On the midnight of 14-15th August, 187 when the Indian people had their tryst with destiny, we inherited a colonial apparatus of repression which included the Police Act. Over the years, this machinery of repression has been modernized and sophisticated with new technol3gicel innovations and we have in free India enacted many more repressive laws which are blacker than the blackest laws of the British period.
The Indian establishment has a double face, a Janus’ face. We are trying to have within the framework of a democratic order, both a welfare state and a police state. I would not quote many reports because the international reports whether of international voluntary organisations or of foreign governments or of foreign legislatures will perhaps irritate the Home Minister. I would not even quote the recent of the PUCL and PLOR which are national organisations of eminence. But I would certainly recommend to the Home Minister that he should read than from time to time.
Only today, the newspapers have remarked that en eminent organisation in the U.S.A. called Freedom house has called us a partially free Setae.
would like to quote the UN Human Rights Committee’s findings. When we submitted our report on our performance under the Covenant of Civil and political Right, we said: “Human rights as embodied in the Covenant of stand substantially protected by the Constitution. But the UN Committee on Human Rights under the Covenant of Civil and Political Rights have said: “Many of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights revisions do not seem to be applied in India and that a number of provisions in such laws currently enforced, contravene important rights provided in the Covenant. The Committee was especially concerned about the arbitrary
powers granted to the security forces under the Armed Forces Special Powers Pet, the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, and the National Security Act, in Jammu and Kashmir, the Public Safety Act.
Th9-is is the international verdict which we cannot escapke. I would, therefore, quote for the Minister of Home Affairs, a line in poetry:
There is a persistent pattern of massive violation of human rights in our country which is directed largely against the weaker section’s of our society and against the meanie living at the periphery of the national territory. This le a fact that we must take into account.
Sir, I do not trust the motives of the Government in bringing forward-114r this rill. 1 am conscious of the fact that there can be a change of heart. But I do not see any change of heart, when I look at the various formulation in the Bill. Perhaps the Government have brought Forward this OM our of strategic compulsions if our international relations, basically economic.
do not find that the Home Minister is trying to remedy a known evil. He is only trying to silence foreign criticism. In fact, he is trying to
hoodwink public opinion and create a smoke-screen and, therefore, I would say, to begin with, that a Commission of this nature cannot be a substitute for the proper functioning of tho system itself. The Amnesty International has advised n A Commission can never replace nor should IL in any way diminish the safeguards inherent, impartial and adequately resourceful and accessible judiciary. In India, the creation of such a Human Rights Commission should go hand in hand with a thorough review of the existing mechanisms.” I do not see that the Home Minister is created to undertake a thorough review if the existing machinery or the existing procedures or the existing mechanism and that is the reason why doubt his intention and his motive.
First of all, I would like to focus on the status of this Commission. It has been said that it is a fact finding body. But it does not have an investigating machinery of its own. It does not have any penal powers at all. It does not have even the power to institute a judicial proceeding based on its own findings. It does not have the power to make any mandatory recommendations. Its recommendations era only recommendations which the Government may or may not accept. The Commission, as envisaged in this Bill, is a toothless tiger.
Let us now look at Section 2(f) of this sill which defines the jurisdiction. It names two international Covenants to which you are a party. There are 91 other international instruments relating to human rights adopted since 1926 right up to 1992, the last one being the International Declaration on the Rights of Minorities. I wish that in the Pill, the jurisdiction was to cover all international instruments on human rights, not just two Covenants. The Government OF India is 8 party to most of these international instruments, I believe, to 90 per cent of these instruments, and there is no reason at all far the Government to limit the jurisdiction of this Commission only to the consideration of two Covenants and not to the other 91 international covenants in the field of human rights, not Even the Universal Declaration.
Let Us leak at the composition of this Commission and the procedure for selection. I think the selection is very heavily loaded in favor of the Government. In circler that the Commission have public credibility, it e members must be selected eye a committee which has got non—governmental elements as the majority.
I would suggest that the Chief’ Justice of India ought to be there instead of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is already represented there by the Home Minister. be aces not have to be there or one of them can choose to be there, and let the Selection Committee include the Chief Justice of India.
I now come to the Commission. I would particularly like to draw the attention of the House to the lest group namely, two Members to be appointed from amongst *persons, having knowledge of Practical experience in matters relating to human rights’. They may well be nonentities. Why cannot you have people who are known activists, nationally known, international known, eminent persons who have devoted their entire life to the protection: reservation and promotion of human rights ? I wish it was suitably worded km see that really eminent persons would be there along with the members of the judicially who have been mentioned here.
Newt I would like to draw the attention up the House to Section 12( 12(a)(i) says;
“Enquire suo motu or on a petition presented to it by a victim or any person on his behalf into complaints of violation of human rights or abetment thereof.”
It does not say by him. In most case, it is State v. the individual, because that is the concept of human rights.
The human rights conceptually relate to the relationship between the State and the individual. In fact, if all theca Covenants, which are the charter Cur this Commission. It is the States which are asked, under Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Fights, to make the necessary lows, to take necessary executive measures, to protect the human rights end protect the individuals against violations. It is the States which are expected to offer a remedy. The State cannot get away Ly may in,„ that there are private groups which also violate human rights. Yes, such private groups are there and if the sovereignty of the State is indivisible, the State must have the full authority and full rower to control the activities of such criminal, terrorist groups, to protect the rights of the populated against such terrorize . So, either it is a case of the State’s inability or the State itself adopting violent methods. It is either incompetence or State xi* violence. Therefore, it must be brought out here in this Section 12(a) (0 by saying, after the violation of human rights or abetment thereof, ‘by the administrative machinery or by the executive machinery
or by a public servant Something must be there so as to make that absolutely clear and to put it beyond any doubt.
I would now like to drew your ‘attention to Section 12(e). Regarding Section 12(e), with due respect to the hen. Minister, I must say that it is very cleverly worded. It says: “The committee will review the facture, including sets of terrorism that intlibit the Enjoyment of human rights and recommend appropriate remedial measures.” The Home Minister is seeing a smoke-screen, seeking an excuse for the massive violation of the human rights by the agents of the State that have become inevitable in a given situation: This is totally ill-conceived. In my opinion, if you permit me to use the word, it is mischievously worded. It is trying to protect the stets machinery as a whole. It is a final excuse for all the massive violations of the human rights of the people eye the State machinery. I would, therefore, request the Home Minister that in order to dispel all the doubts about the intention of the Government, this section 2241114xmlxkx 12(e) must be re-worded.
I would like to make the next point about the statement often made by the Government about the acts of terrorism. It is the State which makes the laws and it is the State’s duty to enforce the laws. There may or any number of elements in Per society who are anxious, who are motivated to break those laws. The State cannot break the laws that it makes. The raison Antrm d’etra of the State, the very basin of the State is to enforce the law. Therefore, if the State violates its own law, that is totally f unforgivable in a numen and civilized society. It cannot De compared to the violation of the laws by any other group or individual or organisation. Therefore, that argument which is often made out by the Government, in my opinion, is totally misconceived.
Then, I come to Section 18(1) of this Bill. In this Section, again, you have used the word ‘may!. It is -about the Commission’s recommendations end the procedure. Here, you have used the words “the Commission may take”. I would like it to be worded as “the Comm Commission shall take”. We ere vesting power in the Commission.
We went that power to be used by it. We do not want it to tie left to the possible intervention to close its eyes. The State is often acting like Gendhijits monkeys. It does not hear; it does not listen; it does not see. I would like the Commission not to behave like Gandhiji ts monk eya.
Therefore, I would suggest that there should be a mandatory provision that wnen a complaint is brought to the notice, they Alkali shall take action, not that they may take action.
Thee, I would like to draw your attention to the infamous section 19 which excludes the Security Forces from the purview of this Commission, more or less. The term ‘earmedforcee* has now been penned in a very comprehensive manner. I would suggest that since most of the violations that have been reported are the acts committed by the armed for forces, in that comprehensive sense, the Commission should have the authority to go into their acts.
I do not accept this argument of morale. In fact, if there is discipline, the morale will be higher and then greater the credibility, greater the public acceptance, higher the public prestige of the armed fore forces. If the few who break the laws are ewe punished and are duly taken note of. Therefore, merely saying that some report will be given by the Commission and then the recommendations made on the Commission will be published, is not good enough. The Commission must have the right to investigate threw complaints end, bf courser they can inform the Government and the Government can participate in these enquiries and then help the Commission to come to its Finding. Out once there is a finding of the Commission, those individuals should not protected at all.
Now I come to a very negative element in this Bill, that is, section 20(2) about the annual report. It sees that the Government will inform the House when the report is submitted about the recommendations of the Commission and the reasons for non—acceptance of the recommendations, if any, Now again here, there is the element that the recommendations will not be always accepted by the Government.
I do not see why not. The Commission’s recommendations must totally accepted by the Government, must be implemented by the Government.
This Commission consists of the highest people in the country ex—Chief Justice, retired judges of the supreme Court end eminent individuals. And their report and their recommendations must be accepted by the Government. There is no question at all of their non—acceptance. Therefore, I think, we need to change this Provision.
There is another very mischievous provision here under Section 36(1). It tries to put a lid on the acts or omission and commission, sots of violation of human rights. It sets the limit as one year. Section 36(2) says that the Commission or the State Commission shall not inquire into any matter after the expiry of one year. Beautiful. I would like to ask the Home Minister Does a criminal act has any limitation under the Indian law An ordinary crime has no limit at all. A murder case can always be taken up in a court of law. If the Criminal Procedure Code hos now introduced a limitation, with rcLard to some officers.
But surely one year limit is totally unrealistic. That means then most of the acts will remain completely un—investigated, unreported end even they will not be looked at by the Commission. This limit must be raised at least to a reasonable period.
I would be happy if this provision is at least brought on per with the Criminal Procedure Code.
My last point is, I look at the Hill as a whole, and I come to the conclusion that the Bill is miasmic virtually en exercise in deception. It tries to deceive the world opinion, the national opinion, the Human Rights’ activists all over the world and finally the international organisations which are responsible for the promotion or Human Rights. It creates, as I said earlier, a smoke—screen behind which atrocities can continue to be committed, rights can continue to be violated without any effective check on them. The Commission, therefore, shall not carry credibility under this Bill. It shall not pass itself as on effective remedy for the situation that we face and for the effective protection of the rights of the citizens. Therefore, I consider this Bill to be an eye—wash and to be inadequate.
No doubt, it wee an improvement on the previous Bill that was circulated in this House. But, the improvements do not go far enough.
Therefore, I would suggest that the Home Minister should consider the following suggestions.
One is to emend the Police Act, in order to bring it in line with the functioning of a democratic, society. I was told, the other day, in the House that under Section 151, a policeman could arrest anyone, at any time, just on suspicion and could enter a house, at any time, without any warrant. I do not know about it. Therefore, the Police Act must be looked at. We cannot go on accepting the Police Apt that we inherited from the colonial administration.
Secondly, Sir, repeal the black laws, if you are honest.
And, thirdly, acted to the optional protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I would like to know from the home Minister, what is the reason that we go on backing out from acceding to the Optional Protocol.
And I would suggest that he should review the existing procedures end the existing administrative methods, if he is really sincere about protecting the human rights of our people. merely passing this sill, which I know will be passed despite ell our objections, will be of no avail and you shall not be able, as I Said, to carry credibility that the Indian State has for once decided to change the order of things and to remove that ignominy of having some of the Features of a Police Stets, while we have a functioning democracy in our country.
