Giving Human Rights Commission more Teeth

National Human Rights Commission was in limelight few months earlier, when it has ordered the Assam government to pay ₹1 lakh to a 48-year-old man who was thrashed more than a year ago in Biswanath district for selling cooked beef at his tea stall at a weekly market.

Before beginning the post-mortem, it’ll be good for us to dive into the need and history of NHRC and why it is in the spotlight?

So, the very basic thing which should be drawing attention is, from which factor there is highest chances or from which factor citizens are highest prone to violation of human rights? Is it a foreign nation, transnational factor or is it the state itself who was proclaimed to protect the rights of its citizens. There lies the paradox itself wherein state was asked to form National Human Rights Commission itself. This issue was dealt during later stages as discussed below.

The very next question before us is, what exactly are the Hman Rights? How can we define Human Rights? These are defined in International Covenant, i.e., Paris Principles,1991 as follows:

1. Rights relating to Life, Liberty, Equality and Dignity of Individual
2. guaranteed by Constitution
3. Emobodied in International Covenants
4. Enforceable by Courts in India

The whole story started with the end of World War II, when refugees were treated inhumanly and world media was flooded with such news only. Then United Nations General Assembly Resolution 217A, popularly known as Universal Declaration of Human Rights, passed on 10 December 1948.

These were ratified again with induction of Paris Principles in year 1991, when the covenant laid down following provisions for effective supervision and functioning of Human Rights Institutions i.e., there should be wide mandate and competence, autonomy from Government so that it can work effectively without any biasness, Independence should by guaranteed by a statute or constitution itself, there should be wide representation (pluralism), adequate resources and adequate powers of investigation, organised by United Nation General Assembly Regulation 48/134.

Same regulation was ratified by India as well and there’s the origin of statutory body i.e., National Human Rights Commission under Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. Let’s see it’s structure and then we’ll come to review whether it’s sufficient enough or there’s a long way ahead to protect human rights of Indians.

Structure of Human Rights Commission

The chairperson is a retired chief justice of India or a judge of the Supreme Court. They are appointed by the President on the recommendations of a six-member committee consisting of:

• Prime Minister (head)
• Speaker of the Lok Sabha
• Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha
• Leaders of the Opposition in both the Houses of Parliament
• Union Home Minister.

Remember the subheading of article, where NHRC has ordered the Assam government to pay ₹1 lakh to a 48-year-old man who was thrashed more than a year ago in Biswanath district for selling cooked beef at his tea stall at a weekly market. Now the next bigger question ahead of us is that, whether we achieved what was sought by Global Stalwarts for ensuring Global Peace and security.

Let’s have a look at the limitations of Human Rights Commission. Inspite of the fact that it has been conferred with all the powers of Civil Court under Code of Civil Procedure,1908, it’s no powers to punish violators of human rights; nor to award any relief including monetary relief to victim; recommendations are not binding on government/authorities but it is to be informed about action taken on it’s recommendations within one month.

Seeing all these ups and downs of Human Rights Commissions both at Union and State level boths, Ex-solicitor General of India, SOLI SORABJEE called it, TEASING ILLUSION while Supreme Court termed it TOOTHLESS TIGER.

In sum, the crucial role played by a Human Rights Commission — and the requirement of state accountability in a democracy committed to a ‘culture of justification’ — strongly indicates that the Commission’s recommendations should be binding upon the state. Which way the Madras High Court holds will have a crucial impact upon the future of human rights protection in India.