NEW DELHI: The Indian President promulgated an Ordinance providing for the setting up of a National Human Rights Commission to inquire into complaints of violation of human rights against public servants in any part of the country. The Commission’s jurisdiction will also extend to the armed forces and paramilitary forces, though its powers to inquire into complaints against them and rec ommend action will be limited.
In addition to a national commission, to be chaired by a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, each State will have a human rights commission of its own 10 look into complaints of human rights violations pertaining to the State list. The State Government will also be empowered to set to district level special courts to ensure speedy trail of offences relating to human rights violation.
The Ordinance pressure on India from Western powers and international human rights organizations to improve its human rights records, though official sources were on Sept.29, emphatic that the move had nothing to do with outside pressure. They pointed out that India had neither any reason to be ashamed of its human rights record nor had anything to hide. In the past one year over 100 foreign journalists besides representatives of Amnesty International and the International Committee of Red Cross had visited Jammu and Kashmir and seen for themselves the difficult conditions in which the armed forces were fighting the militants.
The Ordinance is patterned closely on the provision of a Human Rights Bill which was introduced in Parliament on the monsoon session and referred by the Lok Sabha Speaker to a standing committee of the Ministry of Home Affairs. Although the committee discussed the Bill clause by clause at a series of meetings, the final draft on which the Ordinance is based is not significantly different from the original Bill.
The Commission to be constituted as early as possible, according to official sources will act like a civil court with powers to summon witnesses and requisition any document or evidence which it thinks may have a bearing on the complaint under investigation, Nobody can refuse summons or requisition from the Commission on grounds of privilege which he or she may otherwise enjoy under the law.
The fact that the Commission will not have an independent investigating agency of its own depending instead on the existing agencies of the Central and State Govemments which may themselves be the subject of a complaint drew some criticism Wednesday, as did the “limitations” imposed on the Commission with regard to complaints against the armed forces. While the commission will have the powers to specify punishment against the police and other public servants found guilty of violating human rights, it will not have such Sweeping jurisdiction in the case of the armed forces. The ordinance merely says that it would make its recommendations to the Central Government which will be required to convey to the Commission within three months the action taken by it.
Official sources were at pains to stress that the “limitations” placed on the Commission’s powers with regard to the armed forces would not in any way “dilute” its effectiveness in dealing with complaints against them. The distinction between others and the armed forces had been made because the latter already had an effective legal system. They sought to dispel the impression that any “concessions” had been made to the armed forces, pointing out that a different set of procedure had been suggested for them in view of the “stringent” provisions which already existed in their case.
The sectional commission will be based in Delhi apart from a chairperson, it will have eight other members, including a sitting or former judge of the Supreme Court, a sitting or former Chief Justice of a High Court and chairpersons of the various statutory National Commissions such as the National Commission for Minorities, the Colonial Commission for Scheduled Caste tribes and the National Commission for Women. Two members will be appointed from among human rights experts and there will be a secretary-general who will act as the Commission chief executive officer.
All appointments will be made on the recommendations of seven member committee chaired by Prime Minister and comprising, among others a Speaker of the Lower House, the Leaders of the Opposition in the two Houses, and the Deputy Chairperson of the Upper House members of the Commission will have a five year term. The State Commissions will be smaller, headed by the Chief Justice of a High Court, A Committee consisting among others, the Chief Minister, the Speaker, and the Leader of the Opposition will make the appointments.
Senior officials emphasized that the ordinance would “materially” affect the Government’s policy allowing Intemational human rights organizations to visit trouble spots in India. The practice of deciding each case on its merit would continue, they said pointing out that in future organization may like to” interact” with the commission rather than directly with Government. “At this stage, all this is a matter of speculation,” an official commented.
Countering suggestions that there was any significance the timings of the ordinance, officials said that was being done was 10 simply follow up the Bill already introduced in Parliament. There were no more to the timing than the fact that the next session of Parliament was still nearly months away and keeping the measure ending until then would have meant unnecessary delay they argued.
Article extracted from this publication >> October 8, 1993
