Digital technologies have transformed profoundly the way people communicate, access information, participate in democratic processes, conduct economic activities and exercise their rights. While the traditional human rights framework remains based on the pillars of dignity, liberty, equality, privacy and freedom, the rapid digitization of social and economic life has opened up new frontiers for rights protection. In this context, the development of digital rights is not simply an extension of traditional human rights into cyberspace, but an ever-evolving legal and normative framework dealing with the specific challenges of the digital age. This article explores the transition from a traditional human rights protection approach to a more holistic conceptualization of digital rights. It examines the impact of artificial intelligence, algorithmic decision-making, mass surveillance, digital profiling, data-driven governance and online platforms on long-established rights such as the right to privacy, freedom of expression, equality, access to information and freedom from discrimination. Special attention has been given to the growing importance of data protection, informational self-determination, digital identity, meaningful internet access and protection from algorithmic bias as new aspects of rights protection. From a comparative and international perspective, the paper analyzes whether existing legal structures are sufficiently equipped to respond to these developments. It takes into account international human rights principles as well as emerging regulatory approaches in jurisdictions such as the European Union, India and other major digital economies. The analysis focuses on the issues of cross-border data flows, jurisdictional conflicts, technological asymmetry, private platform power, and the lack of universally harmonized standards for the protection of digital rights. The paper further argues that a purely state-centric approach to human rights enforcement is not sufficient for effective protection of rights in the digital environment. Technology companies, digital platforms and other private actors are increasingly exercising substantial influence over the enjoyment of fundamental rights and must therefore be brought within contemporary accountability frameworks. Ultimately, the paper recommends the establishment of a coherent rights-based global digital governance framework that balances technological innovation with human dignity, autonomy, equality, privacy and democratic values.
[1]Lex Gill, Dennis Redeker & Urs Gasser, Towards Digital Constitutionalism? Mapping Attempts to Craft an Internet Bill of Rights (Berkman Ctr. for Internet & Soc'y, Rsch. Publ'n No. 2015-15, 2015).
[1]Human Rights Council Res. 20/8, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/RES/20/8 (July 5, 2012).
[1]Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld, Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning (Walter Wheeler Cook ed., 1919).
[1]Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously (1977).
[1]G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, pmbl. & art. 1 (Dec. 10, 1948).
[1]Karel Vasak, A 30-Year Struggle, UNESCO Courier, Nov. 1977, at 29.
[1]International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171 [hereinafter ICCPR]; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 993 U.N.T.S. 3.
[1]Norberto Bobbio, The Age of Rights (Allan Cameron trans., Polity Press 1996).
[1]Edoardo Celeste, Digital Constitutionalism: A New Systematic Theorisation, 33 Int'l Rev. L. Comput. & Tech. 76 (2019).
[1]Lawrence Lessig, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (1999).
[1]Helen Nissenbaum, Privacy as Contextual Integrity, 79 Wash. L. Rev. 119 (2004).
[1]Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 S.C.C. 248 (India).
[1]Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 S.C.C. 1 (India).
[1]Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 S.C.C. 637 (India).
[1]Faheema Shirin R.K. v. State of Kerala, 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 2976 (India).
[1]Amar Jain v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 49 of 2025 (India Apr. 30, 2025). The reporter citation should be verified before formal use.
[1]Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, No. 10, Acts of Parliament, 1994 (India), amended by Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2019, No. 19, Acts of Parliament, 2019 (India).
[1]Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000, §§ 69A, 79 (India).
[1]Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, No. 22, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India) [hereinafter DPDP Act].
[1]Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, G.S.R. 139(E) (India) (as amended).
[1]Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, No. 49, Acts of Parliament, 2016, §§ 40, 42 (India).
[1]Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 S.C.C. 241 (India).
[1]Human Rights Council Res. 17/4, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/RES/17/4 (July 6, 2011) (endorsing Special Representative of the Secretary-General, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/17/31 (Mar. 21, 2011)) [hereinafter UNGPs].
[1]Samuel D. Warren & Louis D. Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193 (1890).
[1]Case C-131/12, Google Spain SL v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, ECLI:EU:C:2014:317 (May 13, 2014).
[1]Regulation 2016/679, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the Protection of Natural Persons with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, 2016 O.J. (L 119) 1 [hereinafter GDPR].
[1]Case C-311/18, Data Prot. Comm'r v. Facebook Ireland Ltd., ECLI:EU:C:2020:559 (July 16, 2020).
[1]Human Rights Comm., General Comment No. 34: Article 19: Freedoms of Opinion and Expression, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34 (Sept. 12, 2011).
[1]Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 S.C.C. 1 (India).
[1]Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 603 U.S. 707 (2024).
[1]Regulation 2022/2065, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market for Digital Services, 2022 O.J. (L 277) 1 [hereinafter DSA].
[1]Joy Buolamwini & Timnit Gebru, Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification, 81 Proc. Mach. Learning Rsch. 77 (2018).
[1]State v. Loomis, 881 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 2016).
[1]Rechtbank Den Haag [District Court of The Hague] Feb. 5, 2020, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:1878 (NJCM c.s./De Staat der Nederlanden) (Neth.) [hereinafter SyRI].
[1]Case C-634/21, SCHUFA Holding (Scoring), ECLI:EU:C:2023:957 (Dec. 7, 2023).
[1]People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (1997) 1 S.C.C. 301 (India).
[1]Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2019) 1 S.C.C. 1 (India).
[1]Big Brother Watch v. United Kingdom, App. Nos. 58170/13, 62322/14 & 24960/15 (Eur. Ct. H.R. May 25, 2021) (Grand Chamber).
[1]Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism (2019).
[1]R (Bridges) v. Chief Constable of S. Wales Police [2020] EWCA (Civ) 1058 (Eng.).
[1]See UNGPs, supra note 23.
[1]See IT Rules, supra note 20; DSA, supra note 31, arts. 16–17, 20–21.
[1]Regulation 2024/1689, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 Laying Down Harmonised Rules on Artificial Intelligence, 2024 O.J. (L 2024/1689) 1 [hereinafter AI Act].
[1]UNESCO, Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence (Nov. 23, 2021).
[1]GDPR, supra note 26, arts. 79, 82.
[1]Human Rights Council Res. 20/8, supra note 2.
[1]G.A. Res. 68/167, The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age (Dec. 18, 2013).
[1]UNGPs, supra note 23.
[1]G.A. Res. 79/1, annex I, Global Digital Compact (Sept. 22, 2024).
[1]Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union arts. 7, 8, 11, 2012 O.J. (C 326) 391.
[1]GDPR, supra note 26; DSA, supra note 31; Regulation 2022/1925, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2022 on Contestable and Fair Markets in the Digital Sector, 2022 O.J. (L 265) 1; AI Act, supra note 44.
[1]European Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles for the Digital Decade, 2023 O.J. (C 23) 1.
[1]Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014); Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018).
[1]47 U.S.C. S. 230.
[1]Cal. Civ. Code S. 1798.100 et seq. (West 2024).
[1]Off. of Sci. & Tech. Pol'y, Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights (2022); Exec. Order No. 14,110, 88 Fed. Reg. 75,191 (Oct. 30, 2023), revoked by Exec. Order No. 14,148, 90 Fed. Reg. 8237 (Jan. 20, 2025).
[1]Human Rights Act 1998, c. 42 (UK); Data Protection Act 2018, c. 12 (UK); Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, c. 18 (UK).
[1]Online Safety Act 2023, c. 50 (UK).
[1]Case C-507/17, Google LLC v. Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL), ECLI:EU:C:2019:772 (Sept. 24, 2019).
[1]Case C-18/18, Glawischnig-Piesczek v. Facebook Ireland Ltd., ECLI:EU:C:2019:821 (Oct. 3, 2019).
[1]Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data (CLOUD) Act, 18 U.S.C. S. 2713.
[1]Convention on Cybercrime, Nov. 23, 2001, E.T.S. No. 185; Council of Europe, Protocol Amending the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, Oct. 10, 2018, C.E.T.S. No. 223; Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law, May 17, 2024, C.E.T.S. No. 225.
[1]G.A. Res. 79/243 (Dec. 24, 2024) (adopting the United Nations Convention Against Cybercrime).
[1]Stovpets, Oleksandr & Borinshtein, Yevhen & Yershova-Babenko, Irina & Kozobrodova, Dina & Madi, Halyna & Honcharova, Olha. (2023). Digital technologies and human rights: challenges and opportunities. Revista Amazonia Investiga.
[1]International Commission of Jurists. (2022). Digital Technologies and Human Rights: a Legal Framework. In A Briefing Paper. https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Digital-Technologies-and-Human-Rights-Briefing-Paper-FINAL-VERSION-May-2022.pdf
[1] ibid
[1]Matolli, M. (2026). Rethinking Human Rights in the Digital Era: A Critical Analysis of Legal Frameworks. International Journal of Law Management & Humanities. https://ijlmh.com/article/view/rethinking-human-rights-in-the-digital-era-a-critical-analysis-of-legal-frameworks.
[1] ibid
Article DOI: 10.62823/IJEMMASSS/8.3(III).9512
