Let us think
and Act with an open mind to
Develop a Vibrant Democracy – Article 10
SRB
Introduction: I have identified thirty obstacles which cause a distorted
and ineffective democracy and possible solutions for these. Because very few
people have time / inclination to read long articles, these are presented in
separate brief articles for pointed attention and easier assimilation. I hope
this will lead to spreading of awareness and facilitating point by point debate
on each of these for saving our sinking democracy.
(Please keep these articles within easy reach for
referring back till the series is completed.)
Human rights
A democracy has to ensure that people
are not subjected to violations of human rights. For this purpose, National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) was set up
under the Human
Rights Commission Act 1993. The tabular statement
below gives a vivid picture of the performance of NHRC:
National Human Rights Commission
Statement showing total No. of cases registered and
their status during the period from 2006 to 2011
Year
|
Pending
|
Dismissed
in limini |
Disposed With
directions
|
SHRC
|
Closed
|
Total
|
2006
|
363
|
46,070
|
25,625
|
330
|
8,583
|
80,971
|
2007
|
552
|
59,254
|
28,497
|
871
|
9,381
|
98,555
|
2008
|
517
|
65,492
|
18,955
|
5,162
|
4,428
|
94,554
|
2009
|
780
|
62,364
|
12,060
|
5,374
|
3,526
|
84,104
|
2010
|
1,873
|
57,622
|
14,738
|
7,432
|
2,647
|
84,312
|
2011
|
5,802
|
48,184
|
12,820
|
24,139
|
2,753
|
93,698
|
Total
|
9,887
|
338,986
|
112,695
|
43,308
|
31,318
|
536,194
|
During 2006 to 2011, about 5.4 lakh persons had
alleged that they suffered from human rights violations, at an average of about
90,000 per year!! Many lakhs more are likely to have complained to State
Human Rights Commissions!! Some more might have suffered but did not complain. The
atrocious fact that such amazing number of people had complaints of violation of
human rights is a matter for serious concern under a democracy. Any
attempt to put these under the carpet as frivolous complaints will only expose
callousness and will not have any takers because lakhs of complainants cannot
be frivolous.
In a democracy, how these complaints have been
dealt with is also important. Among these, about 1.1 lakhs (about
one fifth) only were “disposed with directions”. NHRC had no qualms in refusing to examine about 3.4 lakhs (two-thirds)
of the violation complaints and “dismissing these in limini” – a
deeply disgusting picture of inaction to remove human rights violations.
Thus even the last channel of hope was cruelly
cut off for lakhs of possible sufferers from human rights violations. This atrocious
situation arose on account of NHRC (procedure) Regulations 1997 which did not give
powers to NHRC to review judgments by
courts and commissions.
The
NHRC statement did not give the important information about how many of the
3.4 lakh cases dismissed in limini were complaints against court judgments.
It is reasonable to presume that vast majority of this huge number of
violation complaints arose from perceived denial of justice by courts and did
not arise from recommendations of commissions. NHRC did not give serious
thought as to why lakhs of people were complaining to it
against court judgments. It also ignored the obvious possible reason
that after 1997 (when the Regulation was made), transparency of courts has
been increasingly questioned by people.
Because
of such laissez-faire attitudes, it did not realize the
simple fact that suitable
modification of the Regulation was urgently needed to allow review of all
complaints. Sad to say,
NHRC, the supreme authority on human rights did not take even this simple
step to rectify the atrocious situation but callously continued to take
shelter under the obviously obsolete 1997 Regulation to dismiss lakhs of cases
without examining them.
All
these show a grossly dismal picture of human rights
which is a shame for the Indian democracy. NHRC was so smug and complacent that it never cared
to study its own statistics and take suitable remedial actions which were in its
power!!
Sad
to say, neither Parliament (peoples’ representatives) nor government cared
to take any action to rectify the atrocious situation of large scale complaints
against human rights violations. Probably, they did not even care to keep a
watch on the human rights situation and were, therefore, not aware of what
was happening!! Can it be possible that many of these complaints were ignored
because these were against political leaders who are known to throw their
weight around?
NHRC
is an autonomous body with operational and financial authority and had the power to regulate its own procedure for disposal
of complaints. Section 12 of Chapter III of the Human Rights
Commission Act 1993 lists the functions the Commission shall
perform. Among these, 12 (d) and 12 (j) are pertinent in the
present context:
12
(d) - review
the safeguards provided by or under the Constitution or any law for
the time being in force for the protection of human rights and recommend measures for their effective implementation.
12
(j) - such other functions as it may consider necessary for the protection of
human rights.
These two sections specifically empower NHRC and
instruct it to carry out all functions necessary to protect human rights,
including recommending measures for effective implementation of safeguards to protect human rights. Yet, it did not act to overcome
the shameful and dismal picture of human rights in India, shown by its own statistics. NHRC, using its
statutory powers to regulate its own procedure for disposal of complaints, ought to have amended the obsolete NHRC (procedure) Regulations
1997 which forced it to dismiss lakhs of complaints without examination.
Failure to do so even when faced with the atrocious situation of human rights shows lack of accountability and tantamounts to contempt
of the Constitution. The top level officers of NHRC who lacked
accountability and were responsible for this contempt deserve to be penalized
immediately to restore faith in NHRC to a large extent.
On the other hand, central and state governments
have not cared to ensure that Human Rights Commissions are equipped to carry
out their functions properly. Even though vacancies are bound to
occur quite often in HRCs, steps are not taken in advance to fill up vacancies
in time and to empower the next junior level officer to act whenever necessary.
For instance, Karnataka State Human Rights Commission could not register a suo motu case because it did not have a
Chairperson for some months, as stated by the Registrar of the SHRC (DNA dated
19 – 11- 2012).
The
above aspects depict the sixteenth and very serious obstacle which resulted in
a distorted and ineffective democracy.
To
overcome this obstacle, a thorough review
of the working of NHRC should be carried out by an independent body
with expertise in human rights and its recommendations should be immediately
implemented in toto. Any rejection of
the recommendations by government should be ratified by both houses of Parliament.
Meanwhile, the top level officers of NHRC,who lacked accountability and showed contempt
of the Constitution by not using their
powers to rectify the dismal picture of human rights, should be removed immediately so that they do not
interfere in the review. This step is
also essential to restore faith in NHRC.
Thereafter,
a new set of top officers of NHRC should be appointed to exercise its statutory power to regulate its own procedure for
disposal of complaints by overriding any procedural regulations.
In particular, the obsolete NHRC (procedure) Regulations 1997 which had repeatedly
forced NHRC to dismiss lakhs of complaints in limini and made it toothless should be amended immediately.
Once
the modified procedure becomes operative, it is certain that NHRC will have to
review lakhs of complaints about miscarriages of justice. Therefore, no judges should be appointed in top positions of NHRC.
Eminent lawyers and human rights activists should form an essential part of
the top level officers of NHRC.
Top priority should be given to strengthening NHRC to make it
capable of handling lakhs of cases.
Comments
(especially those which point out errors or deficiencies, if any, in this
article and thereby help to improve it) and
other suggestions to overcome this
obstacle are welcome. Please send these to StartRemovingBlocks@gmail.com.
I shall make use of all befitting suggestions to prepare the last two articles
of this series – Articled 23 will spell out the basic principles which will
guide formulation of the revised system of democracy and Article 24 will
outline the revised system of democracy for public debate to arrive at a
consensus.
You can help to save our sinking
democracy by making as many
people as possible aware of these obstacles and possible solutions, through
personal group discussions, newspaper articles, e-mail and social media like
face book and twitter so that we can have healthy
debates and arrive at some innovative ideas to save our sinking democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment