Introduction
Being in conformity with the Paris Principles (for promoting and protecting human rights,
endorsed by the Geneva Assembly of the United Nations), human rights commissions result from a number of
national and international factors ranging from the internal conflicts of Punjab,
Jammu and Kashmir and the North Eastern States in the 1980s to the early 1990s
changes at the international stage all working in tandem. The statute, Protection
of Human Rights Act, 1993 establishing them states that the commissions are the
protector of “rights relating to life,
liberty, equality, and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution
or embodied in the International Covenants” indeed presenting the National
Human Rights Commission (NHRC) responsible for the protection and promotion of
human rights in India as a tiger, but a
toothless or a paper tiger unfortunately.
Paper Tiger
Archetypes of “fourth branch institutions” are what
this National and State Human Rights Commissions can be called. Even after
being amended twice through the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act,
2006 and the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2019 NHRC still seems
helpless in dispensing justice in an effective manner roughly to one lakh cases
turning up every year before it.
The brutal custodial killing of two Muslim
youths in Durma police station of Sitamarhi, Bihar seemed a ‘wait and watch’
game to NHRC.
Not just one reason could be attributed to this attitude of the
institution. This incident may be the result of clout or religious persecution
but there are various factors working against it too. Like many other
commissions in India, this institution too is still caught up in the
recommendation game making it vulnerable to be downplayed by the government.
Primarily it enjoys no power in the context to provide compensation to the
victims on its own rather can only ‘recommend’ remedial measures to the central
or state government as per Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act,
1993.
In commissions such as these, if justice is delayed, it is actually denied
because that way not just violations get promotions but humanity is also led
down. The human rights commissions are empowered to conduct inquiries against
state authorities either by petitions filed or on their own initiative. At that
point of time they are granted powers identical to that of civil courts such as
examination of witnesses, obtaining evidence, and giving orders for the
required documents. But the problem crops in when these institutions reach a
certain conclusion to be executed. In light of this, recently a pending case has been brought up before
the Madras High Court to decide whether
their conclusion would be only taken as a suggestion that could be rejected by
the central or the respective state government or would be binding to be
implemented. The amendments made in 2019 also do not seem to be much of a panacea
to NHRC.
The National Human Rights Commission earlier comprised the
chairperson, four ex-officials and four deemed members. Now the total number of
members of the commission has been increased from nine to thirteen without
addressing its key problems. The judges who are a part of the ex-officio
members need not to have a proven record of human rights activism or expertise
in that area. As far as the other two and the newly added member who is to be a
woman in the deemed members are
concerned, the Act still remains quite vague by saying “persons having
knowledge and experience of human rights” not specifying the minimum extent of
this knowledge and experience required. A newly added vice is the reduction in
the tenure of NHRC and SHRC chairpersons and members from five to three years
which would further lead to bundling up of the cases as the panel would get
less time for dispensing the cases incessantly increasing every day in number
other than the already pending ones.
Another evil which stands is that these
human rights commissions do not take up cases that were committed a year
before the complaint was filed. This makes some genuine grievances to go
unaddressed. This time-bar is not apt for a country with a population of more
than a billion and near about 27% illiteracy rate increasing the vulnerability
of individuals to fight for their rights. These commissions also lack
jurisdiction to penalise authorities breaching their orders. Their powers have
also been restricted in the context of handling cases of armed forces. Further
the lately created union territory of Jammu and Kashmir has no mechanism of
handling such human atrocities as per the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
And now the NHRC in absence of such a mechanism will have to adjudicate the
sensitive cases of Jammu and Kashmir which has a history of violations of human
rights, not to forget the mass exodus of Kashmiri pundits in 1990s and many
more in queue. Apart from these practical limitations, these commissions have
structural limitations also. Of all those limitations, the bureaucratic
atmosphere from where they draw most of their staff further acts against the
effective functioning of these commissions. Here, a point worth noting is when
institutions such as these are downplayed it not only taints the entire system
but also shatters the hope of people who still hold faith in the word JUSTICE.
Much Needed Teeth
Justice Brandies once said, “Sunlight
is said to be the best disinfectant” and these commissions seem to be in dire
need of it. They are like those beautifully made paintings that have almost
lost all their colors.
But a stitch in time saves nine so giving them the required
colors would rejuvenate them. So, the first stroke for improvement could be
the enhancement of the enforceability of the decisions taken by these statutory
bodies which would not only save considerable time and energy but also provide
relief to the victims from going through cumbersome judicial processes of the
High Courts. They must have independence in recruiting staff for them.
There is
also an urgent need to incorporate non-government organizations, civil society
actors (academia, sports, activists et cetera) and independent experts as an active advisory council to NHRC looking at the rise in human rights violations at
various levels and grounds.
These institutions should have a separate agency to
investigate police-related complaints, which would be nothing new as countries
such as Brazil and South Africa have been dealing with such cases exclusively
for so long.
It is undeniable that a large number of crimes concerning basic
human rights are committed in areas of insurgency and internal conflicts, so
authorizing NHRC and SHRC would only help in reducing the upsurge if they are
allowed to investigate complaints independently against the military and
security forces. This is especially crucial when the government previously had
not allowed the NHRC to investigate into extra-judicial killings in Manipur and
other insurgency affected areas citing Section 19 of the PHR Act, 1993 which
bars them from inquiring into such matters. Further, it could also be allowed
to publicize its recommendations. Last but not the least, it is high time we
understand that issues such as human rights are not to be politized and institutions
such as these are not to be degraded. That NHRC has turned more than 25 should
not remain its only achievement after all.
Conclusion
Undoubtedly NHRC and SHRC are not courts which should
issue legally binding orders but it needs to enjoy more powers to implement its
decisions through all means. Other than removing structural limitations, if
these practical limitations are not taken care of, it would defeat the entire
purpose of the PHR Act,1993.
Priyanshi Singh
B.A.LL.B(Hons.)
2019-24
Law School, BHU
Comments
Post a Comment