NHRC: A TOOTHLESS TIGER

 • National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) chairman Justice H L Dattu recently said the rights watchdog needed some teeth to enforce its orders on remedial measures in cases relating to violations.

Background

• This observation comes because NHRC investigates human rights violation cases, sometimes in remote areas, with very limited resources.
• The evidence collected is put to forensic judicial adjudication by its chairman and members, who are former judges. But at the end, when NHRC arrives at a finding, it can only recommend remedial measures or direct the state concerned to pay compensation.
• It is nearly 15 years since the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) was established in India through the adoption of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, by Parliament.
• Over the years, more than 15 State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs) have come up. The effort to improve the promotion and protection of human rights in India pre-dates the establishment of the NHRC.
• Now is a good time to examine not only the functioning and effectiveness of the NHRC and the SHRCs but also to identify the central challenges relating to human rights in the future and work towards tackling them.

Issues

• NHRC’s recommendations do not percolate to the ground level as the NHRC does not have the backing of the Protection of Human Rights Act to penalise authorities which do not implement its orders.
• The Act does not extend to Jammu and Kashmir and hence the commission has to keep its eyes closed to human rights violations there.
• The Act does not categorically empower the NHRC to act when human rights violations through private parties take place.
• The Act requires that three of the five members of a human rights commission must be former judges but does not specify whether these judges should have a proven record of human rights activism or expertise or qualifications in the area.
• Regarding the other two members, the Act is vague, saying simply: “persons having knowledge and experience of human rights.”
• Under the Act, human rights commissions cannot investigate an event if the complaint was made more than one year after the incident. Therefore, a large number of genuine grievances go unaddressed.
• The powers of the National Human Rights Commission relating to violations of human rights by the armed forces have been restricted to simply seeking a report from the Government, (without being allowed to summons witnesses), and then issuing recommendations.
• Non-filling of vacancies: Most human rights commissions are functioning with less than the prescribed Members. This limits the capacity of commissions to deal promptly with complaints, especially as all are facing successive increases in the number of complaints.
• Non-availability of funds: Scarcity of resources – or rather, resources not being used for human rights related functions – is another big problem. Large chunks of the budget of commissions go in office expenses, leaving disproportionately small amounts for other crucial areas such as research and rights awareness programmes.
• Too many complaints: NHRC is deluged with too many complaints. Hence, in recent days, NHRC is finding it difficult to address the increasing number of complaints.
• Bureaucratic style of functioning: As human rights commissions primarily draw their staff from government departments – either on deputation or reemployment after retirement – the internal atmosphere is usually just like any other government office. Strict hierarchies are maintained, which often makes it difficult for complainants to obtain documents or information about the status of their case.

Solutions

• The effectiveness of commissions will be greatly enhanced if their decisions are immediately made enforceable by the government. As non-judicial member positions are increasingly being filled by ex-bureaucrats, credence is given to the contention that NHRC is more an extension of the government, rather than independent agency exercising oversight. If it is to play a meaningful role in society, it must include civil society human rights activists as members. Many activists have the knowledge and on-the-ground experience of contemporary trends in the human rights movement to be an asset to the Commission.
• NHRC needs to develop an independent cadre of staff with appropriate experience. The present arrangement of having to reply on those on deputation from different government departments is not satisfactory as experience has shown that most have little knowledge and understanding of human rights issues. This problem can be rectified by employing specially recruited and qualified staff to help clear the heavy inflow of complaints.
• A culture of human rights ought to be promoted through education. Human rights education in India is extremely important, given the fact that society is witness to numerous violations and abuse of powers and that the ability of the people to fight these injustices is limited. The strategy for inculcating human rights culture among the people needs to be based on a number of factors: social, legal, political, judicial, and institutional.

What is NHRC

• It is a statutory body (established under Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993)
• NHRC has the powers of a civil court.
• Authority to grant interim relief
• Authority to recommend payment of compensation or damages
• NHRC has unique mechanism with which it also monitors implementation of its various recommendations.
• The term ‘human rights’ is defined in Section 2(d) of the 1993 Act, as “Human rights” means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India.”

By: Mona Kaushal