Look and Gaze: An NGO Report on the Compliance with the Paris Principles by the National Human Rights Commission of India

An NGO Report on the Compliance with the Paris Principles by the National Human Rights Commission of India

[Download full text book here: http://bit.ly/lsUWlG)

Submitted to the International Coordination Committee on National Human Rights Institutions on the 22nd of January 2011

All India Network of NGOs and Individuals working with National and State Human Rights Institutions (AiNNI)

6, Vallabhai Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai-625002 Tamil Nadu Ph : 0452-2531874, 2539520 Fax: 0452-2531874 E-mail: ainnimembers@gmail.com

An NGO Report on the Compliance with the Paris Principles by the

National Human Rights Commission of India

Submitted to the International Coordination Committee on National Human Rights Institutions on the 22nd of January 2011

First Edition: April, 2011 No.of Copies: 1000

Published by

People's Watch for

All India Network of NGOs and Individuals working with National and State Human Rights Institutions (AiNNI)

6, Vallabhai Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai-625002 Tamil Nadu

Ph : 0452-2531874, 2539520 Fax: 0452-2531874

E-mail: ainnimembers@gmail.com

Printed by

Anto Art Crafts, Sivakasi

'The National Human Rights Commission and the existing State Human Rights Commissions is an important additional avenue where human rights defenders can seek redress. However, all the defenders I met during the mission voiced their disappointment and mistrust in the current functioning of these institutions. They have submitted complaints related to human rights violations to the Commissions, but reportedly their cases were either hardly taken up, or the investigation, often after a significant period of delay, concluded that no violations occurred. Their main concern lies in the fact that the investigations into their cases are conducted by the police, which in many cases are the perpetrators of the alleged violations. While I welcome the establishment of a human rights defenders focal point within the National Human Rights Commission, I regret that it was not given sufficient prominence within the Commission. '

'The functioning of the National Human Rights Commission should be reviewed with a view to strengthening the Commission by, inter alia: broadening the selection criteria for the appointment of the Chairperson; diversifying the composition of the Commission; extending the one-year limitation clause; establishing an independent committee in charge of investigating complaints filed; elevating the status of the human rights defenders focal point by appointing a Commissioner. The Protection of Human Rights Act should be amended as necessary in full and meaningful consultation with civil society.'

The supportive role of the commissions for human rights defenders should be strengthened by inter alia, conducting regular regional visits; meeting human rights defenders in difficulty or at risk; and undertaking trial observations of cases of human rights defenders wherever appropriate.

The visibility of the commissions should be ensured through regular and proactive engagement with civil society and the media.

Statement of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Ms. Margaret Sekaggya, as she concluded her visit to India on 21st January 2011,New Delhi

Cover Picture: Victims of violations of the Special Task Force of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu with Human Rights Activists, in front of the NHRC Building in New Delhi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I need to carefully list out the many persons whose dedicated service has been responsible for this final version of the report in print. First and foremost it is my duty to commend the patient work put in by Ms. Sabitha, the National Program Coordinator - Human Rights Defenders Desk, People's Watch, in doing all the background work for this report from the beginning with me as a strong pillar who had also been holding this work from the time it was thought out, till when it was endorsed by over 300 organizations across the country till it was dispatched to the SCA of the ICC and till now when it is ready now to go for print in its finalized form and ensuring that this was done to the best of our abilities.

I also wish to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation for the extensive work done by Ms. Bharathi Pillai, a Volunteer at People's Watch in 2010, in terms of analysing the voluminous material that was collected and getting ready the first draft of this report. It was a long and tiring work to get this report ready chapter by chapter and then work on the same meticulously with me for finalisation. I need to specially mention at this junction that Ms. Bharathi Pillai was also a volunteer who was arrested by the Tamilnadu police and the complaint that has been preferred to the NHRC (Case No.896/22/37/2010 LF : 898/22/ 37/2010, 901/22/37/2010, 908/22/37/2010, 910/22/37/2010) in this regard relating to her illegal arrest with 4 other dalit activists from the Dalit Foundation has been pending with no official response to the same from the NHRC as of today when this matter goes to print. She has also continued to provide inputs to us even after her tenure with us.

I also wish to thank Ms. Emerlynne Gil, the Program Manager, Human Rights Defenders Program, FORUM ASIA and the Coordinator of ANNI (the Asian NGOs Network on National Human Rights Institutions) for inspiring me personally and for the kind opportunities provided to People's Watch and now AiNNI (the All India Network of NGOs and Individuals working with National and State Human Rights Institutions) for the past three years in realising this new avenue for bringing a change to the National Human Rights Commission in India, for the guidance that she provided in January 2010 towards framing the outline of this report and for coming down to Madurai to edit the final version and get it ready to go.

I acknowledge the work done by Ms. S. Rizvana, former Program Assistant in our program for Monitoring National and State Human Rights Institutions and all the staff of the RTI Desk in People's Watch, in sending RTI petitions to the NHRC numbering close to 100 for information that was the primary source for this publication.

I would also like to express my gratitude to Ms. Jennifer Black, Mr. Zack Orjuela, Ms. Cynthia Hirsch and Ms. Ramya Sekaran, Volunteers at People's Watch at various points of time for their assistance in research and editing of this report.

I also thank Ms. Anitha Princy, Program Secretary, Monitoring National and State Human Rights Institutions, colleagues in the ICT Unit and the Administration Department of People's Watch for their support and timely assistance throughout the preparation of this publication.

My sincere gratitude to colleagues in the All India Network of NGOs and Individuals working with National Human Rights Institutions (AiNNI) for their valuable inputs in bettering the report, translations of the Executive Summary and obtaining endorsements to the report.

I take this opportunity to thank each of the persons named here and many others who are not named and had also contributed in various ways to complete this historic shadow report to the Sub Committee on Accreditation of the International Co-ordination Committee of the NHRIs in Geneva. It has been sheer dedication by all of them at different points of time to make this publication possible. My heartfelt gratitude is due to them and all others who have been encouraging us throughout this long journey.

Henri Tiphagne

Honorary National Working Secretary – AiNNI Executive Director , People's Watch

Prof. Upendra Baxi

Professor of Law in Development, University of Warwick Professor of Law, University of Delhi (1973-1996) Vice Chancellor, University of Delhi (1990-1994) Email: upendrabaxi@yahoo.com

FOREWORD

The ritual words of introduction simply fail—it is not possible to say that it is a 'pleasure' or 'honour' to be associated with this work do. In fact this Report makes a rather painful reading and little honour is involved when a National Human Rights Commission functions in ways here fully depicted.

The sense of pain and dishonour ought to lead to substantial reforms in the structure and functioning of the Commission and this text bristles with sensible proposals for change. These need wider and vigorous public debate, informed particularly by participation of those adversely affected by the Commission's ways of conducting its responsibilities. This is important as well for Human Rights Commissions and other NHRI, both national and regional.

Fortunately, the ICC-Paris Principles invoked heavily and rightly so here offer norms and standards by which the NHRC (and related NHRI) should be established and ought to function and these principles now provide future pathways of reform guided by a new deliberative public sphere. This, and beyond the questions of 'accreditation', means that any derogation from these Principles should be 'justified' by mere assertions of the sovereign will but by acts of democratic public reason. Even If (for example) one were inclined to argue that NHRC entails cooperative rather than adversarial relations with the State, cooperative relations thus envisaged may not ever reach the proportions of relations of co-optation. The latter occur in many diverse ways as this Report illustrates – whether in terms adequate resourcing, composition, or autonomous (that is effective, equitable, and efficient functioning. In sum, neither the NHRC nor related Indian NHRI may be so structured or function as obstacles to the promotion, protection, and realization of the worst-off Indian citizens.

Of course, the Report contrasts the dynamic performance of the Commission in an earlier era with its recent plight. How this state of affairs comes about is an important question, demanding exacting empirical studies as well as ideological critique. I read the Report as leaning towards the former, though necessarily carrying some traces of the latter.

III

Regardless, if the same Commission performs better in servicing the future of human rights in India, the question surely arises concerning effective leadership styles. Should this remain a contingent affair or be better institutionally organized? It is here that the mandatory requirement of the Chief Justice of India presiding over the NHRC surely calls for reflexive introspection. In my considered view— which I articulated without any success in a preliminary round of national consultation leading to the establishment of the NHRC— the choice of leadership has to be broadened to include human rights performance based indicators among India's apex Justices. A collegiate rather than mandatory process of the leadership ought to be the first step towards a journey of thousand miles ameliorating the present ways of constituting the Commission.

Speaking of the Commission as a whole, surely it should be so reformed as to ensure the high standards of human rights accountability lest it collapse into a 'job-for-the –boys syndrome!' Even when set up as a statutory rather than a constitutional commission, it remains surcharged/supercharged with the highest constitutional responsibility. Each and every mission failure should be rigorously judged, even as we applaud its notable successes. This is the inestimable message of this Report.

At the same moment, our ways of critique seem not always sensitive to the constraints under which NHRC must after all work. Constraints never function as alibis for lackadaisical discharge of high statutory and constitutional duties.Yet, I believe that a fair margin of appreciation remains imperative for its critics.

This Report then provides a constructive terrain for such appreciation, until such time that a root and branchreformationofNHRCand otherNHRImarshalsagatheringofhumanrightsandsocialmovement activism consensus. I wonder whether this remains fully on the horizon. Put differently, when activist folks seek to deploy NHRI as a necessary evil, they also enfeeble the very programschrift of transformation that they also seriously urge.

Had Mohandas Gandhi still been with us, he would have urged not so much the language of accountability of extant NHRI butinstead suggested a total boycott by civil disobedience directed towards these. In a post-Mohandas era this remains no longer a singular option in scenarios crowded by calls for wider civil society membership of the NHRC and NHRI. If so, we all must live with our willed ambiguities and unconscious ambivalences.

What a long way of saying a huge word of thanks for the pioneering authors of this Report!

April 4, 2011

Prof. Upendra Baxi

Henri Tiphagne

Honorary National Working Secretary,

All India Network of NGOs and Individuals working with National

and State Human Rights Institutions (AiNNI) 6, Vallabai Road,Madurai 625002

Tamil Nadu.

Introduction

The National Human Rights Commission of India is to appear before the Sub Committee on Accreditation (SCA) of the International Co-ordinating Committee (ICC) of National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) in Geneva on 23rd of May 2011 to re- accreditate itself as an 'A' Grade NHRI. Together with the NHRC from India, the NHRIs of Australia, Austria, Canada, El Salvador, Mauritania, Namibia, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Northern Ireland, Norway and Senegal are also to face their re-accreditation. An 'A' Grade NHRI is eligible for full membership of the ICC, including the right to vote and hold governance positions, while NHRIs accredited with 'B' status may participate in ICC meetings but are unable to vote or hold governance positions. Only 'A status' NHRIs have independent participation rights at the UN – HRC and its subsidiary bodies.. It is our respect for the NHRC in India that has been in existence since 1993 and the great personalities who have led this institution all these years that has given the impetus and courage to us - civil society organizations under the banner of the All India Network of NGOs and Individuals working with NHRIs [AiNNI] - to prepare this report only to echo the national and global call for the urgent need for an efficient and effective NHRI in India. When we recall the past leadership of the NHRC we do not only refer to the former Chairpersons but also their committed Members, Former Secretary Generals, Former Director Generals of Investigation, Former Special Rapporteurs and more than that several former senior level and middle level staff – all of whom collectively had made this institution a sign of hope for restoration of lost rights in this country and truly a 'bridge between the international and domestic human rights protections'.

The NHRC was established in India in the year 1993 when there was already a National Commission for Women, a National Commission for Minorities and a National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes existing. It is after the establishment of the NHRC that we have seen the growth of other NHRIs in India such as the National Commission on Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), the Central Information Commission, the Central Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities and the bifurcation of the National Commission for SCs and STs. In addition therefore today, when this report is being released, we have almost over 175 statutory institutions both at the national and state levels in this country. This is the largest for any country in the globe. In this total scenario therefore there is an urgent need for the NHRC to perform at its best for more than one reason – not only because it is the best staffed, the best trained, the best exposed to international standards and the functioning of other NHRIs globally and the best funded. It was also the ONE INSTITUTION WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED TO BE MORE INDEPENDENT THAN THE OTHERS. The NHRC has therefore not only a duty to perform but to be a model for the other N/SHRIs in the country to follow.

The times have changed since 1993 when the Protection of Human Rights Act established the NHRC. 2011 calls for the urgent need to take a relook at the mandates of NHRIs across the globe that has been emphasised by the Former UN Commission on Human Rights and the present UN Human Rights Council in all their resolutions. The Asia Pacific Forum of NHRIs has also increased its recommendations to its member NHRIs – one of which is the Indian NHRC. However the present NHRC is basking under the past glory of the institution. This remains outside the purview of Parliament and Government sensitivity. The purpose therefore of this report is to shake the national conscience and call us out of the slumber that this nation is in as regards its NHRC. The NHRC of 2011 requires a completely different type of institution with a different type of leadership to stir the country from the serious human rights concerns that it faces – no longer confined to J&K, Gujarat and the North East but extended to almost over 300 districts of the total 620 districts of the country. If the belief of the people in the rule of law has to continue, the role of the NHRC in this regard is a large one. The purpose of this report is to emphasise this and not to state that we do not need such an institution BUT IT IS TIME TO STOP, THINK AND RE-ESTABLISH AN ALTOGETHER NEW INSTITUTION IN TUNE WITH THE PRESSURES OF 2011.

It is almost a year that the NHRC in India has a new Chair – Justice K. G. Balakrishnan. However, it is also true that neither the public calls from Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer (A Former Judge of the Supreme Court of India) or from Justice J. S. Verma (Former chair of the NHRC) or from Mr. Sudarshan Agarwal (A former Member of the NHRC and present Governor of the State of Uttarakhand ) have been even remotely successful in calling for his immediate stepping down due to wide scale reporting and actions initiated against his kith and kin on corruption during his term as the Chief Justice of India. Hence, it is clear that a completely new composition even of an NHRC has to be thought about for this country. No longer can only former IAS, IPS, IFS, IRS officials and former civil servants be the members of this new institution. The doyens of human rights of this country - the likes of those who have gone by - Mr. K. G. Kannabiran, Dr. Balagopal and many hundred others who exist in this country, many of whom are women like Ms. Medha Patkar, Dr. Aruna Roy, Dr. Ruth Manorama, to name a few have to be seriously thought of.

This report is therefore meant to be a clarion call for arousing the national conscience which has wanted to speak but remains silent for many reasons. It is no longer the time for us to remain silent but to participate and make this democracy meaningful by calling for an urgent change in the type of NHRC we have. The call is to the SCA of the ICC to assist us in this national task to wake up our Government, our Parliament as well as other institutions and the Indian civil society to take this task seriously. It is only this challenge to the existing NHRC in its present 'A' grade status that can fulfil this and hence this report.

We once again pay tribute to the many eminent and ordinary people who through their hard work has built this institution and call upon them as well to join us at this time to rebuild a new NHRI – independent, representing the diversity of this country, truly accountable and transparent, which believes in the power of civil society and human rights defenders in this country - that India urgently needs to meet the present challenges.

The AiNNI is committed to this process and invites every civil society organization across the country that is enamoured by this call to register as a bonafide member of AiNNI without any delay, to make this clarion call extended from the NHRC to all NHRIs in India.

April 2, 2011

The All India Network of NGOs and Individuals Working with National Human Rights

Institutions (AiNNI)

An NGO Report on the Compliance with the Paris Principles by the National Human Rights Commission of India

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - ENGLISH

The All India Network of NGOs and Individuals Working with National Human Rights Institutions (AiNNI)

An NGO Report on the Compliance with the Paris Principles by the National Human Rights Commission of India

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. ESTABLISHMENT

The National Human Rights Commission ("NHRC" or "Commission") was established in India on 12 October 1993 under the Protection of Human Rights Act ("PHRA"), 1993 as a result of strong international pressure created by adoption of the 'Paris Principles' by the United Nations Human Rights Commission in 1992 and the General Assembly in 1993. The NHRC envisioned a partnership of human rights protectors throughout India and explicitly deemed the Chairpersons of the existing national human rights commission members of the first NHRC.

Although the main impetus for establishing an overarching national human rights commission in India was mounting domestic and international pressure to adhere to internationally set standards, the Commission's initial initiatives towards protecting and promoting human rights were sincere and the Commission was fairly successful in meeting its mandate. It quickly became clear that many fatal flaws in the Commission's founding law were critically immobilizing the basic functioning of the Commission. Despite several early pleas to amend the PHRA by the Commission and civil society, the proposed amendments were largely ignored by the Government of India, and eventually forgotten by the Commission.

Even positive provisions of the PHRA, such as Section 12(i), mandating that the NHRC should encourage work with non-governmental organisations and institutions working in the human rights field have not been followed. Sadly, from its inception, the NHRC has failed to meaningfully collaborate with other thematic national human rights commissions.

The NHRC's failures stem not only from a failure to act, but also from a relentless refusal to sincerely plan. Although India participated more than a decade ago in the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna, mandating countries to set up National Human Rights Plans of Action (NHRAP), India has still not released its NHRAP.

2. INDEPENDENCE

Independence from all other interests, in particular, government and strong private interests, is essential for any national human rights institution. From its establishment, the NHRC has had problems maintaining its independence from the government. Although it made some courageous and strong decisions in its early years, the lack of independence suffered by recent Commissions has become so debilitating that it has essentially paralyzed the NHRC from fulfilling even its basic mandate, let alone undertaking any powerful initiatives in the field of human rights.

VII

The Government of India tightly controls the finances of the NHRC. The NHRC is currently required to report to the Ministry of Home Affairs ("MHA"), the same governmental department responsible for immigration, communal harmony, the Armed Special Forces Act, assistance to victims of terrorist violence, border management, and, most notably, internal security- including police and other law and order officials. Placing India's overarching human rights institution, responsible for holding accountable violators of human rights, in the same department overseeing police and law enforcement officers, against whom a large number of complaints are made, unsurprisingly weakens the Commission's independence and its ability to be effective.

The NHRC's lack of independence is also witnessed in the composition of its network and staff. The PHRA has rigid criteria for membership to the NHRC that prioritize perceptions of prestige over competence, passion, or experience in the field of human rights. Staff members of the NHRC are responsible for monitoring the very government that provides their salary. Although the independence of the NHRC has been compromised by the many conflicts of interests arising from the government's appointment of Commission members, control of finances, and appointment of staff, nothing has been done in the 17 years since the NHRC's establishment to ensure independence or even reduce potential problems arising from conflicts of interest.

The great tragedy in failing to have an independent NHRC is demonstrated by the loss of a powerful, brave institution willing to highlight and address the grave violations of human rights that occur in a country. In 2002, the state of Gujurat faced rampant communal violence on religious lines that also involved state actors. This led to the one instance in the NHRC's history where the NHRC took suo moto action to investigate, issue a report, and filed petitions in the Supreme Court of India. Likely due to the subsequent and unyielding political pressure from the government, the NHRC remained silent within the courts where the entire matter has thereafter been fought between the survivors supported by rights groups and the State.

Frighteningly, there is a dramatically escalating number of issues on which the NHRC remains silent. These issues pertain to the most pressing human rights violations in the country. Although the NHRC continues to maintain that it is an autonomous organization that gives directions on human rights issues independently, based on its own decisions, it also acknowledges that it has failed to create any type of written guidelines, policies, or conventions. Further, it has no information whatsoever on steps that it may take to avoid existing or future conflicts of interest.

3. COMPOSITION, APPOINTMENT PROCESS AND TENURE

The composition of the National Human Rights Commission masks a real depiction of India and Indian life in its homogeneity and reveals a misunderstanding of the institution's stated purpose: to be a national leader in protecting and promoting human rights. Rather, the Commission has become a museum of prestige for highly accomplished retired members of the judiciary and government officials. While respectability and stature of the Commission members could potentially be a powerful tool in the fight for human rights, the appointment process lacks transparency that allows for the most qualified and best candidates to be openly selected and is not sensitive to ensuring that Commission members have the additional qualities that are essential for effective leadership in the field of human rights.

VIII

The failure to appreciate what is necessary to equip the Commission with leaders capable of fulfilling its heavy mandate is indicated in both the founding law, through legal provisions creating overly and unnecessarily rigid criterion for three seats of the Commission, to implementation of the law, such as the failure to recognize the need for diversity and the consistent refusal to select even eligible and experienced activists and leaders in the field of human rights from civil society. The result is a Commission that has no women to review the thousands of complaints involving issues sensitive to women, no members of India's strong and vibrant civil society, and a newly selected Chairperson who has been accused of corruption and has publicly made statements that, in his opinion, legally prohibited use of force against civilians is acceptable.

"Knowledge and practical experience in human rights," as mandated in the PHRA, is not the primary consideration by the government when it appoints members of the NHRC. More often than not, appointments to the NHRC are made as rewards for political favors owed by those in power. Since the NHRC's enabling law ensures that the majority of its members should come from the judiciary, it is ironic that present Chairperson Justice Balakrishnan has publicly stated that "encounters are unavoidable sometimes...the law and order problem is increasing. Criminals are taking the law into their hands, attacking even the police. Police have to take control of the situation." In another public statement, he endorsed the death penalty. These statements of Justice Balakrishnan manifest not only a lack of knowledge of the very standards that the NHRC had previously worked hard to instill in the region, but a blatant disregard for upholding the Constitution of India.

4. ORGANIZATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Although the National Human Rights Commission has had 17 years to build up its infrastructure, it has completely failed to develop its resources and effective functioning in society. It lacks not only financial resources, but also historical knowledge and intellectual capital. Puzzlingly, the NHRC refuses to acknowledge how dramatically under-resourced it is financially and has not requested for an increase in staff or Members to the NHRC. Rather, the NHRC has recently stated that its five Members are able to provide orders in the approximately 400 cases they review in a single day without any problems.

The NHRC remains inaccessible to almost the entire population it is purported to serve. The Commission conducts the overwhelming majority of its functioning in one building in Delhi, while the rest of India resides far away and unable to access the NHRC. Although, the NHRC has had prior approval from the Central Government to establish offices in other parts of the vast country of India since 1993, the NHRC has failed to do so. To function effectively and reach the over 1 billion Indians who require access to the NHRC, a minimum of four to five regional offices must be established throughout India. If resources are not available to establish satellite offices of the NHRC, then the NHRC must work creatively to either collaborate with civil society to act as 'eyes and ears' of the NHRC or maximize visits outside Delhi to communicate that the NHRC is, indeed, on the side of victims, not the perpetrators.

Even in rare cases where victims are able to journey to Delhi, the environment of the NHRC is hostile and unwelcoming to the very victims it was created to serve. Proceedings are held behind closed doorsandcomplainantsareoftennotinvitedtoeitherparticipateorevenobserve. Manysenioractivists

and NGOs attempt to enter and observe the proceedings to monitor transparency and ensure fairness, but their efforts are in vain.

The NHRC has created a website to create a public face and become more accessible. Unfortunately, the NHRC website, only available in English, removes few barriers to victims and the public. The website itself or any of its published reports are not available in regional languages and so largely inaccessible to the public. While victims can file complaints through the NHRC website, it is almost impossible to track cases or gain any real, substantive information that can assist victims immediately.

The NHRC has created a phone hotline for victims in need of help after hours. Unfortunately, this hotline in not always available and frequently goes unanswered. Moreover, the persons manning it are not conversant in languages other than Hindi, hampering the NHRC's ability to communicate with victims and creating alienation of the majority of Indians of which Hindi is not their primary language.

NHRC staff members are hand-selected from government posts and often deputed temporarily from similarly titled, but very different, government positions. These staff members are given no training for completing their jobs and as they frequently have no background in human rights, complete their job with no additional sensitivity or understanding of human rights. The failure of the NHRC to recruit, develop, and retain talented staff to its maximum sanctioned amount is an impediment to its growth and effectiveness. Based on the current staff, the NHRC does not have fair and equal means of representation in terms of gender, religious minority groups and disabled populations.

The NHRC also employs Special Rapporteurs as additional highly qualified researchers who undergo investigations on either a specific topic or by geographic region. Selection, again, is based on a system that blindly equates prestige with competence – resulting in both qualified and unqualified candidates almost randomly being chosen for important posts, such as Special Rapporteurs of the NHRC. There seems to be an underlying message that only persons with a government background can be appointed as Special Rapporteurs and that representatives from civil society or the academy may be "too independent" to hold these positions.

5. QUASI- JURISDICTIONAL FUNCTIONS

Five members of the National Human Rights Commission have been entrusted with the responsibility of handling complaints received from victims throughout India. The 487 cases that were received during the first year of the Commission's establishment have dramatically escalated to approximately 400 cases in a single day. With no increase at all in the number of members responsible for disposal of these cases, it is no surprise that the quality of complaints handling is suffering greatly.

The Commission, however, maintains that they have not had problems disposing of hundreds of cases they receive and that they review and give orders in approximately 60-80 cases per day. If true, the limited number of members and the enormous case load of the Commission indicates that even working 16 hours, twice the average workday, and disposing of the minimum 60 cases per day, each complaint receives less than 30 minutes of the five Commission members attention before a pivotal decision on whether a human rights violation has occurred and any potential recommendation is taken.

Given the other mandated tasks and activities of Commission members, the actual time spent on each case is far less than 30 minutes. Overwhelming evidence indicates that the NHRC carelessly disposes of cases at random, without issuing reasoned orders based on case law and analytical reasoning. Orders issued by the NHRC dispose of the majority of cases with extremely general, uninformative reasoning. The majority of cases are dismissed in limine or rejected. The orders offer a mere one line generally rejecting or dismissing the case in limine

Not only does the lack of attention the Commission gives to each complaint draw attention to the low quality of complaints-handling, even where the Commission addresses large, high-profile cases, the Commission often fails to take a bold or courageous stand or develop a strong jurisprudence. Rather than pushing the country to incorporate and exercise existing human rights standards and laws existing in this country or develop new standards or encourage adoption of international human rights standards, the Commission remains silent in the face of precious opportunities to foster an human rights jurisprudence that can not only provide relief to victims, but promote human rights for all Indians.

Most of the "Practice Directions" formulated for providing more clarity on its functioning, are not being followed today. Further, after Justice Venkatachaliah's tenure, the NHRC has stopped identifying problem areas and has no longer issued new, relevant practice directions to improve the functioning of the NHRC. While there is more than enough legal basis upon which the NHRC has been empowered to handle and act on complaints on human rights violations, the NHRC has unfortunately failed to carry out this function effectively.

While the NHRC has the power to issue recommendations upon finding a violation of human rights, it has reserved use of this power for only the very rarest of cases. A majority of complaints are dismissed by the NHRC wholly on the basis of state responses or police reports that deny the violation. The procedure of the NHRC involves sending the complaint to "concerned authorities", which more often than not, would be the very police authorities named in the complaint as the perpetrators. This masked backdoor, prejudicial, internal processing of complaints is a mockery of the mandate of the NHRC. A supposed protector of human rights must be an ally for victims, not a partner to potential perpetrators. The current procedure of the NHRC lacks sensitivity to the gravity of human rights violations and the NHRC fails to take a victim-centered approach. Victims, often from marginalized communities, are often treated as second-class citizens at the NHRC, rather than as individuals deserving equal treatment and respect.

6. RELATIONSHIP WITH RELEVANT HUMAN RIGHTS STAKEHOLDERS

The Commission has created Core Groups to draw from the expertise of eminent persons but has not ensured that any formal administration of these groups occurs. Unsurprisingly, it remains unclear how these groups have been used throughout their constitution and what impact the expertise of core groups has made towards the fulfillment of the Commissions' mandate to have constructive engagements with relevant human rights stakeholders.

The NHRCs relationship with civil society is very limited and deprives the NHRC of the opportunity to engage with a powerful, passionate, and knowledgeable partner in promoting and protecting human rights.

As this report was being drafted, several issues emerged in the media surrounding the current Chairperson of the NHRC, Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan. Since Mr. Justice K. G. Balakrishnan assumed his post at the NHRC, there have been several revelations in the media that associated him with cases of corruption. This prompted a widespread call for his resignation, not only from NGOs, but also from eminent jurists in the country. Mr. Balakrishnan is being alleged of receiving sums of money for brokering the appointments of judges in exchange for favorable decisions during his tenure at the Supreme Court. Many questions also emerged regarding how his family amassed such an unusually large amount of wealth.

THE CURRENT LEADERSHI OF THE NHRC

The recent controversies surrounding Mr. K G Balakrishnan has prompted civil society to again question the effectiveness of current selection and appointment processes for members of the NHRC. If the accusations against Mr. Balakrishnan are proven true, it is clear that the demonstrated character, integrity, and commitment to human rights must be of crucial consideration in appointing a Chairperson to the NHRC. It is no longer, and has never been, enough to merely automatically install a retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as the Chairperson of the Commission. The process of appointment must be totally transparent and not restricted to only retired Judges or Chief Justices of the Supreme Court or to former bureaucrats – IAS, IPS, IFA, or IRS, etc., but must be expanded to include the great wealth of India's moral, intelligent, and dedicated leaders.

XII

The All India Network of NGOs and Individuals Working with National Human Rights

Institutions (AiNNI)

An NGO Report on the Compliance with the Paris Principles by the National Human Rights Commission of India

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - HINDI

XIII

XIV

XVI

XVII

XVIII

XIX

The All India Network of NGOs and Individuals Working with National Human Rights

Institutions (AiNNI)

An NGO Report on the Compliance with the Paris Principles by the National Human Rights Commission of India

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - URDU

XXI

XXII

XXIII

The All India Network of NGOs and Individuals Working with National Human Rights

Institutions (AiNNI)

An NGO Report on the Compliance with the Paris Principles by the National Human Rights Commission of India

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - BENGALI

XXIV

XXV

XXVI

XXVII

XXVIII

XXIX

XXX

The All India Network of NGOs and Individuals Working with National Human Rights

Institutions (AiNNI)

An NGO Report on the Compliance with the Paris Principles by the National Human Rights Commission of India

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - ORIYA

XXXI

XXXII

XXXIII

XXXIV

XXXV

XXXVI

XXXVII

XXXVIII

XXXIX

The All India Network of NGOs and Individuals Working with National Human Rights

Institutions (AiNNI)

An NGO Report on the Compliance with the Paris Principles by the National Human Rights Commission of India

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - MARATHI

XLI

XLII

XLIII

XLIV

XLV

XLV1

XLVII

XLVIII

The All India Network of NGOs and Individuals Working with National Human Rights

Institutions (AiNNI)

An NGO Report on the Compliance with the Paris Principles by the National Human Rights Commission of India

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - TELUGU

XLIX

LII

LIII

The All India Network of NGOs and Individuals Working with National Human Rights

Institutions (AiNNI)

An NGO Report on the Compliance with the Paris Principles by the National Human Rights Commission of India

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - KANNADA

LIV

LVI

LVII

LVIII

LIX

The All India Network of NGOs and Individuals Working with National Human Rights

Institutions (AiNNI)

An NGO Report on the Compliance with the Paris Principles by the National Human Rights Commission of India

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - MALAYALAM

tZiob a\p-jym-h-Imi ÿm]-\-ß-fp-ambn tN¿∂v {]h¿Øn-°p∂ hy‡n-I-fp-sSbpw k∂≤ kwL-S-\-I-fp-sSbpw AJn-te¥ym Iq ́mbva (AiNNI)

tZiob a\pj- ymh- I- mi IΩoj- ≥

I C C a p ≥ ] m s I k ∂ ≤- k- w L- S- \- I- f- p s S k a m ¥- c d n t ∏ m ¿ ́ v

kw£n]vXw

1. cp]o-I-cWw

]mcokv XXz-ßƒ (Paris Principles) 1992- ¬ sFIy-cmjv{Sk`-bpsS a\p-jym-h- Imi IΩo-j\pw (UNHRC) 1993-¬ AXns‚ s]mXp-k-`bpw AwKo-I-cn-°p-I-bp-≠m-bn. CXp kr„n® cmPym-¥c kΩ¿±-Øns‚ ^e-ambn Protection of Human Rights Act (PHRA) s‚ Iogn¬ 1993 HIvtSm-_¿ 12 ̨\v tZiob a\p-jym-h-Imi IΩo-j≥ \ne-hn¬ h∂p. a\p-jym-h- Imi kwc-£-I-cp-sS, kl-I-c-Whpw a‰v {]tXyI hnj-b-ß-fn-ep≈ tZiob IΩo-j-\p-I-fpsS sNb¿am≥am¿ AwK-ß-fm-bn-cn-°pIbpw sNøp∂ coXn-bn-emWv NHRC hn`m-h\w sNø-s∏- ́- Xv.

km¿∆-tZ-iob am\-Z-WvU-ßƒ°-\p-kr-Xhpw tZiob km¿∆-tZ-iobXe-Øn¬, km¿∆- {Xn-I-ambn hym]-\-ap-≈-Xp-amb Hcp a\p-jym-h-Imi IΩo-j≥ cp]o-I-cn-°pI F∂p-≈-Xm-bn-cp- ∂p. B`y-¥-chpw A¥¿tZ-io-b-hp-amb kΩ¿±-ß-fpsS t{]cI i‡n. IΩo-js‚ {]h¿Ø-\- ß-fpsS BZy-L- ́-ß-fn¬ a\p-jym-h-Imi kwc-£-W-Øn-\m-bp≈ Bflm¿∞-amb {ia-ß-fp-≠m- bn-cp-∂p. C°m-cy-Øn¬ IΩo-j≥ Hcp ]cn-[n-hsc hnP-bn-®n- ́p-ap-≠v. F∂m¬, IΩo-j≥ cp]o-I- c-W-Øn\v B[m-c-am-bn- ́p≈ \nb-a-Øns‚ A]m-I-X-Iƒ, IΩo-j≥ {]h¿Ø-\-ßsf \n›-e-am- °p-sa∂v BZy-Im-e-Øp-Xs∂ Xncn-®-dn-b-s∏- ́p. knhn¬ kaq-lhpw IΩo-j\pw ASn-ÿm-\-\n-b- a-Øn¬ am‰ßƒ hcp-Ø-W-sa∂v BZy-Im-eØv Bh-iy-s∏- ́n-cp-∂p. apt∂m- ́p-sh® am‰-ßƒ k¿°m¿ Ah-K-Wn-°p-Ibpw IΩo-j≥ Imem-¥-c-Øn¬ AXv ad-∂p-t]m-hp-Ibpw sNbvXp.

a\p-jym-h-Im-i-ta-J-e-bn¬ {]h¿Øn-°p∂ k∂-≤-kw-L-S-\-Ifpw ÿm]-\-ß-fp-ambn kl- I-cn®p {]h¿Øn-°-W-sa∂ PHRA bpsS ]ptcm-K-a-\-]-c-amb hIp-∏p-Iƒt]mepw IΩo-j≥ {]mh¿Øn-I-am-°n-bn-√. XpS°w apX¬Xs∂ a‰v tZiob IΩoj- \- pI- f- pa- mbn tN¿∂p {]h¿Øn°- p∂- X- n¬ NHRC ]cmP- b- s- ∏ ́- ps- h∂- Xv ZpxJI- c- a- mb Hcp hkXv p- X-bm-Wv.

\nb-a-Øns‚ ]cn-an-Xn-IƒsIm≠v am{X-a-√, IrXy-amb Bkq-{XWw C√m-ØXpw ]cm-P-b- Im-c-W-am-bn. a\p-jym-h-Im-isØ kw_-'n® km¿∆-tZ-iob ktΩ-f-\-Øn¬ Hcp ZiIw apop- Xs∂ C¥y ]¶m-fn-bm-hp-Ibpw F∂m¬ Cu tIm ̈^-d≥knse AwK-cm-Py-sa∂ \ne-bn¬ National Human Rights Plan of Action (NHRAP) \mfn-Xphsc ]pd-Øn-d-°n-bn- ́n- √.

2. kzmX{¥yw

F√m Xm¬∏-cy-ß-fn¬\n-∂pw, {]tXy-In®v k¿°m-cn-s‚bpw a‰v kzImcy Xm¬∏-cy-ß- fn¬\n∂pw kzX-{¥-am-bn-cn-°pI F∂p-≈Xv GXv tZio-b-I-Ωo-j-s‚bpw A\n-hm-cy-amb LS-I- am-Wv. XpS°w apX¬ NHRCbv°v k¿°m¿ Xm¬∏-cy-ß-fn¬ \n∂v kzX-{¥-am-hpI F∂ Imcy-

LXI

Øn¬ henb {]iv\-ß-fp-≠m-bn-cp-∂p. IΩo-js‚ BZy-L- ́-ß-fn¬ CXns\ adn-I-S-°m-\p≈ i‡hpw [oc-hp-amb Nne \S-]-Sn-Iƒ D≠m-bn-cp-∂p. ]t£ ASpØ Ime-Øp-≠mb IΩo-j- \pIƒ°v Cu {]h¿Ø-\-ßƒ apt∂m- ́p-sIm-≠p-t]m-hm≥ Ign-TMn-s√∂v am{X-a-√, AXns‚ ASn- ÿm\ IS-a-Iƒt]mepw \n¿∆-ln-°m≥ ]‰mØ coXn-bn¬ Akzm-X{¥yw ]nSn-ap-dp-°n-bn-cn-°p- ∂p.

C¥ym-K-hs◊‚ v NHRC-bpsS kmo-ØnI {]h¿Ø-\-ßsf i‡-ambn \nb-{¥n-°p-∂p. t]meo-kp-Im¿°pw a‰v \oXn-\n¿∆-lW DtZym-K-ÿ¿°p-sa-Xn-sc-bmWv a\p-jym-h-Imi ewL\w kw_'- n® G‰h- pa- [- nIw ]cmX- nI- ƒ C¥yb- n¬ Dbc- p∂- X- v. Cu c≠v hn`mK- ß- ƒ°pw ta¬t\m ́w hln-°p∂ tI{μ B`y-¥-c-h-Ip-∏ns‚ Iogn-emWv NHRC- F∂p-≈Xv AXns\ Zp¿∫-e-s∏-Sp- Øp-Ibpw ^e-{]-Z-a-√m-Xm-°p-Ibpw sNøp-∂p. NHRCb- psS kzmX-{¥y-hp-ambn _'-s∏ ́ {]iv\- ßƒ AXnse AwK-ß-fp-sSbpw DtZym-K-ÿ-cp-sSbpw sXc-sTM-Sp-∏p-ambn _'-s∏ ́v PHRA bpsS I¿°i \n¿t±-i-hp-ambn _'-s∏- ́n-cn-°p-∂p. AwK-ß-fpsS \nb-a\w a\p-jym-h-Im-i-hp- ambn _'-s∏ ́ A\p-`-h-ß-fp-sSbpw Adn-hn-s‚bpw Ign-hn-s‚bpw ASn-ÿm-\-Øn-e-√, adn-®v, t]cpw s]cp-a-bp-ambn _'-s∏ ́p \n¬°p-∂p. iofw Xcp∂ k¿°m-cn-s\-Øs∂ \nco-£n- °m≥ DtZym-K-ÿsc DØ-c-hm-Zn-Xz-s∏-Sp-Øp-∂p. AwK-ß-fp-sSbpw DtZym-K-ÿ-cp-sSbpw \nb-a-\- Im-cy-Øn¬ Df-hm-Ip∂ Xm¬∏-cy-ß-fpsS kwL- ́-\hpw kmo-ØnI Imcy-ß-fpsS \nb-{¥-Whpw ]e Imcy-ß-fnepw NHRC- sb k'n-sN-øn-°p-∂p. IgnTM 17 h¿j-ß-fmbn CsXm-gn-hm-°p-∂- Xn\pw IΩo-js‚ kzmX{¥yw \ne-\n¿Øp-∂-Xn\pw bmsXm∂pw sNbvXn- ́n-√.

Kpcp-X-c-amb a\p-jym-h-Imi ewL-\-ß-fn¬ NHRC-bpsS \ni-–X `b-s∏-Sp-Øp-∂-Xm- Wv. kzmX{¥yw Dd-∏p-h-cp-Øp-∂-Xn\pw \ne-hn-sebpw `mhn-bn-sebpw Xm¬∏-cy-ß-fpsS kwL- ́\w kw_-'n® hnj-bßƒ ssIImcyw sNøp-∂-Xn\pw bmsXm-cp-X-c-Øn-ep≈ \n¿t±-i-ßtfm \b-ßtfm cp]o-I-cn-°p-∂n√ F∂p-≈Xv hkvXp-X-bm-Wv.

3. k¶e- \- w,\nba- \- \- S- ]- S- nI- ƒ,Imemh- [n

C¥y≥ Pohn-XsØ {]Xn-\n-[m\w sNøp∂ a\p-jym-h-Im-i-kw-c-£-W-Øn-s‚bpw D∂-a- \-Øn-s‚bpw tZiob tPXm-hns‚ apJw F∂-X-√, adn®v hnc-an® \ymbm-[n-]≥am-cp-sSbpw D∂X DtZym-K-ÿ-cp-sSbpw A¥ v \ne-\n¿Øm-\p≈ Hcp ÿm]-\-ambn NHRC amdn-bn-cn-°p-∂p. a\p-jym-h-Imi kwc-£-W-Im-cy-Øn¬ AwK-ß-fpsS _lp-am-\y-Xbpw s]mXp-k-aq-l-Øn¬ Ah- cpsS ÿm\hpw i‡-amb Hcp-]-I-c-W-am-sW-¶nepw NHRC AwK-ß-fpsS \nb-a\w H ́pw kpXm- cy-am-b√ \S-°p-∂-Xv.

NHRC-bpsS IS-a-Iƒ \n¿∆-ln-°p-∂-Xn¬ AXns\ k÷-am-t°≠ t\Xr-Xz-Øns‚ A`m- hw, ASn-ÿm-\-\n-b-aw-sIm≠p am{X-a√ A\m-h-iyhpw I¿°-i-hp-amb am\-Z-WvU-ßƒ IΩo-j- \nse aq∂v AwK-ßsf sXc-sTM-Sp-°p∂ Imcy-Øn¬ ]pe¿Øp-∂-Xp-sIm-≠p-Iq-Sn-bm-Wv. sshhn- [y-sØbpw ]cn-K-Wn-°m-Xn-cn-°p-Ibpw knhn¬ kaq-l-Øn¬\n-∂p≈ ]cn-N-b-k-o-∂-cmb {]h¿Ø-Isc \nc-¥cw \ncm-I-cn-°p-∂Xpw henb ]cn-an-Xn-bm-Wv. AXp-sIm-≠p-Xs∂ \ne- hnse IΩo-j-\p-Iƒ Bbn-c-°-W-°n\v h\n-X-I-fpsS ]cm-Xn-Iƒ ssIImcyw sNøm≥ Hcp h\n- X-t]m-ep-an-√. i‡-amb C¥y-bnse knhn¬ kaq-l-Øn¬\n∂v Hcp {]mXn-\n-[yw-t]m-ep-an-√. NHRC bpsS, Agn-aXn Btcm-]-W-Øn\v hnt[-b-\mb ]pXnb sNb¿am≥, knhn-e-b≥kn-\p- t\sc _ew {]tbm-Kn-°p-∂Xv AwKo-I-cn-°m-hp-∂-XmWv F∂ At±-l-Øns‚ {]kvXm-h\ Cu kμ¿`-tØmSv tN¿Øp hmbn-°p-I.

LXII

PHRA {]Imcw a\p-jym-h-Im-i-Øn-ep≈ Adnhpw {]mtbm-KnI ]cn-⁄m-\hpw AwK-ß- fpsS \nb-a-\-Im-cy-Øn¬ Hcp am\-Z-WvU-am-Wv. ]t£, \nb-a-\-ImcyØn¬ k¿°m¿ CXv ]n≥Xp- S-cm-dn-√. AwK-ß-fpsS \nb-a\w ]e-t∏mgpw A[n-ImctØmSp ImWn-®n- ́p≈ ]£-]m-X-Øn-\p≈ ]mcn-tXm-jn-I-ambn amdp-∂p. G‰p-ap- ́¬ sIme-]m-X-I-ßƒ Nne-t∏mƒ A\n-hm-cy-am-sW∂pw ac- W-in£ AwKo-I-cn-°p-∂p-sh-∂p-ap≈ NHRC sNb¿am≥ PÃokv _me-Ir-jvWs‚ ]c-ky-\n- e-]mSv IΩo-js‚ ap≥\n-e-]m-Sp-I-fn¬\n∂v hyXy-ÿhpw `c-W-L-S\m hncp-≤-hp-am-Wv. CXv Cu hnj-b-Ønse At±-l-Øns‚ A⁄-Xsb kqNn-∏n-°p-∂p.

4. kwL-S\ ̨ ASn-ÿm-\-ku-I-cy-ßƒ

ASn-ÿm\ kuI-cy-ßfpsS hnI-k-\-Øns‚ Imcy-Øn¬ IgnRv 17 h¿j-ßƒ D≠m- bn ́pw kz¥-ambn hn`-h-ßƒ Is≠-Øp-∂-Xn-t\m, kaq-l-Øn¬ Imcy-£-a-ambn {]h¿Øn-°p-∂- Xnt\m NHRC-°p Ign-TMn- ́n-√. kmo-ØnI Imcy-Øn¬ am{X-a√ Ncn-{X-]-c-amb Adn-hns‚ Imcy-Ønepw _u≤n-I-aq-e-[-\-Øns‚ Imcy-Ønepw ]nt∂m-°-am-Wv. ck-I-c-amb hkvXpX CXv AwKo-I-cn-°m≥ IΩo-j≥ CXp-hsc Xøm-dm-bn- ́n-s√-∂p-≈-Xm-Wv. kmo-ØnI hn`-h-Øns‚ Imcy-Øntem IqSp-X¬ DtZym-K-ÿcpw IΩo-j-\w-K-ßfpw thW-sa∂ Imcy-Øntem Hcp Xc-Øn-ep≈ Bh-iyhpw \mfn-Xp-hsc IΩo-j≥ D∂-bn-®n- ́n-√. am{X-a-√, {]Xn-Zn\w 400 tIkp-I-fn¬ Xo¿∏p I¬∏n-°m≥ 5 t]c-S-ßp∂ IΩo-j\p Ign-bp∂ps≠∂mWv IΩo-j≥ Ah-Im-i-s∏-Sp-∂-Xv.

IΩo-js‚ klmbw Bh-iy-ap≈ _lp-`q-cn-]-£-Øn\pw IΩo-j≥ A{]m-]y-am-Wv. IΩo- js‚ _lp-`q-cn-]£w {]h¿Ø-\-ßfpw U¬ln-bnse Hscm‰ sI ́n-S-Øn-emWv \S-°p-∂-Xv. C¥y-bpsS hnhn[ `mK-ß-fn¬ imJ-Iƒ ÿm]n-°p-∂-Xn\v 1993 apX¬Xs∂ tI{μ-k¿°m¿ A\p-aXn \¬In-bn- ́p-s≠-¶nepw IΩo-j≥ C°m-cy-Øn¬ XnITM ]cm-P-b-am- Wv. \qdp-tIm-Sn-bn¬ A[nIw hcp∂ C¥y-bnse P\-ßƒ°v {]m]y-am-b-co-Xn-bn¬ IΩo-js‚ {]h¿Ø\w Imcy-£-a-am-I-W-sa-¶n¬ Npcp-ßn-bXv 5doPn-b-W¬ tI{μ-ß-sf-¶nepw Bh-iy-ap- ≠v. CXn\v hn`-h-ß-fmWv XS- -sa-¶n¬ IΩo-js‚ IÆpw ImXp-ambn {]h¿Øn-°m≥ knhn¬ skmssk-‰n-I-fp-ambn kl-I-cn-°p-Itbm U¬ln°p ]pdØvv AXns‚ kμ¿i-\-ß-fpsS FÆw h¿≤n-∏n-°p-Itbm sNø-Ww. AXp-hgn Rßƒ ]oVn-X¿s°m-∏-am-sW∂ ktμiw \¬Im\pw IΩo-j\p Ign-b-Ww.

Npcp°w Nne tIkp-I-fn-se-¶nepw IΩo-j≥ Hm^o-kn-te°v FØn-t®-cm≥ Ign-bp∂ ]oVn- X¿°v A\p-Iq-e-a√ IΩo-js‚ s]mXp-hn-ep≈ A¥-co-£w. Cu hn`m-K-Øn-\p-th-≠n-bmWv IΩo- j≥ cp]o-I-cn-®-sX-¶nepw IΩo-js‚ ]cm-Xn-I-fp-ambn _'-s∏ ́ \S-]-Sn-{I-a- ßƒ kpXm-cy-am-b√ \S-°p-∂-Xv. \S-]-Sn-{I-a-ß-fn¬ \nco-£-I-cmbn ]s¶-Sp-°-W-sa-∂p≈ ]e k∂-≤-kw-L-S-\-I-fp-sSbpw Bhiyw CXp-hsc ]cn-K-Wn-°-s∏- ́n- ́n-√.

IΩo-js‚ s]mXp-ap-J-sa∂ \ne-bn¬ s]mXp-P-\-Øn\v IΩo-j≥ kw_-'n® hnh-c-ßƒ IqSp-X¬ {]m]y-am-°p-∂-Xn-\p-th≠n Hcp sh_v sk‰p-≠v. \n¿`m-Ky-h-im¬ sh_vsk-‰nse hnh- c-ßƒ am{X-a√ IΩo-j≥ {]Xn-\n-[o-I-cn-°p∂ an°-hmdpw dnt∏m¿ ́p-Ifpw {]mtZ-in-I-`m-j-I-fn¬ e`ya- √- . AXps- Im≠- pX- s∂ s]mXpP- \- ß- ƒ°v {]tXyI- n®v {]tbmP- \- a- n√- . ]oVnX- ¿°v Hm ̈sse- \mbn ]cm-Xn-Iƒ ka¿∏n-°m-\p≈ -kw-hn-[m-\-ap-s≠-¶nepw ]cm-Xn-Iƒ°v F¥p kw`-hn-°p∂p F∂-dn-bm≥ kwhn-[m-\-an-√.

LXIII

]oVn-Xsc klm-bn-°p-∂-Xn-\p-th≠n Hcp tlm ́v sse≥ \o-cp-s≠-¶nepw an°-hmdpw CXns‚ {]h¿Ø\w e`y-a-√. Ds≠-¶n¬Xs∂ IrXy-amb adp-]Sn e`n-°n-√, am{X-a√ CXv ssIImcyw sNøp∂ hy‡n-Iƒ°v lnμn-b-√msX as‰mcp `mjbpw Adn-bn-√, C¥y-bnse _lp- `q-cn-]-£-Øn\v lnμn Ah-cpsS ASn-ÿm\ `mj-b-√m-Ø-Xp-sIm≠v Cu kuIcyw {]tbm-P-\-{]- Z-a-√.

IΩo-j-\nse DtZym-K-ÿ¿ a‰v k¿°m¿ XkvXn-I-I-fn¬ \n∂v Xpey-amb t]cn¬Øs∂ t\cn ́v \nb-an-°-s∏-Sp-∂-h-cm-Wv. Ch¿°m¿°pw {]tXy-In®v Hcp ]cn-io-e-\hpw \¬Ip-∂n-√. am{X-a√ _lp-`q-cn-]-£-Øn\pw a\p-jym-h-Im-i-ßsf kw_-'n®v kmam-\y-⁄m\w D≈-h-c-√. AXp-sIm-≠p-Xs∂ GsXmcp k¿°m¿ tPmen-t]m-se-Xs∂ Ah¿ ChnsS tPmen-sb-Sp-°p-∂p. \ne-hn-ep≈ IΩo-j-\nse DtZym-K-ÿsc ]cn-tim-[n-®m¬ kv{XoIƒ, aX-\yq-\-]-£ßƒ, AwK- ssh-I-ey-ap-≈-h¿ F∂n-h¿°v aXn-bmb {]mXn-\n-[y-an-s√∂v a\- n-em-°mw.

NHRC \nb-an-°p∂ {]tXyI hnj-b-ß-fnepw As√-¶n¬ taJ-e-I-fnte°p-ap≈ Special rapporteurs s\ XncsTMSp°p∂ ImcyØ- ntem ta¬ hnhc- n® DtZymK- ÿ- - AwK- ß- - fpt- SX- pt- ]me- p≈ am\Z- W- Uv ß- f- mWv ]n≥XpS- c- p∂- X- .v k¿°m¿ tPmen-bn¬ \n∂v hnc-an-®-h¿°p- am-{Xta Special rapporteurs BIm≥ Ignbq F∂ Aen-JnX \nbaw Xs∂-bp-≠v. knhn¬ skmssk-‰n-bn¬ \n∂pw A°m-Z-anIv taJ-e-bn¬ \n∂p-ap-≈-h¿ hf-sc-b-[nIw kzX-{¥-cm-bn- cn°pw F∂-Xm-bn-cn°pw ImcWw!

5. A¿≤- ̨-\o-Xn-\n¿∆-lW kwhn-[m\w

IΩo-j-\nse 5AwK-ß-fmWv C¥y-bnse hnhn[ `mK-ß-fn¬ \n∂p hcp∂ tIkpIƒ ]cn-tim-[n-°p-∂-Xv. {]h¿Ø\w Bcw-`n® h¿jw 487 ]cm-Xn-I-fmWv IΩo-j\p e`n-®-sX-¶nepw C∂v {]Xn-Zn\w icm-i-cn 400 e[nIw ]cm-Xn-Iƒ IΩo-j\v e`n-°p-∂p-≠v. IΩo-j-\w-K-ß-fmb 5 t]¿ Xs∂bmWv Cu tIkp-Ifpw ssIImcyw sNøp-∂-Xv. Xo¿®-bmbpw KpW-\n-e-hm-csØ _m[n-°p-sa-∂-Xn\v kwi-b-an-√.

Cu tIkp-I-f-{Xbpw ssIImcyw sNøp-∂-Xn¬ Hcp {]iv\-hp-an-s√∂pw {]Xn-Zn\w 60-80 tIkp-Iƒ ]cn-tim-[n-°p-∂-Xn\v Ign-bp-∂p-s≠-∂p-amWv IΩo-j≥ Ah-Im-i-s∏-Sp-∂-Xv. CXv icn- bm-sW-¶n¬ IΩo-j-\w-K-ß-fpsS ]cn-an-X-amb FÆhpw tIkp-I-fpsS _mlp-eyhpw IW-°n-se- Sp-Øm¬ IΩo-j-\w-K-ßƒ {]Xn-Zn\w 16 aWn-°q¿ tPmen sNbvXn- ́mWv 60 tIkp-Iƒ°v Xo¿∏p I¬∏n-°-∂-Xv. am{X-hp-a-√, Hcp tIkv ]cn-tim-[n®v a\p-jym-h-Im-i-ew-L\w \S-∂n- ́pt≠mv F∂v hne-bn-cpØn ip]m¿i \S-Øp-∂-Xn\v tIhew 30 an\n-‰n¬ Xmsg-bmWv e`n-°p-∂Xv!

IΩo-js‚ a‰v IS-a-Ifpw {]h¿Ø-\-ßfpw IW-°n¬ FSp-°p-tomƒ Hcp tIkn\v 30 an\n- ‰p-t]mepw \¬Im≥ Ignbn-√m-sb-∂-XmWv hkvXp-X. NHRC hfsc A{i-≤-am-bn- ́mWv tIkp- Iƒ Ah-km-\n-∏n°p-∂-sX-∂-Xn\v hy‡-amb sXfn-hp-I-fp-≠v. `qcn-]£w tIkp-Ifpw A{i-≤- ambn Ah-km-\n-∏n-°p-Ibpw Ah-km-\n-∏n-®p-sIm-≠p≈ DØ-c-hp-Iƒ H‰-h-cn-bn¬ Xo¿°p-Ibpw sNøp-∂p.

]cm-Xn-Iƒ ssIImcyw sNøp-∂-Xnse IpdTM KpW-\n-e-hmcw am{X-a√, hepXpw tZiob {]m[m-\y-ap-≈-Xp-amb tIkp-I-fn¬ ZrVhpw [oc-hp-amb \ne-]m-Sp-Iƒ FSp-°p∂ Imcy-Ønepw, i‡-amb \nb-a-imkv{Xw hnI-kn-∏n-°p∂ Imcy-Ønepw IΩo-j≥ ]nt∂m- ́m-Wv. cmPyØp \ne- \n¬°p∂ \nb-a-kw-hn-[m-\-ßfpw, a\p-jym-h-Im-isØ kw_-'n® tZio-bhpw A¥¿t±-io-b- hp-amb am\-Z-fi-ßƒ apt∂m ́p hbv°p-Ibpw AXp-hgn ]oVn-X¿°v Bizmkw ]I-cp-Ibpw,

LXIV

F√m C¥ym-°m¿°pw a\p-jym-h-Imiw Dd-∏p-h-cp-Øp∂ coXn-bn-ep≈ \nb-kw-ln-X-Iƒ Bhn- jv°-cn-°p-Ibpw sNøp-∂-Xn-\p-]-Icw IΩo-j≥ \ni-–-am-bn-cn-°p-∂p.

a\p-jym-h-Imi ewL-\-ßƒ sXfn-bn-°-s∏- ́m¬ AXn≥ta¬ ip]m¿i-Iƒ \S-∏n-em-°m- \p≈ IΩo-js‚ Ah-Im-isØ hfsc Ipd®p tIkp-I-fn¬ am{Xta IΩo-j≥ {]tbm-P-\-s∏-Sp- Øp-∂p-≈p. _lp-`q-cn-]£w tIkp-I-fnepw Ah-Imi ewL-\-ßƒ \ncm-I-cn-®p-sIm-≠p≈ `c- W-Iq-S-Øns‚ {]Xn-I-c-W-Øn-s‚bpw t]meokv dnt∏m¿ ́n-s‚bpw ASn-ÿm-\-Øn¬ tIkp-Iƒ Ah-km-\n-∏n-°p-∂p. Ip‰m-tcm-]n-X-cm-bn- ́p≈ t]meokv A[n-Im-cn-Iƒ°p-X-s∂ ]cm-Xn-Iƒ At\z- jn-°m≥ Npa-Xe \¬Ip-∂, IΩo-js‚ C∂pw \ne-\n¬°p∂ \S-]-Sn-{I-aw, a\p-jym-h-Im-i- Øns‚ ASn-ÿm\ Bi-b-ßƒ°pw IΩo-js‚ IS-a-Iƒ°pw hncp-≤-am-Wv. Acn-Ip-h¬°-cn-°- s∏ ́ kap-Zm-b-ß-fn¬ \n∂p≈ ]oVn-X¿°v Hcp c≠mw\nc ]uc-∑m-sc-∂p≈ ]cn-K-W-\-bmWv IΩo-j-\n¬ \n∂pw ]e-t∏mgpw e`y-am-Ip-∂-Xv.

6. a\p-jym-h-Im-i-cw-KsØ ]¶m-fn-I-fp-am-bp≈ _'w

IΩo-j≥ {]K¬`-cmb hy‡n-Iƒ tN¿∂p≈ Hcp tIm¿{Kq∏v cp]o-I-cn-®n- ́p-≠v. ]t£, Hu]N- mc- nI- a- mbn tIm¿ {Kq∏v {]h¿Øn°- p∂- X- ns\ t{]m¬kml- n∏- n°- p∂- n√- . am{Xh- pa- √- , tIm¿{Kq- ∏nse AwK-ß-fpsS sshZKv≤yw IΩo-js‚ IS-a-Isf {]mh¿Øn-I-am-°p∂ coXn-bn¬ {Inbm- fl-I-ambn {]tbm-P-\-s∏-Sp-Øp-∂n-√.

knhn¬ kaq-l-hp-ambn hsf ]cn-an-X-amb tXmXn¬ am{Xta IΩo-j≥ kl-I-cn-°p-∂p- ≈q. AXp-sIm-≠p-Xs∂ i‡hpw {]h¿Ø-\-\n-c-Xhpw Adn-hp-≈-Xp-amb Hcp ]¶m-fnsb a\p- jym-h-Imi kwc-£-W-cw-KØp {]tbm-P-\-s∏-Sp-Øm≥ IΩo-j\p Ign-bp-∂n-√.

Cu dnt∏m¿ ́ns‚ IcSv Xøm-dm-°p∂ thfbn-emWv IΩo-js‚ Ct∏m-gsØ sNb¿am-\mb PÃokv _me-Ir-jvW-s\-Xn-cmb \nc-h[n Btcm-]-W-ßƒ ]pd-Øp-h-cp-∂-Xv. PÃnkv _me-Ir- jvW≥ Npa-Xetb‰-Xp-ap-X¬ Xs∂ At±-lsØ _'-s∏-SpØn Agn-a-Xn-bpsS \nc-h[n shfn- s∏-Sp-Ø-ep-I-fp-≠m-bn. CXv k∂≤ kwL-S-\-I-fn¬ \n∂p-am-{X-a-√, cmPysØ {]ap-J-cmb ]e \nb-a-⁄cpw At±-l-Øns‚ cmPn Bh-iy-s∏-Sp∂ \ne-bn-te-s°-Øn-®p. ]Ww hmßn PUvPn- amsc \nb-an-°p∂ Imcy-Øn¬ At±-l-Øn-s\-Xnsc Btcm-]-W-ßƒ D≠v. At±-l-Øns‚ IpSpw_w Akm-[m-c-W-amw-hn[w [\w kom-Zn-°p-∂-Xn-s\-°p-dn®pw \nc-h[n tNmZy-ßƒ D∂- bn-°-s∏-Sp-∂p-≠v.

IΩo-js‚ Ct∏m-gsØ t\XrXzw

PÃnkv sI.Pn. _me-Ir-jvWs\ Np‰n-∏-‰n-bp≈ Ct∏m-gsØ hnhmZw IΩo-js‚ AwK- ßsf Xnc-sTM-Sp-°p-∂-Xnse \nb-a\ \S-]-Sn-{I-a-ß-fn-ep≈ Imcy-£-a-X-sb-°p-dn®v tNmZy-ßƒ D∂-bn-°m≥ knhn¬ kaq-lsØ \n¿_-'n-X-cm-°p-∂p. PÃnkv _me-Ir-jvW-s\-Xn-sc-bp≈ Btcm-]-W-ßƒ kXy-am-sW∂p sXfn-TMm¬ kXy-k-'-Xbpw a\p-jym-h-Im-i-tØm-Sp≈ {]Xn- _-≤-Xbpw IΩo-j≥ sNb¿t]-gvksW sXc-sTM-Sp-°p-∂-Xnse \n¿Æm-bI ]cn-K-W\ BsW∂p hcpw. Hcp dn ́-tb¿Uv No^v PÃokv kzm`m-hn-I-ambpw NHRC sNb¿ t]gvk ̈ BIp-sa-∂p-≈Xv hcpw Ime-ß-fn¬ km≤y-amb H∂-√. AwK-ßsf sXc-sTM-Sp-°p∂Xn-\p≈ \S-]-Sn-{Iaw koq¿Æ-ambn kpXm-cy-am-bn-cn-°p-Ibpw hnc-an® kp{]ow-tIm-SXn No^v PÃokpw PUvPn-amcpw ap≥ _yqtdm-{Im-‰p-I-fmb IPS, IAS,IFA,IRS hy‡n-Xz-ßfpw F∂ ]cn-an-Xn- Iƒ°-∏p-dØv C¥y-bnse AXn-k-o-∂-amb [m¿Ωn-I-Xbpw `uXn-I-\n-e-hm-chpw A¿∏-W-t_m- [-hp-ap≈ t\Xm-°-fn-te°v hf-c-Ww.

LXV

IΩo-js‚ Ct∏m-gsØ t\XrXzw

LXVI

The All India Network of NGOs and Individuals Working with National Human Rights

Institutions (AiNNI)

An NGO Report on the Compliance with the Paris Principles by the National Human Rights Commission of India

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - TAMIL

njáa kÅj cÇik ÃWtd§fnshL ïizaJ gÂah‰W« muR rhuh mik¥òfŸ k‰W« jÅeg®fË‹ m»y ïaâa¡ T£lik¥ò

njáa kÅj cÇik Miza«

njáa kÅj cÇik ÃWtd§fŸ bjhl®ghd r®tnjr

xU§»iz¥ò¡ FGÉ‰F muR rhuh mik¥òfŸ tH§»a kh‰W m¿¡if

1. njh‰w«:-

ïaâahÉš njáa kÅj cÇikfŸ Miza« (NHRC/Commission) kÅj cÇikfŸ ghJfh¥ò r£l¤â‹ Ñœ, 12 m¡nlhg® 1993 m‹W cUth¡f¥g£lJ. "ghßÞ ãufld«" _ykhf cyfsÉš vGaj beU¡FjšfS«, I.eh bghJk‹w« 1993ïš V‰W¡bfh©l brašâ£l¤â‹ mo¥gilÆY« ïaâahÉ‹ kÅj cÇikfŸ Miza« cjakhdJ. ehL KGtJ« cŸs kÅj cÇik¡ fh¥ghs®fS¡F njhHik cz®it cUth¡» jUtJ ïj‹ Kjš ïy¡fhf ïUajJ.

ïaâahÉš njáa kÅj cÇikfŸ Miza« mik¥gj‰F cŸ eh£oY« cyfsÉY« bjhl®aJ t‰òW¤j¥g£LŸsJ. kÅj cÇikfis ghJfh¡fî« ts®¡fî« Miza« KjÈš rÇahd Ka‰áfŸ vL¤JŸsJ. mjDila nfh£ghLfis bt‰¿fukhf Ãiwnt‰Wtâš Miza« bt‰¿ bg‰WŸsJ. Äf ÉiuÉš, Miza¤â‹ K¡»akhd mo¥gil r£l§fŸ, Miza¤â‹ mo¥gilahd brašghLfis Äf nkhrkhf ghâ¡f¡Toa KiwÆš cŸsd v‹gJ bjÇa tajJ. kÅj cÇikfŸ ghJfh¥ò r£l¤ij (PHRA) âU¤j nt©L« v‹W MizaK« Foik r_fK« gy nt©LnfhŸfis it¤jd. Mdhš maj nt©LnfhŸfŸ ïaâa murhš ÃuhfÇ¡f¥g£ld. Miza¤âdhš mit kw¡f¥g£ld.

kÅj cÇikfŸ ghJfh¥ò r£l« (PHRA) ãÇî 12(i) ngh‹w K‰ngh¡fhd ãÇîfŸ Tl njáa kÅj cÇik Miza¤âdhš ã‹g‰w¥glÉšiy v‹gJ tU¤j« mË¡f¡ToaJ. ï¥ãÇî kÅj cÇik¤js¤âš brašgL« muR rhuh mik¥òfŸ k‰W« jÅeg®fnshL ïizaJ gÂah‰w nt©L« v‹W Miza¤ij¥ gÂ¡»wJ.

njáa kÅj cÇikfŸ Miza« brašglhkš ïUajnjhL, e‹F brašgl â£lÄl kW¤JÉ£lJ. g¤jh©LfS¡F K‹ng, Éa‹dhÉš eilbg‰w kÅj cÇikfS¡fhd cyf kfheh£oš ïaâah g§F bg‰wJ; Mdhš m§F Ãiwnt‰w¥g£ll njáa kÅj cÇikfŸ brašâ£l¤ij (NHRAP) ïaâah ï‹W tiu btËÆlÉšiy.

2. Rjaâu«:-

muá‹ jiypL«, jÅ¥g£l ÉU¥ò btW¥òfS¡F« ïl« jhuhjgo j‹Å¢irahf Miza« brašgl nt©L«. Mu«g¤âš ïUanj njáa kÅj cÇikfŸ Miza« (NHRC), muá‹

LXVII

jiypL ïšyhkš Rjaâukhf brašgLtâš á¡fšfŸ ïUaJŸsd. Mu«g fhy§fËš, njáa kÅj cÇikfŸ Miza« ijÇakhfî« cWâahfî« KoîfŸ vL¤JŸsJ. Mdhš j‰bghGJ cŸs Miza§fŸ mjDila mo¥gil nfh£ghLfis Ãiwnt‰w Koahkš bray‰W cŸsd; kÅj cÇikfŸ bjhl®ghd M¡f¥ó®tkhd K‹ Ka‰áfŸ Tl vL¡f¥glÉšiy.

njáa kÅj cÇikfŸ Miza¤â‹ Ãâ Ãiyik ïaâa muá‹ KG f£o¥gh£o‹ Ñœ jh‹ cŸsJ. j‰bghGJ njáa kÅj cÇikfŸ Miza« jdJ M©l¿¡ifia k¤âa cŸJiw mik¢rf¤J¡F mD¥ò»wJ. ïaj mik¢rf« jh‹ Foak®î, kješÈz¡f«, všiy¥ghJfh¥ò, cŸeh£L ghJfh¥ò, r£l« xG§F ngh‹w Jiwfis f©fhÂ¡»wJ. cÇik Ûwiy¡ f©fhÂ¡F« Miza¤ij xUtifÆš Ã®thf« brŒtnj cÇik ÛwY¡F Jiz nghF« mik¢rf« jh‹. ïâÈUaJ Miza¤â‹ j‹Å¢irahd brašghL ghâ¡f¥gL»wJ v‹gij òÇaJ bfhŸtJ vËJ.

njáa kÅj cÇikfŸ Miza¤â‹ Rjaâu« ïšyhj Ãiy, mj‹ bjhluik¥ãidí« CÊa®fisí« gh®¡F« nghnj vËâš És§F«. njáa kÅj cÇik Miza¤â‹ cW¥ãduhf ïU¥gj‰F kÅj cÇikfŸ ghJfh¥ò r£l« fLikahd Éâfis ifahŸ»wJ; kÅj cÇikfŸ r«gaj¥gll Éra§fËš âwikí«, ÉU¥gK«, mDgtK« ïU¡f nt©L« v‹W tÈíW¤j¥gL»wJ. j§fS¡F r«gs« tH§F« murh§f¤ijna f©fhÂ¡f nt©oa ntiy njáa kÅj cÇik Miza¤â‹ CÊa®fS¡F mË¡f¥g£LŸsJ. Miza¤â‹ cW¥ãd®fis muR Ãakd« brŒtâš vG« á¡fšfshš mj‹ RjaâukhdJ rkur« brŒa¥g£lhY«, Ãâ Ãiyikia f£L¥gL¤âdhY« CÊa®fis Ãakd« brŒjhY«, flaj 17 M©Lfhykhf bjhl¡f¤âš ïUanj mjDila Rjaâu¤ij fh¥gh‰wî« m›t¥nghJ vG« ãu¢ridfis Fiw¡fî« vaj Ka‰áí« vL¡f¥glÉšiy.

Rjaâukhf njáa kÅj cÇikfŸ Miza« ïšyhj fhuz¤âdhš, eh£oš el¡F« kÅj cÇikfŸ Ûwiy f©fhÂ¤J elto¡if vL¡F« ijÇakhd mik¥ò ïšyhkš nghŒÉ£lJ. 2002-M« M©L F#uh¤ khÃy¤âš kj fytu§fŸ mâfhu¤âš ïUajt®fË‹ KG x¤JiH¥nghL elanj¿aJ. ïj‹ fhuzkhf njáa kÅj cÇik Miza¤â‹ rÇ¤âu¤âš xU K¡»a Ãfœî eilbg‰wJ. kj¡fytu§fis¥ g‰¿ Érhuiz nk‰bfh©L m¿¡if ju j‹Å¢irahf Koî vL¤J c¢r Úâk‹w¤âš kDjh¡fš brŒjJ. murh§f¤âÈUaj bjhl®aJ taj muáaš t‰òW¤jyhš Miza« mikâahf ïUajij R£o¡fh£ona Mfnt©L«. Úâk‹w¤âš kÅj cÇik mik¥òfŸ fytu¤jhš ghâ¡f¥g£nlh®¡fhf bjhl®aJ murh§f¤Jl‹ nghuhona tU»‹wd. mâf¥goahd ãu¢áidfËš njáa kÅj cÇikfŸ Miza« mikâahf ïU¥gJ mâ®¢á jUtjhf cŸsJ. kÅj cÇikfŸ r«gaj¥g£l Éra§fËš j‹Dila KoÉ‹ mo¥gilÆš, Rjaâukhf c¤juîfŸ mË¡F« jÅ ÃWtdkhf brašg£lhY«, vG¤J ó®tkhd tÊfh£L be¿fisí«, bfhŸiffisí«, kuòfisí« V‰gL¤j jt¿É£lJ. nkY« eilKiwÆš cŸs á¡fšfS¡F« ã‰fhy¤âš tu¡Toa ãu¢áidfS¡F« v‹d Ô®î v‹gij g‰¿ Miza« vaj jftY« juÉšiy.

LXVIII

3. Miza¤âš mik¥ò ÃakdKiw, fhy msî:-

njáa kÅj cÇikfŸ Miza¤â‹ f£lik¥ghdJ ïaâahit¥ g‰¿í« mj‹ thœÉaš be¿ g‰¿í« ãuâgÈ¡fnt ïšiy. ïJ kÅj cÇikfis ghJfh¡fî«, ts®¡fî« gÂ¡f¥g£l njáa Miza§fis¥ g‰¿ jtwhd fU¤ij btË¥gL¤J»wJ. nkY« gÂ XŒî bg‰w Úâgâfisí« muR mâfhÇfisí« cŸsl¡»a bgUikÄF mU§fh£áafkhf Miza« És§F»wJ. nkY« Miza cW¥ãd®fË‹ ÃakdK« bjËthf ïšiy. mâf âwikíŸs ešy cW¥ãd®fŸ btË¥gilahf¤ nj®î brŒa¥gLtâšiy. kÅj cÇikfŸ r«gaj¥g£l Éra§fËš K‹Å‹W el¤â bršy¤ jFaj TLjš jFâfŸ cŸs cW¥ãd®fŸ nj®î brŒa¥gLÉšiy.

Miza¤ij tÊel¤â¢ bršy¡Toa jFâthŒaj jiyt®fŸ, Miza¤â‹ tYthd f£lisia Ãiwnt‰w Koahkš cŸsd®. Miza¤â‹ _‹W cW¥ãd®fS¡fhf Äf¡ fLikahd njita‰w tiuaiwfŸ Miza¤â‹ mo¥gil r£l¤âš bfhL¡f¥g£LŸsd. kÅj cÇik¢ r«gaj¥g£l Éra§fËš <LghLila Foik rKf¤ij¢ nr®aj jiyt®fS« mDgt« thŒaj M®ty®fS« Miza¤â‹ cW¥ãd®fshf¤ nj®î brŒa¥glhkš ïU¡»wh®fŸ. nkY« gšntWg£l Jiwfis¢ rh®ajt®fS« jFâíŸst®fS« nj®î brŒa¥gLtâšiy. mj‹ fhuzkhf Miza¤â‹ cW¥ãduhf bg© xUtU« nj®î brŒa¥glhkš ïU¥gjhš, bg©fŸ r«gaj¥g£l MÆu¡fz¡fhd òfh®fŸ gÇÓyid brŒa¥glhj Ãiy V‰g£LŸsJ; Foik r_f¤âÈUaj tYthd cW¥ãd® ahU« nj®î brŒa¥glÉšiy; òâjhf¤ nj®î brŒa¥g£l Miza¤â‹ jiyt® ÛJ CHš F‰w¢rh£L Rk¤j¥g£LŸsJ; rhjhuz k¡fŸ ÛJ r£l¤â‰F òw«ghf fhtšJiwÆd® gy¤ij ga‹gL¤JtJ V‰W¡ bfhŸs¡ ToaJjh‹ v‹W òâa jiyt® ngáíŸsh®.

njáa kÅj cÇikfŸ Miza¤â‹ cW¥ãd®fis muR ÃaÄ¡Fk nghJ, nghâa m¿î« mQgtK« ïU¡f nt©L« v‹w kÅj cÇikfŸ ghJfh¥ò r£l« T¿ÆU¥gij fU¤âš vL¤J¡ bfhŸtâšiy. M£áÆš cŸst®fË‹ ÉU¥g¤âw¡F V‰wthW cW¥ãd®fŸ v¥nghJ« ÃaÄ¡f¥gL»wh®fŸ. Miza¤â‹ bgU«ghyhd cW¥ãd®fŸ Úâ¤JiwÆÈUaJ jh‹ tunt©L« v‹w r£l« eilKiwÆš cŸsJ. j‰bghGJ Miza¤â‹ jiytuhf cŸs Úâgâ ghy»UZz‹, "nghäÞ v‹bfs‹l®fŸ áy rka§fËš jÉ®¡f Koahjit" v‹W T¿íŸsh®. nkY« "r£l xG§F ãu¢áidfŸ ehS¡F ehŸ mâfÇ¤J¡ bfh©nl tU»‹wd; F‰wthËfŸ r£l¤ij j§fŸ ifÆš vL¤J¡ bfhŸ»‹wd®; fhty®fis jh¡F»‹wd®; fhtšJiwÆd® Ãiyikia¡ f£L¡FŸ bfh©Ltu nt©oaU¡»wJ" v‹W mt® T¿ÆU¡»wh®. nkY« k‰bwhU Ãfœ¢áÆš, kuz j©lid tH§Ftij MjÇ¤J ngáíŸsh®.Úâgâ ghy»UZzÅ‹ nk‰Tw¥gll m¿É¥òfŸ, njáa kÅj cÇik Miza¤â‹ ju¤âid¥ g‰¿a nghâa m¿î mt®¡F ïšiy v‹gij R£o¡ fh£L»wJ. nkY« ïaâa muáaš r£l¤ij kâ¡fhj Ãiyiaí« ïJ vL¤J¡ fh£L»wJ.

LXIX

4. ÃWtd¤â‹ f£lik¥ò:-

flaj 17 M©Lfhykhf njáa kÅj cÇikfŸ Miza« jdJ f£lik¥ig cUth¡» tajhY«, mjDila Mjhu§fis ts®¤J¡ bfhŸsÉšiy; nkY« r_f¤âš e‹F brayh‰w jt¿É£lJ; Ãâ Mjhu§fŸ Fiwthf ïU¥gnjhL gy neu§fËš ò¤â¡T®iknahL« braÿ¡f¤njhL« brašgl jtW»wJ. Mdhš NHRC Ãâ Mjhu« Fiwthf ïU¥gij V‰W¡ bfhŸs kW¡»wJ; nkY« mâf¥goahd CÊa®fŸ, cW¥ãd®fŸ nt©L« v‹W nf£fÉšiy. nkY« 400 tH¡F r«gaj¥g£l Éra§fËš xnu ehËš MizfŸ ãw¥ã¡f IaJ cW¥ãd®fŸ nghJ« v‹W rÛg¤âš NHRC T¿ÆU¥gJ ntjid¡FÇaJ.

mid¤J k¡fS¡F« nrit brŒa NHRC-ahš ïayhkš cŸsJ. blšÈÆš cŸs xU f£ol¤âš ïUaJ¡ bfh©L Miza¤â‹ bgU«ghyhd fhÇa§fŸ eilbgW»‹wd. Mdhš ïaâahÉ‹ bgU«gFâÆš tá¥ngh® Miza¤âid mQfKoahkš cŸsd®. 1993-M« M©L Kjš ïaâahÉ‹ ãw gFâfËš mYtyf§fŸ V‰gL¤j k¤âa murh§f¤âl« NHRC K‹ mDkâbg‰WŸsJ; Mdhš Miza« òJ mYtyf§fŸ bjhl§fÉšiy. 100 nfho ïaâa k¡fS¡F nrit brŒa, eh‹F mšyJ IaJ k©ly mYtyf§fisMiza« bjhl§f NHRC- Æ‹ Jiz Ãiya§fis ÃWîtj‰F Ãâ ÃiyÆšiyba‹whš, Foik r_f mik¥òfSl‹ ïizaJ gÂah‰¿ mt®fis jkJ f©fshfî« fhJfshfî« brašgl¢ brŒant©L«; blšÈÆÈUaJ btËna br‹W, ghâ¡f¥g£nlhU¡F cjt nt©L«; F‰wthËfŸ j¥ã¡f¡TlhJ.

áy tH¡FfËš ghâ¡f¥g£nlh® blšÈ bršynt©oa ÃiyÆš, NHRC mt®fS¡F vâuhf brašg£L ahU¡fhf nrit brŒant©Lnkh mt®fisna Éu¡â¡F Msh¡F»wJ. tH¡F ÉrhuizfŸ _oa miw¡FŸ el¤j¥gL»‹wd; òfh® bfhL¤jt®fŸ, ÉrhuizÆš fyaJ bfhŸsnth gh®itÆlnth miH¡f¥gLtâšiy. gy _¤j r_f M®ty®fS« muR rhuh ÃWtd§fis¢ rh®anjhU« ÉrhuizÆš fyaj bfhŸs tajhš, mt®fSila Ka‰á gy‹mË¥gâšiy.

NHRC xU tiy¤js¤ij v‰gL¤âíŸsJ. mj‹ _y« gyU« mij mQf Koí«. Mdhš maj tiy¤js« M§»y bkhÊÆš k£L« ïU¥gjhš, ghâ¡f¥g£nlhU« bghJ k¡fS« áy jilfis raâ¡f nt©oíŸsJ. maj tiy¤jsK« mjDila m¿¡iffS« t£lhu bkhÊfËš ïšyhjjhš bghJk¡fŸ mâfkhf mjid ga‹gL¤j Koahkš cŸsd®. ghâ¡f¥g£nlh® j§fSila òfh®fis tiy¤js¤âš gâî brŒa¡Toa trâ ïUajhY«, tH¡FfË‹ ÃiyF¿¤J m¿aJ bfhŸsî« mJ g‰¿a KG Égu¤ij bjÇaJ¡ bfhŸsî« Koahj Ãiy bjhl®»wJ.

ghâ¡f¥g£lnlhU¡F cjîtj‰fhf, NHRC bjhiyngá trâ brŒJŸsJ. Mdhš ïaj trâ všyh neu¤âY« »il¥gâšiy; nkY« jFaj gâšfS« »il¡f¥bgWtâšiy. ïaj¤ bjhiyngá miH¥òfis V‰gt® ïaâbkhÊ k£L« bjÇaâU¥gjhš, ntW bkhÊÆš nf£gt®fS¡F gâš »il¥gâšiy. ïjdhš NHRC ghâ¡f¥g£nlhUl‹ bjhl®ò bfhŸs Kotâšiy. ïaâahÉš cŸs bgU«ghyhd k¡fS¡F ïaâ jhŒbkhÊahf ïšiy.

LXX

NHRC-ïš ntiy gh®¡F« CÊa®fŸ, muR ntiyfËš cŸst®fËlÄUaJ nj®î brŒa¥gL»‹wd®. j‰fhÈf mo¥gilÆš muR¤JiwÆÈUaJ mD¥g¥gL»wh®fŸ; Mdhš mt®fŸ gh®¤J¡ bfh©oU¥gJ ntW tifahd muR¥ gÂahF«. nkY« ïaj CÊa®fS¡F rÇahd gÆ‰áí« mË¡f¥gLtâšiy. mt®fS¡F kÅj cÇikfŸ r«gajkhf mo¥gil m¿îTl ïšiy; kÅj cÇikfŸ g‰¿ bjÇahkny, j§fSila ntiyfis¢ brŒ»‹wd®. nghâa CÊa®fis¤ nj®î brŒJ, gÆ‰á mË¤J, NHRC-Æny j¡fit¤J¡ bfhŸsKoahj ÃiyÆš Miza« ïU¥gjhš, mjDila ts®¢áí« rÇahd brašghL« ghâ¡f¥gL»‹wJ. j‰bghGJ cŸs CÊa®fË‹ v©Â¡ifia¡ fz¡»š vL¤J¡ bfh©lhš, nghâa msÉš M©, bg© CÊa®fŸ ïšiy v‹gJ bjÇatU»wJ; mJnghš kj¤â‹mo¥gilÆš áWgh‹ikÆd® k‰Wk clš CdK‰nwh® jFaj É»jh¢rhu¤âš ïšiy.

ca®jFâí«, MŒî neh¡F« bfh©l áyiu jdJ áw¥ò ãuâÃâfshf Miza« ÃaÄ¡»wJ. mt®fŸ gy neu§fËš ÛwšfŸ bjhl®ghd Érhuizia nk‰bfhŸ»‹wd. ït®fSila ÃakdK« âwikÆ‹ mo¥gilÆš ïšyhkš gy neu§fËš mt®fŸ mj‰F K‹ò t»¤j gjÉÆ‹ bghU£nl tH§f¥gL»wJ. mjhtJ beoa muR¥ gÂ mDgt¤njhL tUgt®fns j§fS¡F njit; khwhf fšÉahs®fŸ, Foik¢r_f brašgh£lhs®fŸ j‹Å¢irahf brašgl ÉU«òtjhš mt®fis jFâíŸs bghW¥òfËš ÃaÄ¥gij Miza« ÉU«òtJ ïšiy.

5. Úâ¤Jiw ngh‹w brašghLfŸ:-

ïaâah KGtJ« ïUaJbgw¥gL« òfh®fis gh®¤J¡ bfhŸS« gÂ NHRC-ï‹ IaJ cW¥ãd®fËl« x¥gil¡f¥g£LŸsJ. Miza« Mu«ã¡f¥g£l M©oš 487 òfh®fŸ »il¡f¥bg‰wd. Mdhš ï‹W xnu ehËš 400 òfh®fŸ tiu »il¡f¡Toa NHš v‰g£LŸsJ. Mdhš ïaj¥ òfh®fis bg‰W¡ bfh©L nkš elto¡if vL¡fnt©oa CÊa®fË‹ v©Â¡if cauÉšiy; mjdhš òfh®fË‹ ÛJ nkš elto¡if vL¥gâš ešy ju« fhz¥gLtâšiy.

Mdhš Miza« bgW« ü‰W¡fz¡fhd òfh®fŸ F¿¤j Ô®¥òfis tH§Ftâš vaj bjhŒî« V‰glÉšiy v‹W Miza« TW»wJ. xnu ehËš 60-ÈUaJ 80 òfh®fŸ bjhl®ghf nkš MŒî brŒJ MizfŸ ãw¥ã¡f¥gL»‹wd. ïaj mo¥gilÆš gh®¤jhš, xU ehËš 60 tH¡FfËš Ô®î mË¥gjhš, Miza¤â‹ Fiwaj msî cW¥ãd®fS« âdK« 16 kÂ neu« ntiy gh®¡f nt©oíŸsJ. nkY« x›bthU òfhU« IaJ cW¥ãd®fËl« 30 ÃÄl£â‰F« Fiwthfnt ftÅ¤J K¡»a Koî vL¡f nt©oíŸsJ; kÅj cÇikfŸ Ûw¥g£ldth v‹W f©Lão¤J gÇaJiu tH§f¥gL»wJ. Miza¤â‹ cW¥ãd®fË‹ k‰w ntiyfis¡ fz¡»£lhš, x›bthU tH¡»‰F« 30 ÃÄl¤â‰F« Fiwthfnt neu« xJ¡f¥gL»wJ. bgU«ghyhd tH¡FfŸ j‹Å¢irahfnt Ko¡f¥gL»‹wd. bgU«ghyhd tH¡FŸ, jFaj fhuz« ïšyhkny NHRC-ahš Koî¡F bfh©L tu¥gL»‹wd. gy tH¡FfŸ V‰W¡ bfhŸs¥gLtâšiy, jŸSgo brŒa¥gL»‹wd, maj tH¡FfËš xU tÇÆš MizfŸ ãw¥ã¡f¥gL»‹wd.

LXXI

Miza« x›bthU tH¡»Y« rÇahd ftd« brY¤jhkš ïU¥gjhš, òfh®fis Koî¡F bfh©L tUtâš ešyju« fhz¥gLtâšiy. tYthd ÚâÆ‹ mo¥gilÆš tH¡fhlhkš Miza« jt¿ÉL»wJ. ekJ eh£oš mkÈš cŸs r£l§fisí« kÅj cÇik ju£ijí« eilKiw gL¤Jtij¡ fh£oY«, m»y cyf kÅj cÇikju¤ij eilKiwgL¤j Miza« C¡FÉ¡f nt©L«. ghâ¡f¥g£nlhU¡F Ãthuz« mË¥gnjhL, ïaâa®fËl«kÅj cÇikia gu¥gnt©L«.

ntiy r«gajkhd tÊfh£lšfŸ ï‹W Miza¤âdhš ã‹g‰w¥gLtâšiy. Úâgâ bt§flhryŒahÉ‹ fhy¤â‰F ã‹dhš, bjhajuthd gFâfŸ vit v‹W f©Lão¥gJ ïšiy; Miza¤â‹ brašgh£il rÇbrŒa¡Toa òâa tÊfh£lšfŸ tH§f¥glÉšiy. kÅj cÇik Ûwš r«gaj¥gll tH¡FfËš Miza¤â‰F r£ló®khd KiwÆš brašgl cÇik tH§f¥g£l ÃiyÆš, Miza« rÇahd KiwÆš brašgl jt¿É£lJ.

kÅj cÇik Ûwš r«gaj¥g£l tH¡»š gÇaJiu tH§f Miza¤â‰F mâfhu« mË¡f¥g£oUajhY«, áy tH¡FfËš k£Lnk maj mâfhu« ga‹gL¤j¥g£LŸsJ. muR tH§F« òÇjÈ‹ mo¥gilÆY« fhtšJiwÆdÇ‹ kW¥ò m¿¡ifÆ‹ mo¥gilÆY« bgU«ghyhd òfh®fŸ Miza¤âdhš jŸSgo brŒa¥gL»‹wd. òfh®fis r«gaj¥g£l mâfhÇ¡F mD¥ò« Miza¤â‹ Kiwahš F‰w« brŒj fhtšJiwÆdnu òfh®fis MŒî brŒant©oa Ãiy cŸsJ. ï¤jifa ã‹thrš tÊKiwÆš r£l¤â‰F òw«ghd Jiwßâahd elto¡if vL¥gJ nfÈ¡F¿ajhf cŸsJ. kÅj cÇik fh¥ghs®, ghâ¡f¥g£nlhU¡F e©guhf ïU¡f nt©L«. F‰wthËfSila g§fhËahf ïU¡f¡ TlhJ, Miza¤â‹ j‰nghija eilKiw, fLikahd kÅj cÇik Ûwšfis rÇahf ifahsÉšiy; ghâ¡f¥g£nlhiu ika¥gL¤â elto¡if vL¡fÉšiy. xJ¡f¥g£l r_f¤ij¢ rh®aj ghâ¡f¥g£nlh® Miza¤âdhš ïu©lh« ju Fok¡fshf fUj¥gL»‹wd®; k‰wt®fis¥nghš rkkhf kâ¡f¥gLtâšiy.

6. kÅj cÇik g§Fjhu®fSl‹ cwî:-

ca® jFâ bfh©nlh® ml§»a ika¡FG x‹iw Miza« V‰gL¤âíŸsJ. Mdhš ïaj¡FGÉ‹ Ã®thf¤ij bjËthf cWâ brŒaÉšiy. ïaj¡FG bjhl§f¥g£lâÈUaJ ï¡FG v›thW brašgl nt©L« v‹gJ rÇtu¤ bjÇaÉšiy. Miza¤â‹ f£lisfis Ãiwnt‰Wtâš, ï¡FG v‹d brŒjJ v‹gJ« kÅj cÇik g§Fjhu® v‹w KiwÆš v‹d g§Ft»£jJv‹gJ«bjÇaÉšiy. Foik r_f¤Jl‹ Miza« Äf¡ Fiwaj msÉš bjhl®ò it¤J¡ bfh©LŸsJ. kÅj cÇikfis ts®¡fî« ghJfh¡fî« r¡â thŒaj ïu¡fKŸs m¿îila g§Fjhu® Miza¤â‰F ïšiy.

ïaj m¿¡if jah® brŒí«nghJ, NHRC-ï‹ jiyt® Úâgâ K.G.ghy»UZz‹ ÛJ gy F‰w¢rh£LfŸ Clf§fËš brŒâahf taJ bfh©oU¡»‹wJ. Úâgâ K.G. ghy»UZz‹ Miza¤â‹ jiytuhf¥ gjÉ V‰wâÈUaJ, CHš r«gaj¥g£l tH¡FfËš mt® bjhl®òilatuh v‹w brŒâ Clf§fËš btËtaJ bfh©LŸsJ. ïjdhš mt® j‹

LXXII

gjÉÆÈUaJ Éyf nt©L« v‹w Fuš guthyhf xÈ¡f¤ bjhl§»íŸsJ. muR rhuh ÃWtd§fS« Úâ¤Jiwia¢ nr®ajt®fS« mtU¡F vâuhf Fuš bfhL¡»‹wd®. Úâgâ ghy»UZz‹ c¢r Úâk‹w¤âš jiyik Úâgâahf ïUaj fhy¤âš rf ÚâgâfË‹ Ãakd¤âY«, gy tH¡FfËš rhjfkhf Ô®¥ò tH§»aâY« yŠr« bg‰wjhf F‰w« rh£l¥gL»wJ. mtUila FL«g cW¥ãd®fŸ msî¡fâfkhf brh¤J nr®¤j Éra¤âš gy nfŸÉfŸ vGaJŸsd.

NHRC-ï‹ j‰nghija jiyt®

Úâgâ K.G.ghy»UZz‹ bjhl®ghf vGaJŸs gy F‰w¢rh£LfŸ Éisthf NHRC-ï‹ cW¥ãd®fŸ nj®î brŒa¥gL« Kiw r«gajkhf Foik¢ r_f¤âd® nfŸÉ vG¥ãíŸsd®. Úâgâ K.G.ghy»UZz‹ ÛJ Tw¥gL« F‰w¢rh£LfŸ c©ik v‹W Ã%ã¡f¥g£lhš, NHRC- ï‹ jiytuhf mt® Ãakd« brŒa¥g£l KiwahdJ jiytÇ‹ e‰Fz¤ijí« e«gf¤j‹ikí« kÅj cÇikfŸ ÛJ mtU¡FŸs <Lgh£ilí« kWgÇÓyid brŒa nt©oaJ mtáa« v‹gij giwrh‰W«. c¢r Úâk‹w¤âÈUaJ XŒî bg‰wjiyik Úâgâia Miza¤â‹ jiytuhf Ãakd« brŒtJ ïÅnkš ÃfH¥nghtâšiy. Miza¤â‹ jiytiu Ãakd« brŒtJ btË¥gilahdjhf ïU¡f nt©L«. maj¥ gjÉ c¢r Úâk‹w¤â‹ XŒî bg‰w Úâgâ¡F¤jh‹ tH§fnt©L« v‹D« Kiw brašgL¤j¡TlhJ, mJnghš K‹dhŸ IAS, IPS, IFA, IRS mâfhÇfis k£L« nj®î brŒa¡ TlhJ; jiyt® Ãakd¤âš ïaâahÉš cŸs Úâ jtwhj, m¿îŸs, m®gÂ¥ò cz®îŸs jiyt®fS« nr®¡f¥glnt©L«.

LXXIII

CONTENTS

S.No

Content

Page No

Chapter I: Establishment

Chapter II: Independence

Chapter III: Composition, Appointment Process, and Tenure

Chapter IV: Organizational Infrastructure

Chapter V: Quasi-jurisdictional functions

Chapter VI: Relationship with Relevant Human Rights Stakeholders

Epilogue

Endorsements

List of Annexure Documents

10.

Appendix

11.

List of Abbreviations

CHAPTER I

Executive Summary: Establishment

The National Human Rights

Commission of India was

established on October 12, 1993

under the Protection of Human

Rights Act, 1993 (PHRA) as a

result of the international

movement towards establishing

national human rights institutions to act as independent monitors and protectors of human rights in a national context that started in the early 1990s and became formalized through the declaration of Paris Principles, 1991. The Commission was envisioned to be a partnership of human rights protectors throughout India and explicitly deemed the Chairpersons of the existing national human rights commissions as members of the Commission. Despite the main impetus for establishment of an overarching national human rights commission in India being mounting domestic and international pressure to adhere to internationally set standards, the Commission was initially sincere and fairly successful in meeting its mandate and taking initiatives towards protecting and promoting

The National Human Rights Commission of India was established ...as a result of the international movement towards establishing national human rights institutions to act as independent monitors and protectors of human rights in a national context

I. ESTABLISHMENT

The Paris Principles state that a National Human Rights Institution must be clearly set forth in a constitutional or legislative text. In addition to this, the ICC observed that if an NHRI is created by an "instrument of the Executive it would not be adequate to ensure permanency and independence."

The National Human Rights Commission was established in India on 12 October 1993 under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 as a response to both the increasing acknowledgement of the need for national human rights institutions that would assist in the promotion and protection of human rights, as well as strong international pressure created by the adoption of the "Paris Principles" by the United Nations Human Rights Commission in 1992 and followed by the General Assembly in 1993. With globalization pushing domestic human rights issues into the spotlight, pressure was on India to take steps to address human rights violations or risk losing international trade partners who refuse to support practices like child labour.2 They would need to adhere to international standards or risk being left behind. While there were many who supported this move, many also voiced their concerns behind the motives of establishing the NHRC. Mr. K. G. Kannabiran, an eminent human rights lawyer, activist and former

National President of People's Union for Civil Liberties, was one such dissenter.3 He argued that the creation of a human rights commission in response to criticism of the government's human rights record was at best only a formal act and it would not reduce human rights violations but simply be used to cover such violations. Mr. Kannabiran also pointed out that India's Constitution contains a declaration of human rights that should be held up by the courts. With this in mind, it becomes apparent that the problems relating to human rights in India do not come from a lack of legal provisions or a lack of agencies in place to deal with these matters. Rather, Kannabiran suggested that the problem with human rights "is the existence of a political system that guards and supervises an exploitative order... Setting up a human rights commission will not humanize state agencies."

Many agreed with Kannabiran's feelings in this matter, such as S.P. Sathe who suspected that the government's motive for establishing the NHRC was based more in concern over avoiding international criticism than out of a concern for human rights.4 Sathe felt there would need to be a number of governmental reforms in the judiciary and administration, which includes Human Rights Education for government employees, judges and magistrates, all in place in order to ensure the formation of the NHRC was not just for show.

Despite the controversy, the government of India passed a legislative act that came into force on 28 September 1993 that specifically provided for the

Babu, Justice Rajendra, and Et. Al, eds. "Volume 6." I Journal of the National Human Rights Commission, India. National Human Rights Commission, India, 2007. Web. 06 Oct. 2010.

<http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1pgIRR1wZrQJ:nhrc.nic.in/library/pdf/PART-3.pdf pressure to form an NHRC india&cd=3&hl=en&ct= clnk&gl=ca>.

Kannabiran, KG. "Why a Human Rights Commission?" Economic and Political Weekly. September 26, 1992 (Commentary). Pages 2092-2094

<http://archive.epw.in/data/PDF/000303_EPW_26_9_1992_Vol_XXVII_No_39/ COMMENTARY_Why%20a%20Human%20Rights%20Commission.pdf>

SP Sathe. "Towards An Effective Human Rights Commission." Economic and Political Weekly. Oct. 3 1992. Pages 155-215

http://archive.epw.in/data/PDF/000243_EPW_3_10_1992_Vol_XXVII_No_40/ Commentary_%20Towards%20an%20Effective%20Human%20Rights%20Commission.pdf

constitution of a National Human Rights Commission to protect and promote human rights throughout India. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) was subsequently constituted under Chapter II, Section 3(1) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (PHRA). 5 The Protection of Human Rights Act extends to the whole of India as stated under Chapter I, Section 1(2) of the Act.6

interest groups are addressed. The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 proposes that the NHRC should collaborate with these commissions as much as possible. Chapter III Section3 (12) establishes the functions and powers of the NHRC. The NHRC Annual report notes that these representatives are "deemed to be members of the Commission for the discharge of all functions assigned to it except for the function relating to inquiry into complaints of violations of human rights."7 This provision is in place to ensure collaboration with the thematic commissions. Sadly, from its inception the NHRC has performed poorly in this regard. As early as the first annual report (1993-1994) the NHRC makes only a single reference to collaborating with a thematic commission, stating that it "intends to remain in close touch with its sister organization", the National Commission for Women in regard to reviewing legislation relating to women's rights. This solitary reference to collaboration sets a poor precedent for the Commission and appears to set the trend for years to come. Even when it would seem obvious to include either the NCM or the NCSCST, the NHRC fails to mentionanyplanforcollaboration. Eveninthe1996- 1997 annual report in which a section specifically mentions preserving the rights of the vulnerable, including the rights of those in scheduled tribes, mentions only that it will "keep in touch" with the National Commission for Safai Karamcharis8, almost as an afterthought as the last line in the section.9 No mention of collaborating with the Commission for Minorities is made in any of the annual reports until the 1999-2000, other than to list their chairperson as an ex-officio member in the NHRC roster. If the commission hopes to be successful in fulfilling all its functions it needs to make use of the resources and expertise available to it through its partnerships with the NCW, NCM, and NCSTC.

No mention of collaborating with the Commission for Minorities is made in any of the annual reports until the 1999-2000, other than to list their chairperson as an ex-officio member in the NHRC roster. If the commission hopes to be successful in fulfilling all its functions it needs to make use of the resources and expertise available to it through its partnerships with the NCW, NCM, and NCSTC.

Chapter II, Section 3(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 establishes the composition of the commission as consisting of a chairperson who has been a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, one member who is or has been a Supreme Court Judge, one member who is or has been a chief justice of a High Court, and two members to be appointed from amongst persons with experience related to the field of human rights. This section also calls for the inclusion of the Chairperson from the National Commission for Minorities (NCM), the chairperson from the National Commission for Women (NCW), and the chairperson of the National Commission for Schedule Tribes and Scheduled Castes (NCSTSC), all as ex-officio members.

Prior to the establishment of the NHRC, these thematic commissions were already functioning. Their inclusion is central to the establishment of the Commission, not only for the experience they provide but also to ensure that the concerns of these special

7 8 9

PHRA, Chapter II, Section 3(1). The Central Government shall constitute a body to be known as the National Human Rights Commission to exercise the powers conferred upon, and to perform the functions assigned to it, under this Act.

PHRA, Chapter I, Section 1(2). It extends to the whole of India. Provided that it shall apply to the State of Jammu and Kashmir only in so far as it pertains to the matters relatable to any of the entries enumerated in List I or List III in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution as applicable to that State

NHRC Annual report 1993-1994 page 6

The Commission for Manual Scavengers

NHRC Annual Report, page 44

The World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna took place around the time of the NHRC's establishment. This conference, in which India took part, mandated countries to set up National Human Rights Plans of Action. To this day, India has yet to release its National Human Rights Action Plan (NHRAP). In 1999, the UN held a workshop in Bangkok to assist countries in putting together their NHRAPs. It was at this time that the NHRC and the Ministry of Home Affairs agreed that the NHRC would assist the Government of India in preparing the Action Plan. More than 4 years later, no progress had been made. In the 27 May 2004 meeting of the Commission, it decided to take charge of the preparation of India's NHRAP. No further action on

this matter was taken for almost a full year until the Commission decided in its 18 February 2005 meeting to review a draft put forth by Shri Shankar Sen. For the next 2 years, consultation was made with numerous external organizations about the contents of the NHRAP until a draft was officially submitted in early 2007. According to the NHRC's website, the finalized NHRAP was to be put forth on 31 December 2007, however no record of a finalized copy can be found and no reference is made to the NHRAP after this date.10

To this day, India has yet to release its National Human Rights Action Plan (NHRAP).

10 "National Action Plan." National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, India. Web. 07 Oct. 2010. <http:// nhrc.nic.in/disparchive.asp?fno=1550>.

CHAPTER II

Executive Summary: Independence

Independence from all other interests, in

particular that of the government and strong

private interests, is essential for any national

human rights institution. From the

establishment of the National Human Rights

Commission under its founding law, the

Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the

Commission has had problems maintaining its independence from the government. Although the Commission made some courageous and strong decisions in its early years, the lack of independence suffered by recent Commissions has become so debilitating that it has essentially paralyzed the Commission from fulfilling even its basic mandate, let alone undertaking any powerful initiatives in the field of human rights.

The Commission is tightly controlled financially by the Government of India and currently reports to the Ministry of Home Affairs, the same governmental department responsible for immigration, communal harmony, the Armed Special Forces Act, assistance to victims of terrorist violence, border management, and most notably, internal security – including police and other law and order officials. Placing India's overarching human rights institution, responsible for holding accountable violators of human rights, in the same department overseeing police and law enforcement officers, against whom a large number of complaints are made, unsurprisingly weakens the Commission's independence and its ability to be effective.

The lack of independence of the Commission is also witnessed in the composition of its members and staff. The PHRA has rigid criteria for membership to the Commission that prioritizes perceptions of prestige over competence, passion, or experience in the field of human rights. Staff members are largely deputed temporarily to the NHRC from government posts. While maintaining independence of an institution funded by the government that is designed to monitor the government is natural, it is worrisome that 17 years after its establishment, nothing has been done to ensure independence or even reduce potential problems arising from conflicts of interest. .

II. INDEPENDENCE

Independence, in all forms, is a fundamental pillar of the Paris Principles and is necessary in order to effectively promote and protect human rights. National human rights institutions must act independently of all other interests, namely government and powerful private interests. The Paris Principles require that independence be ensured through composition, representation, infrastructure, and the stable mandate of the NHRI.11 The ICC has noted that as public bodies, national human rights institutions are accountable to the public and must have their funding and reporting arrangements strictly regulated.

Notably, the ICC has observed that NHRIs in which the administration and expenditure of public funds is regulated by the government, such as the NHRC, a clearly defined relationship between the Government and the NHRI must be established. This is to ensure that regulation by the government does not compromise the NHRIs ability to perform its role independently and effectively. The ICC has additionally recommended that provisions be included in national law to protect legal liability for actions undertaken in the official capacity of the NHRI.

Nature of the NHRC's accountability

Here the accountability of the NHRC is being looked at from the point of view of its governing statute, the Protection of Human Rights Act (PHRA).

The NHRC, an administrative body established under the purview of the government, must be autonomous to be effective. In ensuring the NHRC's autonomy, it is especially important and significant to have clearly defined lines of accountability. India's NHRC is directly accountable to the Government of India under the PHRA for reporting on its activities and use of funds. Section 20(1) of the PHRA requires the NHRC to submit an annual report to the Central Government and to the concerned State government on its activities. Additionally, the Commission "may

at any time submit special reports on any matter which, in its opinion, is of such urgency or importance that it should not be deferred until submission of the annual report." These reports, along with a memorandum noting the action proposed or taken on the recommendations of the Commission and the reasons for non-acceptance of the recommendations, in any, must be laid before each House of Parliament or the State Legislature by the Central Government or State Government.12

To demonstrate its financial accountability to the Central Government, the Commission is required to maintain accounts and undergo auditing under Chapter VII, Section 34 of the PHRA. Section 34 sets out detailed rules for maintenance of accounts, audits, and other relevant records. Specifically, the Commission shall "maintain proper accounts and other relevant records and prepare an annual statement of accounts in such form as may be prescribed by the Central Government in consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India." Further, the NHRC must prepare an annual statement of accounts in "such form as may be prescribed by the Central Government in consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India.

Section 34(2) requires that the Accounts of the Commission shall be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General at such intervals as may be specified by him and any expenditure incurred in connection with such audit shall be payable by the Commission to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Sub-section 34(3) also allows the Comptroller and Auditor-General the same rights and privileges and authority in

India's NHRC is directly accountable to the Government of India under the PHRA for reporting on its activities and use of funds

11 Paris Principles, Composition and guarantees of independence and pluralism.

12 PHRA, Chapter IV, Section 20(2).

connection with auditing the NHRC as they would have while auditing Government accounts.13 The certified accounts14 of the Commission, together with the audit report are forwarded to the Central Government by the Commission. The Central Government shall lay the audit report before each House of Parliament immediately after its receipt. Since the financial year 1994-1995, audits have been conducted of the NHRC by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), as required by the PHRA.15

Whether or not the NHRC receives instructions from the government

It is difficult to assess whether the government provides instructions or the institutions receives instructions from the government. While the NHRC is empowered to regulate its own procedure for carrying out its mandate,16 the Central Government may, by notification, make rules to carry out provisions of this Act.17 Although the power is not to prejudice the generality of the Commission's powers, the government is preserved the ability to make rules regarding 1) salaries and allowances and other terms and conditions of service of the Members, 2) conditions subject to which other administrative, technical, and scientific staff may be appointed by the Commission, 3) any other power of a civil court, 4) the form in which the annual statement of accounts is to be prepared by the Commission, and any other matter which has to, or may, be prescribed. After

any rule is made under the PHRA, it shall be laid immediately for review before each House of Parliament while it is in session for a total period of thirty days. However, unless both Houses agree that the rule should be modified or not be made, the rule made by the government will remain standing.18

Additionally, while the NHRC is allowed to manage and utilize the funds granted to it by the Government of India, the NHRC is guaranteed almost no influence on their financial budget. Under Section 32, the NHRC receives funds by the Central government only after Parliament appropriates funds by law in behalf of the Commission. Monetary grants are given to the Commission by the Central Government in the amount which the Central Government may think fit for being utilized for the purposes of meeting its mandate.19 There is no provision in the Protection of Human Rights Act requiring or even allowing the NHRC to propose a budget to the government.

However, the NHRC reports that the Commission's budget is controlled by the Central government through a specially constituted "Steering Committee of NHRC."20 This Committee, responsible for approving the Commission's budget, is headed by a Chairperson of NHRC and consists of two members of the Commission in rotation, Secretary (Exp), and Ministry of Finance serving as Secretary of the Committee21. After the budget is approved by the Steering Committee, it is sent to the Ministry of Home Affairs for inclusion in the "Demand for Grant" of the budget document. This is placed before the Parliament, along with the Union Budget. Upon approval from Parliament, the funds are granted by the Ministry of Home Affairs.22

...the NHRC is guaranteed almost no influ- ence on their financial budget...There is no provision in the Protection of Human Rights Act requiring or even allowing the NHRC to pro- pose a budget to the government

13 Along with having the right to demand the production of books, accounts, connected vouchers, and other documents and papers, these officials have the right to inspect any of the offices of the Commission.

14 Certified by the Comptroller and Auditor-General or any other person appointed by him in this behalf

15 Can enclose these final audits

16 PHRA, Chapter II, Section 10

17 PHRA, Chapter VIII, Section 40

18 PHRA, Chapter VIII, Section 40(3)

19 PHRA, Article 33 states the same procedure at the state level for funding the State Commissions. After appropriation of funds is determined by the state legislature, the state governments provide grants to the State Commission.

20 Response to RTI Petition No. 3306

21 Id. at RTI 3306

22 CompletebudgetinformationhasbeenproducedbytheNHRCfortheyears2007,2008&2009.

If this body is supposed to be an indepen- dent body, the institution to which it reports should as far as possible be far removed from the Ministry against which most of the com- plaints are drawn from...

The PHRA should be amended to require the NHRC to first, independently develop a budget proposal, without interference from a government-constituted committee or government members, and only then, place it before the Parliament for approval...

The Ministry of Home Affairs looks after a whole gamut of subjects most of which are related to bodies against which the NHRC is dealing - like the Army, Para-Military and Law Enforcement Officials. If this body is supposed to be an independent body, the institution to which it reports should as far as possible be far removed from the Ministry against which most of the complaints are drawn from like the Department of Border Management, Department of Internal Security, Department of J & K Affairs, Department of Home, Department of Official Language, Border Management Division, Internal Security Division, Jammu & Kashmir Division, Judicial Division, Naxal Management Division, North East Division, Police Division, Police Modernisation Division, Policy Planning Division23 etc. Therefore for independence to prevail, the Ministry of Home Affairs should not be the body it reports to or receives instructions or funds from. It should be the Prime Minister's Office or some such body. In response to an RTI Petition sent to the Commission by a colleague from People's Watch in Tamil Nadu, it has said that the budget after approval by the Steering Committee is sent to the Ministry of Home Affairs for inclusion in the Demand for Grant of the budget document and placed in the Parliament along with Union Budget for final approval and the grant is received through the Ministry of Home Affairs24.

While the NHRC has reported that it is permitted to take part in the development of their budget through a Committee mixed with government and NHRC members, there are still no legal provisions guaranteeing this right in either the PHRA or the NHRC (Procedural) Regulations, 1994 (amended in 1997). The only formal record of the existence of this Committee is from a response by the NHRC stating that a Steering Committee had been formed by the government to approve of the Commission's budget. Human rights organizations see this as a government controlled committee despite presence

of the NHRC members on it, given the fact that it is formed by the government and government officials are on it too.

Moreover, even if this was a legally-mandated committee, the "Steering Committee" signals the extent to which the NHRC lacks independence from the Government of India on the allocation of funds to the NHRC i.e. the power to override the budget approved by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The PHRA should be amended to require the NHRC to first, independently develop a budget proposal, without interference from a government-constituted committee or government members, and only then, place it before the Parliament for approval, being presented as part of the budget of either the Prime Minister's Office or the Ministry of Law and Justice but not the Ministry of Home Affairs. There is no need for a committee to approve a proposed budget of the NHRC, before the very same government officially approves or rejects the budget proposal. Here, any possible benefit of a partnership between the sponsoring government and the implementing NHRC is outweighed by the danger of encroachment on the NHRC's independence.

It is the government's control over the NHRC's funding, combined with the government's power to make rules on highly significant matters, such as salary of Members and requirements for hiring staff, that deepens the society's belief that they are merely another government institution and as held by a number of people who were consulted in the focus group meetings that were held across the country.

Independence is closely related to appointment, finance, appointment of staff etc. There needs to be insulation in the founding statute that the institution can function without interference from any branch of the Govt. which is the source of funding. The

23 Organizational set-up of the Ministry of Home Affairs available at http://www.mha.nic.in/ uniquepage.asp?Id_Pk=277

24 RTI Response 3306

determining of the appointment and dismissal procedures of all categories of staff also should be an independent function of the Commission. Independence is also linked to the method of appointment of chairpersons and members. For example if every Chief Justice of Supreme Court of India by calculation knows that he is going to be assured of a 5 year tenure here, obviously the question of independence is affected there too in the last few months of his tenure as the Chief Justice of India. It is insulated by a variety of other measures put together.

By what means conflict of interest are avoided

In the past, the NHRC was known to offer clear and strong opinions to the government on pressing human rights concerns. The NHRC was also known to possess the courage to address parliamentarians where the commission had an opinion and they wanted the democratic institutions to know of it. They never addressed the government alone; they also addressed political party leaders. They had the moral courage to tell the government to do something and to tell where they were wrong.

Clear demonstrations of its independence were evident in the early days of the Commission. In its 1993-1994 report, for example, then Secretary General of the NHRC Mr. R.V. Pillai addressed a letter to the chief secretaries of all the States and Union Territories regarding the rising number of custodial deaths and rapes and the attempts to distort the picture of these incidents. In this letter, the Commission firmly requests that a direction be issued to the District Magistrates and Superintendents of Police of every district asking them to report incidents of custodial death and rapes to the Secretary General within 24 hours of occurrence or from the time the officers became aware of the occurrence of these incidents.

During that same year, the NHRC also took notice of a firing incident by the Border Security Forces (BSF) on a group of people at Bijbehara, Anantnag District, Jammu & Kashmir and requested a report from the Government of India on the incident. After reviewing a report submitted by the Minister of Home Affairs, the Commission took an additional step and decided to review evidence given by six witnesses. Upon reviewing this material, the Commission made several concrete observations and recommendations, which were then forwarded to the Central Government25.

The NHRC followed up the critical issue of custodial deaths in the 1995-1996 annual report, recalling its initial call to action in 1993. The Commission noted that ever since this call to action, reports of incidents have been coming in regularly through the official district agencies. The Commission explained that upon reviewing these reports, they have found that often, the post-mortem in many cases has not been satisfactorily completed and the cause of death is not properly determined. The Commission firmly stated that this unsatisfactory completion of reports was in their view, an attempt to obscure the truth and only provided the police version of the facts. Hence, the Commission then requested that all postmortem examination of custodial deaths be video- taped and cassettes be sent to the Commission along with the post-mortem report. The Commission also requested that steps were to be taken immediately and that video-taping of postmortem examinations be implemented within 2 months from the time of the publication of its report (as of 1st October 1995). The Commission even went as far as to requesting a response to its recommendations within 3 weeks26.

On 18 July 1995, the Commission issued a letter specifically to the State Government of West Bengal regarding its status as having the highest reported

In the past, the NHRC was known to offer clear and strong opinions to the government on pressing human rights concerns... They had the moral courage to tell the government to do something and to tell where they were wrong.

It is the government's control over the NHRC's funding, combined with the government's power to make rules on highly significant matters, such as salary of Members and requirements for hiring staff, that deep- ens the society's belief that they are merely another government institution...

25 NHRC's Annual Report for the year 1993-1994

26 1995-1996 NHRC Annual Report, Annexure IV, Para 3.22. August 10, 1995

number of custodial deaths in the time period of April 1994-May 1995. The Commission requested the West Bengal government to inquire into this matter and take the necessary remedial steps. In addition, the NHRC noted that in 4 cases of custodial deaths in West Bengal, the Commission has not received responses from the state government and requested these responses in a timely manner27.

In February of 1995, the Commission wrote a letter to Parliament opposing the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA). It argued that it was an unjustly harsh law that was irreconcilable with India's cultural traditions, legal history, and treaty obligations. It explained that the Act had been misused over the years and had resulted in the detention of thousands of innocent people. It also further explained that the public viewed this law as a tool for the police to silence any form of dissent or opposition. In this letter, the Commission explained that it was actively engaged with the Kartar Singh case and the months following the judgment in the case, a case through which the Supreme Court attempted to reduce some of the harsh provisions of the act. The TADA Act was then due to expire in May of 1995 and in this letter the Commission appealed to the lawmakers to refrain from extending the Act. The Commission took a firm stand against the view that the Act was necessary for the preservation of the integrity of the country. The letter ended with a strong and persuasive call to action, asking the Indian government to consider seriously the matter and reminding it that the Commission had been entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining human rights and that it will not be able to do so with the existence of the TADA Act28.

During the period 1996-1997, the Commission addressed a report to all of the Chief Ministers on the issue of 'fake encounters' by the police. The Commission explained therein that it has received complaints from the public and from NGOs regarding the increase in fake encounters by the police and that police kill persons instead of allowing them to undergo the due process of law. These incidents were not at all adequately investigated. The Commission

challenged the procedure undertaken by the state of Andhra Pradesh in several cases brought forth by the Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee (APCLC). The police had claimed that the deceased persons had first opened fire at them, thereby justifying their act of firing back as an act of self- defense. The police version of the facts was the one that had been recorded in the police station and thus, the case was deemed close as a result of the deaths of the accused. No further efforts were made to verify the facts of the case or to determine whether the police were justified by law in killing the deceased.

Following the Gujarat Riots in 2002, the NHRC came out with a path breaking report, suo moto, for which Justice Mr. P.C. Patel who was a sitting Judge then, issued a notice to the Commission. Two years later in 2004 Justice P. C. Patel was appointed to the NHRC in clear disregard to the integrity of the institution.

In its letter, the Commission reminded the Chief Ministers that under the law, the police authorities do not have any right to take the life of another person and that if they do so, they have committed an offence punishable as homicide, unless is it proven that the killing was not an offence under the law. Under India's criminal law code, acts of private defense or causing the death of another person in the use of force to arrest the person accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life are justifiable. Thus, the Commission pointed out, encounter deaths that are not justifiable under these provisions would make the officer guilty of culpable homicide.

The Commission was proactive in the case of the encounter deaths in Andhra Pradesh and listened to the accounts of all parties and reviewed the relevant statutory provisions. It found that the procedure followed in Andhra Pradesh was wrong and thus the Commission provided recommendations of the procedure that should be followed. The recommended procedure was accepted by the government of Andhra Pradesh29.

27 NHRC Annual report 1995-1996, Annexure II, Para 3:16, http://nhrc.nic.in/ar95_96.htm - top D.O. No. 10053/CH/NHRC/95, 18 July 1995

28 NHRC Annual Report 1994-1995's Annexure I, para 4-5

29 NHRC Annual report 1996-1997's Annexure VI, March 29, 1997

GUJARAT 2002 Carnage and the NHRC

If there has been one occasion in the history of the NHRC wherein the institution has suo moto acted after a grave commitment of human rights violations where the state was also involved, it is with the Gujarat report, suo moto of the NHRC in 2002. This report has enabled civil society groups and human rights groups to litigate in the Supreme Court of India (SCI) to ensure transfer of investigation away from the Gujarat police, transfer of two trials out of the state and also monitoring of the trial process by the Supreme Court. The CEDAW Committee recommendations (October 2010) also reflect this unique endeavour.

After the initial report however and filing of petitions in the SCI (WP 109/2003) the NHRC has been rather silent within the courts where the entire matter has thereafter been between the survivors and rights groups and the State. The historic inquiry into the role and conduct of the chief minister and sixty one others ordered by the SCI on a victim survivor and rights group petition (SLP 1088/2008) saw no comments/interventions from the NHRC though its report had in large measure pointed to state complicity by the perpetrators.

During the nine year old struggle for justice for the victims of the carnage in Gujarat in 2002, there was one more instance when the NHRC role has been exemplary. In October 2007 Tehelka news magazine did a sting operation Operation Kalank through which it interviewed dozens of perpetrators of the carnage from actually murderers and rapists to complicit policemen, lawyers and politicians. The revelations were chilling and in legal terms have the status of extra judicial confessions., Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), a legal rights group immediately moved first the Gujarat High Court (November 2007) and immediately thereafter the Supreme Court of India to order investigation and authentication of these Tehelka tapes. Both plaints were turned down. The NHRC in yet another historic move used its statutory powers and ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to authenticate the tapes30. This was done and has in retrospect turned out to be timely and valuable as evidence since even the Special Investigation Team (SIT) appointed by the Supreme Court of India has been faulted for doing a superficial and incomplete job of investigations –including non investigation of documentary evidence and failure to inquire into the destruction of official records by the Gujarat state home department that is headed by the Home Minister who is also the Chief Minister.

In 1997, the Secretary-General of the NHRC addressed a letter to the Chief Secretaries of the States and Union Territories on the topic of visits to police lock-ups. The Commission stated that the State Governments may be asked to allow officers of the NHRC to visit the police lock-ups during their visits to the various States and asked that the States make the necessary arrangements to allow them to do so.

The NHRC also sent a copy of the check-list for NHRC officers visiting lock-ups at police stations to all of the Chief Secretaries and Administrators of the States and Union Territories. The check-list includes a variety of tasks and provisions that the NHRC officers are expected to follow to ensure that the rights and well-being of those in police custody are being protected, including ensuring that those who remain in police custody are examined by a trained doctor after every 48 hours, that clean and sanitary blankets and mattresses are provided, and that access to toilets are provided31.

What is worrisome right now is that there is an observed gradual increase on the number of is- sues that the NHRC has remained silent on.

30 NHRC Order annexed

31 NHRC Annual Report 1997-1998, Annexure III, 1 August 1997; Annexure IV

As related above, in the past, the NHRC had been a very proactive institution, advocating and lobbying both the central and state governments of India to respect and protect human rights. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about the NHRC in the most recent years.

Instances where conflicts of interest arose

Where conflicts of interests are known and inevitable, it is especially significant that the national human rights institutions and the government clearly and openly define their relationship and work to eliminate or minimize the impact of these conflicts. The government must necessarily look after the interests of the public at large; whereas, the NHRC has been explicitly created to protect and promote the fundamental human rights of those victimized in our society. Accordingly, the NHRC must be able to strongly, boldly, and fearlessly take steps to ensure justice for victims and protection for marginalized, vulnerable members of society - especially when the government is the perpetrator.

What is worrisome right now is that there is an observed gradual increase on the number of issues that the NHRC has remained silent on. These issues pertain to the most pressing human rights violations in the country. Indeed, the NHRC does maintain that it is an autonomous organization that gives directions on human rights issues independently based on its own decisions.32 On the other hand, it also acknowledges that it has failed to create any type of written guidelines, policies, or conventions, or has no information whatsoever on steps that may be taken to avoid conflicts of interest.33

Numerous statements from civil society and the general experience of the public indicate that lack of independence of the NHRC from the government is a major obstacle preventing victims and civil society from utilizing the NHRC as a source of protection. A human rights institution has the responsibility not only to protect and promote human rights but also the duty to condemn. The responsibilities of both protection of human rights and promotion of human rights call for condemnation of certain blatant violations when they take place in the country. When the civil society does not hear the voice of protest, this leads civil society to infer that the institution that is silent is not independent. Protests are important in the process of both protecting and promoting human rights. Mr. K R Mallesha, an activist at Environment Support Group said during a focus group meeting held in Bengaluru, Karnataka on 4th of November 2009 that he is still waiting on a final decision by the NHRC in a case filed in 2002 against police officials for violating his and his groups' fundamental right to have a public hearing. He feels that "since the case was against the state, the Commission has difficulty making political decisions." This sentiment was echoed by Mr. V. B. Ajay Kumar, of RIGHTS, Kerala, who stated that, "The NHRC uses any excuse not to make a decision that could affect them politically."34

Whether or not members incur legal liability for actions taken in their official capacity

Chapter VIII, Section 38 of the PHRA protects members of the NHRC from incurring legal liability, in the form of a suit or any other legal proceeding, for

The responsibilities of both protection of hu- man rights and promotion of human rights call for condemnation of certain blatant violations when they take place in the country.

Therefore the watchdog role of the parlia- ment is not performed. No watchdog body therefore questions this institution.

32 RTI 3305

33 Follow UP RTI 3304. Query No. 1 raised by the applicant: We are aware that members of the honourable

Commission have been drawn from IAS, IPS and IFA with past responsibilities in different departments of the Government of India or of States. Is there any written policy or guideline or conventions that the Honourable Commission has evolved in order to ensure that conflicts of interest are avoided? If yes, kindly do provide us with copies of the relevant documents.' Answer by the NHRC: Appointment of the Members are made as per terms and procedures laid down in Chapter 2 of Protection of Human Rights Act 993. No such information is available as on date.

34 Focus Group Meeting Kerala held on December 01, 2009 12

actions taken in their official capacity.35 While the PHRA purports to reserve protection for actions of members taken in good faith, it actually extends much further beyond this to also prevent liability of members for any acts intended to be done in pursuance of this Act, rules, orders, or publications by report paper or proceedings under the authority of the Central Government, State Government, Commission or the State Government. Rather, members enjoy an alarmingly low level of accountability for not only acts done while in office, but also responsibilities neglected or entirely omitted while in office.

The mandate under the act is stated in such an ambiguous manner that there is a need also to indicate clearly what the indicators are that the Commission will be judged vis-à-vis functions that it has to perform. That is not there. Annual Reports are placed before the Parliament but not a single training for Members of Parliament or the Political Parties on the functions of the NHRC is given at any point of time by the NHRC to convey the role, responsibilities, functions, powers and mandate of the NHRC under the PHRA as well as under the Paris Principles. Had they been trained they would have raised questions in parliament. They also view this institution as part of the government. Therefore the watchdog role of the parliament is not performed. No watchdog body therefore questions this institution. In fact, Chapter II, Sections 5(2) and (3) of the PHRA provides that the Chairperson or Member of the NHRC may only

be removed from office in a very limited number of circumstances.36

Notably, the lack of independence between the actions of the national and state human rights commissions and the Central and State Governments is evidenced in Chapter VIII, Section 38 by the Government's inclusion of themselves in a clause that clearly establishes protection of liability for acts of the Commission. As the Commission is the only entity that can be directly liable for its acts, the Government's securing of liability protection for the acts of the Commission suggest its belief that the Government and the Commission are either one entity or one in which the Government could be liable for the acts of the Commission.37

Speaking on Independence by appointment, staffing patterns will also determine the extent of independence that the Commission will enjoy. The more the institution depends on civil servants and those transferred from other departments, it will be extremely difficult to expect them to maintain their independence. A civil servant who has worked in dept of the government for a long period of his service, being drawn into NHRC for a shorter tenure, knowing that he or she would be transferred to his parent department, is obviously not going to function independent of the government especially when they are dealing with complaints handling or policy matters where existing policies are looked at critically or while advocating new rights.

35 PHRA, Chapter VIII, Section 38. No suit or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Central Government, State Government, Commission, the State Commission or any Member thereof or any person acting under the direction either of the Central Government, State Government, Commission or the State Commission in respect of anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of this Act or of any rules or any order made thereunder or in respect of the publication by or under the authority of the Central Government, State Government, Commission or the State Commission of any report paper or proceedings.

36 PHRA, Chapter II, Section 5(2). Resignation and removal of Chairperson and Members (2) Subject to the provisions of sub- section (3), the Chairperson or any Member shall only be removed from his office by order of the President of India on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity after the Supreme Court, on reference being made to it by the President, has, on inquiry held in accordance with the procedure prescribed in that behalf by the Supreme Court, reported that the Chairperson or the Member, as the case may be, ought on any such ground to be removed. (3) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (2), the President may, by order, remove from office the Chairperson or any Member if the Chairperson or such Member, as the case may be– (a) is adjudged an insolvent; or (b) engages during his term of office in any paid employment outside the duties of his office; or (c) is unfit to continue in office by reason of infirmity of mind or body; or (d) is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court; or (e) is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for an offence which in the opinion of the President involves moral turpitude.

37 As the Central Government and State Government could not be directly liable for the actions of the Commission unless it were the same entity, this explicit provision ensuring protection from liability for the actions of the Commissions suggest that the government themselves presume they could be vicariously liable under a theory of respondeat superior (literally translating to "let the master answer"). Under the theory of respondeat superior, the employer is responsible for the actions of an employee performed within the course of their employment.

CHAPTER III

Executive Summary: Composition, Appointment Process And Tenure

become a museum of prestige for highly accomplished retired members of the judiciary and government officials. While respectability and stature of the Commission members could potentially be a powerful tool in the fight for human rights, the appointment process lacks transparency that allows for the most qualified and best candidates to be openly selected and is not sensitive to ensuring that Commission members have the additional qualities that are essential for effective leadership in the field of human rights.

strong and vibrant civil society, and a newly selected Chairperson who has been accused of corruption and has publicly made statements that in his opinion, legally prohibited use of force against civilians is acceptable.

the Commission has become a museum of pres- tige for highly accomplished retired members of the judiciary and government officials. While respect- ability and stature of the Commission members could potentially be a powerful tool in the fight for human rights, the appointment process lacks transparency that allows for the most qualified and best candi- dates to be openly selected and is not sensitive to ensuring that Commission members have the addi- tional qualities that are essential for effective lead- ership in the field of human rights.

The result is a Commission that has no women to review the thousands of complaints involving issues sensitive to women, no members of India's strong and vibrant civil society, and a newly selected Chair- person who has been accused of corruption and has publicly made statements that in his opinion, legally prohibited use of force against civilians is

acceptable.

38 39 40

Paris Principles evaluation

Paris Principles evaluation, p. 2

III. COMPOSITION, APPOINTMENT PROCESS AND TENURE

1. Composition

The composition of the national institution and the appointment of its members, whether by means of an election or otherwise, shall be established in accordance with a procedure which affords all necessary guarantees to ensure the pluralist representation of the social forces (of civil society) involved in the promotion and protection of human rights.38 In particular, the Paris Principles require effective cooperation be established with the following groups or their representatives: 1) non-governmental organizations responsible for human rights and efforts to combat racial discrimination, including trade unions and concerned social and professional organizations, such as associations of lawyers, doctors, journalists and eminent scientists; 2) Trends in philosophical or religious thought; 3) Universities or qualified experts; 4) Parliament; 5) Government departments (if these are included, their representatives should participate in the deliberations only in an advisory capacity).39

In order to ensure pluralism of the NHRI's composition in accordance with the Paris Principles, the importance of the NHRI maintaining consistent relationships with civil society was emphasized by the ICC.40 Outside of this, the ICC offered a variety of ways in which pluralism may be achieved through the composition of the NHRI, such as 1) representing different segments of society in the membership of the governing body; 2) suggesting or recommending candidates from diverse societal groups in the appointment procedures of the NHRI's governing body; 3) establishing procedures that enable effective cooperation with diverse societal groups, for example

advisory committees, networks, consultations or public forums; or 4) hiring of diverse staff representing the different societal groups within the society. Notably, the ICC Sub-Committee emphasized that ensuring pluralism required the meaningful participation of women in the NHRI.

Eligibility

The Protection of the Human Rights Act, 1993 sets rigid criteria for membership into the National Human Rights Commission. The National Human Rights Commission must be composed of one Chairperson and up to four members. Chapter II, Section 3(2) of the PHRA requires that the Chairperson has been a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Of the four sitting members, one must be or have been a Judge of the Supreme Court and one must be or have been a Chief Justice of a High Court. Of the five members comprising the NHRC, only two members, or less than half, must be appointed from amongst persons having any type of "knowledge of, or practical experience in, matters relating to human rights."

Further, Chairpersons of the National Commission for Minorities, the National Commission for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the National Commission for Women shall be deemed to be Members of the Commission for the discharge of functions specified in clauses (b) to (j) of section 12.41 There shall also be a Secretary-General who shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the Commission and shall exercise such powers and discharge such functions of the Commission as it may delegate to him.

The ICC noted that the NHRIs maintenance of consistent relationships with civil society should and will be taken into consideration in the assessment of accreditation applications.

Note: "National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes" stated as a member of the NHRC has been divided into two commissions, National Commission of Scheduled Castes and the National Commission of Scheduled Tribes.

India is a country that has a wealth of social activists who have been recognized both nationally and internationally for their work in various human rights fields. Right from the days of independence, and particularly after the Emergency in India in 1975, the Human Rights, Civil Liberties voice in this country has been a strong and independent voice that even fought the Emergency, which led to the formation of a group called the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and Democratic Rights. The leader of this group was the late Jaya Prakash Narayan, who in 1965 received the Magsaysay Award for Public Service and was posthumously awarded the Bharat Ratna, India's highest civilian award in 1988. The Indian human rights movement has also given birth to numerous winners of Nobel Prize for Peace, Ramon Magsaysay Awards and the Alternative Nobel Prize. Many Indian human rights defenders have also appointed to hold mandates in the UN special procedure mechanisms, become members of UN Treaty Bodies, posts in international and intergovernmental organizations, not mentioning the many jurists and the activists who continue their fight for human rights in the most interior of the country, drawn from different professions. It is this civil society mass which has consistently engaged itself internationally and nationally as well as the grassroots for the protection and promotion of human rights. It

is therefore a matter of serious concern for civil society that no person coming from this movement has ever been appointed as member of the NHRC. Clearly, any person from the movement would have more than sufficiently fulfilled the requirement of having "knowledge and practical experience" in human rights.

Many human rights groups in the country believe that "knowledge and practical experience in human rights" is not the primary consideration by the government when it appoints members of the NHRC. More often than not, appointments to the NHRC are made as rewards for political favors owed by those in power. For instance, the appointment in 2004 of Mr. P. C. Sharma, a current member of the NHRC, reappointed by the President of India for another term as Member of NHRC from 25th March, 2009, to the commission was challenged by Justice A S Anand, who was then the head of the NHRC. It was alleged that Mr. Sharma was appointed as member of the

India is a country that has a wealth of social activists who have been recognized both nationally and internationally for their work in various human rights fields.

It is therefore a matter of serious concern for civil society that no person coming from this movement has ever been appointed as member of the NHRC.

NHRC as a reward for withdrawing charges against a political leader while acting as Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)42 The spokesman of the Congress at that time, Mr. Kapil Sibal said, "This is a reward for the decision of the CBI to retract conspiracy charges against Advani." He also publicly pronounced Mr. Sharma's appointment as "very unfortunate." Mr. Kapil stated that the former CBI chief should not have accepted the post as it undermined the independence of the premier investigating agency. "It just shows how these offices are used by the government to its political advantage," he added.43 Despite Justice J.S. Anand writing to Prime Minister Vajpayee, requesting him to "reconsider the appointment to prevent criticism at national and international levels," Sharma was appointed to the NHRC in 2004.44 Though this occurred under the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government, the Congress government also reappointed Mr. Sharma in 2009.

Another problem with the requirement under the PHRA that only a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court can be appointed as Chairperson of the NHRC is that this also effectively means that no woman can be eligible to sit as Chairperson of the NHRC for the next few years. In the past, the NHRC had women members, namely, Justice Fathima Beevi (1993) and

Justice Sujata Manohar (1999). At present, however, no woman sits as member of the NHRC

Plurality or the lack thereof in the NHRC

The Paris Principles requires plurality in the composition of an NHRI's membership so that all

views from all sectors of society are heard and considered in the work of promoting and protecting human rights. Limiting the membership to those coming from the judiciary or have served in government, as what the enabling law of the NHRC does, effectively alienates and silences a large part of civil society that has worked in the human rights movement in India. Moreover, since the NHRC's enabling law ensures that majority of its members should come from the judiciary, it inevitably would find it difficult to reach out to grassroots and local human rights defenders. Members of the judiciary, because of the nature of their work, would have difficulty appreciating the value of open consultation and cooperation with human rights defenders.

Human rights work in India is also to a large extent viewed as anti-state work and if a person has worked only for the state, the person may not be able to adequately grasp the struggles and complexities of

Limiting the membership to those coming from the judiciary or have served in govern- ment, as what the enabling law of the NHRC does, effectively alienates and silences a large part of civil society that has worked in the hu- man rights movement in India.

It was alleged that Mr. Sharma was ap- pointed as member of the NHRC as a reward for withdrawing charges against a political leader while acting as Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

43 44

Times of India, Former CBI Director Sharma Joins NHRC, 4.3.2004, available at http:/ timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Former-CBI-director-Sharma-joins-NHRC/ articleshow/535560.cms

Id.

Sharma's appointment did generate much criticism, notably, within the NHRC itself. Ravi Nair, Executive Director of the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre, resigned from the NHRC's NGO Core Committee due to the appointment of Sharma. Nair stated that the commission was not "forthright in its condemnation of an appointment that appeared to have been practically forced on it." Nair has also objected to the fact that a "significant proportion of NHRC staff is drawn from the intelligence services— an injudicious step for a body charged with protecting and promoting human rights." In a letter to NHRC chief Justice A. S. Anand, Nair said Sharma's appointment is "another indication of NHRC's continuing emasculation bythe state. I believe, it reflects the extent to which the establishment is willing to undermine the cause of human rights in this country," Nair wrote. He argued that Sharma's appointment "runs counter to the provisions of the Human Rights Act, 1993, and the Paris Principles which lay down the maximum standards for national human rights institutions." Clarifying that he had no "personal animus" against Sharma, Nair said: "He (Sharma) has not demonstrated substantive knowledge of human wrights issues nor has he shown any commitment towards the same." (Times of India 15.1.05), available at NHRC/ Rights Panel-2005

working for human rights at the grassroots level. There is the tendency for this person to maintain a pro-state point of view. There is a tendency to become a defender or an apologist for the state's actions. This would not be helpful or would even be dangerous for human rights defenders working on the ground.

Human rights is not about judgment, law and judges alone. The NHRC, which has been tasked to promote and protect human rights, has largely been viewed in the past few years as a mere complaints handling mechanism. However, the NHRC should be more than this. The mandate of the NHRC also includes the promotion of human rights and this entails the creativity of a vigorous advocate, a characteristic that members of judiciary are not often identified with. It is indeed true that the experience former judges can bring into the NHRC is invaluable. It must be pointed out though that a Commission with a membership composed mostly of former judges cannot be said to be a diverse Commission. One of the arguments put forth by NHRC on the question of diversity is that they have diversity of experience. This however refers mainly to their rich judicial and governmental experience but does not take into account the lack of academic and we are talking of academic and civil society experience in the office bearers of the commission.

Narrowing down the candidates for Chairperson of the NHRC to only those who have been former Chief Justices of the Supreme Court may also negate the eligibility requirement of "knowledge and practical experience in matters relating to human rights." For instance, Justice Balakrishnan, the current Chairperson, had clearly been appointed solely because of his being a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This can be said because in his most recent statements to the media, it can be inferred that he does not have a good grasp of human rights

standards and principles, which the NHRC itself, in the past, had spearheaded the implementation in Asia. In July 2010, a month after his appointment, Justice Balakrishnan publicly said that "encounters are unavoidable sometimes...the law and order problem is increasing. Criminals are taking the law into their hands, attacking even the police. Police have to take control of the situation."45 He did add a concession that there must be checks and balances to ensure that fake encounters do not take place, but he further justified his position and argument that extrajudicial executions could solve law and order issues, by citing examples of the extrajudicial executions of persons suspected to be involved with the Mumbai underworld gangs and those alleged as Naxalites in Andhra Pradesh state. At best, these comments are irresponsible and unbecoming of a judicial officer and public servant, mandated to chair the NHRC, an institution that hundreds of victims approach to seek redress in cases of extrajudicial executions46.

In another public statement, he endorsed the death penalty. He said, "In India, different types of crimes are on increase. The death penalty will have a deterrent effect on the people...if you analyze (the cases), many of those who were given death penalty really deserved it in the cases imposed (on them),"47

The mandate of the NHRC also includes the promotion of human rights and this entails the creativity of a vigorous advocate, a charac- teristic that members of judiciary are not of- ten identified with.

Justice Balakrishnan publicly said that "en- counters are unavoidable sometimes...the law and order problem is increasing. Criminals are taking the law into their hands, attacking even the police. Police have to take control of the situ- ation."

At best, these comments are irresponsible and unbecoming of a judicial officer and public ser- vant, mandated to chair the NHRC, an institution that hundreds of victims approach to seek redress in cases of extrajudicial executions.

The above statements of Justice Balakrishnan manifest a lack of knowledge of the very standards that the NHRC in the past worked hard to instill in the region. In 2000, the Advisory Council of Jurists (ACJ) issued a reference on the death penalty. There, the ACJ commended India "for its ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Convention on Rights of the Child."

45 Can be accessed at http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/At-times-encounters-unavoidable/652721/ 46 Statement by the Asian Legal Resource Centre ALRC-STM-004-2010 dated July 30, 2010

47 Can be accessed at http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article546402.ece

India was encouraged to move towards ratification of the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR and Convention against Torture. India was commended for its constitutional provision regarding the fostering of respect for international law and treaty obligations. However, the ACJ expressed concern about the stated intention of the Government to increase the list of offences which are punishable by death and drew particular attention to its comments regarding the criteria for what constitutes "most serious crimes." The ACJ endorsed the comments of the Human Rights Committee in relation to India's obligation to ensure that its Penal Code does not permit the execution of a person who commits a crime while under the age of eighteen. The ACJ noted that religious and cultural traditions cannot justify the breach of international human rights law. In this regard, the Council drew attention to the Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. India was encouraged to take progressive steps towards de facto abolition of the death penalty and ultimately it's de jure abolition".48

In 2009, due to the narrow requirement that the Chairperson of the NHRC must be a retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India, the list of possible candidates eligible to replace former Chairperson Rajendran Babu for appointment as the

Chair of the NHRC were literally limited to two individuals in a country of over 1 billion people. The Centre admitted to the High Court in Parliament that the appointment of a new NHRC Chairperson was delayed on account of difficulty faced in appointing former CJIs.49 Realizing the practical difficulty in limiting eligible candidates to such an exclusive list, the Delhi High Court heard a petition filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation seeking an amendment to the 1993 PHRAAct that would enable even a retired Supreme Court judge to head the NHRC. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) A.S. Chandhiok informed the Delhi High Court on October 7, 2009 that the Supreme Court was contemplating changes in the PHRA to include retired Chief Justices of any High Court or a retired Supreme Court judge in the list of those eligible to be appointed as Chairperson of the NHRC." Unfortunately, no changes have been made to this day on what may be said to be an absurdly restrictive appointment criterion.

In order to ensure the diversity and pluralism of the NHRC, one of the members of the National Core Group on NGOs who wished to remain anonymous emphasized the need to create a national pool of possible candidates from which potential members may be chosen.

The NHRC, in response to questions regarding the pluralism and diversity in the Commission, point to the inclusion of the Chairpersons from the National Commission on Women and the National Commission on Minorities as "deemed members" of the Commission. In reality, however, from the day the NHRC was established until 2008, these "deemed members" hardly ever attend Full Commission meetings. Full attendance of the deemed members, is rarely seen as illustrated by the table:50

In 2009, due to the narrow requirement that the Chairperson of the NHRC must be a retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India, the list of possible candidates... were literally limited to two individuals in a country of over 1 billion people.

Unfortunately, no changes have been made to this day on what may be said to be an ab- surdly restrictive appointment criterion.

48 Information got from the Commission in response to an RTI Petition Reference No. R.C. No. 16(I)/PIO/2005 (RTI)/2586

49 Govt in spot over not appointing ex-CJI as NHRC chief, News of AP, available at http://www.newsofap.com/ news_details.php?new_auto_id=2898&name=25-govt-in-spot-over-not-appointing-ex-cji-as-nhrc-chief- news-of-ap&start=360; Appointment of NHRC Chairperson after SC Order, Zeenews.com, available at http:// www.zeenews.com/news614409.html

50 Information obtained from NHRC in response to an RTI petition - Reference note R.C.No. 16(1)/2005 (RTI)/ 2645

SI.No.

Details of all the meetings of the Full Commission of the NHRC comprising the 'Deemed Members'

28.01.98

27.02.98

24.04.98

31.7.98

30.10.1998

29.01.1999

29.4.1999

30.7.1999

15.10.1999

3.11.2000

25.01.2001

27.04.2001

27.7.2001

1.11.2001

Attendance in each of the meetings of the Full Commission of the NHRC of its 'Deemed Members'

NCM: Prof(Dr.) Tahir Mahmood, Chairperson

NC SCs/STs: Sri H. Hanumanthappa, Chairperson NCM: Prof(Dr.) Tahir Mahmood, Chairperson

NCM: ProffDr.) Tahir Mahmood, Chairperson

NCM: Prof(Dr.) Tahir Mahmood, Chairperson

NC SCs/STs: Shri Dileep Singh Bhuria, Chairperson

NCM: Prof(Dr.) Tahir Mahmood, Chairperson

NCW: Smt. Vibha Parthasarathi, Chairperson

NC SCs/STs: Shri Dileep Singh Bhuria, Chairperson

NC SCs/STs: Shri Dileep Singh Bhuria, Chairperson NCM: Prof(Dr.) Tahir Mahmood, Chairperson

NCW: Smt. Vibha Parthasarathi, Chairperson

NCM: Justice Shri Mohammed Shamim, Chairperson NC SCft/STs: Shri Dienn Sing Bhnria, Chairperson

NCW: Smt. Vibha Parthasarathi, Chairperson

NCM: Justice Shri Mohammed Shamim, Chairperson NC SCs/STs: Shri Dileep Singh Bhuria, Chairperson

NCM: Justice Shri Mohammed Shamim, Chairperson NC SCs.'STs: Shri Dileep Singh Bhuria, Chairperson

NCM: Justice Shri Mohammed Shamim, Chairperson NC SCs/STs: Shri Dileep Singh Bhuria, Chairperson

NCW: Smt. Vibha Parthasarathi, Chairperson

SI.No.

Details of all the meetings of the Full Commission of the NHRC comprising the 'Deemed Members'

Attendance in each of the meetings of the Full Commission of the NHRC of its 'Deemed Members'

NCW: Smt. Vibha Parthasarathi, Chairperson

NCM: Justice Shri Mohammed Shamim, Chairperson

NCM: Justice Shri Mohammed Shamim, Chairperson NCW: Dr. Poornima Advani, Chairperson

NCM: Justice Shri Mohammed Shamim, Chairperson

NCM: Justice Shri Mohammed Shamim, Chairperson NCW: Dr. Poornima Advani, Cnairperson

NC SCs/STs: Dr. Bizay Sonkar Shastri, Chairperson NCW: Dr. Poornima Advani, Chairperson

NCM: Shri Tarlochan Singh, Chairperson

NCM: Shri Tarlochan Singh, Chairperson,

NCM: Shri Tarlochan Singh, Chairperson, NCW: Dr(Ms.) Girija Vyas, Chairperson

NCM: Shri Tarlochan Singh, Chairperson NCW: Dr(Ms.) Girija Vyas, Chairperson

NC SC: Dr. Buta Singh, Chairperson

NC ST: Smt. Urmila Singh, Chairperson NCW: Dr(Ms.) Girija Vyas, Chairperson

NCM: Mr. Mohammed Shafi Qureshi, Chairperson NCW: Dr(Ms.) Girija Vyas, Chairperson

15 16.01.2002

16 07.05.2002

17 12.07.2002

18 28.11.2002

19 25.04.2003

20 18.9.2003

21 15.10.2004

22 29.04.2005

23 17.11.2005

24 13.7.2006

25 20.7/2007

26 25.04.2008

Current Membership of the NHRC

In June 2010, more than a year of remaining vacant, the position of Chairperson of the NHRC was filled by Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, replacing Acting Chairperson Justice Mr. Govind Prasad Mathur. The members of the NHRC are now Justice Mr. Babulal Chandulal Patel, Mr. Satyabrata Pal, and Mr. P.C. Sharma. The Chairperson of the National Commission for Minorities Mr. Mohammad Shafi Qureshi and Chairperson of the National Commission for Women Dr. Girija Vyas also sit on the board of the National Human Rights Commission as ex-officio members.

As mentioned earlier, no women are official members of the NHRC. Further, there are currently no women even eligible for the position of Chairperson of the NHRC. There are also no persons with disabilities as members. While Chairperson Balakrishnan is the first Dalit Chairperson of the NHRC, his reputation has been widely and publicly questioned.51 Two members, Mr. P.C. Sharma and Mr. Satyabrata Pal, were said to have been selected for their "knowledge and practical experience in matters relating to human rights." However, neither of the two is observed to have exhibited any great commitment to promoting human rights in India. In fact, Mr. P.C. Sharma has been widely accused of being rewarded the position in the NHRC due to his withdrawal of charges against political party BJP leader LK Advani when he was still Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation.52 Mr. Satyabrata Pal, on the other hand, as a member of the Indian Foreign Service has spent over 30 years abroad as a bureaucrat. While his academic and theoretical knowledge, experience with international politics, and adeptness at bureaucracy may be strong, he has not exhibited any signs of being able to advocate for marginalized victims, nor does he possess any experience on the ground, grassroots human rights issues facing Indians today. The current substandard

composition of the NHRC's membership leaves the Commission with absolutely no representation by civil society and leaves it extremely ill-equipped to offer protection to victims and address human rights violations in India.

1. Selection and Appointment

Formation of a Selection and Appointment Committee

ICC Subcommittee emphasizes the following factors in the selection and appointment process: 1) transparency; 2) broad consultation throughout the selection and appointment process; 3) advertising vacancies broadly; 4) maximizing the number of potential candidates from a wide variety of societal groups; and 5) selecting members to serve in their own individual capacity rather than on behalf of the organizations they represent. None of these elements can be said to have been even remotely followed in the selection and appointment of the NHRC.

The PHRA provides a specific procedure for appointing the Chairperson and other Members to the National Human Rights Commission under Chapter II, Section 4. The founding law states that the Chairperson and other Members shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal after obtaining the recommendations of a Committee consisting of the following members: 1) The Prime Minister serving as Chairperson; 2) Speaker of the House of the People (Member); 3) Minister in-charge of the Ministry of Home Affairs in the Government of India - Member; 4) Leader of the Opposition in the House of the People - Member; 5) Leader of the Opposition in the Council of States - Member; 6) Deputy Chairman of the Council of States - Member. Notably, no sitting Judge of the Supreme Court or sitting Chief Justice of a High Court shall be appointed except after consultation with the Chief Justice of India.53

Notably, no sitting Judge of the Supreme Court or sitting Chief Justice of a High Court shall be appointed except after consultation with the Chief Justice of India

...no women are official members of the NHRC... There are also no persons with disabili- ties as members.

51 Infra note 7.

52 Infra note 11.

53 A Chart of members of the appointment committee is annexed

The NHRC has stated their belief that the "high level and politically balanced Committee, together with the statutory requirements relating to the qualifications of the Chairperson and Members of the Commission, invest the Commission with a very high degree of credibility."54 In the response to the India Chapter of the ANNI Report for the year 2010 the Commission has said, "The Appointment Committee has always chosen as Members those who bring diverse experience to the work of the NHRC."

Selection and Appointment Process in Reality

The selection and appointment process has been widely criticized by the public. While the PHRA provides for an open, transparent process, many members of society from throughout India reveal that the appointment criteria and process for membership to the NHRC is not fair, transparent, or open. Further, there is a strong sentiment that the lack of diversity and representation of minorities with relevant backgrounds to issues addressed by the Commission were large impediments to the effective functioning of the NHRC. Mrs. Prathibha, of Civil Initiatives for Development and Peace India (CIVIDEP), pointed out many members joined the Commission as political appointees, not from a fair and transparent process.

Mr. Pushkar Raj of the General Secretary of – People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) in Rajasthan stated that the current composition had been due to the poor appointment process, leading to an ineffective, homogenous Commission, and is a struggle for the entire nation. He further commented that almost all the one hundred and fifty Commissions, which includes the NHRC, the various specialized national human rights commissions, and the State

Human Rights Commissions, were places of rehabilitation for retired judges and government officials.

The criticisms of civil society are founded in a very harsh reality that the NHRC has been abused as a highly political mechanism in which the government's appointment committee has made many publicly and widely criticized appointments. Less than a month after demitting his position as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India, the 6th and current Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission K.G. Balakrishnan was appointed as the NHRC chief on June 3, 2010. As expected, less than a month after demitting his position as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India, the sixth and current Chairperson of the NHRC was appointed on 3 June 2010.55 Despite his candidature being widely criticized for a number of his controversial stands – such as blocking the prosecution of former Justice Nirmal Yadav for corruption,56 attempting to exempt the Office of the Chief Justice of India from the purview of the Right to Information Act,57 and delaying action against Justice P.D. Dinakaran after Parliament initiated an impeachment motion in connection with a land dispute and corruption case – the government waited more than a year to appoint Justice K.G. Balakrishnan to lead the NHRC. The Commission, now more than ever, is in need of strong, ethical, and courageous leadership.

The Commission, now more than ever, is in need of strong, ethical, and courageous leadership.

While it looks very prestigious for the coun- try to be headed by a former Chief Justice of India which really is the case, it is not the case that every former Chief Justice of India is a person who has the potential capabilities as well as creativity to head a body such as the National Human Rights Commission of India.

Mrs. Prathibha, of Civil Initiatives for Devel- opment and Peace India (CIVIDEP), pointed out many members joined the Commission as political appointees, not from a fair and trans- parent process.

54 55

NHRC India Report 2005-2006.

Balakrishnan stepped down as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India on May 11, 2010. Deccan Herald, June 3, 2010, available at http://www.deccanherald.com/content/73161/justice-balakrishnan-nhrc-chief.html

Ajay Sura, Cash-for-judge: HC Bar flays CJI, TIMES OF INDIA, Feb. 10, 2010, available at http:// timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Cash-for-judge-HC-Bar-flays-CJI/articleshow/5554244.cms

CJI's Office Comes Within RTI Act: Delhi HC , OUTLOOK INDIA.COM, Jan. 12, 2010 (quoting, "The 88-page verdict is being seen as a personal setback to CJI KG Balakrishnan, who has consistently been maintaining that his office does not come under the transparency law and hence cannot part with information like disclosure of judges' assets under it."), available at http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?672590

This is not the first time the NHRC has appointed a controversial member, with an allegedly less than honest reputation. When the appointment of former Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation and current Member of the NHRC P.C. Sharma was proposed, Congress widely questioned his appointment, alleging that he was being rewarded for "withdrawal of charges" against political party BJP leader LK Advani in the Ayodhya case. Congress spokesman Kapil Sibal reported, "This is a reward for the decision of the CBI to retract conspiracy charges against Advani," and termed the appointment as "very unfortunate." Kapil stated that the former CBI chief should not have accepted the post as it undermined the independence of the premier investigating agency. "It just shows how these offices are used by the government to its political advantage," Sibal added.58 Despite Justice Anand even writing a letter to Prime Minister Vajpayee, requesting him to "reconsider the appointment to prevent criticism at national and international level," P.C. Sharma was appointed to the NHRC in 2004.

While it looks very prestigious for the country to be headed by a former Chief Justice of India which really is the case, it is not the case that every former Chief Justice of India is a person who has the potential capabilities as well as creativity to head a body such as the National Human Rights Commission of India. What the Commission needs are persons who are able to give leadership to this body without converting it into another judicial forum. Some of them have succeeded and some have not and therefore we are of the opinion that only having the criteria of having a former Chief Justice of India will not be sufficient for heading this commission. After the affidavit filed by Mr. Shanti Bhushan after the contempt proceedings of the Court of Law on Prashant Bhushan, the country's collective conscience is shaken that 8 out of 16 Chief Justices of India, starting with Justice Ranganath Mishra and ending with Justice Y. K. Sabharwal, were known to be corrupt is more than sufficient information that someone who is Chief Justice of India or serving judges of India of

Chief Justice of a high court by itself cannot be valid criteria for this position59.

2. Tenure

Terms of office of members

The Paris Principles provide ... To further pro- mote independence and prevent conflicts of interest, a Chairperson or a Member who has ceased to hold his position in office shall be ineligible for further employment under the Government of India or under the Government of any State.

The ICC observed that members of the NHRI should include full-time remunerated members in order to ensure that the NHRI is independent and free from actual or perceived conflicts of interest, has a stable mandate for the members, and has ongoing and effective fulfillment of the mandate of the NHRI. As such, any possible grounds for dismissal of members of governing bodies must be in conformity with the Paris Principles and included in the founding law of the NHRI. The ICC recommends that dismissal or forced resignation of any member should result in a special review of the accreditation status of the NHRI and be in strict conformity with all substantive and procedural requirements as prescribed by law. Dismissal should not be allowed based solely on the discretion of appointing authorities.

The Paris Principles provide that appointment of national human rights institution members shall be effected by an official act which shall establish the specific duration of the mandate. The mandate may be renewable, provided that the pluralism of the

This direct tie between salaries and the gov- ernment has led many members of Commissions to inwardly and often outwardly perceive the government as their employer. Financial control by the government affecting the independence of the Commission directly violates the Paris Prin- ciples.

58 Available at http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Former-CBI-director-Sharma-joins-NHRC/articleshow/ 535560.cms

59 Affidavit available at http://www.judicialreforms.org/files/ pb_contempt_case_additional_affidavit_15092010.pdf

institution's membership is ensured. Accordingly, Chapter II, Section 6 of the PHRA provides that a person appointed as Chairperson or Member shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office. The PHRA further allows that members shall be eligible for re- appointment for an additional term of five years. At no time may an individual hold office as a Chairperson or a member of the NHRC after he has attained the age of seventy years.

To further promote independence and prevent conflicts of interest, a Chairperson or a Member who has ceased to hold his position in office shall be ineligible for further employment under the Government of India or under the Government of any State.

Whether members receive adequate remuneration

Chapter II, Section 8 provides the terms and conditions of service for Members of the NHRC. It provides that salaries, allowances, and other terms and conditions of service of the Members are given "as may be prescribed," but ensures that these may not be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment. However, Chapter VIII, Section 40(2)(a) reveals that the power to "prescribe" the salaries of the Commission members lay with the Central Government. This direct tie between salaries and the government has led many members of Commissions to inwardly and often outwardly perceive the government as their employer. Financial control by the government affecting the independence of the Commission directly violates the Paris Principles. Almost all of them are retired government servants and their salaries with all the perks are usually adequate

Grounds and Procedures for Dismissal and/or Resignation

In protecting the independence of the judiciary, it is important to ensure that judges enjoy a certain

60 PHRA, Chapter II, Section 7(1). 61 PHRA, Chapter II, Section 7(2)

amount of freedom from political pressure and protection from retribution. Accordingly, a Chairperson or Member of the NHRC may voluntarily resign under Chapter II, Section 5(1) by notice in writing under his hand addressed to the President of India, but may only be dismissed or removed from office under very limited circumstances. Chapter II, Section 5(2) of the PHRA states that a Chairperson or Member "shall only be removed from his office by order of the President of India on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity after the Supreme Court, on reference being made to it by the President, has, on inquiry held in accordance with the procedure prescribed in that behalf by the Supreme Court, reported that the Chairperson or the Member, as the case may be, ought on any such ground to be removed." Section 5(3) states that, notwithstanding anything in sub-section (2), the President may, by order, remove from office the Chairperson or any Member if the Chairperson or such Member is adjudged an insolvent, engages during his term of office in any paid employment outside the duties of his office, is unfit to continue in office by reason of infirmity of mind or body, is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court, or is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for an offence which in the opinion of the President involves moral turpitude.

In the event that a Chairperson is unable to discharge his functions, due to death, resignation, or otherwise, the President may, by notification, authorise one of the Members to act as the Chairperson until the appointment of a new Chairperson to fill such vacancy.60 If the Chairperson is unable to discharge his functions owing to absence on leave or otherwise, such one of the Members as the President may, by notification, authorise in this behalf, shall discharge the functions of the Chairperson until the date on which the Chairperson resumes his duties.61

CHAPTER IV

Executive Summary: Organizational Infrastructure

Although the National Human

Rights Commission has had 17

years to build up its infrastructure,

it has completely failed to develop

its resources and effective

functioning in society. It lacks not only financial resources, but historical knowledge and intellectual capital. Puzzlingly, the NHRC refuses to acknowledge how dramatically under-resourced it is financially and has not requested for an increase in staff or Members to the Commission. Rather, the Commission has recently stated that its five Members are able to provide orders in the approximately 400 cases a day without any problems.62

Commission staff members are hand-selected from government posts, often deputed temporarily from similarly titled, but very different, government positions. These staff members are given no training for completing their jobs and as they frequently have no background in human rights, complete their job with no additional sensitivity or understanding of human rights. Again, prestige is blindly equated with competence – resulting in both qualified and unqualified candidates almost randomly being chosen for important posts, such as Special Rapporteur of the NHRC.

The Commission conducts the overwhelm- ing majority of its functioning in one building in Delhi, while the rest of India resides far away and unable to access the NHRC.

62 Note that even if each of the five members worked 16 hours per day, double the average 8 hour work day, and reviewed and gave orders in the minimum amount of cases they have stated they go through in a day – 60 cases – each complaint alleging a human rights violation would receive less than 30 minutes of attention per Member.

IV. ORGANIZATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE

The organizational infrastructure of a national human rights institution is the entire collection of resources with which it may fulfill its mandate and includes not only tangible goods, such as its premises, library, and budget, but also intangible elements, such as attitudes of the staff, reputation of the NHRI in society, years of experience, and intellectual capital. Its organizational infrastructure, then, is the essence of the NHRI – who it is and how it functions in society.

The Paris Principles require that the NHRI be equipped with infrastructure which is suited to the smooth conduct of its activities, in particular, adequate funding. Accordingly, the NHRI must have sufficient funds to enable it to hire adequate and competent staff, have one or more premises such that it is accessible to the public, and expertise and dedicated leadership to efficiently perform the many functions it has been entrusted with by the public. In order to do this effectively, the national human rights institution must be independent of the Government and not subject to its financial and political control. As such, a thorough understanding of the national human rights institution also requires an appreciation for how it has

Figure 4.1 NHRC Divisions

structured itself, as well as the relationships it has built with other national and state human rights institutions and other important stakeholders.

1. Infrastructure

The National Human Rights Commission has been given a very wide mandate with many functions and accordingly, has been given many powers to fulfill these in the PHRA.63 Accordingly, the NHRC has set up an organizational structure that will enable it to fulfill its work efficiently and effectively.

The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the National Human Rights Commission is the Secretary General, selected from an officer of the rank of Secretary to the Government of India. The Secretary General has a Secretariat working under his/her general supervision. There are six divisions of the Commission that, while entrusted with specific tasks, work in close consultation and coordination with each other, and include the following: 1) Administrative Division, 2) Law Division, 3) Training Division, 4) Policy Research, Projects and Programmes Division, 5) Investigation Division, and 6) Information and Public Relations Division64.

63 Section 12 and 13 of the Protection of Human Rights Act

64 Can be accessed at http://nhrc.nic.in/

The Paris Principles require that the NHRI be equipped with infrastructure which is suited to the smooth conduct of its activities, in particu- lar, adequate funding.

In order to do this effectively, the national human rights institution must be independent of the Government and not subject to its finan- cial and political control.

The Administrative Division is headed by a Joint Secretary and assisted by a Director, Under Secretaries, Section Officers, and other secretarial staff. It functions under the overall guidance of the Secretary-General and looks after the administrative, personnel, establishment, and cadre matters of the staff and officers of the Commission. The Administrative Division includes an Accounts Branch, General Section, and the Hindi Section. The Accounts Branch functions under the overall guidance of the Joint Secretary and consists of a Senior Accounts Officer, Assistant Accounts Officers, a Drawing and Disbursing Officer, and other staff. The General Section takes care of housekeeping, repairs, and maintenance. The Hindi Section is responsible for translation of complaints, annual reports, and publications.

The Law Division is headed by the Registrar (Law) and is responsible for the disposal of complaints relating to human rights violations. The Registrar (Law) is assisted by a Joint Registrar, Deputy Registrars, Assistant Registrars, and others. There are also four Presenting Officers coming from the subordinate judiciary65, who assist the Commission in fulfilling its very important complaints handling function. These presenting officers and investigation wing personnel should ideally have proper and extensive training on handling human rights cases.

The Training Division has been created to disseminate information and focus attention on sensitizing various agencies and NGOs, civil society

to heighten respect for Human Rights by organizing Human Rights Training Programmes. The Division is headed by a Chief Coordinator (rank of a Joint Secretary) and is assisted by a Senior Research Officer and other secretarial staff.

The Library, containing a collection of books and a variety of documents of the United Nations, All India Reporter (AIR) Manuals, Supreme Court Reports, Government Reports, NGO bulletins, etc., not only serves the Commission, but is also a resource centre for interns, researchers, and NGOs. The Computer Cell, in coordination with the National Informatics Centre (NIC) has developed a user- friendly package for monitoring the status of complaints, from receipt to final disposal.

The Policy Research, Projects and Programmes Division develops projects and programmes on topics that have been determined to be of generic importance on the basis of hearings, deliberations or otherwise, and undertakes and promotes research in human rights and organizes seminars, workshops and conferences on pertinent issues. The PRP & P Division is headed by the Joint Secretary and consists of two Directors, a Senior Research Officer and secretarial staff.

The Investigation Division, headed by the Director General of Police (DGP), conducts independent inquiries when required. This division also assists the Commission in examining complaints, scrutinizing reports received from police and other investigation agencies, and analyzes the intimations and reports from the State authorities. These reports regard violations such as deaths in police and judicial custody, encounter deaths and advising the Commission. The Investigative Division also assists the Training Division in spreading human rights literacy as envisaged in Section 12(h) of the PHRA. The DGP is assisted by a Deputy Inspector General of Police, Senior Superintendents of Police, Deputy Superintendents of Police, Inspectors of Police and Constables.

Finally, the Information and Public Relations Division disseminates information relating to the activities of the Commission, through print and electronic media, and is headed by an Information and Public Relations Officer, who also functions as

These presenting officers and investigation wing personnel should ideally have proper and extensive training on handling human rights cases.

65 Subordinate Judiciary in India refers to the District Courts that are under the High Courts of every State in the Country

the Editor of the monthly Human Rights Newsletter. This division is responsible for the website and publications of the Commission, and has an Assistant Information Officer and has been appointed a Public Information Officer for the purpose of facilitating information under the Right to Information Act. The Appellate Authority is the Joint Secretary.

The Special Rapporteurs of the NHRC

The NHRC also employs the services of "special functionaries," to serve as Special Rapporteurs and members of thematic Core Groups.

Special Rapporteurs are to be selected by the NHRC from among very senior retired officers who had previously served as Secretaries to the Government of India or Directors General of Police or have done exemplary service in a human rights related field. These Special Rapporteurs are given either a theme, or a group of subjects to themes, such as Bonded Labour, Child Labour, Custodial Justice, Dalit Issues or Disability. These Special Rapporteurs may also be assigned particular territorial jurisdictions to cover. 66 This system of maintaining a pool of Special Rapporteurs is a concept very unique to and patterned after the United Nations. It is therefore expected that these Special Rapporteurs, like their counterparts at the UN, are people who are recognized in their field and known for their independence and integrity. At the outset, when this system was initially put in place, the Special Rapporteurs who were appointed were indeed recognized experts in their own fields. Some of the first Special Rapporteurs of the commission like Mr. Chaman Lal, former DGP of Nagaland, Mr. K. R. Venugopal, former Secretary to the Prime Minister of India were people of eminence, competence and

knowledge in a particular area and their work in the Commission did contribute to the body of work of the institution. In the recent years, however, the system of maintaining a pool of Special Rapporteurs has come into question as more and more Special Rapporteurs coming from government instrumentalities have been appointed.

Over the years, it has become rarer and rarer for individuals coming from the human rights movement and even the academe to be appointed as a Special Rapporteur. There seems to be an underlying message that only persons with a government background can be appointed as Special Rapporteurs and that representatives from civil society or the academe may be "too independent" to hold these positions.

It is therefore unfortunate that such a system that started out so positively has degenerated into another manifestation of the unfounded mistrust that the current NHRC holds against members of the human rights movement or human rights defenders.

The Core Groups of the NHRC

Core Groups are composed of very eminent persons, or representatives of bodies, in their respective fields in the country, who voluntarily agree to serve, in an honorary capacity, as members of such groups. Core groups have been previously created to address a variety of human rights issues including, Health, Disability, Unsafe Drugs & Medical Devices, NGOs, Legal Issues, Right to Food, Emergency Medical Care, and Refugees.

A lengthier discussion on the NGO Core Group will be made in the chapter discussing the NHRC's relationship with civil society.

Accessibility of the NHRC

The National Human Rights Commission is located in India's capital city, Delhi, as provided under Chapter

Over the years, it has become rarer and rarer for individuals coming from the human rights movement and even the academe to be appointed as a Special Rapporteur.

Unfortunately, to the hundreds of millions of marginalized, impoverished Indians living far away from Delhi in the North Eastern, Western, Southern, and Central regions of India, the National Human Rights Commission is wholly inaccessible. Although, the NHRC has had prior approval from the Central Government to establish offices in other parts of the vast country of India since 1993, the NHRC has failed to do so.

66 Information received in response to an RTI Petition to the Commission (RC No.16(1)/PIO/2005(RTI)/2639 dated 25.09.2009

I, Section 5 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. Unfortunately, to the hundreds of millions of marginalized, impoverished Indians living far away from Delhi in the North Eastern, Western, Southern, and Central regions of India, the National Human Rights Commission is wholly inaccessible. Although, the NHRC has had prior approval from the Central Government to establish offices in other parts of the vast country of India since 1993,67 the NHRC has failed to do so. Its Delhi based offices remain both its headquarters and only offices.

In the NHRC's 17 year history, it has only reached out to the rest of India and provided two opportunities for decentralized hearings on complaints, both in Northern India. In 2004, two hearings were held in Patna, Bihar and Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. From 15 to 16 September 2010, the NHRC's DGPs or their representatives, and the Chief Secretaries of the Southern States met in Bangalore to look into pending complaints of human rights violations in the South. 68 However, the proceedings were held behind closed doors and the complaints were not invited to either participate or even observe. Many senior activists and NGOs attempted to enter and observe the proceedings, but their efforts were in vain. Hence, the proceedings were heavily criticized by human rights groups as not being transparent. The outcomes of these proceedings were also not even made public. Moreover, even if the proceedings were opened to the public, many of the victims of human rights violations would not have shown up due to the presence of around 100 policemen, purportedly there to provide security to the NHRC Chairperson.

It may be true that the NHRC Chairperson may need some amount of security as he travels. Nevertheless, traveling around with a security detail as massive as that of the Home Minister's does not make the Commission appear accessible to human rights defenders and victims of human rights violations who would need to approach them with their concerns.

Even when NHRC Chair and members occasionally make visits to other states for seminars,

67 PHRA, Chapter I, Section 5.

training programs, to deliver an inaugural or valedictory address at events, they unfortunately, remain elite, figureheads, inaccessible to the public. The security scenario around the place where they stay and where their formal meetings take place with the heads of the police or district officials or state officials of the government is heavy. Often no discussions are held with NGOs. There is no allotted time for victims, nor any effort to afford these victims easy access to them without the presence of the officials of the districts against whom most of the complaints are. This is the routine way they behave and conveys the message that this is a Commission of the Government to protect the Government and its officials and not to help the ordinary victims of violations.

If resources are not available to establish satellite offices of the NHRC, then the NHRC must maximize visits outside Delhi to project that it is on the side of victims and not the perpetrators. More often than not, when members of the NHRC travel outside Delhi, they generally choose to locate themselves in circuit houses (state guest houses) which are usually difficult to access and very difficult for anyone, let alone victims, civil society, and common citizens, to enter. No advance program schedule is sent if the Chairperson or the Members visit and there is no time made for people to meet. The Chairperson should be in a publicly accessible place or one that is made accessible to the public. Only then the principle of accessibility will be established.

The protection and security of these highly accomplished, distinguished persons and proper adherence to regulation can be ensured without being abused as excessive barriers to protection and justice.69 If even an invited guest is barraged by police officers at the gate, what kind of reception can unsolicited victims hope to get? The very people from which they may be seeking protection from may be literal barriers to their security. Hurt, vulnerable victims of tragic human rights violations should not be forced to seek protection from such an inaccessible, intimidating, and frightening environment.

68 Information can be accessed at http://nhrc.nic.in/disparchive.asp?fno=2153

69 Story: In a recent request for information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, even a well-known core group member of the NHRC was asked to "Prove that you are an Indian citizen" because the stamp on the postal order was not accepted. These institutions are more dedicated to protecting the interests of government over society.

Fortunately, not all NHRC members and officials keep such significant barriers between themselves and the public. Indeed, many NHRC members are open and very welcoming to victims. However, whether a victim will feel safe and protected is highly dependent on these individual members, who are few and far between, rather than an adequate and appropriate infrastructure that is set up to guarantee this environment.

There is no written policy on accessibility of members coupled with their security concerns. This should not be left to the chance element of a particular member being good and accessible. Only having police officers to investigate is wrong. The team should have doctors, lawyers, psychologists and Human Rights activists and they should collectively carry out a Human Rights investigation. Crime investigations by police and Human Rights investigations are two different procedures.

To function effectively and reach the over 1 billion Indians who require access to the NHRC, four to five offices must be established throughout India. Particularly, branch offices of the NHRC should be established in the southern, central, north eastern and western regions of India. From these branch offices, investigation staff should be trained to investigate and report on human rights violations. To make the NHRC a truly national institution working for the protection and promotion of human rights, honorary Special Rapporteurs should be appointed to monitor violations of human rights in each of the 620 districts of India. Additionally, volunteers, drawn from social workers, police officers, prison officials, retired judiciary, academics, district level officers, and elected and formerly elected representatives, could be trained to provide support to existing Special Rapporteurs by working as the "eyes and ears" of the NHRC in all 620 districts. A small beginning could be made in this direction with the appointment of Special Rapporteurs in the selected NHRC districts of the country.

Working together, this team of volunteers, local investigators, and Special Rapporteurs, can scrutinize the situation on the ground and either make recommendations to the NHRC, notably, requests for in-person visits for cases of highest priority requiring

70 Listed in the NHRC website http://www.nhrc.nic.in/ 31

NHRC members' and officers' direct presence to investigate the violation and give the matter additional attention. A network of local and national representatives working together will enhance the breadth, quality, and speed of investigation of violations, while maximizing the limited resources of the NHRC. Because access to justice requires timely access to justice, any follow-up investigations and relief orders must be issued speedily.

The NHRC must change its relationship with the public by first, both literally and symbolically, opening its doors. The NHRC should have its own building that is physically welcoming and unimposing. The entire approach of the NHRC must be victim-centered, compassionate, and open. The NHRC must be clear that it is an institution established wholly to promote human rights and serve and protect the victims of human rights violations. The NHRC must work hard to overcome the reputation that it has built as a bureaucracy, dedicated to managing files and politics, rather than an institution dedicated to serving the public.

The NHRC must change its relationship with the public by first, both literally and symbolically, opening its doors...The NHRC must work hard to overcome the reputation that it has built as a bureaucracy, dedicated to managing files and politics, rather than an institution dedicated to serving the public.

State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs): How can they help the NHRC?

There are currently 18 State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs) in India, plus the public pronouncements from the state governments of Jharkhand and Sikkim of the impending establishment of their SHRCs. The NHRC, however, has not developed a strong working relationship with these SHRCs.70 The argument pur forth by the NHRC, and very often heard from chairpersons and members from the SHRCs, is that nowhere under the PHRA is it mentioned that the NHRC has been bestowed with any form of a supervisory role over the SHRCs. There is also no evidence, either on the NHRC's annual

reports or its website, of any kind of statement or effort by the NHRC to the Parliament to make the SHRCs come under the NHRC. Many activists believe that integrating the SHRC into the structure of the NHRC would only be practical and a matter of good governance.

It must be noted though that there have been annual meetings of the NHRC where some representatives of the SHRCs were invited to attend. Still, it is not always the chairpersons of the SHRCs who attend these annual meetings of the NHRC. Moreover, there is an apparent effort from the NHRC to call SHRCs for consultation, albeit these consultations never lead towards a system whereby the SHRCs become the eyes and ears of the NHRC on the ground. For example the frequency of encounters deaths71 that have taken place in recent times have been alarming. Of the cases of encounter deaths that occurred between the NHRC's origination on 12 October 1993 to 31 April 2010, 2,956 have been registered with the NHRC either by public authorities or the public. There is no evidence that would show that there has been any communication between the NHRC and the SHRCs on this issue. Also, there is no evidence to show that the NHRC had been liaising with the SHRCs regarding its queries to State Governments on encounter deaths. What usually happens is that the NHRC merely forwards complaints it receives to the SHRCs.

It should also be noted that even when the NHRC members visit a particular state, it is not usual that they meet with the SHRC or the other state human rights commissions that are existing72.

The principle of cooperation established under the Paris Principles requires NHRIs to cooperate with

NGOs, intergovernmental organizations, and other NHRIs. If this principle is put into practice, even though it is not explicitly provided in the NHRC's enabling law, this would indeed go a long way in transferring lessons of NHRC to the newly formed SHRCs. This is not carried out at all. For putting human rights into practice, law, procedural guidelines and rules alone cannot be the recourse. Attempts and new efforts and the development of creative methods of working with new stake holders should be a constant endeavor by any institution in the field of human rights and it applies much more to the NHRC. This is one reason why the law makers thought of the former Chief Justice of India to head the commission because he will have the power of persuasion. This power of persuasion is not used to the full. In the last 17 years of it existence if this had been done, principles of engagement with the SHRCs and code of conduct would have been evolved. The SHRCs as strategic partners of NHRC in putting the functions under section 12 of the PHRA would have been put into practice rather than they being subordinates. While a hierarchy is suggested between the NHRC and SHRCs through Section 21 of the PHRA, which establishes that the State Commission shall not inquire into any matter which is already being inquired into by the Commission or any other Commission duly constituted under any law for the time being in force, the NHRC has no policy on how to work with these state human rights commissions.

... the frequency of encounters deaths that have taken place in recent times have been alarming. . There is no evidence that would show that there has been any communication between the NHRC and the SHRCs on this issue.

Rather than allowing the NHRC to fulfill its mandate, the NHRC's staffing has created an atmosphere of a governmental bureaucracy, rather than an open, safe sanctuary in the face of dangerous, brutal human rights violations. NHRC staff members are recruited almost exclusively from the government sector. These current or former government employees perceive themselves as quasi-government employees even after they start working at the NHRC, rather than independent monitors of human rights.

71 Extrajudicial killings are euphemistically called "encounter killings. They are unlawful murders of individuals by law enforcement officials or persons acting in direct or indirect compliance with the State when the use of force is inconsistent with the criteria of absolute necessity and proportionality

72 There are specialized human rights commissions / commissioners totaling to about 173, in the different states of India, on different thematic areas like Women, Minorities, Disability, Right to Information etc.

Staffing

The Paris Principles require that the NHRI has its own staff. The ICC also explained in its General Observations that the NHRI should be empowered to appoint its own staff, but recommended that in order to guarantee the independence of the NHRI, senior level posts should not be filled with secondees. Where seconded staff members are hired, they should not exceed 25% and never be more than 50% of the total workforce of the NHRI. Notably, the requirement of hiring and maintaining staff also requires that the NHRI hire adequate and competent staff to effectively and efficiently fulfill its mandate. A full and active staff is essential for any institution to work at its best capacity, build its intellectual capital, and reach its institutional goals.

Rather than allowing the NHRC to fulfill its mandate, the NHRC's staffing has created an atmosphere of a governmental bureaucracy, rather than an open, safe sanctuary in the face of dangerous, brutal human rights violations. The NHRC and its staffing permeate a value system that is governmental, rather than non-governmental, in nature. In fact, NHRC staff members are recruited almost exclusively from the government sector. These current or former government employees perceive themselves as quasi-government employees even after they start working at the NHRC, rather than independent monitors of human rights.

The Secretary General holds the rank of a Secretary to the government. Mr.R. V. Pillai has been the longest serving in his chief executive's post. Senior Executive Officers can be drawn from the government, as it is role of the Institution to liaison from the government but they should have a minimum tenure of 3 or 4 years as it takes at least 1 year to understand the Commission. This is a special institution and it takes time to understand it and usually by the time they get to understand, their tenure is over and so they only firefight and are not able to do real work. Persons appointed to the post of Director General of Investigation most often are persons who have never done any work in Human Rights. They are too senior to be sent for Trainings before assuming office.

Thus, a principle of learning through doing has to happen but by the time they get a grasp of what has to be done, they realize that their powers are limited as the decision making is by the Commission and bureaucrats who have served in these positions who often want to remain anonymous, several of them, have expressed the fact that they feel the dominance of the judges and their points of view in every decision making process. Ultimately it is a judge - heavy decision making process which used to be, for a very long time, as said by people, balanced by persons like Virendra Dayal. When persons like him retired and the first 10 years were over, a balancing personality was not there to challenge the others. The experience too is not transferred to the next person. He starts from scratch. Presently the Country is shaken by the fact that 8 Chief Justices have been accused of being corrupt by lawyer Prashant Bhushan in a case in the Supreme Court. There is a former Chief Justice who is facing impeachment. Perhaps due to this improperly limited candidate list, the NHRC has consistently been under staffed, as per its workload and also its sanctioned capacity. The table (Table 4.1) below illustrates the repeated under-utilization of its staff, its most valuable resource.

The failure of the NHRC to recruit, develop, and retain talented staff to its maximum sanctioned amount is an impediment to its growth and effectiveness. As of April 23, 2010, the NHRC had a total of 317 staff and consultants. The category of employees working as "consultants" comprised individuals who are re- employed, employed as contract staff, and consultants. In fact, only 222 of the 317, or 70% were regular staff members. Thus, the NHRC is currently only working with 65% of its sanctioned regular staff, leaving 35% of the capacity of NHRC staff unfilled.

In 2002-2003, the NHRC recognized in its Annual Report that "the constantly increasing workload of the Commission...necessitated the engagement of [20] consultants to cope with the additional work." Rather than filling the open staff positions quickly, the Commission determined that it "must proceed with care to build and develop its own cadre."73 The NHRC stated that it would use a "variety of methods...to

73 NHRC Annual Report 2002-2003.

Table 4.1 Number of NHRC Staff

Year

1993-1994

1994-1995

Total Sanctioned Strength of the Staff

247 -

Vacancies

No. of Complaints Received by the NHRC

496

6,835

Staff stood

1995-1996 250 194

1996-1997 282 235

1997-1998 282 223

1998-1999 297 218

1999-2000 297 231

2000-2001 331 249

2001-2002 341 284

2002-2003 341 289

2003-2004 341 306

2004-2005 341 326

2005-2006 341 326

2006-2007 343 322

2007-2008 - -

2008-2009 - -

56 10,195

47 20,514

59 36,791

79 40,724

66 50,634

82 71,555

57 60,083

52 68,779

35 72,990

15 74,401

15 74,444

21 82,233

- 94,559

cooperated with academic institutions, civil society groups NGOs who have specialized in thematic human rights issues. Several well-known, reputed institutions, such as People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), People's Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR), Centre for Justice and Peace (CJP), People's Watch, Action Aid India, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), Human Rights Law Network (HRLN), Housing and Land Rights Network (HLRN), National Alliance of Women's Organisation (NAWO), Campaign Against Child Labour (CACL), CEHAT, Ekta Parishad, and Bandhua Mukti Morcha, NCAS, ASMITA, IHRE, FIAN, Disabled Rights Group have played very

2009-2010

222

The failure of the NHRC to recruit, develop, and retain talented staff to its maximum sanctioned amount is an impediment to its growth and effectiveness.

appoint staff in the Commission." These methods include the appointment of personnel on deputation, re-employment and direct recruitment. The exact same statement appeared in the following year's Annual Report.74 Recruitment rules are there for officers, presenting officers and judges. Why not for lawyers? Rather, the NHRC could gain a platform for recruitment of dedicated staff cadre if they

74 NHRC Annual Report 2003-2004.

Based on the current staff, the NHRC does not have fair and equal means of representation in terms of gender, religious minority groups and disabled populations.

specific poignant roles in the field of specific thematic human rights across the country. These agencies with their rich and diverse experiences could provide a very good platform for recruitment of dedicated staff cadre, with their knowledge, skill, and passion for human rights, helping the NHRC grow as an independent human rights institution across the country.

Based on the current staff, the NHRC does not have fair and equal means of representation in terms of gender, religious minority groups and disabled populations. Of the 317 staff and consultants working at the NHRC, only 2 members are persons with disability.75 266 or 84% of the NHRC is male, whereas only 51 staff/consultants at the NHRC are female (16%). Hindus make up an overwhelming majority of over 92% of the NHRC, or 292 of the 317 staff/ consultants, even though they are only around 80% of the overall population.76 There are only 6 Muslims, 11 Christians, 8 Sikhs, and 0 Buddhists. Of the 317 staff, 52 come from Scheduled Castes (SC) and 14 from Scheduled Tribes (ST); 3 individuals are from Other Backwards Classes (OBC). We have govt. appointed commission saying that diversity has to be maintained and we do not see it reflected it in the staff. Sixty Six persons of SC/ST origin work in the Commission and this works to 20.82 %. While it is balanced, our presumption is that most of them are in lower cadre even though the chairperson now is from a Scheduled Caste Community.

Even with a full staff, the NHRC would certainly face challenges in adequately addressing the growing workload and dramatically rising number of complaints filed by victims of human rights violations. While the number of complaints registered with the NHRC has increased from 496 in 1993-94 The Commission says that over the last 4 years it has received on an average 400 complaints a day77. Even after weeding out frivolous complaints and transferring 5933 others to the SHRCs, in the financial year 2009 - 10 (April - March) the NHRC registered 83021 fresh cases and completed action on 86050 cases. No other national institution for human rights in the world has a remotely comparable case-load. Moreover, complaints-handling is only one of ten major functions assigned to the Commission.

If the NHRC are even able to make a genuine attempt to fulfill its legal mandate, its sanctioned and actual staffing must dramatically increase both in number and diversity. The heavy and demanding functions of the NHRC must be analyzed and an assessment made of how many staff members are required to effectively fulfill its mandate. Currently, the NHRC does not have adequate staff to carry out its mandated functions under the PHRA. More high quality staff are urgently needed that come from a variety of disciplines, such as social work, forensic sciences, medical colleges, law, social work, psychology, development professionals, and international relations. In reply to the ANNI Report however it is surprising that the reply by NHRC is "Incredible as it might appear to the ANNI, this indeed is the level at which the NHRC works. Between July 2009 and May 2010, It registered 75283 new cases, dealt with 84483, including the backlog of earlier years, and closed 78917, The Chairperson and four Members each have a Registry that processes and puts up between 60-80 files a day. On a 5-day week, and assuming a 48-week working year, the NHRC therefore can process 80 x 5 x 5 x 48=96,000 files a year. The NHRC's Registries are run by senior law officers. The Members are also helped in the processing of cases by the officers and consultants of the Investigation Division and, occasionally, by

The Commission says that over the last 4 years it has received on an average 400 complaints a day ... No other national institution for human rights in the world has a remotely comparable case-load.

75 RTI response

76 Demographics of India, http://www.fact-index.com/d/de/demographics_of_india.html

77 Report of the NHRC of India to the 15th APF covering the period 2009 – 2010

Special Rapporteurs. Their efficiency has made it possible for the Commission to process very large numbers of cases each year". If this was true and quality also reflected the numbers, then you would have a constituency in the country which would only be praising the NHRC. We want a constituency of that sort but unfortunately such a constituency is not there. Why then does the Commission take years to dispose a case? A sample study of the 500 cases that People's Watch, an NGO, sent, revealed the following:

Hiring Staff of the NHRC

While the NHRC staff was initially modestly sized, with only a relatively few positions in the various grades of Inspector, Assistant, Personal Assistant, Private Secretary, and Staff Car drivers as late as 2003-2004, today the NHRC list the following staff positions: Secretary General, Registrar Law, Director General (Investigation), Joint Secretary, Deputy Inspector General (DIG), Director, Joint Registrar,

Private Secretary, Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Assistant Registrar, Under Secretary, Senior Research Officer, Special Assistant/Private Secretary/Principal Private Secretary, Senior System Analyst, Information & Public Relations Officer, Programmer, Private Secretary, Librarian, Senior Accounts Officer, Section Officer, Court Master, Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), Inspector, Assistant Accounts Officer, Assistant Director (Hindi), Senior Translator (Hindi), Protocol Assistant, Research Assistant, Personal Assistant, Assistant, Programmer Assistant, Junior Translator (Hindi), Junior Accountant, Presenting Officer, Deputy Registrar, and Accountant.78

While the NHRC is led by its small and venerable group of the NHRC Chairperson and Members, the core functions could not be performed without a strong, supportive, and dedicated staff. It is for this reason that the adequacy, role, and composition of staff are particularly significant. The NHRC does not follow the principle of pluralism79. Rather than assessing relevant characteristics when hiring staff members of the NHRC, the NHRC selects an overwhelming number of its staff on deputation and/ or from individuals holding analogous posts under the government.

Rather than assessing relevant char- acteristics when hiring staff members of the NHRC, the NHRC selects an over- whelming number of its staff on deputa- tion and/or from individuals holding analogous posts under the government.

78 Response to RTI Petition on Organizational Infrastructure

79 As per the General Observations of the ICC Subcommittee on accreditation of NHRIs: The Sub-Committee observes that there are different ways in which pluralism may be achieved through the composition of the National Institution, for example:

a) Members of the governing body represent different segments of society as referred to in the Paris Principles;

b) Pluralism through the appointment procedures of the governing body of the National Institution, for example, where diverse societal groups suggest or recommend candidates;

c) Pluralism through procedures enabling effective cooperation with diverse societal groups, for example advisory committees, networks, consultations or public forums; or

d) Pluralism through diverse staff representing the different societal groups within the society.

The Sub-Committee further emphasizes that the principle of pluralism includes ensuring the meaningful participation of women in the National Institution.

The Chief Executive of the NHRC, the Secretary General, may be hired by transfer on deputation or by transfer of officers holding an analogous post to the Secretary General under the Central Government or State Government.

Next, the Registrar - Law may be hired either by transfer or on deputation from Indian Legal Service Officers holding analogous posts under the Central Government or from any officers holding analogous posts under the Central Government, Supreme Court, High Court and possessing experience as Registrar or higher judiciary or any other post involving interpretation or application of statutes. Additionally, Officers in the pay scale of Rs. 1,84,00-2,24,00 with a regular service of 3 years in the grade in the Central Government, Supreme Court, or High Court and possessing experience as Registrar or higher judiciary or any other post involving interpretation application of statutes are eligible for the post of Registrar Law. A post graduate degree in law from a recognized university or equivalent and research experience in Constitutional Law and its Theory, Human Rights jurisprudence, including interpretation and application of statutes, are required. Registrars serving a short- term contract/re-employment, not exceeding three years, must have held an analogous post under the Central Government, Supreme Court, and High Court, and possess experience as a Registrar of a higher judiciary or of any other post involving interpretation and application of statutes.

The Director General (Investigation) is hired by transfer on deputation or transfer from Indian Police Service Officers holding analogous posts under the Central Government or officers eligible to be empanelled as Director General in the scale of Rs. 2,40,50 - 2,60,00/-. A Director General of Investigation may also be hired by short-term contract or re-employment from amongst Indian Police Service officers who have retired at the level equivalent to Director General of Police in the scale of Rs. 2,40,50 – 2,60,00/- under the Central Government or State Government.

The Joint Secretary of the NHRC is hired by transfer on deputation or by transfer of empanelled All India or Central Service Officers or officers holding analogous posts under the Central Government, or officers holding posts in the scale of

Rs. 1,43,00 -1,83,00/-. Three years of regular service in the grade or in the scale of Rs. 1,20,00 -1,65,00/- with 8 years regular service in the grade is required.

... the guidelines that the NHRC have stated on hiring seems to suggest a belief that they may only select officers who are currently holding "analogous posts under the Central Government or State Govern- ment" for open NHRC staff positions... . Not only does this lead to the NHRC having the feel of another bureaucratic governmen- tal agency, but it also narrows the possible applicant pool in a way that eliminates the possibility of many eligible, qualified can- didates being considered for NHRC staff positions.

The NHRC hires a Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) by transfer on deputation or transfer of (i) Officers of the Indian Police Service or Central Police Organizations holding analogous posts on a regular basis; or (ii) Officers of the Indian Police Service or Central Police Organizations who are approved for appointment as DIG under the Central Government. Officers of Indian Police Service with 14 years service shall be eligible for consideration for promotion as DIG. The DIG may also be hired for a short-term contract or re-employment, not exceeding two years, from amongst officers of Indian Police Service and Central Police Organizations who have held analogous post on regular basis.

A Director of the NHRC may be hired by transfer on deputation or transfer of officers under the Central Government holding analogous posts on a regular basis or 5 years regular service in the scale of Rs. 1,20,00 – 1,65,00/- or its equivalent. Further, they must also possess experience in personnel and general administration matters. Directors hired by re- employment or short term contract, not exceeding two years, may be selected from persons who have held analogous posts on a regular basis under the Central Government and possess experience in personnel and general administrative matters.

While the National Human Rights Commission doesn't actually have an official policy or limitation on whom they can hire under the Protection of Human Rights Act, the guidelines that the NHRC

have stated on hiring seems to suggest a belief that they may only select officers who are currently holding "analogous posts under the Central Government or State Government" for open NHRC staff positions.80 Indeed, closer examination of the eligibility criteria for the posts of Secretary General, Director General (Investigation), Joint Secretary, Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG), and Director reveals the almost exclusive preference of the NHRC for hiring former government officials. This criterion of experience in government is not relaxed for even short

term positions. Not only does this lead to the NHRC having the feel of another bureaucratic governmental agency, but it also narrows the possible applicant pool in a way that eliminates the possibility of many eligible, qualified candidates being considered for NHRC staff positions. While these few served as an example, the hiring criteria for the rest of the NHRC staff positions also continue in this light.

As an example, the following criteria are listed for selecting the following staff under deputation for the named positions:

Staff Position

Criteria

Secretary General

By transfer on deputation / transfer of officers holding analogous post under the Central Government or State Government

Registrar Law

Deputation/transfer of

(i) Indian Legal Service Officers holding analogous posts under the Central Government or

(ii) Officers holding analogous post under the Central Govt/ Supreme Court/ High Court and possessing experience as Registrar or higher judiciary or any other post involving interpretation / application of statutes or

(iii) Officers in the pay scale of Rs. 18400-22400 with a regular service of 3 years in the grade in the Central Govt./ Supreme Court / High Court and possessing experience as Registrar or higher judiciary or any other post involving interpretation application of statutes. Post Graduate Degree in law from a recognized university or equivalent.

(iv) Research experience in one of the following fields: Constitutional Law and its Theory Human Rights jurisprudence. By short-term contract/ reemployment: Persons who have held an analogous post under the Central Govt./ Supreme Court/ High Court and possessing experience as Registrar of a higher judiciary or of any other post involving interpretation application of statutes. The period of short- term contract/re- employment shall not exceed three years

80 See Annex of RTI responses that state the criteria

Staff Position

Criteria

Director General (Investigation)

By transfer on deputation/transfer of Indian Police Service Officers holding analogous posts under the Central Government or officers eligible to be empanelled as Director General in the scale of Rs. 24050 - 26000/-. By short-term contract or re-employment: To be selected from Indian Police Service officers who have retired at the level equivalent to Director General of Police in the scale of Rs24050 - 26000/- under the Central Govt./ State Govt. The period of short-term / re-employment shall not exceed three years

Joint Secretary

By transfer on deputation / transfer of empanelled All India or Central Service Officers or officers holding analogous posts under the Central Government or officers holding posts in the scale of Rs. 14300 -18300/- with 3 years regular service in the grade or in the scale of Rs. 12000 - 16500/- with 8 years regular service in the grade

Deputy Inspector General (DIG)

By transfer on deputation / transfer of

(i) Officers of the Indian Police Service or Central Police Organizations holding analogous posts on a regular basis; or

(ii) Officers of the Indian Police Service or Central Police Organizations who are approved for appointment as DIG under the Central Govt.;

NOTE: Officers of Indian Police Service with 14 years service shall be eligible for consideration for promotion as D 1 G. By re-employment / short-term contract from amongst officers of Indian Police Service and Central Police Organizations who have held analogous host on regular basis. The period of short-term contract / re-employment shall not exceed two years

Director

By transfer on deputation / transfer of officers under the Central Government:

(i) holding analogous posts on regular basis; or 5 years regular service in the scale of Rs. 12000 - 16500/- or equivalent, and

(ii) Possessing experience in personnel and general administration matters.

By re-employment /short term contract from persons who have held analogous posts on regular basis under the Central Govt and possessing experience in personnel and general administrative matters. The period of short-term contract / re-employment shall not exceed 2 years

Joint Registrar

By transfer on deputation / transfer of officers possessing a degree in Law and holding analogous post in the Central Govt / Supreme Court / High Court / Central Administrative Tribunal / Custom & Gold Tribunal / Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal /Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board or in the scale of Rs. 12,000 - 16,500 with a minimum of 5 years regular service in that grade, and possessing experience of court matters in higher judiciary or of any other post involving interpretation / application of statutes. By re-employment / Short term contract from persons who have held analogous posts on regular basis in the Central Govt / Supreme Court / High Court / Central

Staff Position

Criteria

Joint Registrar

Administrative Tribunal / Custom and Central Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal / Income Tax Appellate Tribunal / Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board and possessing a degree in Law and possessing experience in Court matters in higher judiciary or any other post involving interpretation / application of statutes. The period of short-term contract / reemployment shall not exceed 2 years.

Private Secretary

By transfer on deputation / transfer of officers holding analogous posts under the Central Govt. / Supreme Court or officers under the Central Govt. / Supreme Court in the pay scale of Rs. 10,000 -15,200/- with 5 years regular service in the grade.

By re-employment / short-term contract from persons who have held analogous posts on regular basis under the Central Govt./ Supreme Court.

The period of short-term contract / reemployment shall not exceed 2 years.

Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP)

By transfer on deputation/transfer of

i. ii.

iii.

Officers of the Indian Police Service working in the Selection Grade; or

Officers of the Central Police Forces /Organizations holding analogous posts or officers in the scale of pay of Rs. 12,000 - 16,500 with 5 years regular service or officers in the scale of pay of Rs. 10,000 - 15,200/- with 10 years regular service; or

Officers of the State Police Force holding analogous posts or officers in the scale of pay of Rs. 12,000 - 16,500/- with 5 years regular service or officers in the scale of pay of Rs. 10,000 - 15,200/- with 10 years regular

service.

Service Officers who have retired at the level of selection grade or from retired officers of Central Police Forces / Organizations or from retired officers from State Police Forces who have held analogous posts on regular basis. The period of short-term contract / re-employment shall not exceed two years.

re-employment / short-term contract from the Indian Police

Assistant Registrar (Law)

By transfer on deputation / transfer of officers possessing a degree in law and holding analogous posts in Central Government / Supreme Court / High Court / Central Administrative Tribunal or officers of Central Government / Supreme Court / Central Administrative Tribunal / High Court in the scale of Rs. 6,500 - 10,500 with a minimum of 8 years of regular service.

By re-employment / short-term contract from persons who have held analogous posts on regular basis in Central Government / Supreme Court / High Court / Central Administrative Tribunal and possessing a degree in Law.

The period of short-term contract / re-employment shall not exceed two years.

Staff Position

Criteria

Under Secretary

Promotion : Section Officers in the Commission having not less than 8 years of regular service in the grade. Transfer on deputation / transfer:

Officers under the Central Govt.

(i) holding analogous posts on regular basis; or

(ii) with 8 years regular service in the scale of Rs. 6500 - 10500/- or equivalent. Desirable Experience of working in National Human Rights Commission for at least 2 years.

By re-employment / short-term contracts from persons who have held analogous posts under the Central Govt on regular basis.

The period of short term contract / reemployment shall not exceed 2 years

Senior Researcher

Essential:

(i) Masters degree in Political Science, History, Statistics, Sociology of a recognized university or equivalent.

(ii) Degree in Law of a recognized University or equivalent.

(iii) 4 years research experience in any of the social science.

Special Assistant/Private Secretary/ Principle Private Secretary

Promotion :

Private Secretary in the National Human Rights Commission with 8 years of regular service in the scale of Rs. 6,500- 10,500/-

Transfer on deputation / transfer: Officers under the Central Govt. / Supreme Court / Central Administrative Tribunal:

holding analogous posts on regular basis: or with 8 years regular basis in the scale of Rs. 6,500- 10,500/-or equivalent.

By re-employment short-term contract from persons who have held analogous posts under the Central Govt. / Supreme Court/ / Central Administrative Tribunal on regular basis. The period of short-term contract / re- employment shall not exceed 2 years

Senior System Analyst

By transfer on deputation / transfer of officers holding analogous posts on regular basis in Central Govt. / National Informatic Centre or similar organization.

(*) By re-employment / short term contract from persons who have held analogous posts on regular basis in Central Govt / National Informatic Centre or similar organization. The period or short term contract / re-employment shall not exceed two years.

OG.S.R. 609(E) dated 23rd August. 1999. The period or short term contract / re-employment shall not exceed two years.

OG.S.R. 609(E) dated 23rd August. 1999.

Information & Public Relations Officer

Transfer on deputation / transfer:

(i) Officers of Indian Information Service holding analogous posts on regular basis; or with 5 years of regular service in the grade Rs.8000 - 13500/- or 8 years of regular service in the grade of Rs.6500-10500/- and having experience of handling media, editing of news letter/ magazines and public relations, or

Staff Position

Criteria

Information & Public Relations Officer

(ii) Officers under the Central Govt with 5 years of regular service in the grade of Rs. 8000 - 13500 or 8 years of regular service in the grade of Rs. 6500 - 10500.

(*) By re-employment / short term contract of officers of Indian Information Service holding analogous post on regular basis or officers of Central Govt, holding analogous posts on regular basis.

The period of short-term contract / re-employment shall not exceed 2 years. (*) G.S.R. 609(E) dated 23'August, 1999

(i)

Programmer

By Transfer on deputation / transfer:

Officers holding analogous posts on regular basis in National Informatics Center or similar Central Govt. organization. (*) By re- employment / short-term contract from persons who have held analogous posts on regular basis in National Informatic Centre or similar Central Govt. Organisation. The period of short-term contract / re-employment should not exceed 2 years. (*) G.S.R. 609(E) dated 23rd August, 1999

Private Secretary

Promotion :

Personal Assistant in NHRC with 8 years regular service in the grade. Transfer on deputation: Officers under the Central Govt.

(a)

(i) holding analogous posts on regular basis; or

(ii) with 8 years regular service in a post of Stenographer in the pay scale of Rs. 5500 - 9000 or equivalent; or

(iii) with 8 years of regular service in a post of Stenographer in the pay scale of Rs. 5000- 8000

Librarian

Transfer on deputation / transfer: Officers under the Central Govt.:

(i) Holding analogous posts on regular basis; or

(ii) with 3 yrs regular service in posts in the scale of Rs. 5500 - 9000/- or with 8 yrs regular service in posts in the scale of Rs. 5000 - 8000/-or equivalent.

possessing the educational qualifications and experience prescribed for direct recruits under column 8.

(The period of deputation including the period of deputation in another ex-cadre post held immediately preceding this appointment in the same or some other organization / department of the Central govt, shall ordinarily not exceed 3 years.) The maximum age limit for appointment by transfer on depuration / transfer shall be not exceeding 56 years as on the closing date of receipt of applications.

(*) By short term contract / reemployment from persons who have held analogous posts on regular basis under Central Govt. and possessing qualifications and experience prescribed for direct recruits under column 8. The period of short-term contract/re-employment shall not exceed 2 years.

Staff Position

Criteria

Librarian

(*) G.S.R. 609(E) dated 23rd August, 1999 Essential:

(i) Degree of a recognized University or equivalent.

(ii) Bachelor's Degree or equivalent diploma in Library Science of a recognized University/ Institute or equivalent;

(iii) 2 years professional experience in a Library of Standing; or Diploma in Computer Application from a recognized University / Institute or equivalent. Note 1: Qualifications are relaxable at the discretion of the Central Govt, in the case of candidates otherwise well qualified.

Note 2; The qualification(s) regarding experience is/are relaxable at the discretion of the Central Govt, in the case of candidate belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, if at any stage of selection. The Central Govt is of the opinion that sufficient number of candidates from these communities possessing the requisite experience are more likely to be available to fill up the vacancies reserved for them. Desirable:

Master's Degree in Library Science from a recognized University or equivalent.

Senior Accounts Officer

By transfer on deputation /

transfer of officers holding analogous posts in the accounts organization. Officers in the scale of Rs. 7450 - 11500/- working in the Accounts organization with 2 years regular service in the grade.

(*) By re-employment / short-term contract from persons who have held analogous posts on regular basis in the Accounts Organization. The period of short-term contract/ re-employment shall not exceed 2 years.

(*) G.S.R. 609(E) dated 23rd August, 1999

Section Officer

Promotion : Assistant in N.H.R.C. with 8 years regular service in the grade. Transfer on deputation; Officers under the Central Government :-

(a) (i) holding analogous posts on regular basis; or

(ii) with 8 years regular service in a post in the pay scale of Rs. 5500 - 9000 or equivalent; and

(b) Possessing experience of Administration / establishment accounts matters

Court Master

Transfer on deputation / transfer:

Persons working under Central Government / Supreme Court / High Court / Central Administrative Tribunal:

(a) (i) holding analogous posts on regular basis; or

(ii) holding posts of Stenographer Grade 'C or equivalent in the scale of Rs. 5,500 - 9,000 with 6 years' regular service; and

Staff Position

Criteria

Court Master

Desirable:

(a) possessing the educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruits in column 8.

By re-employment / short-term contract from persons who have held analogues posts on regular basis under the Central Government / Supreme Court / High Court / Central Administrative Tribunal.

The period of short-term contract / reemployment shall not exceed two years.

Deputy Superintendent of Police

Promotion:

Inspectors in NHRC with 5 years regular service in the grade.

Transfer on deputation / transfer of officers under Central / State Police Organizations

(a) (i) holding analogous posts on a regular basis; or

(ii) Inspectors of Police with 5 years regular service in the grade or equivalent; and

(b) possessing experience in investigation of criminal cases.

By re-employment / short-term contract from persons who have held analogous posts on regular basis under the Central Govt. / State Police Organization and possessing experience in investigation of criminal cases.

The period of short-term contract / re-employment shall not exceed two years.

Inspector

By transfer on deputation/transfer of:

(a) (i) Working in similar or equivalent grade in the Central / State Police Forces / Armed Forces of Union; or

(ii) Sub-Inspector in the Central/State Police Forces / Armed Forces of the Union with 5 years regular service as Sub- Inspector; or

(iii) Officers working in the equivalent grade on regular basis under the Central Govt./State Govt. Departments / Central Public Undertakings; and

(b) possessing at least 5 years experience in vigilance or investigation or intelligence work.

By re-employment / short-term contract from persons who have held analogous posts on regular basis in the Central/State Police Forces / Armed Forces o Union and possessing at least 5 years experience in vigilance or investigation or intelligence work.

The period of short-term contract / re-employment shall not exceed two years.

Assistant Accounts Officer

Transfer on deputation / transfer:

(i) officers under the Central Govt. holding analogous posts on regular basis who have undergone training in cash and

Accounts in the Institute of Secretariat Training and Management or

equivalent and possess experiences in cash and accounts work; or

Staff Position

Criteria

Assistant Accounts Officer

(i) Junior Accounts Officers or equivalent in the pay scale of Rs. 5500 - 9000/- with 8 years regular service in the grade

Assistant Director (Hindi)

Promotion: Senior Translators in NHRC with 8 years regular service in the grade. Transfer on Deputation / Transfer :-

(i) Officers holding analogous posts under the Central Govt, on a regular basis; or

(ii) Persons holding posts of Senior Translator in the pay scale of Rs. 5500 – 9000 with 8 years regular service in the grade.

(*) By re-employment / short-term contract from persons who have held analogous posts under the Central Govt, on regular basis.

The period of short-term contract / re-employment O G.S.R. 609(E) dated 23rd August, 1999

Senior Translator (Hindi)

Promotion: Junior Translators in NHRC with 5 years regular service in the grade. Transfer on Deputation / Transfer :-

(i) Persons holding analogous posts on regular basis in Central Govt, and possessing qualifications prescribed for direct recruits in Column 8; or

(ii) Persons holding posts in the scale of Rs. 5000 - 8000 with 5 years regular service in the grade in Central Govt. and possessing qualifications prescribed for direct recruits in Column 8.

(*) By

held analogous posts on regular basis in the Central Govt. and possessing educational qualifications prescribed under column 8.

re-employment / short term contract from persons who have (*) GSR 609(E) dated 23rd August, 1996.

Protocol Assistant

Transfer / transfer on deputation :-

(i) Officers under the Central Govt. holding analogous posts on regular basis; or

(ii) Officers with 5 years regular service in the post in the scale of Rs.

4000-6000/- or above. Desirable:-

Experience in protocol work for two years.

By re-employment / short term contract from persons who have held analogous posts on regular basis under the Central Govt and possessing experience in Protocol work for 2 years.

The period of short-term contract / reemployment shall not exceed 2 years.

Research Assistant

Transfer on deputation / transfer-Officers under the Central Govt. / Universities/ Research Institutes.

(a) (i) holding analogous posts on regular basis; or

(ii) with 5 years regular service in a post in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 or above.

Staff Position

Criteria

Research Assistant

(a)

(b) possessing the following educational qualifications / experience;

Qualifications: Essential: Bachelor Degree from a recognized university or equivalent.

Experience: Research experience in any of the social sciences or in the application of law and procedure.

Desirable: Degree in Law from a recognized university or equivalent.

By re-employment / short-term contract from persons who have held analogous post on regular basis under the Central Govt./ Universities / Research Institutes and possessing qualifications and experience prescribed for deputationists.

The period of short-term contract / re-employment shall not exceed 2 years.

Assistant

Transfer on deputation :

Officer under the Central Government:

(i) holding analogous posts on regular basis; or

(ii) with 5 years regular service in the posts in the scale of Rs. 4000 -

6000.

Programmer Assistant

By transfer on deputation / transfer of officers holding analogous posts on regular basis in the National Informatics Center or similar organizations.

By re-employment / short-term contract from persons who have held analogous posts on regular basis in the National Informatics Center or similar organization and possessing qualifications and experience prescribed for direct recruits under column 8. The period of short-term contract / reemployment shall not exceed two years.

Junior Translator (Hindi)

By transfer on deputation / transfer of officers holding analogous posts on regular basis in the central Govt.

(*) By re-employment / short-term contract from persons who have held analogous posts on regular basis under the Central Govt. and possessing qualifications prescribed for direct recruits under column8. The period of short-term contract / re-employment shall not exceed 2 years.

(*) G.S.R. 609(E) dated 23rd August, 1999. Masters Degree in English / Hindi with Hindi / English as a compulsory and elective subject at degree level or Bachelor's degree with English / Hindi as main subjects (which includes the term compulsory and elective subject).

Junior Accountant

Transfer / transfer on deputation :-

(i) Junior Accountant having experience of departmental accounting system under Controller General of Accounts / Postal and Telegraph Accounts, Defence and Railway Accounts or Auditors under Comptroller and Auditor General.

()

Staff Position

Criteria

Junior Accountant

(i)

(ii) Failing - (i) above Upper Division Clerk in Central Secretariat Clerical Service or subordinate offices with Cash and Accounts

training conducted by the Institute of Secretariat Training and Management.

(iii) Failing (i) & (ii) both Lower Division Clerks with 5 years regular service in the grade with experience in Cash/Accounts section in the above offices.

Presenting Officer

(a) By Deputation / Absorption of a Judicial Officer who has held the post of District / Addl. District & Sessions Judge / Special Judge for a period of three years. Or

(b) By re-employment or on contract for not more than three years of a retired Judicial officer who had held the post of District / Addl. District & Sessions Judge / Special Judge for a period of three years.

Deputy Registrar

Promotion :-

Assistant Registrar / Under Secretary in NHRC with not less than 5 years regular service in that grade and having a Degree in Law.

By transfer on deputation / transfer of officers possessing a degree in Law and holding analogous post in the Central Government / Supreme Court/ High Court / Central Administrative Tribunal / Custom & Gold Tribunal / Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board OR Officers with five years regular service in the scale of pay of Rs. 10,000 - 15,200 and possessing a Degree in Law AND possessing experience of Court matters in higher Judiciary or of any other post involving interpretation / application of statutes.

By Short-term Contract / Re -Employment.

Persons who have held an analogous post under the Central Government / Supreme Court / High Court / CAT / Custom & Gold Tribunal / Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board and possessing experience of Court matters in higher judiciary or of any other post involving interpretation / application of Statutes. The period of short - term contract / re-employment shall not exceed two years

Accountant

Promotion:

Junior Accountant with 6 years experience in the Accounts Department of National Human Rights Commission.

Deputation:

holding analogous posts on regular basis: or with 5 years regular service in a post in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 / 4500-7000 or with 8 years regular service in posts in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 or equivalent; and who have undergone training in cash and accounts work in the ISTM or equivalent and possess three years experience of cash, accounts and budget work.

Those who are at the helm of affairs in a division are usually the people who are part and parcel of the system, the Government, affecting the independence of the commission.

Upon examining the above criteria for NHRC staff members, it is unsurprising that the NHRC staff functions just like any other governmental institution. You will therefore find that in the case of most of the Presenting Officers who are Presenting Officers on deputation, they are middle level officers of the commissions. Those who are at the helm of affairs in a division are usually the people who are part and parcel of the system, the Government, affecting the independence of the commission.

These government employees receive no further instruction or training and thus, understandably assume that they are hired to essentially perform the same job that they had under a different division of the government. Diversity must enter the NHRC if it is to effectively function. Moreover, the NHRC must also educate its staff about the specific and unique nature of its work.

Even if staff members are familiar with the work of the NHRC prior to their appointment, a training program is necessary to ensure that the work of the NHRC is carried out in an intentional, appropriate, and systematic manner. Currently, there is no known, compulsory induction program for staff and this leads to the ineffective, bureaucratic mindset of the NHRC. The NHRC is a special institution created precisely to fulfill the need for an additional system that is different than regular, government courts. NHRC staff members who approach their positions in the same manner as they did in their previous government positions offer no additional value and are unable to serve as protectors of victims of human rights violations.

It is unfair and impossible to expect a registrar from a regular court, with different jurisprudence to

function as a registrar of the NHRC with a victim- centered approach without adequate training. The difference in mindset becomes emphasized when examining even more political or polarizing positions. The work of police officers in investigating the potential occurrence of a crime is related, but categorically different than examining whether the line between acceptable police enforcement and the violation of a victim's rights has occurred. The latter requires a victim-centered approach that is concerned about the protection of fundamental rights of the minority, rather than a macro protector of society at large view. As such, even an honest, reputable Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) requires training to adapt his/her strong investigation skills, developed from years in the police force, to focus on the protection of human rights violations.

As part of the Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institution's Professional Development Program, the Australian Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) developed a training program for the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines (CHRP).81 The training program provides and consolidates foundational knowledge and skills necessary to investigate alleged violations of human rights. The program provides an overview of the various models of investigation and most importantly, an opportunity to clarify model(s) of investigation within the CHRP context. It also overviews key international human rights instruments, international perspectives of stages in a human rights complaint process, and considerations relevant to acceptance of matters for investigation and resolution by human rights institutions. The training program educates on key principles and procedures that guide the conduct of human rights investigations, as well as offers a model to plan investigations. The training program spends significant time thoroughly training participants on investigation strategy, skills, and documentation. However, what makes this program special is that it is prefaced and founded in the context of human rights.

81 Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission for the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, Investigating Human Rights: A training program for the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines (2005).

An investigation wing of a Human Rights Commission should not be one that comprises only of police. It is so in the NHRC of India. Human Rights investigation is different from crime investigation.

In addition to increasing the number and diversity of existing staff positions, the NHRC must also add new staff positions in order to effectively fulfill its mandate. For example, while the NHRC examines many cases of custodial violence and consequently, is responsible for sending post mortem reports, it does not have medical experts or a single doctor on its full time staff. The NHRC also does not have any clinical psychologists on staff. Additionally, positions or internships should also be created for paid law clerks or interns to assist judges in analyzing cases, writing judgments, final orders, and developing a strong jurisprudence. Evaluating and developing not only the number, but also the type, of positions the NHRC will improve the functioning of the NHRC.

Improper Hiring of Staff

An investigation wing of a Human Rights Commission should not be one that comprises only of police. It is so in the NHRC of India. These are also police drawn from CISF, BSF and Railway Police they are important wings of the police but not necessarily people who can deal Human Rights. Human Rights investigation is different from crime investigation.

In the case of an arbitrary arrest and false case on 5 trainees of a training program organized by Dalit Foundation for seeking information from a police station in Veeravanallur in the Tirunelveli District of Tamil Nadu as part of a fact finding mission, complaint was sent to the Commission. The Commission ordered an enquiry into it and one of the investigating officers sent was a Railway Police Officers who was 2 month old in the NHRC. He might be a good investigator but not in Human Rights investigation which has to start from the basic Human Rights standards. Human Rights standards are also to ensure that victims' and witnesses' rights are thoroughly protected throughout

and people should be able to understand how false cases are registered by the police. While one can be a very good crime investigator it needn't ensure that he / she is a good HR investigator. His / her handling of victims of Human Rights violations should be completely different from the manner in which he / she would deal a crime victim.

Special Rapporteurs

Seeking to multiply its capacity to monitor situations of which the NHRC had taken cognizance, follow- up on directions and recommendations, and help it discharge responsibilities entrusted to it by the Supreme Court, the NHRC began appointing Special Rapporteurs to assist in the work of the Commission in 1997-1998. They have also occasionally hired some "Special Representatives" to perform similar work.82

There is no clear system by which the NHRC Special Rapporteurs are given tasks. The NHRC website indicates that the Special Rapporteur is either given an issue or region.83 The website provides some unclear information, stating that currently only three Special Rapporteurs are appointed. Of these three, two Special Rapporteurs are responsible for monitoring a zone or area of India, while the remaining Special Rapporteur is mandated to monitor an issue. The way in which the Special Rapporteurs have been delegated geographic regions to monitor leaves the majority of India without any Special Rapporteur monitoring it. Indeed, only the central (Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, and Daman & Diu) and east zone 1 are (Sikkim, West Bengal, Orissa, Andaman & Nicobar Islands) are covered by a Special Rapporteur. Only one of these two Special Rapporteurs responsible for a zone has a tenure date. The Special Rapporteur responsible for monitoring a subject also has a tenure date. In the

82 For example, Mr. A.B. Tripathy, the Ex-DGP of Orissa served as a Special Representative, not Special Rapporteur, of the NHRC.

83 NHRC website, available at http://nhrc.nic.in. NHRC website, contact us, scroll to SR: 49

year 2008, nine different Special Rapporteurs were appointed. Sri Damodar Sarangi, IPS (Retd.) who formerly served as the Director General of Investigation of the NHRC and retired in the year 2007 was appointed as a SR on 21st January, 2008 for the East zone. Mr. R.K. Bharagava IAS (Retd.) who retired as the Secretary General of the NHRC earlier in the year 2008 has been appointed as a SR for the Central Zone on 1.4.2008. Mr. P.C. Sen IAS (Retd) who served as NHRC's Secretary General after Mr. Bharagava for a short while has been appointed as a SR for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on 17.7.2008. Ms. Asha Das, IAS (Retd) was appointed as SR on 1.2.2008, Ms. Kanchan Choudhary Battacharya, IPS (Retd) was appointed as SR for the North Zone on 25.2.2008. Ms. Sunila Basant, IAS (Retd) has been appointed as SR on 1.6.2008 for East Region. Mr. Sheo Kishore Tiwari IAS (Retd) has been appointed as SR on 21.5.2008 for North East zone. Mr. Wilfred Lakra, IAS (Retd) has been appointed as SR on 2.6.2008 for West Zone. Ms. S.K. Agnihotri IAS (Retd) has been appointed as SR for Human Rights issues relating to Civil and Political Rights on 15.7.2008.84 All were IAS / IPS officials.

The NHRC appointed its first Special Rapporteur, Mr. K.R. Venugopal, a highly regarded, eminent promoter of human rights. This was followed by the appointment of such reputable individuals such as Mr. Chaman Lal and Ms. Anuradha Mohit. These three

84 ANNI Report for the year 2009

individuals had been selected for their shown commitment to serving the country and protecting human rights. The output they produced as Special Rapporteurs further reveals their level of commitment to human rights. Reports prepared by K.R. Venugopal are available online85 and thoroughly examines the situation on the ground, issues insightful observations, strong recommendations, and sound conclusions. These reports are of a high quality and the standard for which NHRC Special Rapporteurs should strive.

While these three individuals also happened to be retired officers of the prestigious Indian Administrative Service (IAS) of the Government of India, they were also much more.86 However, in examining appointments from recent years, it seems that the NHRC has overlooked checking the actual experiences of candidates and focused exclusively on whether they had been a retired government officer.

Consequently, of the twenty-five Special Rapporteurs hired by the NHRC to investigate the human rights situation in India, all twenty-five have formerly held prestigious government posts. Specifically, fifteen former Special Rapporteurs have previously served in the highly elite, esteemed Indian Administrative Service (IAS), while the remaining six were selected from the Indian Police Service (IPS). This selection of only Indian civil service officers who have passed highly competitive, but elitist entrance

85 Sentinel-Venugopal.in, available at http://www.sentinel-venugopal.in/reports.html#four

86 Mr. Venugopal had a long, illustrious career working in several important government posts for 33 years, serving as an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer from 1962 and retiring as Secretary to the Prime Minister of India in 1995. Venugopal also served with the United Nations in 1996 as Senior Policy Adviser on Poverty Policy for SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation), designed a comprehensive Public Distribution System for the state of Andhra Pradesh aimed at food security for the poor that has come to be known popularly as the "Two rupees per KG rice schemes, and researched and published "Deliverance from Hunger – the Public Distribution System in India" in 1992. Venugopal started assisting the NHRC between 1999 and June 2006 as its Special Rapporteur in the Southern Region. Mr. Chaman Lal has served as Former Director of BSF Academy, Additional Director General of BSF and Director General of Police, Recipient of the President's Police Medal for Distinguished Service and the National Award of Padma Shri. Ms. Anuradha Mohit, Special Rapporteur for Disability, has been visually impaired since the age of 10. She is trained in special education and administration, research methodologies and music, she has served as Deputy Chief Commissioner in the office of Chief Commissioner for persons with disabilities, Government of India, Executive Director of the National Association for the Blind, India and Lecturer in Research Methodology in Fine Arts. Ms Mohit is well known as founder member of the Disabled Rights Group and has worked for the implementation of the Disabilities Act 1995 and related media campaigns. She has held positions in several disability bodies, including Convenor of the Asian and Pacific Network of Women with Disabilities, and Consultant for UNESCO on ICT and people with disabilities. Ms. Mohit has contributed immensely to the cause of people with disabilities, in areas such as inclusive education, women with disabilities, community based rehabilitation, and prevention of disability.

exams is intentional. While the clear preference for Indian Civil Service members has been evident since the NHRC's first hiring of Special Rapporteurs, it is one in which they have developed over time and more boldly and openly proclaimed.

In 1999, a letter from Secretary General Gopalaswami appointing Shri A.B. Tripathy as Special Rapporteur stated that, "The Commission has been availing the services of eminent persons in order to help the Commission in monitoring compliance at the field level (emphasis added)." 87 Whereas, in 2006, the same type of appointment letter inviting Sri Verma to serve as a Special Rapporteur from Mrs. Aruna Sharma stated that in order for the NHRC to further their mandate given under the PHRA, the "Commission has been availing of the services of very senior retired officers whose rich experience in particular areas of human rights would be of immense value."88 There is also an explicit change in the annual reports from earlier reports to 2004-2005 and 2005- 2006. Whereas earlier annual reports did not list any specific criteria for appointing Special Rapporteurs, by 2004-2005, the NHRC stated a "scheme" that, "engages eminent persons as Special Rapporteurs to function as representatives of NHRC for the concerned State in the area of civil and political rights, on human rights violations and to provide guidance to citizens regarding the provisions of the PHRA for seeking redressal from the Commission." The NHRC explicitly stated that these Special Rapporteurs are drawn from among "eminent persons who have had meritorious record of service and have retired from senior positions, both in the Indian Administrative Service and in the Indian Police Service with a commitment for human rights concerns."89

This slight but significant change in the letter indicates that retired IAS and IPS officers are synonymous with eminent persons with a meritorious record of service suitable for serving as a NHRC Special Rapporteur. While it is true that several reputable, dedicated Special Rapporteurs have been selected from among former IAS and IPS officers, limiting the pool to only these individuals reflects at best, a misunderstanding of the requirements of the Paris Principles and skills required by Special Rapporteurs to effectively investigate and monitor human rights, or even worse, a growing arrogance that they can disregard internationally mandated Paris Principles requiring pluralism and cooperation with civil society.

Not only has the NHRC's narrowing of the pool of potential candidates to retired government officials and not requiring a demonstrated commitment to human rights work resulted in many appointed Special Rapporteurs being ill-equipped to adequately perform their job, the NHRC has also failed to channel the enormous skills and talents of eminent people for this

The NHRC's intention to remain a bureaucratic government institution could explain why, despite awareness of these talented individuals and the tremendous resources that they could offer, the NHRC remains steadfast and has not hired a single civil society member to serve as a NHRC Special Rapporteur.

in examining appointments from re- cent years, it seems that the NHRC has overlooked checking the actual experi- ences of candidates and focused exclu- sively on whether they had been a retired government officer.

87 RTI response, Letter to Mr. A.B. Tripathy from Secretary General Gopalaswami dated 19 July, 1999.

88 RTI response, Letter to Mr. Verma from Mrs. Aruna Sharma dated August 23, 2006.

89 Annual reports 2004-2005; 2005-2006 - Under Administrative and Logistics, Special Rapporteur

job of SR who are not government officials. These leaders and activists, such as Dr. Haragopal, the late Dr. Balagopal, Mr. K.G. Kannabiran, Mr. Miloon Kothari, Dr. Ruth Manorama, Mr. Harsh Mander, and Ms. Teesta Setalvad, have much to offer India and the world in knowledge, passion, and expertise. Ironically, even prominent Indian leaders, such Mr. Miloon Kothari, that have been recruited to serve at the international level as a United Nations Special Rapporteur, have never been invited or even considered as a candidate to serve as a NHRC Special Rapporteur. The NHRC's intention to remain a bureaucratic government institution could explain why, despite awareness of these talented individuals and the tremendous resources that they could offer, the NHRC remains steadfast and has not hired a single civil society member to serve as a NHRC Special Rapporteur. Where did the nomenclature of SRs emanate from? It is from the UN, where they have thematic and country SRs and for those SRs there is an open roster where people can send their CVs. There is a model of how SRs should be drawn from a pool of resource persons who offer their services to the commission. The Commission looks at specialty they want and select according to that. But keeping it as a post retirement service is what we are critical about. Particularly in the context of the commission not coming forward with a Civil Society member as its SRs in the last 17 years, not wanting to appoint from or draw from the professional skill of NGO activists into the staff of NHRC. It is surprising that even in the post of SRs it is only IAS and IPS who are appointed. Pluralism, diversity and independence is therefore lost.

Despite the lack of pluralism, it is possible that the Special Rapportuers have produced some helpful and important information from investigating and monitoring the human rights situation in India. However, when asked for a listing of the visits undertaken by the NHRC Special Rapporteurs and reports written, the NHRC mysteriously responded that the reports of the Special Rapporteur are voluminous and under examination in the Commission, concluding that it would not be feasible to send the reports.90 As such highly educated and polished

Special Rapporteurs are likely to type, rather than handwrite, such "voluminous" reports, it seems that the reports could be sent in electronic form. The NHRC's response suggests that all the reports of the Special Rapporteurs, who have been engaged by the NHRC since before 2002-2003, are only now under consideration, begging the question, what use have they been put to until now?

Post Durban the NHRC had wanted a status report to be prepared on the atrocities on SC/ST people and chalk out the initiatives that could be undertaken by the NHRC. The NHRC further constituted a Dalit cell in the commission and placed it under the charge of a member one Mr. Singh. It is as a result that the report on prevention of atrocities on SC people was prepared by this SR and published in 2004 (completed in 2002). In the foreword to this book the then chair of the NHRC, Dr. A. S. Anand proposed to have this book printed in different languages. This report drew its recommendations from a variety of sources and became one of the very effective of recent studies that have been conducted on the prevention of atrocities against SC people. What is most surprising however is that this report was not felt to be a document worth sending to the UN CERD committee when the Secretary of the UN CERD Committee addressed the letter to the NHRC in the year 2006, once again pointing out the quality of reports generated by SRs which are never followed up and worst still, the institution hesitates to identify itself by placing such reports on its website or presenting such reports to the relevant UN Bodies. The Dalit Cell has not been followed up. The report was not translated and neither has the NHRC shared it in the recent 20th anniversary events related to SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act.

1. Premises (accessibility)

The Paris Principles require that the National Human Rights Commission have its own premises and that within the framework of its operation, the NHRI shall set up local or regional sections to assist it in discharging its functions. However, as mentioned previously, the one and only building of the National Human Rights Commission is in the capital city and

90 Information received in response to an RTI Petition 3215 52

Today, the entire expansive two-story palace is surrounded by gates and occupied exclusively by the NHRC. . While the members of the NHRC are located on the ground floor, complaints handling, the Secretary General, Joint Secretary, Coordinator for Training, Research, and the Director General of Investigation are all located on the first floor and inaccessible to persons with disabilities.

Starting in 1993, reports of torture, rape, and murders in the form of extra- judicial killings of poor, tribal villagers, many of Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes, by the Special Task Force (STF) steadily arose... Despite all the attention created from these public acts, the NHRC failed to inquire into the reports of tor- ture or provide any assistance.

political center of India, Delhi. Easily blending in with the many government buildings, tourist spots, and beautiful buildings near and on Copernicus Marg, the NHRC is itself located in a former palace, Faridkot House.91 Faridkot House was home to Sir Harinder Singh Brar, the Maharaja of Faridkot, as well as Commander-in-Chief of the British Army during World War II, Lord Mountbatten. The NHRC is located on busy Copernicus Marg and accessible by bus. Notably, the NHRC's closest neighbors are the Kerala government quarters, Kapurtala, official guest house for the Maharashtra government, Maharashtra Sadan,92 and the temporary housing accommodation for officers of Army, Navy, and Air Force, the Patiala House.93

Today, the entire expansive two-story palace is surrounded by gates and occupied exclusively by the NHRC. The premises are monitored like its neighboring government buildings, not allowing common citizens to enter the building unless they are allowed past the main gate blocked by police officers acting as guards. Once permitted beyond the gates, victims walk through a pristine, well-manicured lawn to enter the building. However, the color and brightness of these gardens ends at the door of the NHRC. The two story building has no elevators to the second floor and thus, the NHRC is only partially accessible to those with physical disabilities. While the members of the NHRC are located on the ground floor, complaints handling, the Secretary General, Joint Secretary, Coordinator for Training, Research, and the Director General of Investigation are all located

on the first floor and inaccessible to persons with disabilities.

The unused spaciousness of the building leaves the NHRC feeling empty. The undecorated walls of the building intimidate, rather than welcome victims and visitors. Former annual reports of the NHRC are available for review. While these reports may impress and be useful in informing government officials, victims seeking protection are unlikely to feel welcome and secure by these reports or the overall atmosphere of the NHRC.

The following experience of activist C.J. Rajan, Mr. Balamurugan and Mr. V. P. Gunasekaran and 25 victims of brutal police torture (representatives of the Campaign for Relief and Rehabilitation of victims of the Special Task Force appointed to nab forest brigand Veerappan in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka indicates the type of hardship and institutional failure that occurs when accessibility to the NHRC is so limited that the protection of human rights is left to the mercy of individual NHRC members. It illustrates the need for dramatic and immediate change in the infrastructure and culture of the NHRC. This happens very often to victim of human rights violations. This shows the lack of a victim-centred approach in the commission and also lack of an engaging receptionist and a counselor who speaks to victims that come. The NHRC's reception desk should be different - although security and verification of identity is essential there should be a welcoming attitude.

Starting in 1993, reports of torture, rape, and murders in the form of extra-judicial killings of poor, tribal villagers, many of Scheduled Tribes and

91 National Human Rights Commission, Faridkot House, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi, PIN 110001 Tel.No. 23382742 Fax No. 23384863 E-Mail: covdnhrc@nic.in, ionhrc@nic.in

92 Construction of a new, larger, official guest house for the Government of Maharashtra, the New Maharashtra Sadan, is currently undergoing construction and will be located directly opposite the NHRC.

93 Also located nearby the NHRC are the Baroda House Northern Railway Station and the Travancore Palace. 53

Scheduled Castes, by the Special Task Force (STF) steadily arose. The STF was a police force especially created to capture the famous and notorious Veerappan in the forests of Tamil Nadu. Since this time, advocates and activists from civil society began trying to provide protection and secure justice for these vulnerable victims.

They were never contacted or reached out to by the NHRC members or staff. The only protectors of human rights these victims knew were members of civil society – who due to the highly political environment at the time, were only the very strong, but few activists from NGOs. These victims had no real knowledge that the NHRC existed or that there was an institution that should be a haven of protection and security for them. It is with the help and resources of these NGOs, that many investigations, demonstrations, and panels were conducted on behalf of these victims. Despite all the attention created from these public acts, the NHRC failed to inquire into the reports of torture or provide any assistance. Finally, in 2001, the NHRC issued a Commission to take place in Tamil Nadu headed by Karnataka judge Justice Sadashiva. The first impression of the NHRC then, was created far before they ever entered the building premises; these hurt, uneducated victims initially witnessed many of the very same police officers who had raped them, stripped them naked and electrocuted them, and/or killed their husbands, proudly saluting these highly formal officials, appointed by the NHRC, seated far above them in large cushioned chairs. Rather than taking a sensitive, victim-centered approach to assessing the situation of human rights in Tamil Nadu, the Justice Sadashiva committee appointed by the NHRC both physically and emotionally distanced themselves from the vulnerable victims seeking protection. NGOs had to draw attention to their behavior and insisted that they act with sensitivity.

The Committee led by Justice Sadashiva was one of a series of panels held under the NHRC that continued until 2004. Two years after the NHRC had finished hearing statements of countless tragic and unthinkable atrocities, they had still issued no order. Despite the lack of assistance they had received, the poor, tribal victims wanted to visit the NHRC in person and demand protection. As the NHRC provides no travel, food, or lodging allowances to victims,

regardless of their level of poverty, the victims were only able to come to make the trip to the NHRC with the financial and emotional support of NGOs who comprised the campaign for the relief and rehabilitation of victims of STF violence in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.

After making the long journey from the forests of Tamil Nadu to the large, heavily populated city of Delhi in October 2006, eight vulnerable victims of intense police brutality were stopped at the main-gate and refused entrance into the very institution created wholly for their protection. Having never experienced regular Indian villagers, barefoot and simply dressed, approaching the NHRC Headquarters, the police officers guarding the NHRC didn't even let these victims past the main gate. Even at a national institution created to protect their rights, these victims were back in the control of the all-powerful police officers – the same institution of "security" that was responsible for the inhumane violations of rights these victims had suffered – and physically prevented from seeking protection.

Upon finally entering the premises, they met another cold, harsh barrier: the reception. Where a reception to a human rights institution should be warm, welcoming, and ready to handle emergencies, the NHRC reception was cold, catering to the elite, and dismissive of marginalized, poor individuals. The reception, however, as the first gateway to an institution, is just reflective of the NHRC itself. It was NHRC Chairperson Dr. A. S. Anand who, while finding time to meet with police officers and government officials, refused to see the group of victims. There was no seating area for individuals, so the victims were forced to sit on the floor and in the grounds outside. After waiting for one and a half

... in October 2006, eight vulnerable victims of intense police brutality were stopped at the main-gate and refused entrance... Having never experienced regular Indian villagers, barefoot and simply dressed... the police officers guarding the NHRC didn't even let these victims past the main gate... It was NHRC Chairperson Dr. A. S. Anand who, while finding time to meet with police officers and government officials, refused to see the group of victims.

hours, the victims were "fortunate" to run into him for a brief meeting in the corridor as he quickly fled from the premises for his lunch. Notably, while NHRC Chairperson Anand was too busy to meet with such an unpolished group of vulnerable victims, President Manmohan Singh, even while injured with a cast on his arm, made time to meet this group from Tamil Nadu desperately seeking help.

In order to finally have their meeting with Chairperson Anand, the group had to make another trip from Tamil Nadu to Delhi in November 2006. Still, no order was issued. Indeed, no compensation order would be issued while the NHRC was under the direction of Chairperson Anand because the files were "safely hidden" in the registry of the NHRC. After these two encounters in October and November, Justice Shivaraj Patil who was the senior most member after the Chair took interest, met the victims for over 2 hours, patiently listened to each of their stories solicited the members of the campaign and the victims to also meet the other members of the commission ensured that the file was brought for the full commission for hearing by which Dr. Anand completed his term as the Chair. A file, which was almost ready for 2 years, could then be disposed in 2 months. This was the result of the access the victims finally got with Shivaraj Patil intervening. It calls for the commission's quality of access - space for providing counseling and details to victims. It is noteworthy that there is no seating arrangement for visitors in the waiting hall) It was only on January 15, 2007, ten years after the NHRC first became involved and three years after it had completely finished hearing witnesses that a compensation order was finally issued by the NHRC under the direction of Acting Chairperson Shivaraj Patil.94

It took the victims of a horrendous, publicly known series of human rights violations years of public hearings, physical protection from NGOs, and numerous trips across the country to secure any form of condemnation of these acts. These victims were only able to fight for justice because they had the financial, physical, and emotional support of resourced NGOs. However, the majority of victims of human

rights violations do not have these resources; to them, the NHRC is a distant entity that is wholly unapproachable. The lack of access to the NHRC experienced by these visitors indicates that the NHRC currently provides almost no additional value to the protection and promotion of human rights for the average, poor citizens of India living far away from Delhi. People should be allowed, guided inside and should be provided information, allowed to meet the Chair. Human rights are advanced when the Chairperson is able to physically hold the dirtied hands of victims who have traveled over a thousand miles in the hope of a few words of consolation. Human rights are also attended by that and not just the pen of the Chair. The final meeting with the Chair can be preceded by the Registrar, the Counselor etc but the final words from the Chair and assurance of speedy action and sympathetic words enquiring about their health will go into the healing process. Access also in terms of information has to be looked at - from the inside to the outside and from outside to the inside. There are layers of bureaucracy that it doesn't reach the highest person and vice versa. The STF victims' group did not go without intimation. Two weeks prior to their visit, fax was sent.

The Commission should be different from the Government institutions and it should be a 'pro - victim house'. Access should also be in the presence of people speaking different languages so that there can be effective communication with people from the different states of the country. When there are no women on the Commission it reduces access as women will feel more confident and comfortable speaking to women. Anybody coming to the commission and seeing the Chair / Members of the commission walking out of the building and leaving immediately without paying them attention is not comforted by the Commission. That portrays them only as the Ambassador, Chief Justice that they previously were. Staff members are so groomed that they prevent the Chair / Members from meeting visitors. There is need for a warm welcoming place in the NHRC. Security personnel needn't be in police attire as the police are the accused in most of the

94 Justice Shivaraj Patil served as the Acting Chairperson of the NHRC from the 1st of November 2006 to 2nd of April 2007 when Justice Rajendra Babu was appointed as the Chairperson of the NHRC.

complaints that the NHRC receives and are seen by victims as symbols of violence. A Dispensary for victims who might come with injuries and a place where they can stay the night if they are traveling from far with some advance booking arrangement is also essential. Human Rights also have a very strong humanitarian concern component built into it. It cannot be brought just through law, judgments and there is a need for 'human' beings in the NHRC. Attire of the persons in the Commission should not be intimidating to the victims.

For the vast majority of citizens of India who will never be able to make the journey to the NHRC premises in Delhi, the NHRC has created a website designed to give wider accessibility to the public through an "online" premise.95 However, as recent as June 14, 2010, the first thing a visitor reads is a running line stating, "There is no provision for membership/registration/affiliation/enrolment of NGOs and individuals with the NHRC. Hence no request on these issues will be entertained by the Commission." This strong message is not only in direct violation of the Paris Principles, encouraging a strong relationship between the NHRIs and civil society, it provides a strong warning to the many NGOs that are working on behalf of many computer illiterate, poor victims. Indeed, as the vast majority of Indians, in particular the more than 75% marginalized, rural poor people still living in poverty,96 are unlikely to have access to the internet or sufficient English or computer literacy, the NHRC website does little to improve their access to the NHRC without the help of civil society.

While the webpage is neat and organized, it is devoid of any pictures and full of English text. The website is not available in any regional languages. It

should at least have a Hindi version - this indicates an intentional unwillingness to improve access to the website. The left side of the website lists the available contents, with the right side stating some important recent headlines entitled, "News Update/What's new." On June 14, 2010, two headlines report that the NHRC has take suo moto cognizance on cases of poisonous manholes and polluted water and issued notices to government officials of these findings. A third headline reports a long-awaited happy ending for a small village in Rajasthan when the Home Ministry stated that it had no objection if the name of the village 'Chamaron Ka Vas' is changed back to 'Kuwan Ka Vas'.97

While these steps prove positive, the website also hints at the political influence over theNHRC. The website proudly reports their appointment of a new Chairperson, the controversial, widely-contested former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India Balakrishnan. The NHRC also reports on the highly politicized incidents of "police encounters," in which police allege to have killed an individual in self-defense, but which evidence often suggests are actually intentional murders or fake "encounters" by police. After investigating cases, the NHRC reports finding only 27 fake "encounters" by police in the over 2,956 cases registered with the NHRC since the NHRC's inception in October 12, 1993 to April 31, 2010. In the last 17 years, the NHRC has only made efforts to complete investigations of 1,846 cases of the possible murders, leaving 1,110 cases, or 38%, of

While the webpage is neat and organized, it is devoid of any pictures and full of English text. The website is not available in any regional languages.

95 The NHRC website, titled, "National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, India" is available at http:// nhrc.nic.in/.

96 According to an estimate by the Planning Commission

97 The article posted by the NHRC notes, "It is highly frustrating that a matter which was represented against in the year 2006 has dragged on, on account of the bureaucratic rigmarole. If enough sensitivity had been displayed, the name of the village could have been changed much earlier and the feelings of a particular community could have been assuaged."

possible murders in unlawful extra-judicial killings in various stages of incompletion.98

Despite the website's failure to build initial confidence in the NHRC, those able to access the NHRC website can learn a great deal about the NHRC and its available resources. Through the website, individuals from across the country, and internationally, can read the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, access selected library resources of the NHRC, including issues of the Journal of the National Human Rights Commission, learn about available human rights courses and their internship program, and read important decisions, lectures, and speeches. Also, the website has a very useful function in allowing complaints to be registered directly online.

Despite this positive wealth of information available through the NHRC website, the website is missing real, substantive information that can assist victims immediately. Even an experienced activist, Mr. S. Anand of the Anti-Corruption Forum of Karnataka reported having problems gaining information from the National Human Rights Commission. He complained that the rules of the NHRC are not available on the website. "On the website there is a huge lack of information." He stated that it is necessary for the Commission to clarify rules regarding even the basic definition of what exactly constitutes a human rights violation to more detailed questions regarding circumstances in which victims can be denied entrance into Magistrate courts. If even experienced activists are not able to capture essential information required to effectively utilize the NHRC, the NHRC website would only marginally, if at all, improve accessibility to the NHRC for average and poor Indian citizens, silenced by the political climate and suffering from a lack of education, wealth, and resources. An archive of all decisions of the NHRC with full text and summary of orders that would constitute jurisprudence by the NHRC of India is not there. For students, lawyers visiting the website, it should be a place for generating new jurisprudence for human rights and that is not seen here. NHRC has practice guidelines / directions for complaints handling (give headings here) but these are not made available there. If the Commission is providing

quarterly information on expenditure, it should give the latest and why should it be quarter. Item 14 under the sub link RTI is wrong - not all their information is in soft copy and not all orders which are all available in e form are uploaded on the website and not all their SR reports are available on the website. In Item No.16 there is information on a facilitation centre but the telephone number or email id has not been provided. These are instances to show that the website has to be better equipped.

NHRC has encounter guidelines and it says that it should receive half yearly reports from states. Why can't these reports or at least status of reporting on whether the States following the guidelines and if they are effective too, be uploaded on the website?

All materials relating to the ICC on NHRIs which public should have access to, as they are invited to make shadow reports, are not found on the website

Section on reports has no posting after 2005. This has only reports of Mr. Chaman Lal, a former Special Rapporteur of the Commission. This is why the reports of another Special Rapporteur Mr. K. R. Venugopal had to be posted on his own website the Sentinel99.

In the prison population statistics given on the website, the figures that are there are as old as 30 June 2008 and not current

Nowhere are statistics current on the website. There is no Human Rights Education material / teaching module, excepting for the publications. These are essential because the mandate is to protect and promote

If applications for information under the RTI Act have to be reduced the Commission would essentially have to put all institutional material on the website. There is no information on the NHRC core group, not even a mention. Even minutes of the meetings of the full commission, if uploaded, can help Civil Society analyse what the areas covered are but it is not done.

The website also does not have a link to the National Commission for Women, National Commission for Minorities, the Central Information

98 Out of 1846 cases, NHRC finds 27 encounters by police as fake since its inception in 1993 till the 31st April, 2010, http://nhrc.nic.in/dispArchive.asp?fno=2040.

99 Can be accessed at www.sentinel-venugopal.in

Commission and the National Commission on Protection of Child Rights

The NHRC has also envisioned a phone helpline after office hours but many a time it goes unanswered and the persons manning it are not conversant in languages other than Hindi hampering this method of reaching out to people. The hotline is not always available and is often unresponsive, this system works very poorly.100

Other than the website and the dysfunctional helpline, it seems that the NHRC has made no further efforts to ensure accessibility to the broader population, or even those individuals or communities more likely to be exposed to or victims of human rights violations, such as women, ethnic, linguistic, religious, and other minorities, persons with disabilities, non- nationals, or the impoverished. The NHRC has made no advertisements in newspapers, televisions, or movie previews. The NHRC has not issued any informational posters to Collector's offices or the Superintendent of Police offices at the district or taluk level telling common people when and how they can approach the NHRC or the SHRCs or the nodal officers. This lack of awareness and understanding of the NHRC and its functions further contributes to the current lack of accessibility to the NHRC. The slowly growing awareness that has arisen is largely from civil society, encouraging victims to seek assistance from the NHRC.

2. Budget

The NHRC must be adequately funded in order to perform its functions under the mandate of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. The Paris Principles state that the NHRI shall have adequate funding and not be subject to financial control that might affect its independence. The ICC developed some criteria to clarify what "adequate funding" by the state requires. First, provisions of adequate funding by the state must include, as a minimum: 1) allocation of funds for adequate remuneration, at least its head office, 2) salaries benefits awarded to its

100 The hotline as on 17.11.2010 was +91- 9810298100

101 PHRA, Section 12.

staff comparable to public service salaries and conditions, 3) remuneration of Commissioners (where appropriate), and 4) establishment of communications systems including telephone and internet.

In addition, the ICC provides that adequate funding should ensure the gradual and progressive realization of the improvement of the organization's operations and the fulfillment of their mandate. This then, suggests that adequate funding requires consideration of factors, such as the dramatically rising number of complaints, and appropriately increases funding to account for the growing need of staff to fulfill its complaints-handling functions.101

While the NHRI may seek funding from external sources, such as from development partners, these grants should not compose the core funding of the NHRI. The ICC observed that it is the responsibility of the state to ensure the NHRI's minimum activity budget in order to allow it to operate towards fulfilling its mandate. They further state that financial systems should be such that the NHRI has complete financial autonomy. This should be a separate budget line over which it has absolute management and control.

Chapter VII of the PHRA, 1993, entitled "Finance, Accounts, and Audit," sets out rules for ensuring adequate funding for the NHRC. The PHRA does not allow the NHRC to develop or submit for approval a budget of its own making. Rather, under Section 32, the NHRC receives funds by the Central Government only after Parliament appropriates funds by law on behalf of the Commission. Monetary grants are given to the Commission by the Central Government in the amount which the Central Government may think fit for being utilized for the purposes of meeting its mandate.102

While the NHRC is allowed to manage and utilize the funds granted to it by the Government of India, the NHRC is guaranteed almost no influence in developing their financial budget.

102 PHRA, Article 33 states the same procedure at the state level for funding the State Commissions. After appropriation of funds is determined by the state legislature, the state governments provide grants to the State Commission.

While the NHRC is allowed to manage and utilize the funds granted to it by the Government of India, the NHRC is guaranteed almost no influence in developing their financial budget. Notably, the NHRC has no legally-mandated power, either in the PHRA or the NHRC (Procedural) Regulations, 1994 (amended in 1997). The NHRC requires a provision that protects its right to have a direct, independent opportunity to propose a budget that communicates the needs and plans of the Commission, and demand the funds it requires to adequately fulfill its mandate. The lack of legal provisions that ensure the effective, meaningful participation of the NHRC not only undermines the independence of the NHRC, but leaves the government with a great void of knowledge while forming its budget.

However, the NHRC has reported that before the proposed budget is presented for approval by Parliament, the Commission's budget is developed by the Central government through a specially constituted "Steering Committee of the NHRC."103 This Committee, responsible for approving the Commission's budget, is headed by the Chairperson of NHRC and consists of two members of the Commission in rotation, Secretary (Expenditure) from the Ministry of Finance serving as Secretary of the Committee. After the budget is approved by the Steering Committee, it is sent to the Ministry of Home Affairs for inclusion in the "Demand for Grant" of the budget document. This is placed before Parliament, along with the Union Budget. The NHRC further reported that upon approval from Parliament, the funds are allocated to the NHRC in the form of monetary grants by the Ministry of Home Affairs.104 Section 34(2) states that the Commission is permitted to spend as much of these granted funds as it deems

103 RTI 3306. Follow up RTI folder.

fit for performing its functions and exercising its powers, and money spent from these aforementioned grants shall be treated as "expenditure payable."105

Even if the NHRC has this limited opportunity to shape the development of its budget, it is not sufficient in the face of the large, powerful influence of the Government of India. So, while the management and expenditure of allocated funds rests with the NHRC, the determination of how much funding is required to fulfill the Commission's mandate is overwhelmingly controlled by the limited knowledge and discretion of the government.

Notably, while the Paris Principles state that the NHRI should be predominantly funded by the state, it allows some funding from external sources. However, the NHRC currently receives 100% of its funding from the Central Government of India.106

The lack of real, effective control of the NHRC in developing its budget manifests in an inadequate budget reflecting the government's ignorance in allocating funds adequate for fulfilling the depth and scope of the functions entrusted to the NHRC and a constant under-appreciation of the continual, often dramatic changes in its workload. For example, while the number of complaints filed with the NHRC has continually increased since its origination, the budget has not been adjusted to reflect these dramatic changes. Under-funded and drowning in work, even a well-intentioned NHRC would be left overwhelmed and resigned that the tasks before them are beyond their ability.

While the NHRC's budget has increased over time, it has not been adjusted sufficiently to allow the NHRC to fulfill its mandate. The NHRC requires more qualified, competent, and compassionate staff dedicated to protecting and promoting human rights. The NHRC requires not only the existing staff to be provided adequate remuneration through salary and benefits, but also more staff to be recruited to fulfill

Under-funded and drowning in work, even a well-intentioned NHRC would be left overwhelmed and resigned that the tasks before them are beyond their ability.

104 Complete budget information has been produced by the NHRC for the years 2007, 2008, and 2009.

105 PHRA, Article 34(2). Article 33(2), likewise, treats the use of these sums as "expenditure payable" at the state level.

106 Response from NHRC to an RTI petition on EIDHR funding proposal 59

... although the number of complaints filed with the NHRC has increased dramatically every year since the establishment of the NHRC, from a mere 487 to almost 100,000 in 2009, the hiring of staff responsible and equipped to handle these complaints has not increased proportionately, or more importantly, adequately.

Human Rights and the budget for NHRC being dealt by this ministry (of Home Affairs) conveys that Human Rights is controlled by those who control Law Enforcement Officials.

its functions and serve the people of India. For example, although the number of complaints filed with the NHRC has increased dramatically every year since the establishment of the NHRC, from a mere 487 to almost 100,000 in 2009, the hiring of staff responsible and equipped to handle these complaints has not increased proportionately, or more importantly, adequately. The Ministry of Home Affairs however is the Ministry that looks after subjects like border management, internal security, in turn meaning police, law & order etc, foreigners, immigration and it also

has a Human Rights division dealing with matters related to communal harmony, assistance to victims of terrorist violence, the NHRC, international governance, a whole set of laws, the UN Decade on Human Rights Education etc. It is very unfair that Human Rights is placed in the Ministry of Home Affairs which deals with the AFSPA. Human Rights and the budget for NHRC being dealt by this ministry conveys that Human Rights is controlled by those who control Law Enforcement Officials. It is a mismatch. If the NHRC is a recommending organization, it should report to the highest level and it should therefore be to the Prime Minister's Office.

This is not only reflected in the case load of staff members, but also the backlog of pending cases and decreasing quality of jurisprudence.107 The table below (Table 4.3) details the amount of granted funding and expenditures by the NHRC from its establishment in 1993 until 2010, as well as the number of complaints received by the NHRC.

Table 4.3 Allocation of Funding and Expenditures by the NHRC (1993-2007)

Year

1993-1994

1994-1995

1995-1996

1996-1997

1997-1998

1998-1999

1999-2000

2000-2001

2001-2002

2002-2003

2003-2004

2004-2005

2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

Plan Funding

Non-Plan Funding

Total Budget Expenditures

150 Lakhs 94.6 Lakhs

-- NA

225 Lakhs 216 Lakhs

No. of complaints received by NHRC

496

11,153

100 Lakhs

188 Lakhs

1033 Lakhs

1070 Lakhs

1228 Lakhs

1348 Lakhs

-- -- 16,823

450 Lakhs

650 Lakhs --

650 Lahks

620 Lakhs 566.08 Lakhs

720 Lakhs 693.05 Lahks

860 Lakhs 817.62 Lakhs

1133 Lakhs 1061.15 Lakhs

1158 Lakhs 1063.51 Lakhs

1228 Lakhs 1119.82 Lakhs

1348 Lakhs 1322.50 Lakhs

107 See Chapter on Quasi-jurisdictional Functions 60

The NHRC of India serves over 1 billion individuals. The Government of India must take seriously the broad and demanding mandate of the NHRC and dramatically and appropriately increase its funding and resources to the NHRC. Moreover, while funding should be monitored to ensure accountability, the NHRC should be allowed greater participation in shaping their budget to meet their needs and maintain independence. An adequate budget, responsibly and transparently used, is required for the NHRC to be effective in protecting and promoting human rights and serve the over 1 billion people living in India. NHRCs budgets should be in relation to its functions. The functions of the NHRC are many. It is not only complaints handling. It is also to intervene in any proceeding involving human rights violations before any court with its approval. This task means the identification of several litigations in courts all over the country and the possibility of NHRC intervening in them to provide the best available Human Rights standards, the opportunity to influence judgments at various courses with the highest available national and international Human Rights standards and norms - this requires high quality lawyers, almost working full time and researchers. The Law has been amended in 2005 giving them opportunity to visit jails

and other institutions where people are detained. For this to be done effectively the NHRC needs resources to appoint people to visit persons in jail. Studying treaties calls for major intervention of NHRC because India is always late in its periodic reports to the UN bodies and in the absence of the country doing it, an independent commission should be able to send a Shadow Report on how the country is doing. The NHRC not providing this will be construed as lack of independence. For this work highly qualified researchers are needed to look at facts across the country, follow activities of NGOs in the country and produce a report. There is no money for this and the NHRC does not do this. By now the commission should have had an effective research wing to create awareness. Research scholarships for students should have been issued and resources are needed for that. Research is currently being looked at from the point of view of a Judge or a law enforcement official and not as a promoter of human rights. If that had happened the Commission would have come out with advertisements, TV programs etc. The country needs resources for human rights and the NHRC is the one to do it. The NHRC should have created a constituency for itself outside. It should invest in both houses of Parliament and in political parties and that is still not done.

CHAPTER V

Executive Summary: Quasi-Jurisdictional Function

cases in a single day. With no increase at all in the number of members responsible for disposal of these cases, it is no surprise that the quality of complaints handling is suffering greatly.

The Commission, however, maintains that they have not had problems disposing of hundreds of cases they receive and that they review and give orders in approximately 60-80 cases per day. If true, the limited number of members and the enormous case load of the Commission indicates that even working 16 hours, twice the average workday, and disposing of the minimum 60 cases per day, each complainant receives less than 30 minutes of the five Commission members attention before a pivotal decision on whether a human rights violation has occurred and any potential recommendations.

Given the other tasks of Commission members, the actual time spent on each case is far less than 30 minutes. Not only does the lack of attention the Commission gives to each complaint draw attention to the low quality of complaints-handling, even where the Commission addresses large, high-profile cases, the Commission often fails to take a bold or courageous stand or develop a strong jurisprudence. Rather than pushing the country to incorporate and exercise existing human rights standards and laws existing in this country or develop new standards or encourage adoption of international human rights standards, the Commission remains silent in the face of precious opportunities to foster an human rights jurisprudence that can not only provide relief to victims, but promote human rights for all Indians.

The 487 cases that were received during the first year of the Commission's establishment have dramatically escalated to approximately 400 cases in a single day. With no increase at all in the number of members responsible for disposal of these cases, it is no surprise that the quality of complaints handling is suffering greatly.

V. QUASI-JURISDICTIONAL FUNCTIONS

Legal Authority of the NHRC's Quasi- jurisdictional Functions

The Paris Principles state that a national institution may be authorized to hear and consider complaints and petitions concerning individual situations. Cases may be brought before it by individuals, their representatives, third parties, non-governmental organizations, and associations of trade unions or any other representative organizations. The functions entrusted to them may be based on the following principles: a) Seeking an amicable settlement through conciliation or, within the limits prescribed by the law, through binding decisions or, where necessary, on the basis of confidentiality; b) Informing the party who filed the petition of his rights, in particular the remedies available to him, and promoting his access to them; c) Hearing any complaints or petitions or transmitting them to any other competent authority within he limits prescribed by the law; and d) Making recommendations to the competent authorities, especially by proposing amendments or reforms of the laws, regulations and administrative practices, especially if they have created the difficulties encountered by the persons filing the petitions in order to assert their rights.

The legal authority for the NHRC's quasi- jurisdictional functions is derived from the NHRC's founding law, PHRA, and the procedure for ensuring its effective functioning has been subsequently provided for in the NHRC (Procedure) Regulations, 1994 (amended in 1997) and periodically issued Practice Directions.

Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993

The mandate and accompanying power to conduct quasi-jurisdictional functions are granted under

Chapter III, Sections 12(a) and 13 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. Section 12(a) of the PHRA provides that the NHRC shall inquire suo motu or on a petition presented to it by a victim or any person on his behalf, into complaint of (i) violation of human rights or abetment thereof or (ii) negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant; (b) intervene in any proceeding involving any allegation of violation of human rights pending before a court with the approval of such court. Further, the Commission may intervene in any proceeding involving any allegation of violation of human rights pending before a court with the approval of such court.

Taking seriously the Commission's responsibility to investigate complaints and wanting to ensure that it would be able to effectively conduct inquiries, the Commission has been granted all the powers of a civil court trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In particular in respect of the following matters, namely (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examine them on oath; (b) discovery and production of any document; (c) receiving evidence on affidavits; (d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or office; (e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents; (f) any other matter which may be prescribed.

The PHRA was amended in 2006 to permit the transfer of complaints from the NHRC to state human rights commissions (SHRCs) under Section 13(6), where the Commission considers it necessary or expedient to transfer any complaint filed or pending before it to the State Commission of the State from which the complaint arises, for disposal in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Section (7) provides that every complaint transferred under sub-section (6) shall be dealt with and disposed of by the State Commission as if it were a complaint initially filed before. While it is beneficial to work with the SHRCs, this provision undercuts the discretion of complainants who want to pursue their claims with the NHRC in light of its expertise and greater resources.

Taking seriously the Commission's re- sponsibility to investigate complaints and wanting to ensure that it would be able to effectively conduct inquiries, the Commis- sion has been granted all the powers of a civil court trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section 15 also establishes that all newly registered complaints shall be placed before the commission for pre- liminary consideration as expedi- tiously as possible, but in no case, later than seven days from the date of its receipt.

NHRC (Procedure) Regulations, 1994 (amended in 1997)

In addition to the PHRA, the Commission has promulgated internal regulations, the NHRC (Procedure) Regulations, 1994 (amended in 1997), which states the procedure to be followed in handling complaints. In particular, Section 8 establishes that in dealing with complaints and suo motu actions, complaints may be made to the Commission in English or Hindi, but the NHRC may also entertain complaints in any other language included in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution. The Commission does not charge fees for submitting complaints. The complaint shall disclose a complete picture of the matter leading to the complaint. The Commission may seek further information/affidavit as may be considered necessary.

Section 9 of the regulations also restricts which complaints would not ordinarily be entertained by the Commission and thus, may be dismissed in limine. Accordingly, the Commission may only dismiss complaints in limine that are illegible, vague, anonymous or pseudonymous, trivial or frivolous, barred under section 36(1) of the Act,108 barred under section 36(2)109 of the Act. Further, the Commission may dismiss in limine cases in which the allegation is not against any public servant, or the issue raised relates to a civil dispute, such, as property rights or contractual obligations, service matters, or labour/ industrial disputes. Cases may also be dismissed if the allegations do not make out any specific violation of human rights, or if the matter is already sub judice before a Court/Tribunal, covered by a judicial verdict/ decision of the Commission, or outside the purview of the Commission on any other ground.

Section 15 also establishes that all newly registered complaints shall be placed before the commission for preliminary consideration as expeditiously as possible, but in no case, later than seven days from the date of its receipt. Complaints requiring urgent consideration shall be placed before the Commission, as far as possible, within 24 hours of its receipt. Notably, Section 32 of the NHRC (Procedural) Regulations strips parties of the right to review an order or proceedings of the Commission.

Practice Directions

It should be noted that, many of these practice directions are not being followed today. ...the NHRC has stopped identifying problem areas and has no longer issued new, relevant practice directions to improve the func- tioning of the NHRC

The NHRC has also issued a series of guidelines under the name of "Practice Directions" for providing more clarity on its functioning. The directions were largely issued in the early years of the NHRC under the leadership of Chairperson Justice Mr. M.N. Venkatachaliah and discussed and set out procedure for dealing with a wide range of concerns, such as recommendations for grants of interim relief and punishment, fast-track movement of urgent cases, processing of cases of custodial death, and compliance of recommendations. The practice direction states the existing or potential problem it seeks to address. It assigns procedure, responsibilities, and time frames. For example, on 24 February 1998, the NHRC issued "Practice Direction No. 7" on transferring cases. These directions state that in cases in which complaints have been simply transmitted for taking appropriate action without calling for action taken reports, the Law Division may select and make a list of such cases at the end of each quarter and 2% of all such cases, selected by a systematic sample along with the particulars of the orders made by the Commission, will be sent to the Investigation Division.

108 36(1) provides that the Commission shall not inquire into any matter which is pending before a State Commission or any other Commission duly constituted under any law for the time being in force.

109 36(2) provides that the Commission or the State Commission shall not inquire into any matter after the expiry of one year from the date on which the act constituting violation of human rights is alleged to have been committed.

Notably, the practice directions state that on receipt of these cases, the Director General of Investigation shall cause enquiries to be made in respect of cases to find out whether the authorities to whom the petitions are transmitted have indeed taken any action or not. Further, a report of the results of the monitoring will be placed before the Commission every quarter.

It should be noted that, many of these practice directions are not being followed today. Further, after Justice Venkatachaliah's tenure, the NHRC has stopped identifying problem areas and has no longer issued new, relevant practice directions to improve the functioning of the NHRC110.

People's Watch, a human rights organization in India, transmitted to the NHRC 551 cases of human rights violations within the period from 2005 to 2010. These cases are presented here as a case study of how the NHRC receives and processes complaints of human rights violations. Below are the findings in the critical aspects of the NHRC's duties.

Demographic Information

Of the 551 reported human rights violations that this study looked at, 53.5% of victims belonged to Scheduled Castes, and 5.6% were members of Scheduled Tribes. A vast majority (77.9%) of the complainants were Hindus; 4.7% were Christian, and the religion of 13.1% of complainants was unknown. 62.8% of complainants were male and between the ages of 20 and 39. Of the 46 classifications of violations, the most common violation by far was police torture (48.6% of cases), followed by Dalit Atrocities (10.5%), and Caste Discrimination (9.1%)

Classification of Victims: Age-wise

27.1

23.9

14.6

12.5

10.7

2.2

1 – 10

11 – 20

21 – 30

31 – 40 Age

41 – 50

50+ multiple

110 See Practice Directions of the NHRC in Annexure 65

% Percentage

Classification of Victims: Caste-wise

4.9

15.5

5.6

12.4

SC Parayar

Adi Dravida

8.7

Arunthathiyar

Backwards Caste

SC Pallar

Classification : Religion Wise

1.9

2.4

4.7

13.3

77.6

Multiple

Unknown

Muslim

Hindu

Christian

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Percentage

Religion

Accessibility

The NHRC does make an initial response to most cases by way of acknowledging receipt and informing the complainant of the number assigned to them. Of the 551 complaints lodged by People's Watch from 2005 to 2010, 519 were accepted and assigned a case number. However, In 39 cases, no response has been received to date.

The average time that these cases have been on the file is 793 days but the waiting times in these cases range from 378 - 1859 days and still pending.

Investigation and Fact-Finding

The NHRC rarely uses its investigatory powers. In the 551 cases in this study, they did not conduct a single investigatory visit, nor did they hold even a single hearing.

Transfers to Other Bodies

The NHRC transferred 237 of the total complaints to other bodies during the time period. This represents 45.7% of the 519 accepted cases.

The NHRC sent 70 cases to the Tamil Nadu SHRC. They also sent 147 to various "Concerned Authorities" which means that the complaint was referred for disposal mostly to police authorities. This is indeed a matter of concern since most of the complaints involved police authorities as perpetrators. There have been several instances when the NHRC refers the complaint to the very same person against whom the complaint was made. Many victims have also experienced reprisals from their perpetrators because of this practice.

Cases that have not been dismissed or transferred are almost always deemed closed after the "concerned authorities" reported back to the NHRC that the matter has been resolved.

Dismissal of cases under Section 36 of the Human Rights Act

Of the accepted cases, the NHRC rejected 73 (14.1%) of them under Section 36 of the Human Rights Act. This section allows for dismissal of cases which either i) are under review by a State or other Commission, or ii) allege events that happened more than a year prior to the complaint.

It should be noted that only 4 of the 73 cases dismissed under Section 36 had passed the time limitation and there is no evidence to indicate that any of the cases were being reviewed by another commission.

Timeliness

The average waiting time for an initial response – a communication indicating receipt and acceptance of the complaint – from the Commission is 66 days, but some waited up to a maximum of 884 days.

After an initial response is received and the NHRC has accepted the complaint and forwarded it to a "concerned authority", the average waiting time to receive the report from the "concerned authority" is 316 days.

The average total time from the NHRC's acknowledgment of receipt as initial response to the final disposition of the case is 322 days.

By Violation

Peoples Watch submitted complaints regarding 46 different types of violations. Of these 46 violations the shortest average wait time to receive an initial response was 13 days for cases of ethnic clashes, and the longest average wait time for an initial response was 173 days on a report of violations against a person in a Prison in Karur, Tamil Nadu.

By Caste

294

300

250

200

150

100

156

143

105

118

MBC SC

Series1

General /FC

Multiple

Series2

How the NHRI carries out this complaints handling function in practice (i.e. an overview of the mechanisms and procedures adopted to receive, investigate, and handle complaints received).

a.Failure to carry out complaints handling function in practice

The complaints handling procedure is managed by the Law Division, which is headed by the Registrar (Law). The Registrar (Law) is assisted by a Joint Registrar, Deputy Registrars, Assistant Registrars, and others. There are also four Presenting Officers coming from the subordinate judiciary, who assist the Commission in fulfilling its very important complaints handling function.

While there is more than enough legal basis upon which the NHRC has been empowered to handle and act on complaints on human rights violations, the

NHRC has unfortunately failed to carry out effectively this function.

Despite the number of cases received by the NHRC increasing dramatically from just 487 in the year of its establishment in 1993 to an incredible 100,000 in 2009, there has been no proportionate

While there is more than enough legal basis upon which the NHRC has been empowered to handle and act on complaints on human rights violations, the NHRC has unfortunately failed to carry out effectively this function.

India has thousands of human rights organisations and human rights de- fenders who may be brought into the NHRC or partner with NHRC to add a human rights perspective in handling these complaints.

increase in staff or resources. In fact, the NHRC is not even permanently staffed to full capacity. At a minimum, the NHRC has not even taken advantage of the procedures provided to it under Section 12(a) and 13 of the PHRA to handle complaints and has not put in place a system that will ensure that victims have a source to secure justice and protection against human rights violations, as was first envisioned by the creation of the NHRC.

All staff in the NHRC's division tasked to handle complaints are court staff. While knowledge and expertise on legal procedures may be necessary to handle these complaints, it is also important to consider the human rights aspect of these cases. As mentioned earlier, India has thousands of human rights organisations and human rights defenders who may be brought into the NHRC or partner with NHRC to add a human rights perspective in handling these complaints. Upon receiving a complaint, it is not enough to pass this complaint through a process of legal procedures. More often than not, it would also be necessary to undertake fact-finding missions, investigation, and even do the simple task of talking to the victim, which the NHRC does not do in this process.

It is absolutely necessary that a careful reading of the complaint is done from a human rights perspective. It is also doubtful if any of the members of the NHRC ever peruse over these complaints on their own.

Procedure for Registering and Processing a Complaint

The majority of complaints received by the NHRC come directly from victims, or their representatives. A minority of cases are taken suo moto under the Commission's powers under Section 12(a) of the PHRA. The complaint must be in writing, either in the suggested format111 or in any other format that is complete with all details.

The complaint first requires the complainant's information, including name, sex, and full address, complete with pin code, district, and state, and the incident details, including the date and location of the incident. Next, the victim's complete details are required, including the number of victim(s), the name of the victim(s), full address, sex, religion, caste, age, whether person has a disability. The complainant must provide a brief summary of the facts/allegations of human rights involved. Specific questions seek information on whether the complaint is against a member of the Armed Forces/paramilitary and whether a similar complaint has been previously filed before any Court/State Human Rights Commission. Finally, the complainant must include what prayer or relief he or she is seeking. The NHRC offers a mobile phone number which may be called after office hours and this is made public on its website which victims may seek to help to register complaints or pass on vital information to the commission.

Upon receiving a complaint, a single member of the NHRC immediately ranks complaints according to their importance either issues a notice thereon and/ or places the complaint before a full commission, either before a single bench, division bench, or a full bench. Notices are sent to the relevant government authorities, the investigation wing, or a Special Rapporteur of the NHRC.

Reports received from the government are rarely sent to the concerned complainants for their comments. Occasionally, where the complainant insists, parties are given a hearing, which had previously been held in an open court. Lastly, final recommendations are passed.

More often than not, it would also be necessary to undertake fact-finding missions, investigation, and even do the simple task of talking to the victim, which the NHRC does not do in this process.

111 NHRC complaint format, available at http://nhrc.nic.in/Documents/Compformat.pdf 69

A majority of complaints are dis- missed by the NHRC wholly on the basis of state responses or police reports that deny the violation.

A majority of complaints are dismissed by the NHRC wholly on the basis of state responses or police reports that deny the violation. Often, in cases of custodial death and custodial rape, the police are registered as complainants because they are obliged by law to report the cases within 24 hours. Though there are no guidelines prohibiting the registration of multiple complainants in cases before the NHRC, and indeed there are numerous examples of multiple- complainant cases, in practice, in cases in which the police are registered as complainants, families of the specific victims are precluded from bringing their claims since another party has already brought them. There is no legal basis for this peculiar practice, and it does have grave implication. Not only does this deny victims and their families a chance for a fair hearing of their claims, but it also allows the police, as registered complainants, to control the prosecution of claims against their very own members. This regularly leads to an illegitimate dismissal of case, even though clear evidence can be easily procured to prove the perpetrator's guilt.

The experience of prejudicial treatment precluding consideration of a complaint was experienced by Mr. Suhas Chakma, of the Asian Centre for Human Rights, who while filing several cases with the NHRC was never provided a single opportunity to review and rebut the police's response.112 One such case handled by Mr. Chakma involved the alleged torture of six individuals by the Assam Rifles in 2005. Relying on solely the state's reply, the NHRC went on to close the complaint without affording Mr. Chakma a hearing or access to the state's reply. Mr. Chakma later petitioned for information on this case, using the Right to Information Act. The information that was revealed was that the police's report had corroborated the victims' claims of police torture.

As mentioned earlier, the procedure of the NHRC involves sending the complaint to "concerned authorities", which more often than not, would be the very police authorities named in the complaint as the perpetrators. What happens therefore is that the complainant or the victim is called by the "concerned authority" into his office and is made to discuss the complaint with the perpetrator. Some examples of cases are provided below to illustrate.

forcing a victim to confront, without any protection, the perpetrator is a highly traumatic experience. More- over, it reveals the true dynamics of human rights protection that leaves the victim feeling betrayed, vulnerable, and cheated of his dignity.

This masked backdoor, prejudicial, internal processing of complaints is a mockery of the mandate of the NHRC. A supposed protector of human rights must be an ally for victims, not a partner to potential perpetrators. At a minimum, the NHRC's current practices result in delays due to improper handling of complaints. More importantly, forcing a victim to confront, without any protection, the perpetrator is a highly traumatic experience. Moreover, it reveals the true dynamics of human rights protection that leaves the victim feeling betrayed, vulnerable, and cheated of his dignity.

The current procedure of the NHRC lacks sensitivity for the victims of human rights violations. When such encounters take place between the victims and the alleged perpetrator, what actually takes place is that the only hope of an alternate institution on which the victim genuinely relied upon no longer exists for the victim. And the victim is left almost at a stage where he or she wants to settle the matter and buy peace since he or she realizes that it is better to buy peace than to fight for the enforcement of a human right that he or she thought was possible.

Since the NHRC is a public institution, the status of cases registered with the NHRC must be accessible to the public. Compared to the prior unacceptable

112 Human Rights Watch inter view with Suhas Chakma, ACHR office, New Delhi , December 6, 2008 featured in a publication titled Broken System http://www.hrw.org/en/node/84624/section/8 - _ftn357#_ftn357

The Police Search of the People's Watch Office in Tamil Nadu

To take an example of cases that have been closed without giving opportunity to the complainant to respond to the State, we give below the case of the raid of the offices of People's Watch – India

On 5 November 2003, police carried out a search in the office premises of People's Watch (PW). Under a search warrant issued by the Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi, the police were apparently looking for two accused who they believed to be hiding in the premises. It is

worth mentioning that during their over 1 1⁄2 hour long search, the police did not adhere to the statutory procedures for search and committed several excesses with ulterior motive. The police did not want to produce the copy of the order purportedly issued by the Judicial Magistrate to search the premises and refused to hand over an attested copy of the search memo.

Shortly before the search of its offices, PW had been instrumental in processing several cases of serious human rights violations presented at two public hearings under the banner of the National Commission for Women and the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women, where instances of police violence and negligence were highlighted. Following these hearings Mr. Henri Tiphagne was personally warned by some very senior police officers who were present at the hearings.

Immediately after the search of its offices, PW filed a complaint before the NHRC. It is worth mentioning here that the Executive Director of PW Mr. Henri Tiphagne has been a member of the NHRC Core Group on NGOs since the year 2001. The commission on 17 November 2003 requested a report and comments from the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu on the petition made. On 24 November 2003 such report was submitted to the NHRC denying the allegations. The Commission took no further action for almost a year after receipt of the said report.

Then on October 20, 2004, the Commission requested information about the case registered at M. Pudhupatti Police Station in which the 2 persons allegedly hiding in PW's offices were implicated and also sought a copy of the charge sheet in the said case. On perusal of the report and receipt of the charge sheet NHRC closed the case on 21 March, 2005, without further investigation and without an opportunity to the complainant, PW, to comment on the report of the police113

action of destroying all records after six months of adjudication in case there is no positive recommendation made in the case(s) the NHRC has after 2009 improved their system of complaints handling documentation

Only cases from late 2008 onwards are available online. With the exception of a small minority of cases, complainants who have filed cases prior to 2008 will not have their cases posted on the website and have no avenue to track the progress of their complaints.

Also, the status of pending cases registered before 2008 are predominantly unavailable on the NHRC

113 Response of the Commission has been annexed

Only those who are fortunate to have had their case uploaded and updated on the NHRC website, and receive a pre- cise and accurate complaint number can attempt to trace the outcome of their case online. However, due to the NHRC's many clerical errors, notably in entering misspelled names and provid- ing incomplete or inaccurate complaint numbers, it is almost impossible to ac- cess many cases.

The Custodial Death of Ms. Karupee

In the case of the death of one Ms. Karupee in police custody in the year 2002, a complaint was sent by People's Watch to the NHRC, but no response was received. It was only later on that People's Watch came to know that the NHRC has also received a complaint (NHRC Case NO 937 / 22 / 2002- 2003-CD) on a custodial death from the District Superintendent of Police of Ramnad District, Tamil Nadu, dated 12 January 2002. This apparently was the very same case of the death of Ms. Karupee. According to the database maintained in the NHRC's website, the NHRC requested additional information on 2 April 2009. However, no communication was received by People's Watch from the NHRC on this case. On 06 September 2008, the court directed the Additional Director Generals of Police (CB-CID) to nominate a team for this case and to file the final report within a period of six months. Further, it was directed that the State Government pay Rs. 3 lakhs - including Rs. 1 lakhs already awarded by the order of the State Government dated 01 March 2006 to the family of the victim (ROC.C2/13493/2006) by the proceedings of the District Collector, Ramanathapuram114.

website. In spite of this having been brought to the attention of the NHRC in meetings of the Core Group of NGOs and in private meetings with very senior officials there has been no effort to rectify this at all. This is not a matter of finance and is a matter of determination and accountability to victims. This is one more indication that complaints handling is complaints disposal for the NHRC.

The NHRC claims that it makes recent cases accessible to the public, but in reality, it is extremely difficult to track down cases that have been registered after 2008. Their website includes a section called "Frequently Asked Questions" which outlines the procedure through which complaints would go after having been received by the NHRC. However, there is no information of how a complainant could track his or her case through the various stages. Only those who are fortunate to have had their case uploaded and updated on the NHRC website, and receive a precise and accurate complaint number can attempt to trace the outcome of their case online. However, due to the NHRC's many clerical errors, notably in entering misspelled names and providing incomplete or inaccurate complaint numbers, it is almost impossible to access many cases. Not only does the sloppy information processing cause the information to be unreachable to even an educated or sophisticated

114 Report of the ANNI for the year 2009 Page 62

complainant, but these errors are also an indicator of the carelessness and lack of importance the NHRC gives to victims of human rights violations in India.

Despite the issue of transparency and the lack of information available on the website being raised at 20 September 2009 meeting of NGO Core Group and the reassurance of the NHRC Chairperson that information would become available on the website, no progress has been made on this matter.

How the NHRC Conducts its Proceedings

The NHRC fails to take a victim-centered approach. The Law Division and Investigation Division are responsible for assessing the hundreds of thousands of complaints received by the NHRC. These officials in-charge of the complaints-handling process, generally former police officials, ranking from Constables to Deputy Inspector General of Police, do not seem to possess any code of conduct or rules of business in

... seating priority is always given to uniformed officers and individuals in high positions, leaving ordinary people without seating or forced to sit on the lawns or stand in a corner.

writing that govern their investigation methods as investigators of human rights violations committed by the instrumentalities of the state. Accordingly, it is unsurprising, although extremely problematic, that these officials, who receive no specialized human rights training to be incorporated in investigation methods, find themselves more comfortable following the methods of crime investigation that they have known in the past or methods of investigation actually followed in the paramilitary forces like the BSF, Assam Rifles, CISF etc, bodies from which a large section of our investigation officers are drawn from. It should be noted that there is a clear distinction between human rights investigation and crime investigation. Thus, it is really questionable that people in the BSF, CISF, or Assam Rifles are deemed fit by the NHRC to investigate human rights violations.

Victims are often treated as second-class citizens at the NHRC, rather than as individuals deserving the same equality and respect as all other individuals in the room. While these prejudices are sometimes blatant, they are often subtle, but definite. In the rare case in which the Commission holds a full hearing, the Commission addresses victims directly by name and addresses only alleged perpetrators respectfully as "Ms." and "Mr." or "Madam" and "Sir." Similarly, seating priority is always given to uniformed officers and individuals in high positions, leaving ordinary people without seating or forced to sit on the lawns or stand in a corner. Often the alleged perpetrator is accommodated with much courtesy at the NHRC office upon his arrival at the NHRC office. Not only does this suggest a lack of independence of the

NHRC, but it is a manifestation of the utter disregard by the NHRC to keep the investigation victim- centered.

In 2001, the NHRC constituted a Committee, headed by the retired Karnataka High Court judge, Justice Sadasiva, to look into the complaints of the victims in Tamil Nadu of alleged violations perpetrated by the Special Task Force. During the hearing, the victims saw, as they entered the building premises, the very same police officers who had raped them, stripped them naked and electrocuted them, and/or killed their husbands, proudly saluting these highly formal officials seated far above them in large cushioned chairs in Gobichettipalayam, Kolathur and Madheswaran Hill Temple. Rather than taking a sensitive, victim-centered approach to assessing the situation of human rights in Tamil Nadu, the NHRC appointed committee both physically and emotionally distanced themselves from the vulnerable victims seeking protection. NGOs had to draw attention to their behavior and insisted that they act with sensitivity.115

Access to Justice by Victims of Human Rights Violations

Although the PHRA allows for hearings of the NHRC to take place anywhere in India, most, if not all, of these hearings exclusively take place in Delhi. The only exception occurred during the 2006-2007 tenure of Acting Chairperson Justice Shivaraj Patil when the NHRC undertook an initiative to conduct "camp sitting" type hearings outside of Delhi. After the success of the first camp in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh in January 2007, a second camp was conducted in Patna, Bihar in May, shortly after Justice Babu assumed the Chairperson position.116 Notably during Patil's tenure, the Commission also carried out a special drive from 1 February to 15 May 2007, wherein they disposed of 1678 cases. Despite the success of these camps, the camps were not continued by the NHRC.

During the hearing, the victims saw, as they entered the building premises, the very same police officers who had raped them, stripped them naked and electrocuted them, and/or killed their husbands, proudly saluting these highly formal officials seated far above them in large cushioned chairs

115 Interview of C.J. Rajan, activist and community organizer, held at People's Watch office in May 2010.

116 Because of the success of the first "camp sitting" in Lucknow in January 2007, a second camp Commission was held at Patna from May 17 to 19, 2007. http://nhrc.nic.in/disparchive.asp?fno=1465. Note Justice Shivaraj Patil was Acting Chairperson from 1.11.2006 and 1.04.2007 until the Chairperson position was filled by Justice Rajendran Babu from 2.04.2007 and 31.05.2009.

This leaves the vast majority of Indians without physical access to the NHRC. No explanation whatsoever has been provided by the then chairperson Justice Rajendra Babu or his successor Justice Mathur on why this practice initiated during the tenure of Justice Shivraj Patil as the acting Chief Justice and about which Justice Rajendra Babu had chosen to comment so favourably in terms of decentralization and camp commission sittings etc. Thus one aspect of functioning of the NHRC which was actually favourably commented upon by the ANNI 2008 report on page 57 has now been withdrawn without an explanation. These explanations have also not been made in any meeting formally of National Core Group of NGOs. Whereas on the contrary, these camp commission sittings were initiated after formally being mentioned in the national core group meetings. This only indicates the lack of a belief in decentralized functioning, sittings of the commission to carry out a vital function of the NHRC and the tendency to conduct regional sittings only to review cases with Chief Secretaries, Additional Chief Secretaries, DGPs, additional DGPs, IGPs, DMs and SPs.

The principle of access to justice has to be understood and interpreted and thereafter implemented from the point of view of the ultimate beneficiary of justice, this being the victim. Although the NHRC had made efforts to move towards this direction in 2007, it has regressed in its efforts afterwards with no explanation whatsoever why this is so in any of its reports.

Access to justice therefore has to mean access to all the states in the country at least once a year if not by the full commission, at least by benches of 3 persons. Such sittings can also be jointly organized as joint sittings of both the SHRC and the NHRC so that the lessons learned through 17 years of experience of the NHRC gradually gets transferred to the SHRCs and where SHRCs have evolved. A joint sitting of

both an SHRC and the NHRC may, however, be out of the question at this point since the NHRC seems to perceive itself as a far more superior body that an SHRC. Hierarchy seems to be the paramount consideration of the NHRC on this point.

Additionally, most victims of human rights violations are also economically impoverished. The NHRC does not offer pro bono legal services for impoverished victims seeking protection before the Commission. Victims come before the NHRC in many matters in which they would be eligible for pro bono assistance; however, these same victims are ineligible to have competent, free legal services before the NHRC. It is essential that a legal aid program, like the National Legal Services Authority (NLSA) and the State Legal Services Authority (SLSA) be established for victims of human rights commissions when they are presenting their case and seeking justice before the NHRC. A strong alliance needs to be built between the NHRC and NLSA and SLSA.

Handling of Encounter Death Cases

India continues to experience a high occurrence of extrajudicial killings, euphemistically called "encounter killings," which are unlawful murders of individuals by law enforcement officials or persons acting in direct or indirect compliance with the State when the use of force is inconsistent with the criteria of absolute necessity and proportionality. Often, the murdered individual is not in a position to pose any threat against law enforcement personnel, yet the law enforcement personnel use lethal force against them, causing severe injuries or death, and claim self- defense. Deaths due to attacks or killings by security forces of the State, or by paramilitary groups, death

India continues to experience a high occurrence of extrajudicial kill- ings, euphemistically called "encoun- ter killings,"

Since 1,110 cases remain unexamined on encounter death af- ter 17 years, it is clear that the NHRC is unable to handle the workload it has been entrusted.

most victims of human rights vio- lations are also economically impov- erished. The NHRC does not offer pro bono legal services for impoverished victims seeking protection before the Commission

squads, or other private forces cooperating with or tolerated by the State are also considered extrajudicial killings.

Due to the severity and frequency of this problem, the NHRC issued guidelines as early as 1996, and then again on 2 December 2003, regarding encounter killings. The NHRC claims that it receives information on encounter killings, particularly on compliance with the guidelines regarding deaths in police or judicial custody, as well as killing in police encounters and that it "also receive[s] the requisite reports in accordance with its guidelines"117 However, as experienced by many human rights groups, these guidelines have, unfortunately, been largely ignored across India.118

On 21 May 2010, the NHRC reported information regarding the results of their investigations of encounter deaths. Of the 2,956 cases registered with the NHRC from the period starting 12 October 1993 to 31 April 2010, 1590 cases had been registered on the basis of information received from the public authorities about an encounter that occurred involving the police and the remaining 1,366 cases were registered as complaints received from the public alleging a fake encounter by police. These numbers suggest then, that there were no cases in which both the public authorities and the public attempted to register a complaint.

After 17 years, the NHRC had only completed investigations of 62% of these killings, leaving 1110 unexamined in 2010, through consideration of various reports, materials on record, and through notices and examinations of the concerned public authorities. The NHRC found that of the investigated 1,846 cases, only 27 were the result of intentional murders staged during a fake encounter by the police. As such, the remaining 1,819 killings were determined by the NHRC to be the result of genuine police encounters. It is unclear whether the cases investigated were the killings registered by the public authorities or the public. In the 27 cases of fake encounters, the Commission recommended that the state authorities take punitive action against the guilty officials and pay monetary

relief to the next of the kin of the deceased depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.

Since 1,110 cases remain unexamined on encounter death after 17 years, it is clear that the NHRC is unable to handle the workload it has been entrusted. The cases of encounter deaths are only a small fraction of the cases that the NHRC must dispose of per year. While the number of NHRC members has remained at 5, the number of complaints received by the NHRC has risen for a few hundred to over hundred thousand complaints per year. A dramatic increase in the body and membership of the NHRC is required if it is to be adequately equipped to effectively perform the task of thoroughly investigating these complaints and reach considered conclusion. Additionally, if the NHRC enlisted the assistance of the SHRC in enforcing these guidelines and started taking suo moto actions on these encounters, the number of pending cases would be dramatically decreased. Instead, the NHRC fails to work with any other institution or group to stop this exceedingly serious matter of halting extrajudicial killings in India.

The carelessness and disregard for responsibly fulfilling its mandate, as shown in the case above, is unacceptable and appalling. If the NHRC can't even take the time to investigate an extremely high profile, controversial case with strong evidence indicating suspicious behavior and a violation of human rights in its very own headquarters, then what chance do the majority of vulnerable, marginalized, uneducated victims, from India's largely rural background, geographically spread throughout its vast lands, with very little ability to save and protect evidence, have in gaining protection from this supposedly national human rights institution?

... even if this wasn't a staged encoun- ter and the police were truly defend- ing themselves, the NHRC should have recommended a full, judicial inquiry into the matter in order to ensure that the use of force by the police was law- ful in protecting themselves.

117 Information received in response to RTI petition regarding development of jurisprudence in NHRC from 12.10.1993 – 31.8.2009 - 16(1)/PIO/2005(RTI)/2641

118 ADD IN SOURCES. Over the past 7 years, the NHRC has remained silent, despite consistent reminders from civil society members, about the complete lack of adherence to these guidelines. (can add in PW reminders post ED)

Batla House Encounter

The Batla House Encounter is a well-known case in the country where, two suspected Indian Mujahideen terrorists, Atif Amin and Mohammed Sajid, were shot dead in a gun battle with the police in South Delhi's Jamia Nagar locality on 19 September 2008.119 Also killed in the alleged battle was Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma, an encounter specialist.

These murders were widely covered by the press, with human rights activists, media, lawyers, and citizens widely speculating, based on post-mortem reports and other evidence, the authenticity of the police's encounter theory.120 Under the directions of the Delhi High Court the NHRC conducted an inquiry into the incident and concluded on 22 July 2008 that there had been no violation of human rights by actions of police in which two alleged terrorists were gunned down on.121 The NHRC stated in its sealed 30-page report that, "We are clearly of the opinion that having regard to the material placed before us, it cannot be said that there has been any violation of human rights by action of police." It further stated that because the police did not act in a premeditated, pre-calculated manner in killing the two young men, they were not wrong in deciding to shoot and kill. Additionally, the NHRC declined to institute a judicial probe into the gun-battle.

Relying on the inquiry of the NHRC, the High Court, headed by Chief Justice A. P. Shah, rejected the plea of an NGO seeking a judicial inquiry into the case on the grounds that the NHRC had failed to conduct a proper investigation and consequently, reached the incorrect conclusion that the encounter was not fake.122

Indeed, it was not until about a year after the NHRC publicly validated the legality of the actions of the Delhi Police in killing two young men in the Batla House encounter case that the NHRC admitted that it relied solely on the official documents provided to it by the concerned department. It admitted that it did not send its probe team to the Batla House area as part of its enquiry into the September 2008 encounter, did not talk to the families of Atif Ameen and Mohammad Sajid, or interview the family of Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma.123

When asked if the NHRC talks to accused or plaintiff or their witnesses in investigating fake encounter cases, and why it did not meet the families of M.C. Sharma, Atif and Sajid, the NHRC replied that it "conducts [an] inquiry under 1993 NHRC law." First it asks reports from the concerned department. If the report is found satisfactory, enquiry is closed, otherwise continued. In the Batla House case, NHRC did not send its team to Batla area because to reach conclusion reports by concerned department were found enough.124

119

120

121

122 123

Indian Express, Batla House Encounter: HC Rejects Plea for Judicial Inquiry, Aug. 26, 2009, available at http:/ /www.indianexpress.com/news/batla-house-encounter-hc-rejects-plea-for-j/507495/

CanaryTrap, Delhi Police and Batla House Encounter, March 22, 2010, available at http://canarytrap.in/ 2010/03/22/delhi-police-and-batla-house-encounter/

Times of India, Batla House encounter: NHRC gives clean chit to Delhi police, Jul. 22, 2009, available at http:/ /timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Batla-House-encounter-NHRC-gives-clean-chit-to-Delhi-police-/ articleshow/4807885.cms

Indian Express, supra note 7 at Aug. 26, 2009.

UMMID, Batla Encounter: NHRC admits it relied on official reports, didn't visit spot, 14 June 2010, available at http://www.ummid.com/news/2010/June/14.06.2010/nhrc_admits_fault_in_batla_encounter.htm. The NHRC finally responded to an RTI petition filed by Afroz Alam Sahil on 6 April 2010 and admitted it relied on reports from concerned departments.

124

Id. at UMMID.

Furthermore, even if the NHRC's finding that no staged encounter took place and its reliance on the report of the concerned authorities was correct, a true protector of human rights would still have issued an inquiry into the investigation. Even if the NHRC believed the evidence that the encounter was not pre- meditated or pre-calculated, it does not eliminate the possibility of a violation of human rights. There are extremely limited circumstances in which the state, or a representative of the state, may be permissibly involved in an extra-judicial killing. In a system of law and order, even a police officer acting in self-defense still has no right to kill citizens. As such, even if this wasn't a staged encounter and the police were truly defending themselves, the NHRC should have recommended a full, judicial inquiry into the matter in order to ensure that the use of force by the police was lawful in protecting themselves.

b. Legal basis of the NHRC's decisions/ recommendations

to the case law of the Supreme Court of India and statutory provisions, it does not claim to refer to international human rights instruments to which India is a state party and admits that case law is not always cited. When asked about the NHRC's process of disposing of cases, the NHRC (states that it refers to important cases in every Annual Report of the Commission.)

While documentation of cases is important, this response indicates a misunderstanding of the use of cases and unawareness of the need for judicial reasoning that fosters consistency, legitimacy, and equal protection of rights. Because of this practice of summarily dismissing cases without any legal basis, no jurisprudence is developed. The importance of developing a body of sound jurisprudence cannot be emphasized enough for an institution where members are constantly changing and where most of the members and staff are without grassroots experience in human rights.

For example in a case from Ogalur in Perambalur District, Tamil Nadu, during the tenure of Justice Verma as the Chair, the precedent was laid that in a full court hearing where lawyers of the State appearing for the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police sought an adjournment, the NGO appearing in public interest on behalf of the victims before the NHRC should be paid their airfare to Delhi and back. This information is known only to the concerned persons in this case and not even to the NHRC, its new members or its staff because it has not been reported anywhere. Precedence of this sort in matters of compensation prosecution and paying costs and very intelligent remedies provided could act as very strong direction on which the investigation team, the Special Rapporteurs and Presenting Officers could then rely upon.

The majority of cases are dismissed in limine or rejected. The orders offer a mere one line generally rejecting or dismiss- ing the case in limine under Section 36 of the PHRA.

Most worrisome about the quasi-judicial functions of the NHRC is the quality of complaints handling. Overwhelming evidence indicates that the NHRC carelessly disposes of cases at random, without issuing reasoned orders based on case law and analytical reasoning. Orders issued by the NHRC dispose of the majority of cases with extremely general, uninformative reasoning. The majority of cases are dismissed in limine or rejected. The orders offer a mere one line generally rejecting or dismissing the case in limine under Section 36 of the PHRA. These orders do not even specify whether it is rejected under Section 36(1) because it is deemed by the NHRC to be pending before another Commission or Section 36(2) because it has been found that the act constituting a violation of human rights occurred more than a year prior.

Although the NHRC maintains that it issues well- argued and documented directions having reference

The importance of developing a body of sound jurisprudence cannot be emphasized enough for an institution where members are constantly chang- ing and where most of the members and staff are without grassroots experience in human rights.

c. An account of complaints-handling statistics (e.g. number and typology of complaints received and processed; resolved; dismissed; referred)

Complaints handled by the NHRC may be disposed of and categorized into one of the four following categories: 1) Closed cases, 2) Rejected/Dismissed in limine, 3) Disposed with Direction, and 4) Under Consideration. Closed cases include both i) cases finally disposed of by the Commission after consideration of the report of the authority(s) without making any positive recommendation/direction to the concerned authority requiring a further act of compliance on the part of the authority and (ii) cases finally disposed of by the Commission on consideration of the report of compliance of the Commissions' recommendations/ directions by the concerned authority. Tellingly, a small minority of the NHRC's cases fall into this "Closed" category. Rather, the majority of cases are Rejected/Dismissed in Limine, which refers to complaints which are not entertained as per NHRC procedure regulations, after consideration at the preliminary stage. The NHRC commonly dismisses cases in limine as out of the

jurisdiction of the NHRC under Section 36 of the PHRA125 read with Section 9 of the NHRC (Procedure) Regulations, 1994.126

NHRC cases may also be "disposed with direction" if it is forwarded to the appropriate authority for taking appropriate action in the matter. The entire Commission's order in these cases provide no further information than stating, "the complaint may be transmitted to the concerned authority for such action as deemed appropriate."127 This category includes referral of cases to state human rights commissions. The final category includes cases that are "under consideration," meaning that the case is still pending with the Commission for final disposal.

An Examination of a sample of cases and their disposal reveals the extremely worrisome carelessness with which the NHRC handles cases. A sample of cases disposed of over a two-week period, 1 August to 15 August, in three different years, 2007, 2008, and 2009, was analyzed. The results revealed that the overwhelming number of cases had been rejected, later described in 2008 and onwards as being dismissed in limine, by the NHRC. The percentage of cases rejected without any consideration has been increasing with a shocking 75% or three out of every four victims' cases being dismissed in limine in 2009. Therefore, only 1 out of every 4 victims seeking protection before the NHRC was not immediately rejected. In 2008 and 2009, 10% and 11%, respectively, of cases were transferred to state human rights commissions. In 2009, only 1 out of 3,111 cases, or .03% of all cases, disposed of by the NHRC was actually closed in 2009. Table 8.1 includes the number and percentage of cases disposed of by India's NHRC.

NHRC cases may also be "disposed with direction" if it is forwarded to the appropriate authority for taking ap- propriate action in the matter. The entire Commission's order in these cases provide no further information than stating, "the complaint may be transmitted to the concerned author- ity for such action as deemed appro- priate."

125 Section 36 provides that the Commission shall not inquire into any matter which is pending before a State Commission or any other Commission duly constituted under any law for the time being in force. RTI 2643.

126 Notably, Section 9 of the NHRC (Procedure) Regulation, 1994 states numerous grounds under which a complaint is "not ordinarily entertainable." Under Section 9, "the Commission may dismiss in limini complaints of the following nature: i) illegible; ii) vague, anonymous or pseudonymous; iii) trivial or frivolous; iv) barred under section 36(1) of the Act; v) barred under section 36(2) of the Act; vi) allegation is not against any public servant; vii) the issue raised relates to civil dispute, such, as property rights, contractual obligations and the like; viii) the issue raised relates to service matters; ix) the issue raised relates to labour/ industrial disputes; x) allegations do not make out any specific violation of human rights; xi) matter is sub judice before a Court/Tribunal; xii) matter is covered by a judicial verdict/decision of the Commission; xiii) the matter is outside the purview of the Commission on any other ground."

127 Information received in response to an RTI petition - RTI 2643 78

Table 8.1

Cases Disposed by India's NHRC During 1/8-15/8 of 2007, 2008, and 2009

By Number of Cases 1/8-15/8/2007 1/8-15/8/2008 1/8-8/15/2009

Under Consideration 179 100 98

Closed 279 83 1

Disposed of with Directions 1492

Dismissed in Limine 0

Rejected 2987

Transfer to SHRC 23

TOTAL CASES 4960

By Percentage 1/8-15/8/2007

Under Consideration 3.61%

Closed 5.63%

Disposed of with Directions 30.08%

Dismissed in Limine 0.00%

Rejected 60.22%

675

2149

336

3343

1/8-15/8/2008

2.99%

334

2336

342

3111

1/8-8/15/2009

3.15%

2.48% 0.03%

20.19%

64.28%

0.00%

10.74%

75.09%

0.00%

Transfer to SHRC

Throwing Cases into an Abyss: Need for a Defined Relationship among NHRIs

In a 2008 meeting of the NGO Core Group, the NHRC Chairperson defended the NHRC's right to transfer cases to state authorities and openly acknowledged that it will not be possible for the Commission, due to its own limitations, to process the enormous number of complaints and look after all matters throughout the country.128 As victims come to the NHRC seeking protection from a broad,

0.46%

powerful national

that it considers

transfers cases to State authorities for appropriate action if it "feels that the grievance raised in any particular complaint can be dealt appropriately and expeditiously by State authorities."129

However, when cases are transferred to the poorly run or inactive SHRCs, they often fall into a dark abyss and victims lose their ability to seek justice from a human rights commission. As the below data in Table

10.05% 10.99%

institution, the Commission claims all cases on the merits and only

128 Minutes of the Meeting of the Core Group of NGOs, 18.07.2008, 11.30 a.m. at the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi (received in response to an RTI petition).

129 Follow Up Right to Information Request, RTI 3194. 79

7.2 indicates, a substantial number of cases are routinely transferred to the 18 state human rights commissions across India, as permitted under the 2006 amendment of section 13(6) of the PHRA. The number of complaints transferred to state authorities has grown, with approximately 20-30% of complaints filed to the NHRC being transferred annually.

However, when cases are trans- ferred to the poorly run or inactive SHRCs, they often fall into a dark abyss and victims lose their ability to seek justice from a human rights commission.

Table 7.2 Cases Transferred by the NHRC to State Authorities

Year

No. of Complaints Received by the NHRC

No. of Cases Transmitted to Concerned State Authorities

16192

15082

16249

13217

21117

22708

26478

26398

17580

5527

180548

Percentage of Cases Transferred to State Authorities

22.6%

25.1%

23.6%

18.1%

28.4%

30.5%

32.2%

27.9%

2000-2001 71,555

2001-2002 60,083

2002-2003 68,779

2003-2004 72,990

2004-2005 74,401

2005-2006 74,444

2006-2007 82,233

2007-2008 94,559

2008-2009130 --

2009-2010131 --

TOTAL

While the NHRC has been increasingly utilizing this section to transfer cases, it has still not created an effective and supportive working relationship with the SHRCs. In 2006, through a committee headed by Justice Ahamadi, there were efforts to integrate the SHRCs into the organizational infrastructure of the NHRC, but these efforts were in vain. Currently, the NHRC does not monitor cases to ensure transferred cases are appropriately considered by the SHRC. As it would be inefficient, ineffective, and encroach upon the authority of the SHRC for the NHRC to monitor

every case transferred to SHRCs, Practice Direction No. 7132 issued guidelines to select a random sample and ensure proper consideration of transferred cases. As mentioned previously, Practice Direction No. 7 directs the Law Division to select 2% of the cases from a pool that have been transferred to SHRCs at the end of each quarter and send details of these cases to the Investigation Division. To date, the NHRC has failed to follow its own directions and appears to have made no attempt to conduct any follow-up.

130 The information was sourced through an RTI petition in 2009 and therefore the actual cases received and those transferred in 2009 and 2010 could not be furnished. The data on cases transmitted is from the complaints database of the Commission available on its website.

131 Number of cases as of 7.10.2009

132 PRACTICE DIRECTION No.7, Issued on 2 February 1998, Re: Action taken reports not received by the Commission

It therefore appears that SHRCs are still not held accountable by the NHRC for disposing of these cases appropriately, ultimately resulting in a loss of justice for victims of human rights violations. This is evidenced by the fact that the NHRC still has not released publicly any data pertaining to cases forwarded to SHRCs. It should be noted that under Section 4 of India's Right to Information Act, the NHRC is required to publish or post online this type of information.

It should be noted that while the enabling law of the NHRC does not grant it supervisory functions over the SHRCs, the law does not preclude them from establishing a system of cooperation with the SHRCs. More cooperation and coordination with SHRCs would certainly lead to less workload for the NHRC, as well as better handling of cases that the SHRC might have more capacity to look into.

The Indian government should consider amending the NHRC's enabling law to clearly elaborate on the relationship between the NHRC and the SHRCs. The NHRC's failure to take a leadership role and establish an effective working relationship with the 158 state human rights commissions and thematic human rights institutions actually results in the NHRC being over- worked and unable to implement its message of human rights at the local level.

Below is a case study illustrating how victims of human rights violations are not able to get redress or are denied access to justice due to the lack of an effective working relationship between the NHRC and the SHRCs.

The Case of Encounter Deaths in Karnataka

Mr. Kalkuli Vittal Hegde is from the organization called Okkuta Adivasi Girijana Hitharakshana Samithi, a group working on the rights of tribal people in the state of Karnataka. From his work, he discovered that in many encounter deaths, the evidence and testimonies of witnesses reveal that many of the victims were killed with a close range bullet to the head. It was found out that these cases, the policemen would force the victims to lie down on the floor of their house and executed them.

133 PHRA, Section 18(1).

134 PHRA, Section 18(3).

In one case, one child, a witness to the brutal massacre, escaped. Mr. Hegde filed a complaint to the NHRC and SHRC but appeared hesitant to take on this controversial case. The, contrary to its own guidelines that it issued in 2003, sat on this case for 8 months before transferring the case to the SHRC of Karnataka. For two years, this case shuttled between the NHRC and the SHRC. At the end, in April, 2008 the SHRC of Karnataka finally addressed the case and ordered judicial inquiry thereon. The SHRC of Karnataka did not undertake its own inquiry of the case. The judicial inquiry resulted into findings that said that the police were merely protecting themselves. No compensation was awarded to the families of the victims. It only ordered that education be ensured for the surviving child.

Steps taken against non-implementation of recommendations

Under Section 18 of the PHRA, the NHRC has the power to take various steps after the completion of an inquiry held under the PHRA. Notably, in cases where the inquiry discloses the commission of a violation of human rights or negligence in the prevention of violation of human rights by a public servant, the NHRC has the power to recommend to the Government or concerned authority the initiation of proceedings for prosecution or such other appropriate action against the concerned person or persons.133 The NHRC may also recommend the concerned Government or authority to grant immediate interim relief to the victim or the members of the family.134 Section 18 of the PHRA also provides that the Commission must send a copy of its inquiry report and recommendations to the concerned Government

Out the rare cases in which the NHRC has issued a recommendation, 387 cases still remain pending for compli- ance at various stages. This indicates that only 0.136% of the victims of human rights violations who have sought assis- tance and protection from the NHRC have actually received some type of jus- tice or compensation.

or authority and then must receive, within a period of one month or longer, if permissible by the Commission, comments on the report, including the action taken or proposed to be taken thereon, from the Government or authority.135

While the NHRC has the power to issue recommendations upon finding a violation of human rights, it has reserved use of this power for only the very rarest of cases. During the period between 12 October 1993 and 31 August 2009, the Commission has considered over 800,000 cases.136 Of these cases, the NHRC made recommendations for compensatory monetary relief and/or disciplinary action against public servants or prosecution of public servants in a mere 1431 cases. This represents less than 0.2% of total cases brought before the NHRC. 137 Out the rare cases in which the NHRC has issued a recommendation, 387 cases still remain pending for compliance at various stages. This indicates that only 0.136% of the victims of human rights violations who have sought assistance and protection from the NHRC have actually received some type of justice or compensation.

The NHRC, under the leadership of former Chairperson Justice Mr. M.N. Venkatachaliah, issued Practice Direction No. 10, which states the proper action to take in cases in which the NHRC's directions/ recommendations have not been complied with. Practice Direction No. 10 states that in cases where the compliance is not forthcoming despite pursuing the matter with the concerned authority/authorities, or where there is undue delay in compliance or the concerned authority has expressed its intention or inability to make compliance of the orders/directions of the Commission, such cases shall be put up before the Commission for further directions in the matter. The Registrar may also put up any case before the Commission for further directions necessary in order to secure the compliance of the original directions/ recommendations of the Commission.

A register shall be maintained by the Board Branch of all the compliance cases and all such cases shall be put up before the Registrar periodically for directions on a weekly basis until such time the compliance is received. In appropriate cases, the Registrar may issue conditional summons for appearance of the concerned authority before the Commission with a stipulation that the personal appearance of the authority shall be dispensed with if full compliance is reported to the Commission by a particular date which shall ordinarily be about 10 days prior to the date fixed for appearance of authority before the Commission.

It appears however that at present, the NHRC has forgotten or is unaware of these Practice Directions. In response to a petition filed under the Right to Information Act, asking for the procedure it follows to monitor the compliance with its recommendations, the NHRC responded that in cases of non-compliance with the NHRC's recommendations by the State Government and the Government of India, the "NHRC tries to ensure compliance by persuasion and going public."138

Assignments undertaken by the NHRC on the orders of the Supreme Court

Occasionally, the Supreme Court refers cases of great severity involving gross violations of human rights

The NHRC's inquiry into the extraju- dicial execution of thousands of Sikhs by security forces during a violent Sikh separatist movement in Punjab during the 1980s was initiated in 1997 ... the NHRC limited its investigation to the 2,097 unlawful cremations occurring in Amritsar and to look into the liability of the state. It did not look into direct li- ability of individual perpetrators, for vio- lations of the right to life and dignity of the dead.

135 PHRA, Section 18(5). Section 18(6) also provides for publication of the inquiry report, the comments of the concerned Government or authority, if any, and the action taken or proposed to be taken by the concerned Government or authority on the recommendations of the Commission.

136 From 1993 to 2008, the NHRC had already considered 765,233 complaints.

137 A conservative estimate of the percentage of cases in which the NHRC made a recommendation for relief is 1,341 cases out of the 765,233 complaints received through 2008, or 0.187% of total cases. A more accurate figure would include cases through August 2009, revealing an even smaller percentage of cases considered worthy of a recommendation by the NHRC. or 0.136%

138 RTI petition 16(1)/PIO/2005(RTI)/2641. Request received on 8.9.2009 regarding development of jurisprudence in NHRC from 12.10.1993– 31.8.2009.

to the NHRC for disposal. In 1998-1999, the NHRC undertook five assignments on orders passed by the Supreme Court of India. These five assignments include the following: i) Inquiry into allegations of fake encounters and mass cremations by the Police in Punjab; ii) Food Scarcity and starvation in the KBK Districts of Orissa; iii) Monitoring the administration of laws against bonded labour; iv) Monitoring the functioning of Mental Hospitals at Ranchi Agra and Gwalior; v) Overseeing the Agra Protecting Home for Women.

Practice Direction No. 12 was issued as a guideline for how the NHRC should fulfill their responsibilities under the court order. In addressing the first two orders, the guidelines state that these matters be heard in a session of the full commission and that orders may be issued thereby from time to time. Further, in these two cases, the Registrar (Law) should ensure that definite dates be calendared for the hearings. The remaining three projects were assigned procedural requirements and safeguards to ensure prompt follow up action by the Commission. In all cases, periodic reports were required to be submitted to the Supreme Court as to the progress of these projects, and the matter brought up at the sessions of the Commission every fortnight.139

NHRC. Although the NHRC was mandated to look into all issues relating to the human rights violations, which included disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and mass cremations occurred throughout all of Punjab, the NHRC limited its investigation to the 2,097 unlawful cremations occurring in Amritsar and to look into the liability of the state. It did not look into direct liability of individual perpetrators, for violations of the right to life and dignity of the dead.

The NHRC was then widely criticized by civil society and human rights organizations for failing to tackle the broad range of issues mandated to it by the Supreme Court. However, the NHRC concluded most of the main issues in its investigation by 2006 and delegated the task of identifying the remaining unknown 814 cremation victims to a secondary commission, headed by retired Punjab and Haryana High Court judge, Justice K.S. Bhalla. After the nine- month time frame elapsed, the Bhalla Commission had still failed to identify 657 victims. The Bhalla Commission's attention was called by the NHRC in an order dated 25 February 2008 for using arbitrary procedures and an erroneous approach that adversely affected the participation rights and compensation entitlements of victims' families.140

While the NHRC recognized the "obligation of every civilized State to ensure that its acts, which have been found to be in violation of humanitarian laws and/or which impinge on human rights of the citizens, do not reoccur..." and the need for "medical/ psychological assistance to a member/members of any such family which has suffered as a result of the tragedy,whoapproachesit,"141 theNHRCshouldhave taken a more active leadership role in both holding

the NHRC should have taken a more active leadership role in both holding perpetrators liable for their unlawful conduct and securing available and comprehensive psychological rehabili- tation facilities to all those requiring services.

The NHRC's inquiry into the extrajudicial execution of thousands of Sikhs by security forces during a violent Sikh separatist movement in Punjab during the 1980s was initiated in 1997 after the Supreme Court's petition transferring jurisdiction of this case to the

Civil society activists were outraged at the poorly-conducted, heavily-bi- ased investigation and reporting con- ducted by the NHRC.

139 Practice Direction No. 12, issued under Chairperson Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah, on 6 October 1998.

140 South Asian Human Rights Documentation Centre, A Step Forward in the Punjab Cremations Case, HRF/184/

08, available at http://www.hrdc.net/sahrdc/hrfeatures/HRF184.htm

141 NHRC order dated 9 October 2006, Reference Case No. 1/97/NHRC, available at http://nhrc.nic.in/

Punjab.htm#9th%20October,%202006 (Last visited 11 August 2010).

perpetrators liable for their unlawful conduct and securing available and comprehensive psychological rehabilitation facilities to all those requiring services.

In 2008, the NHRC was again called to conduct an inquiry into allegations, this time "relating to violation of human rights by the Naxalites and Salwa Judum." The Salwa Judum is an anti-Maoist movement, started by the state government in 2005 to bring the area dominated by armed rebels back under government control. The Salwa Judum, meaning "Peace March" or "Purification Hunt," has been occurring in the state of Chhattisgarh and is considered one of the worst manifestations of the struggle between the state army and civilians. The state has recruited local indigenous people, including many children, who had previously been fighting the Naxalite insurgency in India to fight as state "Special Police Officers" (SPOs). The violence, accounting for 65 percent of the Naxalite violence in the country, has escalated dramatically and

is responsible for the burning of at least 644 villages, forcing 300,000 people to flee their homes and leaving 40,000 individuals living in displacement camps.142 However, upon completing the investigation with a team of former police officers employed by the NHRC, the NHRC reported that while the state extended support to the Salwa Judum, it did not directly sponsor it and was not "deliberately and actively" pursuing a police of displacing the civilian population.143 The NHRC concluded that the Salwa Judum was not state-sponsored, but rather the direct consequence of the decision by a section of the tribals to fight Naxalites.144 Civil society activists were outraged at the poorly-conducted, heavily-biased investigation and reporting conducted by the NHRC.145 Defending itself, the Acting Chairperson Rajendran Babu reported that the NHRC did not give "a clean chit to Salwa Judum. What we said in our report to the Supreme Court was that the problems afflicting Chhattisgarh are not law and order problems but socio-economic ones."146

142 Campaign for Peace and Justice in Chhattisgarh, What is Salwa Judum?, available at http:// cpjc.wordpress.com/what-is-salwa-judum

143 NHRC Report on Salwa Judum http://nhrc.nic.in/Chattisgarh.pdf, pg. 101, Conclusions, Section 7, 7.06

144 NHRC Report on Salwa Judum http://nhrc.nic.in/Chattisgarh.pdf

145 K.G. Balagopal, The NHRC on Salwa Judum: A Most Friendly Inquiry, available at http://www.epw.in/ uploads/articles/12988.pdf (quoting "The report, prepared by a group set up by the police wing of the NHRC makes no pretence of neutrality or objectivity. It reads like a partisan statement, whose tone and tenor is to protect the Salwa Judum and its image from being tarnished by allegations of crime.").

146 We haven't given clean chit to Salwa Judum: NHRC Chief, 9 October 2008.http://www.thaindian.com/ newsportal/sci-tech/we-havent-given-clean-chit-to-salwa-judum-nhrc-chief_100105085.html

CHAPTER VI

Executive Summary: Relationship with Relevant Human Rights Stakeholders

The Commission has created

Core Groups to draw from the

expertise of eminent persons but

has not ensured that any formal

administration of these groups

occurs. Unsurprisingly, it

remains unclear how these

groups have been used throughout their constitution and what impact the expertise of core groups has made towards the fulfillment of the Commissions' mandate to have constructive engagements with relevant human rights stakeholders.

The Commission has created Core Groups to draw from the expertise of eminent persons but has not ensured that any formal administration of these groups occurs.

VI. RELATIONSHIP WITH RELEVANT HUMAN RIGHTS STAKEHOLDERS

1. Relationships with Civil Society

In recognition of the fundamental role played by non-governmental organizations in expanding the work of national institutions, a core principle of the Paris Principles remains that national institutions shall develop relations with non-governmental organizations involved in a variety of areas promoting and protecting human rights, from involvement in economic and social development, combating racism, protecting particularly vulnerable groups (especially children, migrant workers, refugees, physically and mentally disabled persons), to other specialized areas.

Unfortunately, in practice, the NHRCs relationship with civil society is very limited and deprives the NHRC of the opportunity to engage with a powerful, passionate, and knowledgeable partner in promoting and protecting human rights.

The Establishment of the Core Group of NGOs

As mentioned earlier, in 2000, the NHRC established a variety of core groups to enrich and shape its work with the knowledge and expertise of "eminent people working in the field," including legal, medical, and mental health professionals, retired government officials, non-governmental organization members, academics, and activists in the field. Core groups have been established on a temporary basis or long term basis. Some of the most important core groups that have been established include the following: Health, Disability, Mental Health, Right to Food, NGOs, and Lawyers.147

In each of these core groups, the NHRC has engaged a team of civil society members who, together, have a valuable combination of professional, grassroots, international, practical, and/or technical expertise and can actively contribute to the discussion on the promotion and protection of human rights in specific areas. Unfortunately, the NHRC's first proactive steps to engage with civil society have not been followed up with subsequent effective action.

Notably, the NHRC constituted a Core Group under the Chairmanship of Shri Chaman Lal, Special Rapporteur of the NHRC, to work specifically with non-governmental organizations. This Core Group of NGOs was to serve as a monitoring mechanism for Consultation with NGOs in the Commission on 17 July

Unfortunately, in practice, the NHRCs relationship with civil soci- ety is very limited and deprives the NHRC of the opportunity to en- gage with a powerful, passionate, and knowledgeable partner in promoting and protecting human rights.

While the relationship between the NHRC and civil society is not specifically formalized in the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, Sections 12(h) and (i) indicate that the NHRC must interact with India's diverse and active civil society as part of its mandate. Section 12 (h) requires that the NHRC spread human rights literacy among various sections of society and promote awareness of the safeguards available for the protection of these rights through publications, the media, seminars and other available means, while Section 12(i) directs the NHRC to encourage the efforts of non-governmental organisations and institutions working in the field of human rights.

147 Other core groups have been established on a temporary basis, including an expert group on unsafe drugs and medical devices; legal issues; Refugees and emergency medical care; child prostitution (according to meeting minutes from 28.1.98)

2001, and was re-constituted on 10 October 2006, 10 November 2006, 6 August 2008, 4 September 2008, and 7 August 2009.148 With the "view to utilize the knowledge, experience, and expertise of credible NGOs working in the field of Human Rights," the Core Group of NGOs group was constituted under Section 12(i) of the PHRA, 1993 to have "consultation with the NGOs on a regional basis and thereafter, work in partnership with selected NGOs with good track records to jointly take up issues concerning human rights and spread awareness and human rights literacy amongst the people in different parts of the country."

In addition to its Chairperson Chaman Lal, Special Rapporteur of the NHRC, the first core group had the following nine members: Ms. Aruna Roy (Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan), Mr. Henri Tiphagne (People's Watch), Mr. Harsh Mander (Action Aid India), Mr. Javed Abidi (National Centre for Promotion of Employment for Disabled People), Mr. Ravi Nair (South Asian Human Rights Documentation Centre), Dr. Y.P. Chhibbar (People's Union for Civil Liberties), Ms. Meera Shiva (Voluntary Association of India), Mr. Ashok Rawat (Helpage India), and Ms. Federica Donati (UNICEF).149

The group was given a broad mandate to 1) identify the NGOs engaged in the field of human rights with a

good track record for the purpose of consultation and interaction on a regular basis on issues concerning human rights and to build up a database of NGOs, 2) identify broad areas of cooperation between the NHRC and the selected NGOs from the different regions, and 3) consider any other issues relevant to the consultation with NGOs. In later re-constitutions, the third mandate was modified to "identify important human rights issues which could be jointly taken up with the NGOs after considering the suggestions/ proposals received from them." The core group was loosely scheduled to "meet at intervals deemed as necessary by the group" and had no real reporting requirements, other than to submit their reports from "time to time" to the Secretary General of the NHRC.

Unfortunately, the interaction of the NHRC with these civil society members does not produce the level of enhancement of the protection and promotion of human rights from the knowledge and expertise that was originally envisioned with the creation of core groups. The meetings of the Core Groups do result in sharing of new viewpoints that challenge and encourage creativity in the NHRC, but it seems that the irregularity of core groups meetings and lack of transparent, established procedures contributes to ineffective functioning of these core groups, which ultimately results in the failure of the NHRC and civil society to make a meaningful partnership. The NHRC's initiative to start these core groups comprised of civil society members must be followed with a systematic, deliberate method for forming, using, and aintaining these groups.

The meetings of the Core Groups do result in sharing of new viewpoints that challenge and encourage creativity in the NHRC, but it seems that the irregu- larity of core groups meetings and lack of transparent, established procedures contributes to ineffective functioning of these core groups, which ultimately re- sults in the failure of the NHRC and civil society to make a meaningful partner- ship.

148 R.C. No. 16(I)/PIO/2005 (RTI)/ 2642 dated 9.9.2009. Including Order No. 7(2)/2001-Coord.(Vol-II), National Human Rights Commission from Under Secretary Shoba George, dated 17 July 2001; Order F. No. 7/6/2005- Coord, National Human Rights Commission from Under Secretary B.B. Roy, dated 10.10.2006; Order No. 7/6/ 2005-Coord, National Human Rights Commission from Under Secretary B.B. Roy, dated 10.11.2006; Order No. 7/6/2005-Coord, National Human Rights Commission from Under Secretary B.S. Nagar, dated 4.9.2008; Order F. No. 7/6/2005-Coord, National Human Rights Commission from Under Secretary B.S. Nagar, dated 6.8.2008; Order No. 7/6/2005-Coord, National Human Rights Commission from Under Secretary B.S. Nagar, dated 7 August 2009.

149 Notably, only two members of the original core group were part of the reconstituted core group of 2006, including the convener of the group.

Epilogue: The Current Leadership of the NHRC

As this report was being drafted, several issues emerged in the media surrounding the current Chairperson of the NHRC, Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan. Initially, the team of human rights defenders preparing this report thought not to discuss these issues in the report. However, it was decided that a report meant to look into the compliance of the NHRC of India with the Paris Principles would not give a complete picture unless there is a discussion on the current leadership of the Commission. As written in the regional analysis of the 2009 Report of the Asian NGOs Network on National Human Rights Institutions (ANNI), "[f]or a national human rights institution, its independence and effectiveness to promote and protect human rights in its countries relies to a great extent on the integrity, commitment, and capacity of its leaders."150 Indeed, it cannot be denied that what make an institution are its people.

It should also be made clear that in including this discussion in this report, there is no intention to disparage a single person in the Commission. The writers of this report merely felt that they will be failing in their duty to the larger civil society in the country if this issue is not discussed in the report.

Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan assumed his post as Chairperson of the NHRC in 2010, after the NHRC went for more than a year without a Chairperson. Despite his candidature being widely criticized for a number of his controversial stands – such as blocking the prosecution of former Justice Nirmal Yadav for corruption, attempting to exempt the Office of the Chief Justice of India from the purview of the Right to Information Act, and delaying action against Justice P.D. Dinakaran after Parliament initiated an impeachment motion in connection with a land dispute and corruption case the government appointed Justice K.G. Balakrishnan to lead the NHRC.

Since Mr. Justice K. G. Balakrishnan assumed his post at the NHRC, there have been several revelations in the media that associated him with cases of corruption. This prompted a widespread call for his

resignation, not only from NGOs, but also from eminent jurists in the country. Mr. Balakrishnan is being alleged of receiving sums of money for brokering the appointments of judges and in exchange for favorable decisions during his tenure at the Supreme Court. Many questions also emerged regarding how his family unusually amassed vast wealth.

As mentioned earlier, there is now a call for Mr. Balakrishnan's resignation from civil society, as well as eminent jurists in the country, such as Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer (Former Judge of the Supreme Court of India 1973 -1980), Justice J. S. Verma (Former Chairperson of the NHRC and Former Chief Justice of India), Mr. Sudharshan Aggarwal (Former Governor of Sikkim and Member of the NHRC), and Mr. Fali Nariman, a jurist of international repute and a Former Member of the Advisory Council of Jurists (ACJ) of the Asia Pacific Forum of NHRIs (APF). Furthermore, there is currently a petition filed in the Supreme Court of India seeking a probe into the allegations against Mr. Balakrishnan's kin.

The recent controversies surrounding Mr. Balakrishnan has prompted civil society to again question the effectiveness of current selection and appointment processes for members of the NHRC. If the accusations against Mr. Balakrishnan are proven true, it is clear therefore that it is not enough to merely automatically install a retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as the Chairperson of the Commission. The process needs to be totally transparent and not restricted to only retired Judges or Chief Justices of the Supreme Court or to former bureaucrats – IAS or IPS or IFA or IRS etc. It is clear that the system that has been envisaged has not been proven to be useful now in the year 2010 – it also does not ensure diversity in a country known for its varied diversity.

As this report was being drafted, several issues emerged in the media surrounding the current Chairperson of the NHRC, Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan.

150 2009 ANNI REPORT ON THE PERFORMANCE AND ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS IN ASIA, A Regional Overview: How do Asian NHRIs choose their members and how do they receive our complaints?, 2009 at p. 12.

It is this case that singularly points out to the urgent need for reforms in the selection and appointment process to make it more inclusive, transparent and participatory. What is important is not the prestige of the position that a candidate had previously held. What should be a paramount consideration in the selection and appointment process is the candidate's firm belief in internationally accepted principles of human rights and his willingness advocate for the rights of victims.

Below is a list of articles from the Indian media regarding the recent controversies surrounding Mr. Balakrishnan: (The official enquiry is yet to conclude its work)

S.No Title

1. Ex-CJI Balakrishnan distances himself from Raja's latest scam

Balakrishnan: I did not receive any

2. letter from Regupathi when I was

CJI

Telecom Raja and former CJI

3. Balakrishnan in the dock ! S C judge

confirms former CJI hid Raja facts

4. 'Ex-CJI Was Aware Of Raja Trying To Corrupt Judge'

5. Balakrishnan Letter Did Not Name Raja: Moily

6. Did not suppress Madras High Court Chief's report: Balakrishnan

7. Ex-CJI rebuts judge version

Was ex-CJI Balakrishnan aware of

8. Raja influencing judge?

Ex-CJI Balakrishnan was informed

9. about Raja, says SC Judge

Judge puts ex-CJI Balakrishnan in

10. dock over Raja

11. Balakrishnan insists that Raja's name was not mentioned

No cogent ground for case against

12. Raja in Gokhale's report: Justice

Balakrishnan

Raja not named in Balakrishnan's

13. letter: Moily

14. Ex-CJI didn't mention Raja's name: Moily

15. Nation must know who is telling the truth

Publication

The times of India

The Hindu

Times Chennai

Asian Age

The Times of India

The

T elegraph

NDTV

Indian Express

Times of India

The Statesman

The Hindu

Andhra Headlines

Deccan Herald

Pioneer

Date

Dec 7, 2010

Dec 09, 2010

Dec 14, 2010

Dec 17, 2010

Dec 15, 2010

Dec 16, 2010

Link

http://www.timesnow.tv/Ex-CJI- Balakrishnan-distances-himself-from- Rajas-latest- scam/articleshow/4360005.cms

http://www.hindu.com/2010/12/09/stories/2 010120965791300.htm

http://www.timeschennai.com/index.php?m od=article&cat=National&article=15230

http://www.asianage.com/india/ex-cji-was- aware-raja-trying-corrupt-judge-449

http://www.asianage.com/india/balakrishna n-letter-did-not-name-raja-moily-826

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Did -not-suppress-Madras-High-Court-Chiefs- report-Balakrishnan- /articleshow/7107518.cms

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1101216/jsp /nation/story_13307954.jsp

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/raja-case- top-judge-counters-ex-chief-justice-of- india-72558?cp

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/excji- balakrishnan-was-informed-about-raja- says-sc-judge/724951/

http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/in dia/Judge-puts-ex-CJI-in-dock-over- Raja/articleshow/7102365.cms

http://www.thestatesman.net/index.php?op tion=com_content&view=article&show=arc hive&id=352173&catid=35&year=2010&m onth=12&day=15&Itemid=66

http://www.hindu.com/2010/12/16/stories/2 010121668081200.htm

http://www.andhraheadlines.com/national/r aja-not-named-in-balakrishnans-letter- moily-3-76550.html

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/121 112/ex-cji-didnt-mention-rajas.html

http://www.dailypioneer.com/304001/Make -the-letters-public.html

S.No Title

Publication

Date

Link

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/2g- scam-justice-regupathi-says-not- interested-in-blamegame/726687/0

http://www.hindustantimes.com/rssfeed/thir uvananthapuram/Former-CJI-s-kin- amassed-crores-in-4-yrs/Article1- 643170.aspx

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/arti cle995690.ece

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/124 053/former-sc-judge-wants-ex.html

http://www.expressindia.com/latest- news/Scams-embroil-top-exjudges- Balakrishnan-and-Krishna-Iyer/729883/

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/125 200/former-nhrc-member-demands- balakrishnans.html

http://www.asianage.com/india/need-verify- charges-against-balakrishnans-kin-moily- 626

http://www.asianage.com/india/jurist- probe-assets-ex-cji%E2%80%99s-family- 569

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/ politics/nation/cjis-brother-quits-post-on- health-grounds/articleshow/7235891.cms

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Ker ala-CM-orders-probe-against-former-CJI- Balakrishnans-son-in- law/articleshow/7212169.cms

http://expressbuzz.com/states/kerala/%E2 %80%98asked-not-to-write-to-pm-about- balakrishnan%E2%80%99/236526.html

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/narim an-for-probe-into-excji-kin-wealth/732341/

http://www.hindustantimes.com/rssfeed/ker ala/Now-former-CJI-s-brother-in-dubious- land-deal/Article1-645749.aspx

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110105/jsp /nation/story_13394123.jsp

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/126 395/sreenijan-quits-yc-plea-against.html

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/An other-son-in-law-of-ex-CJI-in-land- tangle/articleshow/7220309.cms

2G scam: Justice Regupathi says

16. not interested in blame-game

17. Former CJI's kin amassed crores in 4 yrs'

18. Krishna Iyer wants NHRC chief to resign

19. Former SC judge wants ex-CJI probed for corruption

Scams embroil top ex-judges

20. Balakrishnan and Krishna Iyer

Former NHRC member demands

21. Balakrishnan's resignation

Need To Verify Charges Against

22. Balakrishnan's Kin: Moily

Jurist For Probe Into Assets Of Ex-

23. CJI's Family

CJI's brother quits post on health

24. grounds

Kerala CM orders probe against

25. former CJI Balakrishnan's son-in-

law

'Asked not to write to PM about

26. Balakrishnan'

27. Nariman for probe into ex-CJI kin wealth

Now, former CJI's brother in dubious land

28. deal

29. Wealth glare on second CJI son-in- law

Sreenijan quits YC, plea against

30. KGB in vigilance court

Another son-in-law of ex-CJI in land

31. tangle

Indian Express

The Hindustan Times

The Hindu

Deccan Herald

Indian Express

Deccan Herald

Asian Age

Economic Times

Times of India

Indian Express

The Hindustan Times

Telegraph

Deccan Herald

Times of India

Dec 19 2010

Dec 26, 2010

Dec 27, 2010

Dec 31, 2010

Dec 28, 2010

Jan 1, 2011

Jan 3, 2011

Jan 03, 2011

Jan 04, 2011

Jan 5, 2011

S.No Title

32. Krishna Iyer blasts CPM stance

33. Steps against ex-CJI's brother if govt gets complaint: CM

Another son-in-law of ex-CJI in land

34. tangle

35. Balakrishnan's brother goes on medical leave

36. Balakrishnan's son-in-law resigns from Youth Congress

Ex-CJI under pressure to resign

37. from NHRC

38. Will act against ex-CJI's brother if govt gets complaint: Kerala CM

39. Cloud Over The Judiciary

40. CPI(M) has no links to K. G. Balakrishnan: Kodiyeri

41. Balakrishnan's brother resigns

KGB brother quits post

42. - Govt pleader under graft cloud cites poor health

43. Balakrishnan's Brother Quits as Special Govt Pleader

Ex-CJI's brother K G Bhaskaran

44. resigns as Kerala Govt. pleader

after allegations

45. CPM speaks in two voices on KGB

46. Now, ex-CJI's brother quits

Ex-Chief Justice's brother quits as

47. Govt pleader

Publication

Indian Express

The Hindustan Times

Times of India

The Hindu

IBN Live

Times of India

Asian Age

The Hindu

T elegraph

Outlook

Net India

The

T elegraph

The Hindustan Times

The Peninsula

Date

Jan 6, 2011

Jan 05, 2011

Jan 5, 2011

Jan 05, 2011

Jan 5, 2011

Jan 06, 2011

Jan 6, 2011

Jan 7, 2011

JAN 07, 2011

Jan 07, 2011

Jan 7, 2011

Jan 07, 2011

Link

http://expressbuzz.com/states/kerala/krish na-iyer-blasts-cpm-stance/237193.html

http://www.hindustantimes.com/rssfeed/thir uvananthapuram/Steps-against-ex-CJI-s- brother-if-govt-gets-complaint-CM/Article1- 646589.aspx

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/An other-son-in-law-of-ex-CJI-in-land- tangle/articleshow/7220309.cms

http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Kochi /article1032923.ece

http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Thiru vananthapuram/article1034832.ece

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/former-cji-under- a-cloud-of-controversy-again/139447- 3.html

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/thiru vananthapuram/Will-act-against-ex-CJIs- brother-if-govt-gets-complaint-Kerala- CM/articleshow/7222011.cms

http://www.asianage.com/editorial/cloud- over-judiciary-977

http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/keral a/article1038539.ece

http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/keral a/article1050531.ece

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110108/jsp /nation/story_13408793.jsp

http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?70 7566

http://netindian.in/news/2011/01/07/00099 07/ex-cjis-brother-k-g-bhaskaran-resigns- kerala-govt-pleader-after-allegations

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110107/jsp /nation/story_13403886.jsp

http://www.hindustantimes.com/rssfeed/ker ala/Now-ex-CJI-s-brother-quits/Article1- 647353.aspx

http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/india/13 8325-ex-chief-justices-brother-quits-as- govt-pleader.html

S.No Title

Publication

Date

Link

http://gulfnews.com/news/world/india/ex- chief-justice-s-brother-quits-job-1.742597

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chen nai/Bhaskaran-brother-of-KGB-quits-as- government- pleader/articleshow/7238581.cms

http://expressbuzz.com/states/kerala/kg- balakrishnans-brother-resigns/237888.html

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/ex-cji-s- brother-resigns-amid-corruption-charges- 77756

http://english.samaylive.com/nation- news/676480382/former-cji-balakrishnan- s-brother-quits-as-special-govt- pleader.html

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Ex- CJI-brother-quits-govt- job/articleshow/7239398.cms

http://expressbuzz.com/states/kerala/presi dent-urged-to-order-probe-against-ex- cji/238225.html

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/360- degree/justice-293

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/360- degree/child-he-walked-5-km-school- everyday-292

http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/keral a/article1078465.ece

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110111/jsp /nation/story_13421134.jsp

http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/keral a/article1076080.ece

http://www.dailypioneer.com/308939/Ex- CJIs-brother-resigns-from-Kerala-HC- post.html

http://expressbuzz.com/states/kerala/times -have-changed-for-kg- balakrishnan/238773.html

http://www.hindustantimes.com/News- Feed/kerala/I-T-begins-probe-into-charges- against-former-CJI-s-family/Article1- 649558.aspx

48. Ex-chief justice's brother quits job

49. Bhaskaran, brother of KGB quits as government pleader

50. KG Balakrishnan's brother resigns

Ex CJI's brother resigns amid

51. corruption charges

52. Former CJI Balakrishnan's brother quits as special govt pleader

53. Ex-CJI brother quits govt job

54. President urged to order probe against ex-CJI

55. Is this Justice?

As a child, he walked 5 km to school

56. everyday

57. Probe all allegations against Balakrishnan's kin: AITUC

58. Kerala bar panel seeks KGB probe

Bar Council urges President to

59. probe allegations against K.G.

Balakrishnan

Ex-CJI's brother resigns from Kerala

60. HC post

61. Times have changed for KG Balakrishnan

62.

Gulf News

Times of India

New Indian Express (Express Buzz)

NDTV

Samay Live

Times of India

New Indian Express (Express Buzz)

Deccan Chronicle

The Hindu

Telegraph

The Hindu

Pioneer

New Indian Express (Express Buzz)

Hindustan Times

Jan 08, 2011

Jan 8, 2011

Jan 08, 2011

Jan 8, 2011

Jan 09, 2011

Jan10, 2011

Jan 10, 2011

Jan 11, 2011

Jan12, 2011

I-T begins probe into charges

I-T begins probe into charges against former

CaJgI'safainmsilyt former CJI's family

S.No Title

I-T sleuths begin probe against 63. KGB's kin in Kerala

Publication

Times of India

Hindustan Times

Indian Express

The Economic Times

Deccan Chronicle

The Hindu

Indian Express

Outlook.

Date

Jan 13, 2011

Jan 14, 2011

Jan 17, 2011

Link

I-T sleuths begin probe against KGB's kin in Kerala - The Times of

India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city /chennai/I-T-sleuths-begin-probe-against- KGBs-kin-in- Kerala/articleshow/7272551.cms#ixzz1AzV 3aoOn

http://www.hindustantimes.com/News- Feed/thiruvananthapuram/Order-against- Balakrishnan-kin-stands/Article1- 650040.aspx

http://www.hindustantimes.com/News- Feed/thiruvananthapuram/Vigilance-likely- to-go-ahead-with-probe-against-ex-CJI-s- kin/Article1-649735.aspx

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/kerala -govt-orders-vigilance-probe-against- excjis-kin/736983/

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/it- begins-probe-into-assets-of-excjis- kin/736695/0

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/ politics/nation/kgbs-son-in-law-faces- vigilance-probe/articleshow/7277873.cms

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/national/k erala-orders-probe-against-kgb-kin-250

http://www.hindu.com/2011/01/13/stories/2 011011355260500.htm

http://www.hindu.com/2011/01/14/stories/2 011011464800900.htm

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Vigila nce-probe-against-former-CJI-s-son-in- law/737144

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?2 69938

Order against Balakrishnan

64. Order against Balakrishnan kin stands kin stands

65.

Vigilance likely to go ahead with Vigilance likely to go ahead with probe

a gp a r i no s bt e ex - C aJ I g' s ak i i n n s t e x - C J I ' s k i n

Kerala govt orders vigilance probe

66. against ex-CJI's son-in-law

I-T begins probe into assets of ex-

67. CJI's kin

KGB's son-in-law faces vigilance

68. probe

69. Kerala orders probe against KGB kin

70. Lawyers' plea to Balakrishnan

71. Bar association seeks probe

Vigilance probe against former CJI's

72. son-in-law

73. At Stake, Your Honour

Name of the Organization / S.No. Individual (if endorsing as

individual)

1. Act Now for Harmony and Democracy (ANHAD)

2. Adhikar, Odisha

3. Adishakti Lokbikash Sangthan, Odisha

4. Adivasi Bikash Parisad, Odisha

5. Adivasi Dalit Adhikar Abhijan Manch, Odisha

6. Agragamee, Odisha

7. AHRF, Tamil Nadu

ENDORSEMENTS

Name of the Organization / S.No. Individual (if endorsing as

individual)

32. Barak Human Rights Protection Committee (BHRPC),Assam

33. Bhartita Gramin Vikas Avam Kalyan samiti, Bihar

34. Bharathi Girama Mahalir Nala Mandram, Tamil Nadu

35. Mr. Biplab Mukherjee, West Bengal

36. Mr. Bira Kumar Das, Odisha

37. Bira Surendra Sai Jungle Committtee, Odisha

38. Borok People's Human Rights Organisation

39. CACL, Odisha

Cambodian Working Group for

40. National and ASEAN Human Rights

Mechanism (CWG)

41. CAPARDS, Odisha

42. Centre for Advocacy & Research, Odisha

43. Centre for Dalit Rights, Rajasthan

Centre for Human Rights and 44. Development (CHRD), Mongolia

45. Centre for Peace and Development

Centre for Study of Society and 46. Secularism (CSSS), Maharashtra

Prof. Chakrapani Ghanta, Coordinator,

47. Human Rights Education Programme, Andhra Pradesh

48. Mr. Ch Narendra

Name of the Organization / S.No. Individual (if endorsing as

individual)

60. CSJD, Odisha

61. CSNR, Odisha

62. CSNR, Odisha

Sr. S. M. Cyril,

63. Principal, Loreto Day School, Kolkata, West Bengal, Padmabhushan

DAGVMMVI (Dr.Ambethkar Girama 64. Vuzhaikum Makkal Manitha Vurimai

Iyakkam)

65. DAHAR, Odisha

Dalit Association for Social and

66. Human Rights Awareness (DASHRA),

Bihar

67. Dalit Catholic Sabha, Bihar

68. Dalit Gramin Vikas Samiti, Bihar

69. Dalit Human Rights and Development, Bihar

70. Dalit Mahila Jankalya Sansthan, Bihar

71. Dalit Mahila Vikas Samiti, Bihar

72. Dalit Sanghrsh Morcha, Bihar

73. Dalit Sangam Samiti, Bihar

74. Dalit Service Society (DSS), Ernakulam

75. Dalit Suraksha Samiti, Odisha

76. Dalit Watch, Bihar

77. Darshan

78. Mr. Debasis Mishra, Journalist, Odisha

79. Deepam Womens Trust, Tamil Nadu

80. Deep Jyoti Kalyan Sansthan, Bihar

81. Delhi Forum

82. Development Education & Awareness Raising, Tamil Nadu

83. Development & Education for Workers, Tamil Nadu

84. Dharini Penu Adivasi Mohasangha, Odisha

85. Mr. Dharmendra Ojha, Odisha

86. Dhirendra Panda

Rev. Dr. Dhyanchand Carr

(Retd.) Principal: Tamilnadu 87. Theological Seminary

Ordained Pastor Church Of South India

88. Documentation Research and Training Centre, Maharashtra

89. Ms. Dolphy D'Souza, Gujarat

Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK), Bangladesh

Ms. B.S.Ajeetha, Lawyer,

9. High Court of Madras, Chennai - Tamilnadu

10. Ms. Alka Kumari, Editor- Vision East, Human Right Defender

11. All India Secular Forum

12. Ambedkar-Lohia Vichar Manch, Odisha

13. Ambedkarvadi Samaj vikas Parishad, Bihar

14. Mr. Anand Patwardhan, Gujarat

15. Anbu Trust, Tamil Nadu

16. Dr. Andal Damodaran, General Secretary, ICCW, Chennai

17. Antodaya, Odisha

18. Anuveshi-Dalit Women's Documentation Center, Kerala

19. ARPAN, Punjab

20. Arunachal Citizen's Rights

49.

Citizens for Human Rights Movement (CHRM), Tamil Nadu

21. Asha Jyoti Gramin Vikas Samiti, Bihar

Mr. Ashok Chakravarthi, Former

22. Senior Director, NHRC

23. Asian Bridge India, Uttar Pradesh

Asian Forum for Human Rights and

24. Development (FORUM-ASIA),

Thailand

25. Mr. Asok Mallik, Lawyer, Odisha

Association for Voluntary

26. Initiative,Youth Action &

Networking(AVIYAN) - Odisha

27. ASSTART, Odisha

28. Mr. Babu Mathew

29. Bahujan Samaj Party - Tamilnadu

30. Balmianni Kutomi, Odisha

31. Banabasi Surakshya Parisad, Odisha

50. Citizens for Justice and Peace

51. CITU, Odisha

52. Civil Rights Protection Organisation, Tamil Nadu

53. CLAMPU Trust, Tamil Nadu

Commission for the Disappeared and 54. Victims of Violence (Kontras),

Indonesia

55. Committee for Legal Aid to Poor (CLAP)

56. Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), Delhi

57. Community College Trust, Tamil Nadu

58. Community Social Action Education Development Trust, Tamil Nadu

59. Coorg Organisation for Rural Development, Karnataka

Name of the Organization / S.No. Individual (if endorsing as

individual)

90. DRIK India, West Bengal

91. Mr. A. Dutta, Odisha

92. EKTA PARISHAD

93. EMPOWER INDIA, Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu

94. FOCUS Odisha

Forum for Elimination of Bonded

95. Labour System in Tamilnadu

96. Forum for Indigenous Perspectives and Action

97. Fr. Francis Parmar, Bihar

Mr. Gadahar Pradhan,

98. Land Rights Activist, Odisha

Gandhamardan Surakshya Samiti,

99. Odisha

100. Gandhiji Women Seva Society, Tamil Nadu

Gandhi Youvajana Sangadana,

101. Kollamkode, Palakadu

102. GANDHI VIKAS SAMITI

S.No.

122. 123.

124.

125.

126.

127. 128.

129.

130.

131.

132. 133.

134.

Name of the Organization / Individual (if endorsing as individual)

Human Rights Initiative, Assam

Human Rights Initiative, Dibrugarh, Assam

Human Rights Initiative, Manipur

HUMAS- Kottarakkara, Kerala

iCON, Kerala

IMPARSIAL, the Indonesian Human Rights Monitor

Indian Confederation of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples North East Zone (ICITP-NEZ), Assam

Indian Social Institute, Karnataka

Informal Sector Service (INSEC), Kathmandu, Nepal

Institute for Social Service, Tamil Nadu

Institute of Human Rights Education, Tamilnadu

Integrated Rural Development Service Organisation

International Dalit Solidarity Network

Name of the Organization / S.No. Individual (if endorsing as

individual)

154. Just Peace Foundation, Manipur

155. KABANI, Vayanadu, Kerala

156. Karl Marx Library, Tamilnadu

157. Karnataka Dalita Mahila Vedike, Karnataka

Mr. Karthik Navayan,

158. Dalit Writer, Human Rights Activist, and Lawyer practising in Hyderabad,

Andhra Pradesh

KARUNALAYA SOCIAL SERVICE 159. SOCIETY

160. Koushalya Jyoti Niketan, Bihar

161. Kerala Swathanthra Mathsya Thozhilai Federation (KSMTF), Trivandrum

162. Mr. Khokan Behera, Human Rights Defender, Odisha

163. KIRDTI, Orissa

164. Mr. Kishore Prahari, Human Right Defender, Odisha

165. Kisore Kishoria Proud Shiksha Sansthan Rajasthan

103.

Mr. G. Ganesan, Human Rights 135. Activist, Madurai, Tamil Nadu

International Campaign for Human

Rights in Iran 166.

Korean House for International Solidarity (KHIS)

104. Ganglamaa Vikash Manch, Odisha

105. GASCA, Odisha

Ms. Geeta Ramseshan, Lawyer,

106. Tamil Nadu

107. Ms. Gitanjali Senapati, Odisha

108. Global Concerns India, Karnataka

136.

137.

138.

139.

140.

141.

142.

143.

144.

145.

146.

147.

148.

149.

150.

151.

152. 153.

IRCDS, Tamil Nadu

Mr. Irshad Ahmed, PVCHR / JMN, Uttar Pradesh

JAAGO RE NAGRIK MANCH, Gujarat

Jago Dalit, Bihar

Janamunnettam, Kerala

Jananeethi, Kerala

Jana Sangarsh Adhikar, Odisha

Janavikash, Odisha

Jan Prabandhan Kalyan simiti, Bihar

Fr. Jayabalan

Jeeva Jothi Trust, Tamil Nadu

JEEVIKA

Mr. Jerome D'Souza

Mr. John Dayal,

Founder, All India Christian Council and the United Christian Forum for Human Rights

Joint Action Committee against violation of Fisher people's Rights, Tamil Nadu

Mr. Judhisthir Meher, Lawyer, Orissa

Judicial System Monitoring Programme (JSMP), Timor Leste

Justice for Peace Foundation (JPF), Bangkok, Thailand

Dr. V. Krishna Ananth, Lawyer and 167. Journalist, Chennai

168. Kuvi Bdayu, Odisha

169. Law & Society Trust (LST)

170. Lenin Library, Tamilnadu

171. Loke Vikas Sansthan Rajasthan

172. LUS, Odisha

173. MaaGhar Foundation Turst, Odisha

174. Mr. Mahendra Paride, Activist, Odisha

175. Mahila Jan Adhikar Samithi

176. Majdoor Kisan Vikas Sansthan, Bihar

177. Makkal Samathuvam, Tamil Nadu

Manav Adhikar Pratisthan Sansthan, 178. Bihar

Mr. S. Martin, Lawyer, Trichy, 179. Tamil Nadu

180. Martin Luther King Center for Human Rights and Democracy, Odisha

Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha 181. (MASUM), West Bengal

182. MEERA WELFARE SOCIETY

183. Mr. Mohammed Azam Khan, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh

184. Mukti Sanghthan, Odisha

185. Murasu Kalai Kuzhumam, Tamil Nadu

109.

Global Alternate Information Application [GAIA]

110. Global Rights of Public Association, Madhya Pradesh

111. Gramya Resource Centre for Women

112. Dr. Haragopal

113. HOPE, Odisha

114. Hotline Delhi

115. Housing and Land Rights Network (HLRN)

116. Mr. Hrusikesh Sarangi, RTI Activist, Odisha

Human Development Foundation,

117. Odisha

118. Humanity Welfare Organisation "HELPLine" NGO, Jammu & Kashmir

119. Human Rights Alert

120. HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

121. Human Rights Working Group (HRWG)

Name of the Organization / S.No. Individual (if endorsing as

individual)

186. Dr. Y.S.R. Murthy

187. Nari Surakshaya Samiti, Odisha

188. National Alliance of Women, Delhi

National Alliance on Testimonial

189. Therapy, Uttar Pradesh

National Centre for Advocacy Studies

190. (NCAS), Maharashtra

191. National Centre For Advocacy Studies

192. NCAS, Odisha

193. National Dalit Movement for Justice (NCDHR – NDMJ), Delhi

194. National Federation of Dalit Women, headquartered in Bangalore

Name of the Organization / S.No. Individual (if endorsing as

individual)

Prof. D.P. Pattanaik,

220. Senior Consultant, Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts, Delhi

221. Dr. Paul Newman

222. PECUC, Odisha

People's Action For Rural Awakening, 223. Andhra Pradesh

Name of the Organization / S.No. Individual (if endorsing as

individual)

248. Rural People's Economic Development Trust, Tamil Nadu

249. Rural Uplift Centre, Tamil Nadu

250. Rural Women Development Trust, Tamil Nadu

251. Rusimal Anchalik Unnayan Parishad, Odisha

224. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties – 252. Safai Karmachari Andolan

195. NCDHR, Odisha

196. National Union of Fishermen, Tamilnadu

197. Nav Chetna Vikas Kendra, Bihar

198. Navsarjan Trust, Gujarat

199. NAWO, Odisha

200. Ms. Nayani Bay, Human Rights Defender, Odisha

201. Neethi Vedhi, Kerala

202. NEG FIRE, New Delhi

203. NISHAN, Odisha

204. Niyamgiri Suraksha Andholan

205. NMYS, Odisha

206. North Eastern Social Research Centre

207. OACRC, Odisha

208. Odisha Bhirnakshyma Mahasanga

209. Odisha Gotimukti Andolan

210. ONAS, Odisha

Orissa Khadya Adhikar Abhijan,

211. Odisha

212. Odisha Nagarka Samaj, Odisha

Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan,

213. Odisha

Office for Justice Peace and

214. Development, Catholic Bishops'

Conference of India

215. Orissa Development Action Forum (ODAF), Odisha

216. Orissa Janasamilani

217. Orissa Post, Odisha

218. Ms. Paminder Parbha, Formerly with Amnesty International, London

219. Parishkaran, Karnataka

Andhra Pradesh

225. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties – National

People's Union For Civil Liberties, 226. Rajasthan

Peoples' Vigilance Committee on 227. Human Rights (PVCHR), Uttar

Pradesh

People's Watch, National Organization 228. headquartered in Tamil Nadu

253. SAKHA, Odisha

254. SAMAJIKA VIKASA KENDRAM (SVK), Andhra Pradesh

255. Samaya, Odisha

256. Sambuk Jankalyan Samiti, Bihar

257. SANCHAR, West Bengal

258. Ms. Sangita Panda, Odisha

259. Sarvangin Vikas Avam Kalyan Samiti, Bihar

260. SASVIKA, Rajasthan

261. Satrak, Odisha

262. Saura Adivasi Adhikar Abhijan, Odisha

263. Savitri Bai Women's Forum

Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribes 264. and women Development Society,

Tamil Nadu

267. Seva Bharati, Odisha

268. SFDC, Odisha

269. Ms. Sheila Jayaprakash, Chennai

270. Shikchhit Berojgar Sansthan, Bihar

271. Socio Innovative Development Organisation, Tamil Nadu

272. South India Cell for Human Rights Education and Monitoring (SICHREM)

273. Ms. Smruti Ranjita Paramguru – Member HRD Alert, Odisha

274. Social Action For New Development (SAND), Tamilnadu

275. Society for Community Organisation Trust, Tamil Nadu

276. SODA, Odisha

277. Mr. Somnath Patnaik, Lawyer, Odisha

278. SPACE -Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta, Kerala

Sparks Development Group, 279. Tamil Nadu

Mr. R.B. Sreekumar, Former Director 280. General of Police – Gujarat

229.

230.

Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA)

Mr. R. V. Pillai, IAS, (Retd), Former Secretary General, NHRC

Posco Pratirodha Sangram Samiti, Odisha

231.

232. Power to Lead, Maharashtra

265. Seeds Trust, Tamil Nadu

233. Mr. Prasad Chacko, Gujarat

234. PRASHANT - A Centre for Human 266. SEEP, Bihar

Rights, Justice and Peace, Gujarat

235. PRAXIS – Karnataka

236. Programme Against Custodial Torture & Impunity, West Bengal

237. Purva Bharati Trust, Assam

238. Dr. S. S. Rajagopalan Educationist

239. Mr. N. L. Rajah,

Lawyer, Madras High Court

240. Ms. Rashani Jena, Lawyer Odisha

241. Mr. G. Ravi

242. Dr. B. Regina Papa

Rettamalai Seenivasanaar Peravai, 243. Tamilnadu

244. RIGHTS, Kerala

245. Rights Education and Development centre (READ), Tamilnadu

Rourkela Social Service Society, 246. Odisha

Rural Development Awareness 247. Society, Tamil Nadu

S.No.

Name of the Organization / Individual (if endorsing as individual)

S.No.

Name of the Organization / Individual (if endorsing as individual)

S.No.

Name of the Organization / Individual (if endorsing as individual)

281.

Mr. Stan Thekaekara,

Director Just Change Trust, Chairman and Expert Director, Just Change India Producer Company, Director, Shop for Change, Former Founder Director, ACCORD , Former Visiting Fellow, Said Business School, Oxford University, former Trustee, Oxfam Great Britain

299.

Tamilnadu and Pondy Fisher People Federation, Tamilnadu

317.

Mr. Ullas Chandra Barik,

Human Rights Defender, Odisha

282.

STEKUS, Odisha

300.

Tamilnadu Coastal Women's movement

318.

United RTI Women's Group

283.

STEPS Women Development Organisation

301.

Tamilnadu Human Rights Defender's Forum, Tamilnadu

319.

UNNATI, Rajasthan

284.

Student Christian Movement of India, Karnataka

302.

Tamilnadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam, Tamilnadu

320.

Unorganised Labour Union, Tamil Nadu

285.

Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)

303.

Tamil Writers Federation, Tamil Nadu

321.

Urban Research Centre, Karnataka

286.

Mr. K. Sudhakar Patnaik, Journalist, Odisha

304.

Ms. Tara Murali, Trustee, CAG (Citizen, consumer and civic

Action Group), Tamilnadu

322.

USSO, Tamil Nadu

287.

Sudhanthra, Tamil Nadu

305.

THAMATE,(Centre For Rural Empowerment), Karnataka

323.

Ms. R.VAIGAI,

Lawyer, Madras High Court

288.

Ms. Sudha Ramalingam, Lawyer, Madras High court

306.

Thampu, Attapadi, Palakadu

324.

V.Vasanthi Devi,

Former Vice-Chancellor, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu and Former Chairperson, Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women

289.

Suman Vihar, Bihar

307.

Thanthai Periyar Thiravidar Kalagam, Tamilnadu

325.

Vasundhara, Odisha

290.

Ms. Sunila Singh, National Advocacy Officer – Delhi, People's Watch

308.

THE AYAUSKAM, Orissa

326.

Vigil India Movement, Karnataka

291.

Justice Mr. H. Suresh, Former Judge

309.

Theera Desha Samrakshna Samithi , Kerala

327.

Vizhuthugal –Dalits Human Rights Organisation

292.

Mr. Suresh Bhosale

310.

Theeradesha Vanitha Forum, Kollam, Kerala

328.

Ms. Vrinda Grover, Lawyer, New Delhi

293.

Mr. Suryadeepan, Writer, Tamil Nadu

311.

The Institute for Research and Advocacy (ELSAM), Indonesia

329.

Women Education & Development Trust, Tamil Nadu

294.

Susangani, Bihar

312.

The Lawyers League for Liberty (LIBERTAS), Quezon City, Philippines

330.

WOMEN'S RESEARCH & ACTION GROUP, Maharashtra

295.

Swami Agnivesh

313.

The Other Media

331.

Women Voice, Tamil Nadu

296.

Swanchetan - Society for Mental Health, New Delhi

314.

Tiruppur People's Forum, Tamil Nadu

332.

Working Group on Human Rights in India and the UN (WGHR)

297.

Prof. Dr. Tahir Mahmood, Chairman, Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, Amity University, Delhi

315.

Uday Welfare Society, Bihar

333.

Zailaitmu, Odisha

298.

Taiwan Association for Human Rights (TAHR)

316.

Ulagath Tamilar Peramaippu, Tamilnadu

ANNEXURE

Sl.No Title

1. UN Press Release: Statement of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Margaret Sekaggya, as she concludes her visit to India

2. Information obtained from NHRC in response to an RTI petition - RTI Response 3306

3. Budget information produced by the NHRC for the years 2007, 2008, and 2009

4. Copy of the NHRC Order to investigate and authenticate Tehelka Tapes of Operation Kalank

5. Information obtained from NHRC in response to an RTI petition - RTI 3305

6. Information obtained from NHRC in response to an RTI petition – Follow up on RTI 3304.

7. Statement by the Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC-STM-004-2010) dated July 30, 2010

8. Response to an RTI Petition Reference No. R.C. No. 16(I)/PIO/2005 (RTI)/2586

9. Information obtained from NHRC in response to an RTI petition - Reference note R.C.No. 16(1)/2005 (RTI)/2645

10. Chart of members of the appointment committee

11. Information received in response to an RTI Petition to the Commission (RC No.16(1)/PIO/2005(RTI)/2639 dated 25.09.2009

12. Information obtained from NHRC in response to an RTI petition with regard to category of staff with special reference to the disabled

13. Report of the NHRC of India to the 15th APF covering the period 2009 – 2010

14. Information obtained from NHRC in response to an RTI petition on Organizational Infrastructure

15. Information obtained from NHRC in response to an RTI petition on criteria for selection of candidates to staff positions

16. Letter to Mr. A.B. Tripathy from Secretary General Gopalaswami dated 19 July, 1999 received in response to an RTI petition

17. Letter to Mr. Verma from Mrs. Aruna Sharma dated August 23, 2006 received in response to an RTI petition

18. Information obtained from NHRC in response to an RTI petition RTI 3215

19. Response of the Commission in case of the police search on People's Watch premises

20. 16(1)/PIO/2005(RTI)/2641 Request received on 8.9.2009 regarding development of jurisprudence in NHRC from 12.10.1993 – 31.8.2009.

21. Information obtained from NHRC in response to an RTI petition RTI 2643.

22. Minutes of the Meeting of the Core Group of NGOs, 18.07.2008, 11.30 a.m. at the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi (received in response to an RTI petition).

23. Information provided by the NHRC to follow-up letter on a Right to Information Petition, RTI 3194.

24. List of deputationists in the NHRC

APPENDIX

Sl.No

Title

25.

Protection of Human Rights Act

26.

NHRC Procedure Regulations

27.

Practice directions of the NHRC

28.

Annual Reports of NHRC (1993-1994 to 2006-2007 Reports)

29.

ANNI Reports (2006-2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010)

30.

Other information received in response to RTI petitions to the NHRC

List of Abbreviations

• AiNNI: All India Network of NGOs and Individuals working with National Human Rights Institutions

• ANNI: Asian NGOs Network on National Human Rights Institutions

• BSF: Border Security Force

• CB CID: Crime Branch's Criminal Investigation Department

• CBI: Central Bureau of Investigation

• CISF: Central Industrial Security Force

• CJI: Chief Justice of India

• DM: District Magistrate

• DGP: Director General of Police

• DSP: Deputy Superintendent of Police

• IAS: Indian Administrative Service

• IFS: Indian Foreign Service

• IGP: Inspector General of Police

• IPS: Indian Police Service

• NHRC: National Human Rights Commission

• NLSA: National Legal Services Authority

• PHRA: Protection of Human Rights Act

• PIO: Public Information Officer

• RTI: Right to Information Act

• SHRC: State Human Rights Commission

• SCI: Supreme Court of India

• SLSA: State Legal Services Authority

• SP: Superintendent of Police

• SSP: Senior Superintendent of Police

Look and Gaze

Pages

An NGO Report on the Compliance with the Paris Principles by the National Human Rights Commission of India

No comments:

Post a Comment

Most Popular Posts