![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Prof.-Pratap-Bhanu-Mehta.jpg\")
<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n*Prof. Pratap Bhanu Mehta<\/em><\/p>\nAlways be very suspicious of anyone who tells you that there is such a thing called a \u201cfirst-best\u201d constitution; a conception of constitutional validity that\u2019s independent of the legitimacy that the constitution exercises over its people. It\u2019s up to your elected representatives and the people of Sri Lanka to, in a sense, negotiate their way into a settlement.<\/span><\/p>\nThe test of an enduring constitution is simple: Ask the question \u201cdo all those governed by a constitution feel that it\u2019s one that they have chosen?\u201d<\/i> And \u201care they exercising their rights as free and equal citizens?\u201d<\/i> It shouldn\u2019t be up to experts or people with constitutional authority to prescribe an ideal form of a constitution. <\/span><\/p>\nWhat we could do is share what different experiences will look like, and what those experiences might mean when you think about a new constitution in Sri Lanka.<\/span><\/p>\nWhat I will speak on in the next 20 minutes or so is on the following:<\/span><\/p>\n\n- How should we frame the debates over economic and social rights in the constitution?<\/span><\/li>\n
- About the Indian case and possible lessons from that for Sri Lanka or any other constitution making progress.<\/span><\/li>\n
- End with a couple of suggestions regarding things to think about in the Sri Lankan debate.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Now historically, the way the debate over socio economic rights in the constitution have been framed in three ways. On the question should social and economic rights be constitutionalized, the first framing is kind of teleological, <\/i> this is the standard textbook constitutional history that everybody is taught. It goes something like the following: they say, first generation constitutions, like the American constitution, are concerned with Civil liberties and rights, etc\u00a0 <\/span>— negative liberties — freedom of expression and representative government. But as the ambit of social citizenship expands, we add more rights to common basic core political rights. This expansion on the language of rights is very much reflected in rights discourse around the world. It\u2019s reflected in International Human rights covenants, you have economic and social rights as part of the UN declaration of human rights, etc. So the later a constitution is written — for example South Africa or Kenya — the more likely it is to contain social and economic rights.\u00a0 <\/span>So one framing of the question of those rights is this is part of some natural progressive teleology of improvements in constitutional making. The first set of constitutions were concerned with tyranny, so they emphasized liberty. Later constitutions came to realize that you actually can\u2019t emphasize liberty without capturing at least some form of substantive equality and that\u2019s why this growing trend towards greater constitutionalization in economic and social rights is a natural teleology you can\u2019t escape it, some argue. That\u2019s the kind of a historian\u2019s tracing.<\/span><\/p>\nThere is a philosopher’s tracing of this; which is often a little bit skeptical of the idea of constitutionalizing economic and social rights. It\u2019s a bit skeptical because traditionally philosophers have made distinctions between what we call civil and political rights and economic and social rights. This is largely on account on the content and character of the rights. So the basic intuition is, socio-economic rights are harder to constitutionalize because they are a lot more polycentric, you might say you have a right to health but it\u2019s not clear what a right to health might amount to, it\u2019s not clear how you would make it justiciable. So even if you agree with the principle, institutionalizing or realizing that right involves a more complicated set of considerations than say in freedom of speech. Where basically the court order itself provides itself provides you with protection and instantiation of that right. That\u2019s a very conventional distinction and that\u2019s how philosophers have framed it.<\/span><\/p>\nThe third framing is what you may call a more ideological framing of the story. The ideological framing implies that economic and social rights define the difference between left and right in politics. So we think of the right as — I\u2019m speaking in terms of the \u2018economic right\u2019 — a bit more skeptical economic rights. Because socio economic rights in this view typically enhances state power. It licenses the state to intervene in order to produce much more substantive equality. A lot of heat and passion is generated around these debates.<\/span><\/p>\nWhat I want to submit to you very briefly is that I think all three of these are a wrong way of posing the question. We did some empirical work on the instantiation of social and economic rights as well. The proper question to ask is \u201cWhat is the problem that constitutionalizing economic and social rights meant to solve?\u201d <\/span><\/p>\nI think the ideological divisions\u00a0 <\/span>around social and economic rights can sometimes be exaggerated. I think it\u2019s fair to say that In the 21<\/span>st<\/sup><\/span> century any state has to meet a basic legitimation demand.\u00a0 <\/span>And part of the basic legitimation demand will have to be the provision of opportunities for economic empowerment. Rights to health, education, maintenance of the environment and so forth. It\u2019s hard to imagine any 21<\/span>st<\/sup><\/span> century state that does not have to meet these objectives as part of instantiating their own legitimacy. The question however is, are those goals met by putting\u00a0 <\/span>socioeconomic rights in the constitution?<\/span><\/p>\nSo we could all agree — this is an important point to begin with — It\u2019s good to have the best healthcare for all citizens as equitably as possible, nobody disagrees with the need to disseminate education as widely as possible, very few people would also disagree that you need some sensible labor regulation, workplace regulations and so forth. The specific question is \u201care you more likely to achieve those objectives, if you actually constitutionalize them\u201d?. If you put them as part of the constitution rather than leaving it to the normal hurley burley<\/i> of representative politics?\u201d That\u2019s the core question. <\/span><\/p>\nNow the short answer to this question if you look at comparative empirical evidence turns out to be, the very boring answer that most social sciences give to every question which is \u201cit depends. Under what conditions\u201d? and usually the answer throws up a paradox. It\u2019s precisely those countries that would\u2019ve achieved these goals — health, education, etc. —\u00a0 <\/span>even in the absence of constitutionalized social rights that also do better when you constitutionalize them. <\/span><\/p>\nWhat do I mean by this? In countries like India — I think it\u2019s probably true of Sri Lanka and almost all developing countries — South Africa, Kenya, etc. Part of the fascination with constitutionalizing more and more rights comes from a feeling of deep state failure. Most countries that have achieved a lot of these rights like Social democracies of Scandinavia, advanced developed countries, actually did them without constitutionalizing these rights.<\/span><\/p>\nSo the idea that constitutionalizing a right is a necessary condition for achieving a particular goal is simply a false idea. We have a fascination for constitutionalizing it because we think that in the absence of making it a justiciable constitutional right, our ministers, legislators and MPs won\u2019t create the condition for this realization. <\/span><\/p>\nSo this context is very important because the discourse of rights in developing countries emerges from a history of state failure. We want to go to courts because our legislatures\u00a0 <\/span>won\u2019t give us these things; that\u2019s the master narrative. <\/span><\/p>\nThe paradox is, if you\u2019re in a country where the legislators do not give you these as part of the normal give and take of representative politics, It\u2019s highly unlikely that even if you constitutionalize them and make them justiciable, you\u2019ll actually have the effective institutions that can deliver these rights in the first place.<\/span><\/p>\nSo the idea that rights can be a substitute for broad scale governance reforms needs to be challenged frontally and squarely. <\/span><\/p>\nIn India if you did a poll amongst academics particularly of those who favor constitutionalizing rights and those who don\u2019t. Typically lawyers love to constitutionalize rights. They want more and more rights written into the constitution. Economists and political scientists are a lot more skeptical -I\u2019m over generalizing a bit.\u00a0 <\/span>In part because economists and political scientists are concerned about the consequences.\u00a0 <\/span>So keep in mind this as a summary proposition. If you think that constitutionalizing rights is going to be a substitute for solving the governance problem where your legislator is not delivering, then I think you\u2019re in for a rude shock. This is largely what the comparative evidence is telling us. <\/span><\/p>\nTaking India for example, in their debate over these rights in the year 1950, they did not constitutionalize socio economic rights. Instead there was something\u00a0 <\/span>called \u201cdirective principles of state policy.\u201d It\u2019s worth asking why India didn\u2019t constitutionalized socio economic rights in 1950.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nB.R Ambedkar, the architect of the Indian constitution in his earlier work was inclined upon expansive constitutionalization of these rights. But when it came to the constituent assembly, he changed his position. There were two intuitions behind his change of positions that I think is very instructive for any debate on this question. He basically argued that these rights ought to be framed institutionally rather than philosophically or ideologically. What did he mean by that?\u00a0 <\/span>Two things.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nFirst, he argued if you are constitutionalizing social and economic rights and making them justiciable, you are implicitly trusting courts to deliver on those rights more than legislatures.\u00a0 <\/span>The question to ask is, under what conditions is that trust justified? Why do we think we should trust judges more than we trust our politicians? This is not an easy question to answer. The reason lawyers and middle classes like these rights is because we think, somehow judges as a class as a virtue of that institution will be insulated from politics. Because they are insulated from politics, they can deliver those that things we want to deliver. <\/span><\/p>\nAmbedkar was skeptical of that idea. He was not saying judges are bad or that they can\u2019t be trusted. But he felt if a society reaches a point where you feel like you need to put trust more on judges than your politicians, then there\u2019s probably a deeper corrosion of democracy anyway — You are in much bigger trouble.<\/span><\/p>\nThe second reason he changed his mind was,\u00a0 <\/span>he felt that in any society, there\u2019s a difference in opinion over economic matters. In India\u2019s constituent assembly for example,\u00a0 <\/span>we have communists, socialists, free market liberals, capitalists — people who want stronger property rights protection, etc.\u00a0 <\/span>and Ambedkar\u2019s basic argument was that a constitution shouldn\u2019t pre-judge many of these choices. We could all agree that having more health care, education, worker\u2019s welfare are good ideas. But we might disagree on the institutional architecture that\u2019s going to produce that outcome. His worry was that deep entrenchment of these rights in a constitutional structure, abridge that democratic and political discussion. That what that best solution should ultimately emerge out of democratic politics. <\/span><\/p>\nSecond It should be open to iterative re-examination. So for example, sometimes we strengthen property rights,\u00a0 <\/span>but it doesn\u2019t work and global economic circumstances change — we might have to change our stance. To take a controversial example. One of the rights that\u2019s discussed a lot is workplace protection. In terms of increasing a worker\u2019s bargaining power, now let\u2019s say we could all as a society agree that this is a good thing. We could actually still disagree on what would best achieve that outcome.\u00a0 <\/span>If your economic analysis says for example,\u00a0 <\/span>as is currently discussed, say your employment elasticity of capital is falling. You have \u2018Jobless growth\u2019. Therefore you need a form of social protection that detaches income from employment –This is the debate over Universal Basic Income — you might come to a different view of what employer employee relationship should be. Your argument might be giving people a basic income actually enhances their bargaining power and that this is better than putting stringent minimum wage restrictions and placing the onus on the employer.\u00a0 <\/span>Now you have two different models of enhancing the workers bargaining power. How do you decide which is correct? Ambedkar\u2019s basic point was, this a kind of thing that needs to be amenable to iterative learning.\u00a0 <\/span>The danger of constitutionalizing is that you may be doing so on premises that actually shift very fast. Because economies change and so forth.<\/span><\/p>\nMy view judging by the Indian experience is that I think this way of thinking;\u00a0 <\/span>The two questions of\u00a0 <\/span>\u201cAre courts going to be better guarantors of rights than legislators?\u201d<\/i>, and secondly \u201cIs the nature of this problem such that it should be open to quick iterative learning and democracy rather than be fixed in stone by a set of constitutional principles?\u201d \u00a0 <\/span><\/i>That is the reason why, we in India ended up with directive principles of state policy.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nThe subsequent history of Indian legislation is kind of interesting. And offers an interesting lesson for Sri Lanka. So India ends up with the following Paradox.\u00a0 <\/span>India includes the right to property in the constitution in 1950, we did not constitutionalize socio economic rights.\u00a0 <\/span>But by the 1990s the reverse had happened.\u00a0 <\/span>The Supreme Court using its powers in a manner Ambedkar feared it might, started reading all these rights into the Indian constitution. The court took article 21 which says we have a right to life. The courts said that can\u2019t simply mean the right to bare subsistence. And through that right it many began to read almost every right into the constitution. It promulgated a right to shelter, health, environment, education and we even the right to sleep – a famous supreme court judgement where there’s a right to sleep undisturbed.\u00a0 <\/span>So the courts read a whole series of rights into the constitution.<\/span><\/p>\nOn the right to property something interesting happened. India weakened its power on the right to property, because it was thought to be a weapon that could be used to protect the privileges of the people. So they wanted to weaken this right to enable redistribution of property. <\/span><\/p>\nBut looking back into the last 70 years, this is the biggest paradox.\u00a0 <\/span>By weakening the right to property, it allowed the state to dispossess the poor much more easily than they dispossessed the rich. The state used its power of eminent domain not just for infrastructure projects but for helping all kinds of\u00a0 <\/span>private developers. <\/span><\/p>\nIn socio economic rights the Supreme Court has pronounced a whole series of rights. And the question to ask is has Indian governance improved as a result of the promulgation those rights? now this is a complicated empirical question, but my short answer would be — very little.<\/span><\/p>\nSo here\u2019s the paradox. The court pronounced the right to education. We now have a right to education bill as a result. But this bill was passed the day India\u2019s enrollment in primary education had already reached 100%. So the right came after the fact, but more importantly, the right focuses is largely on the input side of education. So you must have a school of such square foot area, but this has absolutely no bearing on learning outcomes. In fact India\u2019s learning outcomes have worsened after that right was pronounced. <\/span><\/p>\nSimilarly in the right to environment; ask yourself, how does India with the most progressive environmental laws in the world, ended up with the filthiest air and water in the world?<\/span><\/p>\nOn the right to health, to be fair in the supreme court\u2019s interventions, certainly puts a little bit of pressure on the executives to answer for administrative lapses. But the constitutionalization of that right has not led to the creation of a better public health system.\u00a0 <\/span>In short, what I\u2019m saying is that the very governance pathologies that prevented us from doing well with those rights in the first place are reproduced when the courts try to administer these rights. Partly because beyond a certain point they don\u2019t have the power to enforce these rights. <\/span><\/p>\nIf you look at the contemporary moment in the constitutionalization, we face another paradox which\u00a0 <\/span>John Gardner calls as the paradox of legality versus Juridification. Society is becoming more juridified, we are bringing more things under the rubric of justiciable rights. Yet the domain of illegality is increasing, and part of the reason is — this is a feature of socio economic rights — that you can promulgate these rights, but beyond a certain point the courts don\u2019t have the power to design appropriate remedies. <\/span><\/p>\nAs an example, in India the court pronounced this magnificent right to livelihood and right to shelter. Great rhetoric. But what was the remedy the court provided?\u00a0 <\/span>Well, it\u2019s basic few things like, adopt due process, before you evict people give them six weeks notice instead of four, etc. But the crucial point is, in social and economic rights around the world,\u00a0 <\/span>South Africa is presented as this magnificent example, it has the most progressive social rights constitution — the gap between rights and remedies the court prescribes gets wider. So you have this paradox, as a citizen thinks he or she is entitled to a right. But it\u2019s subversion of rule of law to say I have the right but I don\u2019t know what remedy is going to be attached to it.<\/span><\/p>\nI\u2019m going to conclude with a couple of thoughts. In sum, empirically there\u2019s very\u00a0 <\/span>little evidence to say that constitutionalizing social and economic rights makes a huge difference to governance. If it does, it does so at the margins. It does have expressive value, it can sometimes allow the courts to hold the executive to account for procedural matters.<\/span><\/p>\nBut If you believe that constitutionalizing will compensate for those governance deficits ,and one reason we like to constitutionalize rights is because this is governance on the cheap.\u00a0 <\/span>The idea is all you have to do is put an article in the constitution. All lawyers will declare victory, civil society will be happy because there\u2019s this great focal point.\u00a0 <\/span>What happens after that? That remains the unresolved question. <\/span><\/p>\nWhen I was reading the Sri Lankan select committee report, it had great emphasis on rights that need to be protected. Right to privacy and so on. One thing that struck me was, the fact that perhaps it\u2019s inevitable to have some form of socio economic rights in any 21<\/span>st <\/sup><\/span>century constitution. The momentum in that direction is rather high.\u00a0 <\/span>My only recommendation for consideration is the following: If indeed a constitution does end up putting these rights in the constitution, it should at the same time provide a clear legislative framework to put underneath it. <\/span><\/p>\nJust to take one example, having the right to health, what does that right entail? The European drafting on this (ECHR) says everyone has the right to preventive health care. The right to benefit from medical treatment under conditions established by national law and practices. It\u2019s a conditional right. What you need to do is specify what the national law and practices are.<\/span><\/p>\nOtherwise you might end with the same paradox Brazil ended up with. In Brazil the right to health is the most litigated. Every study is finding that promulgation of the right to health ended up benefiting the privileged more than it benefited the poor. Why? Because it\u2019s an unspecified right to health. <\/span><\/p>\nYou may show up in court saying \u201cLook, I need an expensive dialysis machine, given the disease I have\u2026\u201d If the court is dealing with the case individually, it can use the right to health, right to life as a basis to grant you that relief. But that relief comes at a cost. <\/span><\/p>\nSo unless a right, whatever the right maybe, it’s not just important that it\u2019s not open ended in the constitution, it should very carefully put underneath it a legislative framework that specifies what those national law and priorities are. <\/span><\/p>\nBecause otherwise you risk having Ambedkar\u2019s worst nightmares. Where you have the economy governed by courts.\u00a0 <\/span>Power taken away the legislature and democratic process. And a perverse outcome where the right can be used more as it were to buttress the rights of the privileged rather than to protect the weak and vulnerable, which was what that right was meant to do.<\/span><\/p>\n*The transcription of Prof. Pratap Bhanu Mehta’s lecture organised by Advocata Institute\u00a0<\/span>in Colombo on the topic “Implications of incorporating Socio Economics Rights in the constitution”\u00a0<\/b><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":22,"featured_media":176523,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,46,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-176518","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-colombotelegraph","category-constitutional-reforms","category-editorial"],"yoast_head":"\n
Should We Have Socio-Economic Rights In The Constitution?\u00a0 - Colombo Telegraph<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/should-we-have-socio-economic-rights-in-the-constitution\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Should We Have Socio-Economic Rights In The Constitution?\u00a0 - Colombo Telegraph\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"[…]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/should-we-have-socio-economic-rights-in-the-constitution\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Colombo Telegraph\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2017-04-22T08:27:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-26T12:35:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Prof.-Pratap-Bhanu-Mehta-1-e1492849857439.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"150\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"150\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"COLOMBO TELEGRAPH\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"COLOMBO TELEGRAPH\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/should-we-have-socio-economic-rights-in-the-constitution\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/should-we-have-socio-economic-rights-in-the-constitution\/\",\"name\":\"Should We Have Socio-Economic Rights In The Constitution?\u00a0 - Colombo Telegraph\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/should-we-have-socio-economic-rights-in-the-constitution\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/should-we-have-socio-economic-rights-in-the-constitution\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Prof.-Pratap-Bhanu-Mehta-1-e1492849857439.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2017-04-22T08:27:45+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-26T12:35:06+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/#\/schema\/person\/9db3d0cfcfa59e1997e3c3524d454cb3\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/should-we-have-socio-economic-rights-in-the-constitution\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/should-we-have-socio-economic-rights-in-the-constitution\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/should-we-have-socio-economic-rights-in-the-constitution\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Prof.-Pratap-Bhanu-Mehta-1-e1492849857439.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Prof.-Pratap-Bhanu-Mehta-1-e1492849857439.jpg\",\"width\":150,\"height\":150,\"caption\":\"Prof. Pratap Bhanu Mehta\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/should-we-have-socio-economic-rights-in-the-constitution\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Should We Have Socio-Economic Rights In The Constitution?\u00a0\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/\",\"name\":\"Colombo Telegraph\",\"description\":\"In journalism truth is a process\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/#\/schema\/person\/9db3d0cfcfa59e1997e3c3524d454cb3\",\"name\":\"COLOMBO TELEGRAPH\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/920b3181b0bf86b5c339ad9f0963a89f6a8b19c4b971e629987a021ba7a663df?s=96&d=identicon&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/920b3181b0bf86b5c339ad9f0963a89f6a8b19c4b971e629987a021ba7a663df?s=96&d=identicon&r=g\",\"caption\":\"COLOMBO TELEGRAPH\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/author\/colombo_telegraph\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Should We Have Socio-Economic Rights In The Constitution?\u00a0 - Colombo Telegraph","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/should-we-have-socio-economic-rights-in-the-constitution\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Should We Have Socio-Economic Rights In The Constitution?\u00a0 - Colombo Telegraph","og_description":"[…]","og_url":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/should-we-have-socio-economic-rights-in-the-constitution\/","og_site_name":"Colombo Telegraph","article_published_time":"2017-04-22T08:27:45+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-26T12:35:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":150,"height":150,"url":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Prof.-Pratap-Bhanu-Mehta-1-e1492849857439.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"COLOMBO TELEGRAPH","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"COLOMBO TELEGRAPH","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/should-we-have-socio-economic-rights-in-the-constitution\/","url":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/should-we-have-socio-economic-rights-in-the-constitution\/","name":"Should We Have Socio-Economic Rights In The Constitution?\u00a0 - Colombo Telegraph","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/should-we-have-socio-economic-rights-in-the-constitution\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/should-we-have-socio-economic-rights-in-the-constitution\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Prof.-Pratap-Bhanu-Mehta-1-e1492849857439.jpg","datePublished":"2017-04-22T08:27:45+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-26T12:35:06+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/#\/schema\/person\/9db3d0cfcfa59e1997e3c3524d454cb3"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/should-we-have-socio-economic-rights-in-the-constitution\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/should-we-have-socio-economic-rights-in-the-constitution\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/should-we-have-socio-economic-rights-in-the-constitution\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Prof.-Pratap-Bhanu-Mehta-1-e1492849857439.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Prof.-Pratap-Bhanu-Mehta-1-e1492849857439.jpg","width":150,"height":150,"caption":"Prof. Pratap Bhanu Mehta"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/should-we-have-socio-economic-rights-in-the-constitution\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Should We Have Socio-Economic Rights In The Constitution?\u00a0"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/","name":"Colombo Telegraph","description":"In journalism truth is a process","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/#\/schema\/person\/9db3d0cfcfa59e1997e3c3524d454cb3","name":"COLOMBO TELEGRAPH","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/920b3181b0bf86b5c339ad9f0963a89f6a8b19c4b971e629987a021ba7a663df?s=96&d=identicon&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/920b3181b0bf86b5c339ad9f0963a89f6a8b19c4b971e629987a021ba7a663df?s=96&d=identicon&r=g","caption":"COLOMBO TELEGRAPH"},"url":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/author\/colombo_telegraph\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Prof.-Pratap-Bhanu-Mehta-1-e1492849857439.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/176518","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/22"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=176518"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/176518\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":176521,"href":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/176518\/revisions\/176521"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/176523"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=176518"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=176518"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=176518"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}