NHRC: Rubber Stamp gets GUJARAT SEAL

Set up at a time when New Delhi was being slammed by international human rights organisations, particularly on Kashmir, the NHRC was born with the dubious tag of being the Government’s rubber-stamp. But its latest report on Gujarat is by far its most politically damaging and for that very reason could turn out to be the strongest evidence that under Justice J S Verma, it’s rapidly coming of age.

THE RUBBER STAMP

The annual reports of the NHRC cannot be made public till as long as the Home Ministry does not table them in Parliament. This is a pre-condition laid down by the Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 governing the functioning of the NHRC. The Government is required to table each report along with a memorandum of action taken or proposed. The Vajpayee Government has proved to be more lax than its predecessors in taking follow-up action on the NHRC’s recommendations. At the other end, the Narasimha Rao Government, which set up the NHRC in October 1993, tabled its annual report in Parliament every time in the very first session following the submission of the report.

But then there were other ways in which the Rao Government diluted the autonomy a watchdog body such as the NHRC ought to have. The now increasing delays in taking follow-up action can in fact be traced to Rao’s failure to fix a deadline in the law for tabling its annual reports. Another blow struck by Rao was his decision to make the Home Ministry the ‘‘administrative link’’ of the NHRC even though most of the human rights complaints concern the same ministry. One of the most serious shortcomings in the 1993 Act is that it exempts the armed forces as well as the para-military forces from the purview of the NHRC. Thus the NHRC can do little about the human rights violations in troubled areas like Kashmir and the Northeast, which are dominated by the Army and para-military forces.

THE FIRST STRIKE

As it happened, the very first case in which the NHRC took suo motu action related to BSF personnel stationed in Kashmir. They were alleged to have fired indiscriminately at a crowd of peaceful demonstrators in October 1993 in a place called Bijbehara. The NHRC made specific recommendations pertaining to the killings. But as the BSF personnel are exempt from the NHRC’s inquiry jurisdiction, the Centre had no compunctions in disregarding its recommendations. About four years later, the Home Ministry informed the NHRC about the rather different outcome of the BSF’s own inquiry and trial. The NHRC in reaction asked the Home Ministry to show the records of the BSF’s proceedings. When the Home Ministry refused to do so, the NHRC filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking production of the BSF records. In it annual report of 1998-99, the NHRC claimed that it was awaiting the BSF records and that it was ‘‘determined to see this case through to its logical conclusion.’’

But in September 2000, the NHRC went back on its resolve to pursue the Bijbehara case and quietly withdrew its petition from the Supreme Court. This little-known move of the NHRC is a blot in its record of standing up to other authorities. The only justification the NHRC offered for withdrawing the petition was that it had submitted some ‘‘comprehensive recommendations’’ to the Government six months earlier to amend the 1993 Act. One of those recommendations was that para-military forces should also be brought under the jurisdiction of the NHRC. It told the court that it did not wish to pursue the petition as its recommendations to amend the law were ‘‘under consideration.’’

THE TEETH THEY WANT

Not surprisingly, the NHRC’s optimism about the prospects of being conferred greater autonomy turned out to be misplaced. The Government has so far done nothing to incorporate any of the 35 amendments proposed by the NHRC to the 1993 Act. And it is not likely to do anything about them in a hurry as it runs the risk of losing all control over the NHRC. Some of the key amendments proposed by the NHRC are:

» Bring all paramilitary forces under the purview of the NHRC: The idea is to keep only the armed forces out of the NHRC’s ambit.

» The appointment committee headed by the Prime Minister should include the NHRC’s Chairperson when its members are being selected.

» Make a stipulation that the Commission’s staff, including its secretary general and director general (investigation), should be appointed only with ‘‘the concurrence of the Commission.’’ Further, the NHRC specifically sought an amendment empowering it to recruits its own investigative staff.

» It should be made compulsory for the Government to table the NHRC’s annual and special reports in Parliament within three months of their submission. The NHRC also proposed that ‘‘where any such report is not laid before the Houses of Parliament within that period, it shall be open to the Commission to publish such report.’’ Incidentally, this found a supporter in President K.R. Narayanan.

» The NHRC suggested that it should be made compulsory for all the states to appoint state human rights commissions provided for under the same 1993 Act. The existing law leaves this matter to the discretion of the states. As a result, only 12 states have so far appointed their own human rights commissions. The defaulting states include Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, which account for the bulk of the complaints received by the NHRC. Significantly, the communally sensitive Gujarat and Naxalite-affected Andhra Pradesh also do not have state human rights commissions.

» Amendment to confer greater financial autonomy on the NHRC: The amendments recommended by the NHRC are designed to take it closer to the internally recognised standards for human rights institutions spelt out in the so-called Paris Principles. The problem however is, New Delhi, hit as it is by the NHRC’s Gujarat report, is unlikely to have anything to do with the Paris Principles.