Introduction
“To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity”
~Nelson Mandela
The idea of human rights as universal goes back to the theory of Natural Law, one of the most ancient schools of legal thought, which states that every human is born with a set of inalienable human rights and moral principles are inherent to human existence. Ancient philosophers like Aristotle believed that justice is derived from nature itself, while the philosopher Thomas Aquinas believed that laws which are not consistent with morality lose their legitimacy. However, the modern understanding of human rights was mainly shaped by the political philosopher, John Locke, in the 17 th century. He proposed that all human beings are born with a “blank slate” or “tabula rasa”, and because of that, people should be endowed with a series of basic inalienable since birth. To John Locke, these rights were life, liberty and property. The idea of rights is something that is supposed to be, for every single person. This idea is laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that the United Nations adopted in 1948. The first part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that every human being is born free and equal when it comes to how we should be treated and our human rights. This framework gave rise to the doctrine of universalism which maintains that every human is bestowed with basic fundamental rights regardless of their nationality, religion, ethnicity or cultural background. However, it starts to get complicated when cultural relativists believe that, applying a universal set of rights disregards sovereignty, culture as well as local traditions. They believe that rights are subjective, and the definition of a “right” can significantly differ between different cultures. This raises the difficult question:
Where do we draw the line?
Absolute cultural relativism may justify heinous crimes such as genocidal practices, misogyny, or discrimination whereas absolute universalism may strip cultures off their local traditions and sovereignty. Through philosophical theories, legal doctrines and recent developments, this article examines how culture acts, both as a foundation and challenge to law, specially while balancing it with fundamental rights.
Definitions: Volksgeist, Social Engineering and Legal Pluralism
Law has never evolved in a social vacuum, it has emerged as a reflection of customs, traditions, beliefs, moral values, etc. Long before the law was codified and formal legal systems were formed, people governed and regulated conduct, customs and social norms, for instance regarding marriage and inheritance, which later gained legal recognition after a few centuries. Thus, culture formed the foundation of law. The relationship between law and culture is supported in various schools of jurisprudence. The historical school of jurisprudence was mainly developed by Fredrich Carl von Savigny during the 19 th century. The fundamental tenet of this theory is that the legislation should not be viewed as a collection of rules established by a higher authority. He believed that law develops from customs and the shared consciousness of people. Savigny’s theory of law[1] is known as the Volksgeist.2 Volks means “people” and geist means their “common will”. It means that law is a common will of the people. According to Savigny, law is a byproduct of how people live in a given society and it represents society’s shared convictions and a nation’s cultural heritage. It evolves like a language which unites people and develops with the society like a continuous process. Similarly, according to the Sociological school of Jurisprudence, mainly by Roscoe Pound, law is an instrument of social engineering. He compared the work of lawyers to that of engineers, thus according to him the aim of social engineering was to build a society that requires satisfaction of maximum wants with minimal usage of resources, balancing the competing interests. This is called the theory of “social engineering”[2]which suggests that law is always evolving. For example, changing attitudes towards digital technology and privacy has given rise to different legal frameworks throughout the globe. Further, the concept of legal pluralism means that the law evolves from multiple cultural sources rather than a single legislative authority. Roseveare defines legal pluralism as “the existence of multiple sources of law (both state and non-state) within the same geographical area”. It produces mixed legal environments where the lines between local and non-state actors are blurred. In pluralistic societies like India, personal laws related to marriage, divorce, etc. show how culture has a significant impact on the legislative frameworks.
Illustrations: Cultural Relativism vs Universal Human Rights
While the jurisprudential theories aptly explain how culture forms a foundation of legal systems, the relationship becomes complicated when cultural practices clash with the universal human rights. According to the doctrine of Universalism, certain basic rights are inherent and inalienable to human beings which belong equally to every human being since birth, irrespective of their nationality, culture, ethnicity, etc. This is reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[3] (UDHR) which claims, through articles 1,2 and 3, that all humans are born with equal inalienable rights since birth, without any distinction. However, this framework is challenged by cultural relativism which claims that values and legal norms cannot be separated from cultural contexts. According to them, rights are socially constructed, and their meaning and implementation varies across various societies. According to them imposing a single law may disregard the customs and religious beliefs. The international law has tries to reconcile this tension through the Vienna Declaration and The Plan of Action [4](VDPA), adopted at the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights recognizing cultural diversity while also stating that it’s the duty of the states to promote fundamental rights, irrespective of their cultural and economic systems. This framework is a middle ground which acknowledges the cultural diversity without allowing it to become a justification for violating human dignity. For example, in the Part 2, para 20, urges all governments to take measures to prevent and combat all forms of racism, xenophobia or related intolerance, where necessary by enactment of appropriate legislation, including penal measures. Human rights scholar, Jack Donnelly, also tried to resolve this conflict through the theory of “relative universality”, where he sates that while human rights should remain universal in principle , their interpretation and implementation may according to different cultures. It recognizes that the spirit of human rights must remain intact, even though their implementation may differ. It forms a middle ground between rigid human rights frameworks and the sensitive cultural norms.
Case Law: The role of Indian judiciary in balancing culture and rights
The Indian legal system has a rather unique position, while safeguarding religious and cultural diversity while ensuring constitutional equality and justice. The Indian judiciary has often sought the role of a constitutional mediator. Trying to strike a balance between constitutional morality and cultural diversity of the country. Through judicial interpretation courts have preserved the cultural values and norms with the evolving ideals of justice, equality and dignity. here are some court decisions like the Shayara Bano v. Union of India Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala and Mohd.Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum that show the court is trying to balance what people normally do in their lives and what the law says is right.
Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)[5]
The Shayara Bano v. Union of India case is a deal because it challenged a certain Muslim practice called talaq-e-biddat, which is also known as instant triple talaq. This is a type of divorce that some Muslims follow. In this type of divorce a Muslim husband can divorce his wife by saying the word " talaq " three times and that is it the divorce is done. The Shayara Bano v. Union of India case is, about this triple talaq practice.
Facts
1- The marriage, also known as ‘nikah’ between the petitioner (Shayara Bano) and the petitioner’s husband (Rizwan Ahmad) was solemnized on 11th April 2001, as per Shariat law.
2- On 10th October 2015 Rizwan Ahmad divorced his wife through the practice of talaq-e- biddat or triple talaq or instant talaq.
3- Petitioner filed a writ petition at the Supreme Court (SC) in February 2016 challenging the constitutional validity of talaq-e-biddat (triple talaq) as unconstitutional and violating basic fundamental rights.
4- The contention of the petitioner was that this type of divorce (talaq) is violative of fundamental rights and stated that these practices were not protected under Articles 25(1), 26(b) and 29 of the Constitution.
Legal issues
1- Whether triple talaq violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution?
2- Whether the practice of triple talaq protected under Articles 25(1), 26(b) and 29 of the Constitution?
3- Whether Triple Talaq is an essential religious practice in the religion of Islam?
Observations
On the 22nd of August 2017 the Supreme Court gave its decision. The Supreme Court decided with a majority of 3 to 2. The Supreme Court said that instant Triple Talaq is not legal and is not valid. The majority of the Supreme Court said that Triple Talaq is not allowed under
the rules of Article 25 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court also found that Triple Talaq is not a part of the Islamic religion the Triple Talaq practice is not essential, to Islam the Supreme Court said that the Triple Talaq is not protected. The Supreme Court concluded that “this form of Talaq is manifestly arbitrary in the sense that the martial tie can be broken capriciously and whimsically by a Muslim man without any attempt at reconciliation to save it. This type of talaq goes against a right in Indias constitution Article 14. So it should be cancelled because it supports talaq.
Judgement
The judgement mainly focused on women’s rights. The main goal was to protect women from treatment. Triple talaq is an issue for women’s rights in India. The judgement is a step, towards equality. It reaffirmed that religious practices cannot be immune from constitutional scrutiny when they violate the basic fundamental principles of equality and dignity. Supreme court acknowledged that though religious practices are protected they cannot override the integral constitutional guarantees of equality and justice and dignity. Thus this case shows the Supreme Court’s attempt to balance cultural identity with constitutional morality. It proves that fundamental rights must prevail in situations where cultural practices and local traditions undermine or challenge the fundamental rights of the citizens of the country.
Practical Application: Culture shaping Law in a Contemporary Society
The influence of culture on law extends beyond legal theory and judicial theory into the everyday working and functioning of the society. In India, crucial matters such as divorce, Marriage shows the impact of culture on personal laws and the legal framework of our country. The recent changing attitudes towards equality and data protection laws have shaped the evolving legal frameworks, both in the country and globally. Tensions arise when cultural practices clash with the fundamental principles and spirit of the constitution and legal systems. Law and legal interpretations always try to seek a balance between cultural diversity and the fundamental tenets of justice and equality.
Conclusion
The relationship between culture and law is inseparable as both work parallelly in any societal structure. Both are shaped by the customs, beliefs and moral values. As demonstrated in the article culture and traditional practices of a region have a key impact in the formation of law and legal systems. As explored through multiple schools of jurisprudence, philosophers such as Savigny emphasized through the thought of Volsgeist that law evolves from the spirit of tradition of people while Roscoe Pond viewed law as a concept of ‘social engineering’ that changes with changing traditions. Similarly the tensions between doctrine of universalism and cultural relativism show the problems of balancing cultural diversity with universal human rights, an issue reconciled through the theory of relative universality. At the end of the day, the challenge is not in absolutely rejecting or preserving culture but in ensuring that laws and legal systems are culturally sensitive while also preserving fundamental rights and justice with the ever evolving social norms
Reference
[1]B.N Many Tripathi,” Jurisprudence [Legal Theory] (May 29, 2026, 12PM) https://msrlawbooks.in/file/JURISPRUDENCE_Legal_Theory_F.pdf
[2] Karandeep Makkar, Law As A Tool For Social Engineering In India (May 28, 2026, 1 PM) https://www.manupatra.com/roundup/331/Articles/law%20as%20tool.pdf
[3] Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), 1948
[4] United Nations Human Rights Office of High Commissioner, Vienna Declaration and The Plan of Action (May 28, 2026. 3 PM) https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/vienna-declaration-and-programme-action
[5] Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, AIR 1985 SC 945, (1985) 2 SCC 556 (India).