept is elusive. At present, there is not any universally recognized and accepted definition of this term. This nature of the term is because of the value of human dignity comes in part from its evolving and plastic nature as well as difficulties lie in its amorphous content. The term dignity has secured a social, religious, political and legal history.

Multi-shades of the term Dignity as deciphered by Indian Supreme Court: In Francis Coralie Mullin v Administrator, Union Territory of
Delhi2, it was held that the right to life enshrined in Article 21 cannot be restricted to mere animal existence. It means something much more than just physical survival. The right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, are, namely, the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow human beings.

Nevertheless, it has found a place in our constitution as a necessary corollary to all the rights viz. rights of an accused person, right to life, right to equality or right to freedom. Right to human dignity is the basic and common golden thread running through all of them. An indepth study of these rights would reveal that by protecting and implementing these rights the State and the constitutional Courts have protected and implemented the values of human dignity.

NOVEMBER, 2011
On the basis of a dispassionate perusal of the aforementioned judicial rulings, it is evident that there is an implied, unenumerated, but judicially- evolved and recognized right to privacy under the Indian Constitution. Although the rulings of the Supreme Court in the cases of MP Sharma and Kharak Singh, already referred to, denied the existence of any right to privacy, smaller benches in the cases of Govind, Rajagopal and PUCL unmistakably indicate the existence of such a right. The shift in judicial interpretation is most notably observed following the Maneka Gandhi case, wherein this right is recognized, subject to legal restrictions satisfying the requirements as laid down in the Maneka Gandhi case3. However, if the courts were to address the issue of right to privacy under Article 21 afresh, there is little doubt that it would conclude that there does exist a right to privacy. Such a statement will not be valid law unless stated by a bench of more than six judges so as to effectively overrule Kharak Singh. On a harmonious interpretation of the legal principles as laid down by the Supreme Court at different points of time, it is sufficient to conclude the existence of right to privacy under Part III of the Constitution. The first principle was stated in Kharak Singh, which said that personal liberty used in the Article 21 is a compendious term to include within itself all varieties of rights which go to make up the personal liberty of man other than those dealt with in several clauses of Article 19(1). The second and third principles were laid down in Maneka, which stated that any law interfering with personal liberty must be just, fair and reasonable and that an unnamed right may be regarded as part of a named fundamental right if it partakes of the same basic nature and character of the named right Privacy is also a feature of the dignity of an individual that the preamble to the Constitution assures every individual. Thus the right is not merely a negative mandate upon the state not to encroach upon the private space of the individual but is also a positive affirmation on the state to create adequate institutions that would enable one to effectively protect his private life. Thus the right to privacy has a strong constitutional edifice, which could, if clarified by an appropriate Bench of the Supreme Court, settle this judicial controversy at rest. 1981 AIR 746, 1981 SCR (2) 516 33Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597

2 3

One of the important implications of section 9 is that it provides an opportunity to an aggrieved party to apply for maintenance under s 25. Maintenance can also be obtained by the party in case when the action is pending under s 24. Hence, a wife who doesnt want a judicial separation or disruption of marriage can attain maintenance from her husband without filing a suit for the same under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Another important implication of the section is that it provides a ground for divorce under s 13(1A) on a condition that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights between them for a period of one year or more after the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

PULKIT SINGH RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS

Restitution of Conjugal Rights Meaning, The Hindu Marriage Act , 1955 Section9. RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL
RIGHTS.- (1) When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly. (2) Nothing shall be pleaded in answer to a petition for restitution of conjugal rights which shall not be a ground for judicial separation or for nullity of marriage or for divorce.

RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS: MEANING AND SCOPE

RIGHT TO DIGNITY, RIGHT TO PRIVACY
Right to life enshrined under Article 21 has been defined in its the widest amplitude including right to dignity or right to have dignified life .The right to dignity extends even to live in a dignified way unto natural death including the dignified procedure of death. Further, it has been held that it is to be the primary duty of the state to ensure the protection of human dignity through suitable legislations and by creation of adequate mechanism. The State has to ensure that the right to life is not infringed by any public authority and public institutions. Signature of the Candidate Some of the regional instruments of human rights have specifically referred to and emphasized on right to dignity. As, for example, the American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 and European convention on the protection of the human rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950 which have sought authority from and are fully committed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948. The African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights of 1986 has also given due recognition to right to dignity. The preamble of the Charter declares that freedom, equality, justice and dignity are essential objectives. And, Article 5 of the Code in unequivocal terms, declares Every individual shall have the right to the respect of the dignity inherent in

a human being and to the recognition of his legal status. All forms of exploitation and degradation of man, particularly slavery, slave trade, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments and treatment shall be prohibited.

Submitted by Sukhwinder Singh Dari Symbiosis International University, PUNE Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA
The elevation and conceptualization of human rights in the couch of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 by the General Assembly provided ground work for protecting and developing human dignity in the international law as well in constitutional law of the various countries. The preamble of the UDHR is the mirror in which the essence of these instruments could be perceived and visualized in its perfect form. It lays emphasis on equal rights of men, women and children and the need to live with dignity. The Indian Divorce Act, 1869 Section 32. Petition for restitution of conjugal rights. -When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, either wife, or husband may apply, by petition to the District Court or the High Court for restitution of conjugal rights, and the Court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition, and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly. The institution of Marriage is often regarded as a primary institution in this society of ours. An individuals existence in the society is guided by institutions which are often regarded as established forms of procedure characteristic of group activity. Later on, a marriage between two individuals creates a set of rights and obligations between the parties involved. These rights may be called as conjugal rights. The word conjugal, in its essence means, of relating to marriage or to married persons and their relationships. So now we need to ask ourselves as to what exactly do we mean by the restitution of these conjugal rights The project entitled INTEREST OF MINORITIES UNDER ARTICLE 29 submitted to the Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA for Special Contracts as part of Internal Assessment is based on my original work carried out under the guidance of Prof Ashmita Bisarya and Prof Sukhwinder Singh Dari from 1st November to 14th November . The Research work has not been submitted elsewhere for award of any degree The material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the thesis has been duly acknowledged. I understand that I myself could be held responsible and accountable for plagiarism, if any, detected later on. The right to dignity has been usually explained through its objectivistically understood origin: it has been claimed that this right has neither been granted by the state nor created by the person himself or herself but exists irrespectively of sex, race

and nationality, as well as from life style This is meant to say that an individual himself or herself is not involved in creation of his or her dignity, that dignity is put into the person like a ready-made conformation from aside, that it is like a biological human property that may neither be given, nor created or lost, that is characteristic even to the unborn life in the body of a mother. The right to dignity is nowadays accepted as the highest human right, the source of rights. However, the transfer from emphasis of the rights meaning to revelation of its content discloses immense variety of opinions both in the philosophical and legal literature , besides, dignity has often been inseparable from the right to dignity, the right itself is not differentiated in the terms of suability and subjective right; dignity and its origin has been rarely linked to the cultural human activity. The Right to Life of a person is regarded as the most important aspect of a persons fundamental rights. It is stated in the Constitution as follows No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. Article 21, though couched in the negative language, confers on every person the fundamental right to life and personal liberty. These rights have been given a paramount position by the Supreme Court. Over the years, this right has also included within its scope, the right to education, the right to privacy, the right to speedy trial ,the right to travel etc... It is argued that Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 that provides for the restitution of conjugal rights, violates the right to privacy of an individual. Section 9 denied the spouse his/her free choice whether, when and how her/his body was to become the vehicle for the peroration of another human being. A decree for restitution of conjugal rights deprived according to the learned Judge in Sareethas4 case, a woman of control over her choice as and when any by whom the various parts of her body should be allowed to be sensed. Our Constitution embraces the right to privacy and human dignity and any right to privacy must encompass and protect the personal intimacies of the home, the family, marriage, motherhood, procreation and child bearing. It is to be noted that the restitution of conjugal rights, unlike specific performance, is only willful in nature and the courts must treat it only as an inducement in times to come. The institution of marriage has been inherent in the Indian Society and all must be done to protect it Furthermore, if a spouse does not wish to stay with his/her partner then he may make use of remedies such as judicial separation and divorce. Leaving a partner without a reasonable excuse cannot be justified. This is against the concepts of justice, equity and good conscience which are the basis for laws made in our Country. Thus it must be observed that Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is not violative of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. There are some cases where it was held that the onus was upon the petitioner to establish that the other party had withdrawn from his (or her) society without reasonable cause. In Reba Rani v Ashit5, the husband brought the suit of conjugal rights . He failed to prove that he had made any attempt to bring back his wife from her fathers place. His suit , therefore, failed. Under Hindu law an agreement between husband and wife to live separately is void as it is contrary to public policy and whether such agreement is ante- nuptial or post-nuptial is contrary to public policy. In the case of Vuyyuru Pothuraju v Radha , there was a pre-nuptial agreement between the husband and wife

4 5

T. Sareetha v. Venkatasubbaiah, AIR 1983 AP 356. AIR 1965 Cal 102

The struggle to specifically incorporate privacy as a specific fundamental right under the Constitution is substantially attributable, in large measure, to the rather amorphous character of this right. In the case of M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra6 wherein the contours of the polices powers of search and surveillance were outlined, it was held that there is no right to privacy under the Constitution. In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court preferred to base its interpretation in a rather narrow sense, limiting itself to simply the prescribed statutory regulations. This represented the prevailing judicial approach of simply limiting interpretation, along positivist lines. Therefore, the Court concluded that it lacked the justification to import [privacy] into a totally different fundamental right, by some process of strained construction. Thus the courts adopted a narrow and formalistic approach by pointing to the absence of a specific constitutional provision analogous to the Fourth Amendment of the US constitution, to protect the right of privacy of Indians from unlawful searches. This ruling has been followed nearly a decade later, in the case of Kharak Singh v. State of Punjab 7 Wherein the right to privacy was again invoked to challenge police surveillance of an accused person. The contention raised is that the right to privacy may be identified in the personal liberty as contained in Article 21. The Supreme Court of India has recognized it as a basic value of the supreme law. It has made it clear that the preamble encompasses the fundamental aspects of the Indian republic and it may Thus, the Court has based its numerous decisions and interpreted the given rights with the help of the term dignity of the individual used in the preamble. The underlying importance given towards the value of the human dignity has been exhibited by the Supreme Court in various cases relating to rights of an accused person provided under Article 20, and right to life and personal liberty provided under Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus, as part of the right to live with human dignity and therefore as a necessary component of the right to life, the prisoner or detune would be entitled to have interviews with the members of his family and friends and no prison regulation or procedure laid down thereby regulating the right to have interviews with the family and friends can be upheld as constitutionally valid under Article 14 and 21, unless it is reasonable, fair and just. To achieve this constitutional imperative of ensuring the dignity of individual, the evil practices of untouchability, slavery, begar and exploitation of woman and children have been abolished. These were the long standing social evils prevailing in the Indian society. Thus, it was in a form of emancipation of all the sections of society, wherever needed and required. Tracing the Origins of the Right to Privacy in India

Under the guidance of VS

6 7

1954 AIR 300 AIR 1977 P H 335