In 1982 during the construction work for Asian Games the government engaged a few contractors. These contractors employed a large number of very poor construction workers from different parts of the country to build the flyovers and stadiums. These workers were kept in poor working conditions and were paid less than the minimum wages decided by the government. A team of social scientists studied their poor condition and petitioned the Supreme Court. They argued that employing a person to work for less than the minimum prescribed wage amounts to begar or forced labour, which is a violation of the Fundamental Right against exploitation. The court accepted this plea and directed the government to ensure that thousands of workers get the prescribed wages for their work.

Machal Lalung was 23 when he was arrested. A resident of Chuburi village of Morigaon district of Assam, Machal was charged of causing grievous injuries. He was found mentally too unstable to stand trial and was sent as under trial to Lok Priya Gopinath Bordoloi Mental Hospital in Tejpur for treatment. Machal was treated successfully and doctors wrote twice to jail authorities in 1967 and 1996 that he was fit to stand trial. But no one paid any attention. Machal Lalung remained in “judicial custody.’’ Machal Lalung was released in July 2005. He was 77 then. He spent 54 years under custody during which his case never came up for hearing. He was freed when a team appointed by the National Human Rights Commission intervened after an inspection of undertrials in the State.

Machal’s entire life was wasted because a proper trial against him never took place. Our Constitution gives every citizen the right to 'life and liberty': this means that every citizen must also have the right to fair and speedy trial. Machal’s case shows what happens when rights granted by the Constitution are not available in practice. In the case of the first instance also there was violation of rights provided in the Constitution. But it was challenged in the court. As a result, workers could get what was due to them in the form of their rightful wages. The constitutional guarantee of the right against exploitation ensured justice to these workers.

Both these examples show the importance of having rights and of the actual implementation of these rights. A democracy must ensure that individuals have certain rights and that the government will always recognise these rights. Therefore it is often a practice in most democratic countries to list the rights of the citizens in the constitution itself. Such a list of rights mentioned and protected by the constitution is called the ‘bill of rights’. A bill of rights prohibits government from thus acting against the rights of the individuals and ensures a remedy in case there is violation of these rights.

From whom does a constitution protect the rights of the individual? The rights of a person may be threatened by another person or private organization. In such a situation, the individual would need the protection of the government. So, it is necessary that the government is bound to protect the rights of the individual. On the other hand, the organs of the government (the legislature, executive, bureaucracy or even the judiciary), in the course of their functioning, may violate the rights of the person.