India: A Model for the Enforcement of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights

Under the modern international human rights regime, all people are entitled to two categories of rights: civil and political rights and economic, social, and cultural rights. While the judicial enforcement of civil and political rights is commonly accepted in virtually every country in the world, there is a significant degree of hostility towards the judicial enforcement of economic, social, and cultural rights. Critics have long held that the enforcement of these rights in the courtroom would be inherently undemocratic and unmanageable. This belief, and the general aversion to the judicial enforcement of these rights, is primarily rooted in the fact that the enforcement of these rights would require compelling the government to spend vast sums of money in the form of welfare programs. However, India has overcome these criticisms and emerged as a model for the enforcement of these rights. The following paper will serve to lay a foundational understanding of the modern international human rights regime, look to the functionality of both sets of rights, and examine how Indian jurisprudence has come to allow the enforcement of economic, social, and cultural rights in the courtroom. From there, this paper will examine PUCL v. Union of India, the landmark case that recognized the right to food in India, the impact this case has on the lives of the Indian people, and the economic impact of protecting the right to food in an attempt to demonstrate that the judicial enforcement of these rights is not only possible, but can also be done in an effective manner.