As another Human Rights Day approaches, the scene in India is distressing.

It was on December 10, 1948, that the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Since then the day is observed as International Human Rights Day and the occasion is used to spread awareness about rights.

India, which gained freedom from Britain only 16 months earlier, incorporated many UDHR provisions in the Constitution it proclaimed in 1950.

Essentially, UDHR and other UN instruments seek to ensure human dignity.

The Supreme Court, which is charged with the task of interpreting the Constitution, said the provisions of international covenants should be read into it.

Independence did not mean a complete break with the past. Successive governments have lived happily with feudal and colonial practices.

Although India signed the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1984, it has not ratified it so far. As a result, torture is still common in police lock-ups and prisons.

Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the human rights situation has deteriorated in the last six years. One of the first acts of his administration was to cripple human rights organisations by choking their sources of funds.

A prime target was Citizens for Justice and Peace, founded by Teesta Setalvad, who played a key role in bringing before courts a few cases relating to the 2002 communal riots in Gujafat when Modi was Chief Minister of the state.

Starved of funds, many national rights organisations have become inactive.

After the administration froze its bank accounts, forcing lay-off of paid staff, Amnesty International announced in September that it was stopping all work in India.

An Amnesty official told BBC it had faced “an onslaught of attacks, bullying and harassment by the government in a very systematic manner”.

Another international organisation that has come under pressure from the government is Greenpeace. It has been campaigning against the government’s policies and programmes that pose threats to the environment and to lives and livelihood of the poor.

In 1993, India enacted a law providing for setting up of Human Rights Commissions, headed by retired Chief Justices, at national and state levels for protection of rights. The commissions are now quiescent.

At this juncture, sadly, the Supreme Court, which once took pride in its immense power, has failed to rise up to people’s expectations.

When Maharashtra was under a Bharatiya Janata Party-led government, the state police picked up a large number of respected rights activists from different parts of the country, alleging links with a banned Maoist party.

The Supreme Court took up a public interest litigation challenging their arrest. After adjourning the hearing many times, it dropped the matter abruptly.

Three years later, the activists are still in jail, denied bail even on medical grounds.

Petitions challenging the constitutional validity of controversial measures, like those relating to citizenship norms and Kashmir’s status, are lying before the court unattended.

Former Law Commission Chairman Justice AP Shah observed recently, “In several cases, the Court has refused to act in defence of citizens who have been victimised for their protest and dissent or for simply exercising their fundamental right of speech and expression.” Until recently the UN High Commission for Human Rights used to look into conditions in India under its Universal Periodic Review programme. There is a pause on that front, presumably because of the pandemic.

The new citizenship law and the change in Kashmir’s status attracted criticism from abroad on grounds of violation of rights. The government’s standard response to such criticism is that these are “internal matters”.

The assumption that sovereignty gives the government power to trample upon the rights and liberties of people is repugnant to both national and international law.

Counsel for 83-year-old Stan Swamy, a Jesuit priest arrested for alleged Maoist links, told the court that his client, who was suffering from Parkinson’s disease, was unable to drink water from a glass without a straw. The National Investigative Agency, which is handling the case, cheekily responded that it did not have straw.

Following this, many concerned citizens rushed packets of straw to the jail.

The government must at least ensure that the conduct of its agencies does not bring disrepute to it.