We are asked to support the Human Rights Commission (HRC) simply because it’s there. But, can ‘we ignore the total subversion of democracy inflicted by the manner of its creation? In September 1992, the HRC proposal was to be examined by five Chief Ministers (including Jyoti Basu, Shekhawat and Laloo Prasad Yadav), The Chief Ministers never met. Then, on October 12, 1992, a committee of nine persons was set up which is Supposed to have met also on February 18, 1993. To this day, we do not know who its members were and what they recommended.

Five seminars with invited audiences were held. In Hyderabad, Kannabiran’s written invitation to attend was withdrawn by telephone. In Calcutta, the public was kept out In Delhi, vital questions remained unanswered: and even the civil servants had some doubts which were frozen into official silence. A Bill was drafted and placed before Parliament in May 1993 which reflected none of the antecedent discussions. In August 1993, the Bill was sent to a Standing Committee which alas, did not have the time to hear submissions because it was in a learning hurry. Why? No one knows, during the parliamentary races and in total breach of privilege the Government claimed access to the Committee’s report, rang up the Speaker and consulted the chosen few to promulgate an ordinance on Sept28, 1993. What was the urgency? No one knows, On Dec.7, 1993, the original Bill before Parliament was withdrawn leaving the field clear for the ordinance, In order to preempt Parliament and present it with a fate accomplice, appointments 0 the Commission were hurriedly made on Oct.3, 1993. Ironically the BIP leaders of the Opposition Atal Behari Vajpayee and Jaswant Singh collaborated with the Government in the making of these appointments. Why? No explanation is forthcoming from the BJP. Why the hurry whilst the Bill was pending before Parliament. The answer “reasons of State which cannot be revealed to the people of India”! In a savage attempt to keep out activists, the ordinance excluded the Chairpersons of the Minority, SC and ST and Women’s Commissions from ¢ven participating in the main work of the Commission: investigation of complaints, New Human Rights Courts were created and the Union Government (in section 37) was given a massive overriding power to investigate and’ the prosecute human nights. No attempt whatsoever was made to deal with the basic flaws of the Bill.

‘The basic flaws of the Bill remain. In the first place, it is violative of federalism. Law and order, police and jails are State subjects. No state can be forced to cooperate with the Central Commission. ‘This raises a serious question of constitutionally, Second, the army, remains immune from investigation. The Commission will simply be a human rights post office in relation to the army. Third, the Commission is lumbered with a Commission of Inquiry procedure which can only paralyze its working and provide protection to bureaucrats. What is required is a simple investigation and prosecution procedure; fourth, the Commission has no follow-through powers. It is like a Lokpal. At its best, its reports may embarrass governments which have shown that they are not vulnerable to embarrassment even after conclusive proof that their hands were in the cash till. Fifth, the commission will not have and will never be able to create a proper independent investigative bureaucracy under its control; sixth, the membership of the Commission will remain within the gift of the Government. It is designed not to work except bless government patronage. The BJP’s leaders have proved that in relation to the present Commission. Consistent with this there is a total exclusion of activists from membership. Even the ex officio members of the other Commissions cannot participate in inquiry and investigation. Seventh, the existence of the other Commission and the fact that the States have exclusive power in important human rights fields will paralyze the Commission.

‘There are many other ills. Parliaments well advised to reconsider this entire proposal rather than be browbeaten into submission by fate accomplice. What is needed is a constitutional commission with activist membership appointed by a proper collegium which has investigative, prosecutorial and remedial powers over all violations without following cumbersome procedures protective of state officials. What we have is a captive ineffective commission playing to the Government’s tune and running around in musical chairs with the other Commissions in an attempt to grapple with its irrelevance.

Article extracted from this publication >>  December 24, 1993