In the grand scheme of things, most laws don't amount to much. Consultations are sent out and statutes wind their way through Parliament… and then nothing much of consequence happens. But the Human Rights Act (HRA) turned out to be that rare beast that attracted controversy and debate from its inception but, ultimately, proved to have the constitutional, political and legal resonance to justify the fuss.

This seemed no certainty back in 1997 when its creation was first floated; opponents of constitutional reform had long argued that such considerations fail to pass the saloon bar test of being on the mind of the average voter. As it happened, in the tense post-9/11 world in which the Act was soon operating, the legislation seemed rarely off the saloon bar talking list – thanks to its regular demonisation in the press.

Examining the HRA, as we do in this week's In Depth, it's clear that the law has won many converts in the profession. Back in the mid-1990s, there was far more scepticism regarding the need for a rights adjudication law. Largely, the profession has come to admire the Act for its clarity and flexibility – even if there is some grumbling about the quantity of human rights-related challenges currently before the courts.

Such considerations have cut little ice with ministers over the years. Grumbling from Government has been inevitable and, to a certain extent, desirable. An act supposed to prevent executive overreach and protect the rights of minorities should annoy governments.

More damaging has been the conflation of the HRA with the eurosceptic agenda – leading to calls for a Bill of Rights – and the regular, half-baked attacks the HRA faces in the popular press. On the latter point, the HRA is one of many victims of a newspaper industry that has become materially more partisan, intellectually threadbare and generally corrosive to public life over the past 20 years. But then, the HRA has not always been well served by its allies, who have at times reverted to tribal posturing rather than mounting a vigorous case for its virtues.

Such advocacy has often also skirted over genuine questions over the shortcomings of the European Court of Human Rights or failed to seriously question the campaign to extend such legislation to cover socio-economic rights.

There is also a debatable school of thought pressing for the judiciary to use human rights law to more aggressively check governments. The HRA was almost certainly one of many forces contributing to a creeping (and largely welcome) politicisation of the bench since the 1960s, but this is not a path to be walked down lightly.

Yet these remain minor reservations. The HRA has been a rare reminder of what the law can achieve for the good. In the end, it meant something.