In India, anyone can go to court to defend a stranger's rights
Most legal systems insist that only the injured party can sue. India's constitution lets any person bring a case to the High Courts or Supreme Court on behalf of someone whose fundamental rights are being violated, and judges may even act on their own after reading press reports.
Civil liberties are the basic freedoms a government promises not to curtail without due process: conscience, religion, speech, the press and assembly, along with privacy, equality before the law, a fair trial and the right to life. Their formal lineage is usually traced to Magna Carta, the English charter of 1215, itself built on the earlier Charter of Liberties. Today most countries list them in a constitution or bill of rights, or adopt treaties such as the European Convention on Human Rights.
India's version sits in Part III of its constitution, which sets out six fundamental rights, among them equality, freedom of religion and protection against exploitation. They were designed to overturn inequalities inherited from before independence: untouchability was abolished, discrimination by caste, religion, race, sex or birthplace was banned, and trafficking and forced labour were outlawed. Some of these provisions bind private individuals, not just the state. The rights to life and personal liberty apply to everyone in the country, while free speech belongs to citizens.
None of these rights is absolute. They can be limited for the national interest, and during an emergency the freedoms of speech, assembly and movement can be suspended. In the Kesavananda Bharati case, the Supreme Court held that Parliament may amend any part of the constitution, rights included, but may not destroy its basic structure, such as secularism, democracy, federalism and the separation of powers.
Japan shows how text and practice can diverge. Its 1947 constitution, written under Allied occupation, contains a strong bill of rights, yet governing elites have been slow to build a fully open society, and many people treat the rights as moral ideals rather than enforceable law, turning to bureaucrats instead of courts. The gap has narrowed over time: in 1979 its parliament approved the International Bill of Human Rights, and it passed an equal employment law for men and women in 1985. Debate continues everywhere over how far liberties may be curtailed in wartime or emergencies.
Source: Civil liberties
