Given that India has “historically demonstrated a strong commitment to human rights”, Supreme Court Judge Justice Surya Kant said on Monday that “it is somewhat contradictory when some of the most rigid immigration policies – countries with countries – and a recorded trend for excessive use of force, even as a reprimand to themselves as a human rights.
Justice Kant said that speaking at the Swedish capital stockholm at the Embassy of India in Swedish Capital Stockholm, such as a flexible power ‘, such criticism, when self-reliant or unaffected by self-confidence or relevant understanding, claims to reduce great values. ,
Stating that “every nation crafts its human rights structures and crisis reactions according to its legal traditions, socio-political realities and cultural ethos”, he also said that “it is important to identify and respect this diversity of approaches while engaging in global interaction on human rights.”
Justice Kant said, “Meaningful progress is not in uniformity, but in mutual understanding, where every nation is borne by the dignity of its own path, which is both shaped by both heritage and contemporary responsibility.”
He said that India “has been familiar with the concept of human rights for a long time, with its principles deep into the teachings included in our ancient texts, which affect our lives in centuries and ages.”
Citing a poem from Rig Vedas, he said that it “underlines a deeper moral ideal: that all humans are equal, bound by a shared humanity, and should try collectively for mutual uplift and general good”.
Justice Kant said that in ancient India, the righteous law was considered above all human rights, which could end, whether no one, or anyone, whether, regardless of their supremacy.
The story continues below this advertisement
He said, “The later period of Islamic rule in India introduced a complex set of dynamics in the discourse of human rights. Early stages, invasions and victory, were accompanied by violations of comprehensive discriminatory practices and rights. However, in later stages – during the reign of progressive and Jahngar.
Justice Kant said that “it was probably during the British colonial period that India’s human rights landscape landed in one of its dark chapters”.
The senior judge said that “colonial administration was marked by” systematic economic exploitation, cultural margins, and political oppression “and said” during this period there are well -written examples of severe human rights violations “
“Given these atrocities, it is no surprise that human rights were regularly denied Indians, who were subjected to institutional discrimination and were naturally treated as inferior. A series of laws and administrative measures were not done to do justice, but to serve the royal interests. He said.
The story continues below this advertisement
Talking about human rights in the Indian context, he said that the country’s judiciary has “played an important role” in “explaining and expanding the scope of fundamental rights”, turning the constitutional guarantee into a dynamic and developed human rights structure.
“Through progressive jurisprudence, the courts have continuously waved the scope of these rights to include a wide range of aligned security with globally recognized human rights standards.”
Pointing to the role of institutions such as the National Human Rights Commission and the State Human Rights Commissions, Justice Kant said, “In behavior … works as an important condenser to bring examples of abuse or administrative apathy, especially where traditional paths of prevention may be inaccessible or delayed.”
,
