Author: Sampriti Rajmallya, University of Allahabad
Linkedin Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sampriti-rajmallya-54aa01256
Abstract:
Legal right and legal duty are considered as complementary in the rule of law. Jurists like Salmond stated right as an interest that is recognized and protected by the state. On the other hand, jurists like Austin argued legal right as a guaranteed power given by the state to a person. On the topic of whether there can a right exist without duties, the opinions of Salmond and Austin are hugely discussed. According to Salmond, no right can exist without any corresponding duties and vice versa. But Austin stated opposing that all duties are divided into two types, absolute duties and relative duties. Between the two, realtive duties can have corresponding rights, whereas absolute duties are independent and have no right correlated to them. The example of relative duties is Breach of contract and negligence. Therefore, this kind of duty has rights linked to them that form an obligation to perform the duty. On the flip side Absolute duties can be not to commit suicide, there is no corresponding right. Here, in this article, we will discuss whether a right is always present or exists within a duty or not in the following points.
Dynamic correlation of rights and duties:
Rights and duties are said to be two sides of the same coin. Jurists like Holland, Pollock stated right or legal right as a power protected by state and recognized by law. According to Gray, legal right means the power that makes the people to do something or omit the person or persons from doing a certain act or acts so far as the power arises from society imposing a legal duty upon the person or persons. He states that “Right is not the interest itself, it is the means to enjoy the interest secured.” The Interest Theory developed by Rudolf Von Jhering states that legal right is legally protected, focusing on the interest of the people rather than the will of the people. Salmon supported this theory but criticized it because of its enforceability as interest.
Duty is basically an obligation to do an act to restrain doing an act. It is mainly an obligation to perform a task whether it is moral, ethical, cultural or legal etc. According to Salmond, duty is an obligatory act, the opposite of which would be wrong. Duties can arise due to being a human, due to one’s place in life, due to one’s character or due to one’s own moral expectations for oneself.
Professor Larkin advocated that if there is no right, there will be no duties. Because relationships and duties are connected. If we are given rights, it is the corresponding duty of them to respect that right. For example, if I have the right to live in a safe and clean environment, then every other person has a duty to respect my right. Another point of Prof. Laski is that the state guaranteed us some rights, so we have some duties towards the state too.
Relation through classification:
One of the classifications of rights includes right in rem and right in persona, where right in rem means the right that is available against the society or against many people. Contrarily, Right in person means the right that is given to an individual. In the same way, there are positive and negative rights where some action needs to be done; states the former and the latter one implies to refrain someone from doing a certain act. Here, we need to understand the correlation between the rights and duties. In case of Right in persona we can say that if a person has given a right to his own propertythen it is the duty of others to protect and respect that right and that is their duty. In the other side, right in return, when one commits a murder under BNS, that person will get punished as this is a violation of duty against the state Therefore, in the case of negative and positive rights, when someone is given a right to perform a certain act, it becomes an obligation to perform it. Negative duties implies it when negative right is given to a person or persons in the same way.
Use of legal jargon:
The well-known jurist Wesley Newcomb Honfeld explained this relationship through his theory of juris correlatives.According to Honfeld, every right comes with a corresponding duty.This theory helps in understanding legal relationships more clearly and avoids confusion between different legal concepts. In the Constitution of India, fundamental rights are guaranteed to all citizens without discrimination based on race, caste, sex, place of birth, or other such factors.Additionally, Fundamental Duties are included in Article 51A of the Indian Constitution.Althoughthese duties are not enforceable in court, many of them have inspired the legislature to create laws.
Proof and case laws:
1. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India
The Supreme Court stated that Legal rights are defined as the interests which the law protects by imposing duties on other persons. However, legal rights in the strict sense also mean the right to immunity from the legal power of another. Immunity is not subjection at all.
2. Mr. X v. Hospital Z (1998) 8 SCC 296
The Supreme Court of India ruled that a doctor’s duty to maintain patient confidentiality is not absolute. It held that when non-disclosure poses an imminent health threat to an innocent third party, public interest overrides an HIV-positive patient’s right to privacy.
The Court recognized medical confidentiality as an ethical imperative but noted that it has legally recognized exceptions.
3. P. Bhaskaran v. Additional Secretary (1987)
This was a landmark judgment of the Kerala High Court. It established two major legal principles regarding cooperative societies and employee rights under Rule 200 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules:
(i) Writ Maintainability:
The Court ruled that cooperative societies are not statutory bodies. Therefore, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution generally does not lie against them, as they are not considered a “State” or “public authority.”
(ii) Employment Rights:
The Court interpreted Rule 200, protecting the pre-existing rights and privileges of existing employees who lacked higher educational qualifications introduced by newer rules.
4. AIIMS Students’ Union v. AIIMS (2002) 1 SCC 428
The Supreme Court of India struck down a 33% institutional quota for postgraduate medical admissions, declaring it unconstitutional.
The Court observed that Fundamental Duties are as important as Fundamental Rights, and citizens must discharge their duties while enjoying constitutional rights.
5. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Also known as the Dehradun Quarrying (Dehradun Valley) Case, this landmark Supreme Court judgment established the right to a healthy environment as an integral part of Article 21 (Right to Life). The Court balanced ecological preservation against commercial limestone mining in Dehradun.
The judgment balanced the people’s right to livelihood with the duty to protect the environment, illustrating the relationship between rights and corresponding duties.
Conclusion:
The relationship between rights and duties lies at the heart of every legal system. Rights cannot exist in isolation because every right enjoyed by one person places a corresponding duty on another to respect or protect it. Jurists such as Hohfeldand Salmond have explained that this interdependence is what gives legal rights their practical meaning. The Indian Constitution reflects this balance by guaranteeing Fundamental Rights while also expecting citizens to observe Fundamental Duties under Article 51A.
Judicial decisions have consistently reinforced this principle. Whether in matters of privacy, environmental protection, public health, or constitutional governance, courts have emphasized that the exercise of rights carries corresponding responsibilities. While rights safeguard individual liberty and dignity, duties ensure that these freedoms do not infringe upon the rights of others or the welfare of society.
Thus, rights and duties should not be viewed as competing concepts but as complementary principles. A society that values rights without recognizing duties risks disorder, whereas duties without rights may lead to injustice
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. What is the relationship between rights and duties?
Rights and duties are complementary concepts. Every legal right creates a corresponding duty on another person or authority to respect or enforce that right.
2. Can there be rights without duties?
In jurisprudence, most legal scholars believe that every legal right has a corresponding duty. However, some moral or natural rights may exist even before they are legally recognized.
3. Why are rights and duties equally important?
Rights protect individual freedom, while duties ensure that those freedoms are exercised responsibly without harming others or society.
4. What is Hohfeld’s theory regarding rights and duties?
Hohfeld stated that every legal claim-right has a corresponding duty. His theory explains that rights and duties are legally connected and cannot be understood independently.
5. Why are Fundamental Duties important despite being non-enforceable?
They promote civic responsibility, encourage respect for constitutional ideals, and help courts interpret laws in a manner that serves the larger public interest.
