National Human Rights Commission- A Shield That Failed

NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION- A SHIELD THAT FAILED
INTRODUCTION

National Human Rights Commission- A Shield That Failed

Human Rights are the ethical standards or standards that depict the nature of Human Behavior and are consistently ensured as characteristic and lawful rights in Municipal and International law.

As pointed out by Lauterpacht “human rights are not created by any legislation, so they resemble very much the natural rights and cannot be subjected to the process of amendment”.

These rights are universal and inalienable rights that are guaranteed in the form of general principal’s treaties and conventions.

“Visit: National Human right Commission Website“

During World War 2 it was observed that human beings were not entitled to basic fundamental rights.

After World War 2, UN sanctions chose to embrace 4 opportunities to be the specific opportunity to speech, religion fear, and needs and it advanced these opportunities at a worldwide level.

UN Charter was framed on 24th October 1945 whose principle point as referenced in its preface was to keep up harmony and global security and regard for Human rights.

It needed to guarantee that nobody should be denied life, opportunity, food, shelter, and integrity unjustifiably.

In 1992, the U. N. Commission on Human Rights adopted a consensus resolution, the “Paris Principles”, articulating the status and duties of public foundations for the insurance and advancement of human rights.

The Principles laid out four guidelines to quantify the freedom and adequacy of National Human Rights Institutions.

These guidelines were: Independence through legal and operational autonomy, Independence through financial autonomy, Independence through appointment and dismissal procedures, and, Independence through pluralism of composition.

On the basis of these yardsticks, the National Human Rights Commission was established in India.

NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

The idea of Human rights was embraced by numerous nations, and in India National, Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as NHRC), a statutory body was set up on 12th October 1993 for ensuring the Human rights of people.

The fundamental point of NHRC was to guarantee that each authority in India is working as per the rules given by UN Charter, alongside that its capacity was to change the rules whenever needed according to the circumstance prevailing in the Country to secure the basic freedoms.

FUNCTIONS OF THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

As an autonomous national institution for the assurance of human rights, the NHRC has a significant task to carry out in compelling the Government to approve and authorize human rights.

The main function of the NHRC is to render services for the protection and observance of Human Rights. Section 12 of The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 enumerates the important functions of NHRC.

Some of the important functions are-

• Inquire suomoto or on a petition presented by a casualty or some other individual for his sake into objection of infringement of human rights or abetment thereof, or carelessness in the counteraction of such infringement by any public servant.
• Intervene in any procedure including any charge of infringement of human rights forthcoming under the steady gaze of a court with the endorsement of such court.
• Visit under implication to the State Government any prison/organization to contemplate the everyday environments of detainees and make suggestions thereon.
• Review the shields provided under the Constitution or some other law for the assurance of human rights and suggest measures for their viable execution.
• Study treaties and conventions on human rights and make suggestions for their successful execution.
• Spread human rights education among various sections of the society and advance awareness with the shields accessible for the insurance of human rights Encourages the endeavors of NGOs working in the field of human rights.

The principle undertaking of the NHRC is to make reports to the public authority on human rights infringement in a specific circumstance. Under Sec. 20 of the said Act, the Commission is needed to submit a yearly report to the central and state government.

It likewise has obligation to submit exceptional reports on any significant or serious matter.

The Central/State Government will present the recommendations by the commission on the basis of the reports before each House of the Parliament/State Legislature, along with the ‘memorandum of action

PROCEDURE TO FILE A COMPLAINT BEFORE NHRC

NHRC can either suo moto or on receipt of a complaint or on a petition presented to it or on an order of the court, inquire in any matter related to violation of Human Rights.

Complaints should be filed by the victim or any other person on his behalf disclosing the violation of human rights or negligence in the prevention of such violations by a public servant, alleged to have been committed within one year of the receipt of the complaint by the Commission.

A complaint can be written either in English or Hindi or in any other Language mentioned in the eighth schedule of the Indian Constitution.

Also, the complaint should not be vague and if the matter is related to the subjects mentioned in the state list of schedule 7 of the Indian Constitution then that matter can be transferred to State Human Rights Commission for further inquiry.

Both the commissions granted powers of a Civil Court in trying a suit as per the directions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,

Once an inquiry is made by NHRC, it can recommend concerned government authority provide compensation to the aggrieved party or can recommend the initiation of proceeding against the accused.

If such recommendations are not followed by the concerned authority, then the commission can approach High Court or Supreme Court for taking necessary steps.

It has no power to award any relief including monetary relief to the victim. NHRC should be informed about the action taken on its recommendations within one month.

CASES RESOLVED BY NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

• GUJARAT RIOTS

The National Human Rights Commission had taken suo-moto cognizance of media reports about the unearthing of a mass grave in Lunawada village of Panchmahal District of Gujarat in 2005.

The Commission looked for a report from the State Government and CBI as per the arrangement laid in Section 12 of the assurance of Human Right Act 1993.

Large Scale occurrences of communal brutality were accounted for in Gujarat during February March 2002 however the Gujarat state government and its police didn’t take appropriate measures to prevent viciousness and failed to give safety, security, and equity to the survivors of Muslim minority local area.

The NHRC initiated a suo-moto investigation into these occurrences and guided the state government to report the measures taken to re-establish peace in the state of Gujarat.

The Commission also approached the Supreme Court of India on behalf of the casualties of the Gujarat riots.

• JUVENILE JUSTICE

The Former Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) Chairman Justice A.S. Anand stated, “Overcrowding throws every system out of gear and is found to be the root cause of the deplorable conditions in our jails”.

The commission on 26th September 2005 took suo-moto cognizance of a news item published in “Amar Ujala” on 21st September 2005, where it was observed that accused children were not provided food and water for 5 hours and such an act of state was against the human rights of children.

The Commission’s chairman had proposed a four-track strategy and proposed that special courts shall be held inside jails, and also suggested the courts release under trial on personal surety bonds, in case of self-confessed first-timers and petty offenders.

• ENCOUNTER DEATH

The Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee (APCLC) complained to the NHRC about experiencing deaths wherein the police were executing individuals on the doubt of being individuals from the People’s War Group.

The police said that the deaths occurred when armed militants opposed arrest; however, the Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee demanded that there were extrajudicial killings amounting to ridiculous and unmerited deaths.

They gave the details of 285 such occurrences. NHRC inquired into six cases including the death of seven individuals and formulated rules in 1997 without precedent for India, detailing the technique in regard to experience deaths.

For the insurance of the Human Rights of the accused many rules were given by NHRC after the DK Baso case.

• PRISONER’S RIGHTS

In the case of NeelbatiBehra v. the State of Orissa, Supreme Court observed that the commission has taken a consistent stand to ensure the safety of persons in custody and has taken steps to protect the Human Rights of the accused as guaranteed in Section 18 (3) of The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

In 2019, The NHRC Chairperson Justice H.L.Dattu raised the issue of prisoners having mental health issues and said that the insurance of the rights of such prisoners is an obligation of the State governments under Section 103 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.

The National Human Rights Commission has also taken suomoto cognizance of media reports that the four accused were arrested by the police regarding the rape and murder of a veterinarian specialist in Telangana.

According to reports it was seen that the accused were encountered by police.

The Commission communicated its view that there is a lack of “Standard Operating Procedure” to immediately react to the panic situations by the police authorities. The Supreme Court in the case of Raghubir Singh v. the State of Haryana accentuates the need to organize special strategies “to prevent and punish brutality of police methodology otherwise the credibility of rule of law would deteriorate”.

The Commission has been demanding all law upholding agencies to keep the human rights angle in their view while dealing with the people arrested by them or being kept in their care.

The privilege of life and equality under the watchful eye of the law is the basic human right perceived and granted by the Constitution of India.

NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION- A TOOTHLESS TIGER

Public Human Rights Commission, National Human Rights Commission is the watchdog of common freedoms in India.

The Commission upheld the insertion of Section 114 (b) in the Evidence Act, as suggested by the Law Commission in its 113th report.

Also, Section 197 of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973, relates the need for governmental sanction for the prosecution of the police where a prima facie case has been established in a request directed by a Sessions Judge.

It secures the rights to life and freedom of individuals and guarantees equity in the nation. The NHRC is a “toothless tiger” as it has numerous forces yet it can’t perform powers concerning occasions that happened over one year before the creation of the grievances, as to issues which are sub-judice, which are unclear, unknown or pseudonymous, which are of unimportant nature, which relates to service matters, along with this it has no power to penalize the offenders.

NHRC is considered a “toothless tiger” because of the following reasons-

POLITICAL IMPEDANCE

In the majority of cases, it asks the concerned Central and State Governments to investigate the cases of the violation of Human Rights.

The government often outrightly rejects the recommendation of NHRC or there is partial compliance with these recommendations. Because of political impedance, NHRC has a helpless history of ensuring Human Rights.

LACK OF INVESTIGATION MECHANISM

NHRC has no proper mechanism of investigation. Adding authorities of the Intelligence Bureau to the blend just muddies the water.

Likewise, police authorities, are associated with investigating for the NHRC and there is no coordination among them such an irreconcilable situation limits the extent of their work, as they frequently are accused of examining violations of intensity by law enforcement personnel.

The National Human Rights Commission had asked the Haryana Police regarding the complaint lodged by labor activist Nodeep Kaur, who was arrested on 12th January 2021 for demanding laborers’ wages in Kundli, and was harassed and abused in custody. CHRI, the Human Rights Defenders Alert, and the National Dalit Movement for Justice kept in touch with the NHRC looking for an autonomous investigation into the allegations.

LACK OF RESOURCES

Lack of Human resources, funds, and controversial judges appointment procedure makes the selection procedure of NHRC complex.

The deficiency of funds hampers its work. An enormous number of complaints go unaddressed on the grounds that NHRC can’t explore the complaint enlisted following one year of the occurrence.

In the Shivani Bhatnagar murder case, in mid-2011, the administrator of the NHRC, ex-Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan went under a cloud for purportedly claiming resources disproportionate to his income.

LACK OF POWER

The lack of power need to identify responsible authorities prompts a lack of detection.

NHRC can simply make proposals, without the capacity to execute them.

State Human Right commissions can’t call for information from the national government, which suggests that they are unquestionably denied the powers to investigate the military under National control.

National Human Rights Commission powers identified with infringement of human rights by the military have been limited.

NHRC work is appropriate to tie down adherence to common freedoms so every human can appreciate the occasion to develop and understand their most extreme potential.

Supreme Court in 2016 said that as opposed to wailing over its absence of forces, NHRC needs to play a more proactive and groundbreaking function in the progression of basic Human Rights in the nation.

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

Human rights like Fundamental Rights are paramount, safe, and original in nature and should be treated as inalienable and inviolable for protecting the interest of individuals.

The human rights culture of India is determined by the Constitution of India.

The UN Charter (1945) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) had a great influence on the founding fathers of our Constitution.

Section (2) (d) of the Act defines human rights as 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.

For protecting the Human Rights of citizens, NHRCwas formed, it makes a recommendation on the basis of International Conventions and in accordance with the situation prevailing in the society.

In 2020, among thousands of cases of human rights violations, in 32 cases suo moto cognizance was taken.

The tremendous increase in the number of complaints and disposal is indicative of the awareness of human rights among individuals and also their developing faith in the Commission.

As faith in the commission is increasing there is a need to make changes in the composition of NHRC by including the members of civil society to make it an effective guardian of human rights violations in the country.

Though there is investigating staff of NHRC it is not independent because which chances of tampering with evidence increase.

NHRC’s adequacy can be improved, if commission decisions are made enforceable by the government. To improve the condition of human rights in India, it must be ensured that there is less political influence in decision-making of the commission.

The state and non-state actors have to work together in order to ensure the effectiveness of the commission.