Differentiation of Rights
By: Towseef Ahmad
The actual source and legitimate authority of the rights lies in the origination and touchstone of the constitutional interests of an individual. It has to be exercised according to the principles of differential utility which shall emancipate the overall welfare and egalitarian values of a social system in its wide array. Therefore the polity engages us through the constitutional paradigm to realize our basic interests through the contours and the exemplars of the fundamental rights. This coordination of the rights has been established by the legislature through the statutory enactments and the judiciary through the telos of the interpretation. The resulting deontic system caters to the rights of the institutional bodies and the organizational equilibrium. The rights-holders should therefore focus on the coordination of the rights, enshrined as the fundamental rights system and shall have genial recourse to the fundamental duties and the social policies like the directive principles of the State policy.
This notion is gaining strength considerably as its tenets have been absorbed by the judiciary through the paradigm of the constitutional discourse at the pre-interpretive, interpretive and post-interpretive levels. In order to constrain the indiscriminate character of any ambiguous law, we need to understand its loopholes and the lacunae in a much broader sense. Thence what counts is the democratic legitimacy and the utilitarian principles of the constitution, the global governance system and the interactional international institutional philosophy. Therefore we need to understand and respect the nation states and the international sovereign bodies who provide us the requisite infrastructure for the empowerment of the rights and the interests through the reflection of the genuine demands, to which no one should jettison without any legal justification.
Thence the legitimacy of the rights has to be checked from the representative character of the constitution and the traits of its rights flowing in different directions and trajectories. The constitution entitles us the dignified political life and the international status of these rights is maintained by the United Nations at the international level and its overarching international system of rights and justice, as well as interests and demands. This international domain is broad enough as it broaches the area and domain of the legal, commercial and ethical transactions, and as it caters to the transformation of the law and the universal principles of justice. And as the constituent bodies of the global civil society turn to seek justice for the people of all walks of life without any discrimination.
Therefore we must acknowledge and embrace the cosmopolitan system by adopting the practice of the legal cosmopolitanism. There are definite moral, legal, ethical, cultural, linguistic and religious contexts in which the constitution caters to the substantive notions of the justice. In the context of the transcendent norms the intervention of the constitution is necessary for the interpretation of the specific enactments and the postures of the iterate natural rights.
The fundamental principles of the constitution range in a number of variations which call for justice and equilibrium in the system. In order to populate this idea the cosmopolitan norms should be interpreted by the judicial bodies in a fair and equitable manner so that there will be no miscarriage of the justice and that justice should not only be done but should seem to be done. The essential context of the constitution therefore lies in the principles of the morality. The articulation of the polity needs to be strengthened through the woollen rights and the notions of the cosmopolitan niche. The right is to have the full interface of rights. This is the philosophy of the constitution and the range array of its principles.