Comparative Constitutionalism: Exploring the Genesis and Essence of Fundamental Rights in the US, UK, and Indian Constitutions.

Abstract

Human Rights are generally defined as those rights which are inherent in individuals’ nature and without which one can’t leave as human being. Human being possesses by virtue of their being human, certain basic inalienable rights which are called Human Rights. Since these rights belong to them because of their very existence, they become operative with their birth. Human Rights being the birth rights are therefore inherent in all the individuals irrespective of their caste, creed, religion, sex and nationality. Human rights are not rights which derive from a particular station; they are rights which belong to a man simply because he is man. Human Rights are those minimal rights that individual need to have against the state or other public authority by virtue of their being members of the Human family irrespective of any other consideration. Justice J.S Verma has rightly stated ‘human dignity’ is the quintessence of human rights. All those rights which are essential for the protection and maintenance of dignity of individuals and create conditions in which every human being can develop his personality to the fullest extent may be termed as Human Rights

Human thought has been leaning toward the idea that since the 17th century, man has possessed certain fundamental, natural, and unalienable rights and freedoms. It is the role of the state to acknowledge these rights and freedoms and permit them to exist freely in order to protect human liberty, foster the development of the human personality, and advance an efficient social and democratic life. An attempt has been made to compare the concepts of fundamental rights in the United States, the United Kingdom, and India through this paper.