Supreme Court Justice Surya Kant lauded India's human rights records at a a legal forum in Stockholm.
In a speech titled “Human Rights, the Indian Constitution and India as a Resilient Power”, Justice Kant said it was important to view each nation’s rights framework in the context of its legal traditions and historical experiences.
Thus, he called for global conversations to be shaped by mutual understanding rather than one-sided scrutiny.
Without taking any names, he criticised what he described as the paradox of some Western nations positioning themselves as guardians of human rights while pursuing rigid immigration policies and frequently resorting to excessive force in domestic policing.
The address, which spanned India’s legal heritage from the Vedic period to the modern Constitution, explained the country’s human rights approach as one shaped by both ancient philosophy and modern constitutional morality.
Justice Kant also defended the role of institutions like the National Human Rights Commission and State Commissions. Referring to the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, he said these bodies are not symbolic but carry real powers to investigate, summon and initiate action.
Justice Kant began by referring to India’s ancient legal traditions. He cited verses from the Rig Veda that affirmed the inherent equality of all human beings and spoke of how the idea of Dharma laid a moral foundation that upheld dignity, justice and mutual responsibility.
The judge traced the shift from indigenous justice systems to colonial rule, calling the British era one of systematic denial of rights. Referring to the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, the Champaran oppression and the Bengal famine, he said the colonial legal regime was not designed to protect rights but to entrench power.
Justice Kant highlighted the judiciary’s role in giving life to constitutional promises.
He traced the evolution of right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, starting with its narrow interpretation in the 1950s to a broad, rights-enabling clause that now encompasses privacy, education, legal aid, clean environment and even the right to die with dignity.
He also cautioned against the idea of imposing a uniform model of human rights enforcement on all nations.
Likening it to different coffee cultures around the world, he said just as each society savours coffee in its own way, human rights frameworks too must reflect local realities and traditions.