Natural rights are those inherent, inalienable rights that are believed to belong to all individuals by virtue of their humanity. These rights are often contrasted with legal rights, which are granted and protected by governments, and which can be altered or revoked by those same governments.

The concept of natural rights has a long history, dating back to ancient Greece and Rome, but it was the Enlightenment philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries who developed and popularized the idea in its modern form. In particular, thinkers such as John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Paine argued that certain rights were essential to human dignity and liberty and that these rights were not granted by any earthly authority, but rather derived from the very nature of human beings.

The most famous formulation of natural rights is found in the American Declaration of Independence, which declares that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This statement reflects the idea that natural rights are not granted by governments, but rather are inherent in all individuals by virtue of their humanity.

John Locke was the first significant proponent of natural rights. He famously asserted that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and property. Furthermore, no sovereign has the authority to infringe on another sovereign’s rights. One of the motivating reasons for engaging in the social contract, according to Locke, is to protect individual rights. According to social contract theorists, respecting the law is justified and motivated by a collective agreement among society’s members. The natural rights doctrine of John Locke had a huge impact. His philosophy, for example, was influential in the creation of the United States Declaration of Independence, which highlighted the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While Locke is seen as a pivotal player in the development of liberal democracies in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

There are many different lists of natural rights, but some of the most commonly recognized include:

• The Right to Life: This is perhaps the most fundamental of all natural rights, as without life, none of the other rights is possible. The right to life is often interpreted broadly to include not only the right to physical existence but also the right to a certain quality of life, free from undue suffering or deprivation.
  • The Right to Liberty: This refers to the right to be free from coercion or arbitrary interference in one’s choices and actions. It includes not only freedom from physical restraint, but also freedom of thought, speech, and association.
  • The Right to Property: This is the right to own and control one’s own possessions, including land, money, and other forms of property. It is often seen as a natural extension of the right to liberty, as it allows individuals to use and dispose of their possessions as they see fit.
  • The Right to Equality: This refers to the principle that all individuals are equal before the law, and should be treated with equal dignity and respect. It includes the right to equal treatment regardless of race, gender, religion, or other characteristics.

Need for Natural Rights

• Protection of Human Dignity: The concept of natural rights is often seen as a way to protect the inherent dignity and worth of every individual, regardless of their social status or position. This can help to ensure that all individuals are treated with equal respect and consideration.
  • Limitation on Government Power: The idea of natural rights serves as a check on government power, by establishing certain principles and values that transcend any particular government or legal system. This can help to prevent abuses of power and ensure that individuals are protected from arbitrary or unjust actions by the state.
  • Universal Values: The concept of natural rights is based on universal values such as freedom, equality, and justice. These values are seen as essential to human flourishing, and are therefore not subject to negotiation or compromise.
  • Moral Grounding: Natural rights provide a moral grounding for political and legal systems, by establishing a set of fundamental principles and values that guide decision-making and policy formation. This can help to ensure that government actions are grounded in ethical and moral considerations, rather than purely pragmatic or utilitarian concerns.

Difference between natural rights and legal rights

• Natural rights differ from legal rights in that one is codified in law, whereas the other is regarded as universal and morally granted to all people at birth.
• Natural rights are the safeguards that a human being wants to ensure dignity and equality in his or her life. On the other hand, legal rights are the government’s safeguards for the people of a specific state.
• Natural rights are universally recognised, ensuring that everyone has access to them. On the same note as the basic rights, legal rights are state-wide, open to residents of a given region, and can even be changed by the government as needed.
• Natural rights are those that are not based on any culture’s or government’s laws or conventions. Legal rights are those that are granted to a person by a legal system, and they can be modified, abolished, or restricted by human laws.

Difference between natural rights and civil rights

• Civil rights are a type of legal right that tries to ensure that all people in a country are treated equally. A civic right, for example, seeks to ensure equality of opportunities. These rights are the rights that are granted by society. They are enacted and enforced by law. Regardless of colour, religion, or other personal qualities, civil rights, equal social opportunities, and equal legal protection are all guaranteed.
• The right to vote, the right to a fair trial, the right to government services, the right to public education, and the right to utilise public facilities are all examples of civil rights. Civil rights are a crucial component of democracy; when people are denied the right to participate in political life, they are being denied their civil rights.
• Civil rights differ from natural rights, and the distinction is explained below.
• Natural rights are regarded as univeral to all human beings, whereas civil rights are derived from each country’s constitutions or laws.
• Civil rights, unlike other rights such as human or natural rights, in which people gain rights naturally, such as from God or nature, must be given and secured by the state’s power.
• In general, the major distinction between natural rights and civil rights is that human rights are universally guaranteed in all of the world’s nations, whereas civil rights are protected on a broader and worldwide scale by international law.
• For instance, free speech and due process are two of the most valuable and highly treasured civil rights that encourage every individual and citizen of a country to express their views. Natural rights, on the other hand, include the right to life, liberty, and property, to name a few.

Natural Rights & Indian Constitution

• Natural Justice, a reformed version of natural law, is the foundation of the Indian Constitution. Although the Constitution does not expressly mention the notion of natural justice or law, it is reflected in the provisions. The terms “justice,” which includes social, economic, and political justice as well as equality of status and opportunity, illustrate that natural law principles are included in the Indian Constitution. 
• The concepts of natural justice have been used by courts to determine the constitutionality of reasonable limits. The obligation to act fairly is part of the fair procedure envisioned by Article 14 and Article 21. With the inclusion of due process in Article 21 of the Constitution, all of the fairness embodied in natural justice principles may be seen in Article 21 when a person’s life and personal liberty are taken away.
• In a way, all Fundamental Rights provided to the citizens of India are natural rights and to protect them, we have the Right to Constitutional Remedies. 
• The Supreme Court held in D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. (1993) that, even if statutory standing orders empowered management to terminate the services of an employee who overstayed the leave period, doing so without a hearing would be a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution because a procedure established by law that deprives a person of his livelihood cannot be said to be just, fair, and reasonable under Article 21.

Criticism of Natural Rights:

• Lack of Clarity: The concept of natural rights is often criticized for being too vague and open to interpretation. Some argue that there is no clear consensus on what natural rights are, or how they should be defined or enforced.
  • Cultural Relativism: Critics of natural rights argue that the idea is historically and culturally specific, and that different societies may have different ideas about what rights are fundamental and inalienable. This can lead to conflicts between different cultures and value systems.
  • Conflict with Legal Rights: Another criticism of natural rights is that they can sometimes conflict with legal rights, which are granted and protected by governments. For example, the right to free speech may conflict with laws prohibiting hate speech, or the right to bear arms may conflict with laws regulating gun ownership.
  • Unrealistic Expectations: Some critics argue that the idea of natural rights sets unrealistic expectations for what governments can and should do to protect individual rights. In practice, governments often have to balance competing interests and values, and cannot always prioritize individual rights above all else.

In summary, while natural rights are subject to criticism and debate, they remain a powerful and influential concept in modern political philosophy. They provide a framework for protecting individual rights, limiting government power, and establishing universal values that transcend any particular culture or legal system. It serves as a reminder that there are certain principles and values that transcend any particular government or legal system, and that these principles and values should be protected and respected regardless of the circumstances