Indian constitutional rights and practice remain separated

What the study found: India’s Constitution provides a broad framework for protecting civil, political, and socio-economic rights, but there is still a substantial gap between these guarantees and their real-world implementation.

Why the authors say this matters: The authors suggest that stronger institutional accountability, democratic engagement, and a broader culture of rights are needed to turn constitutional commitments into effective human rights protection.

What the researchers tested: The study used a doctrinal and analytical approach, examining constitutional provisions, judicial interpretations, and relevant scholarly literature on human rights in India.

What worked and what didn't: The article notes significant judicial innovations, especially through public interest litigation and an expanded interpretation of Article 21 (the constitutional right to life and personal liberty). It also identifies persistent problems such as custodial violence, institutional discrimination, socio-economic inequalities, implementation deficits, institutional limitations, and entrenched social hierarchies.

What to keep in mind: The abstract describes a legal and analytical study, not an empirical measurement of outcomes. Limitations are not separately described in the available summary.

Key points

• India’s Constitution is described as offering extensive protection for civil, political, and socio-economic rights.
• The article says a substantial gap remains between constitutional guarantees and their implementation in practice.
• Public interest litigation and a wider reading of Article 21 are identified as important judicial innovations.
• Persistent problems mentioned include custodial violence, institutional discrimination, and socio-economic inequalities.
• The authors argue that accountability, democratic engagement, and a broader culture of rights are needed.