Sep 30, 2024 08:43 PM IST
Enthusiastic and active SHRCs can take a significant step towards a future where human rights and rule of law are respected and protected for all. The ball is in their court.
The Global Association of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) has for the second time in a row deferred a decision on whether the National Human Rights Commission of India (NHRC) is worthy of A status or must downgrade to B status. The peer group’s award of A status affirms that the NHRC, a member of the 120-strong international body is fully compliant with the hallmarks set out in the Paris Principles. B signals “partial compliance”. The Paris Principles’ minimum standards for effective functioning lay down that domestic institutions stand on a firm legal basis, operate independently from the government, have well-defined, transparent appointment procedures and criteria for a diverse membership, knowledgeable staff, an active engagement with civil society, and are accessible to those who need it. The NHRC was found wanting.
These principles apply as much to the 25 State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs) across the country. A reading of the data, in the India Justice Report about how things stand within these taxpayer-supported institutions paints a grim picture.
As quasi-judicial bodies with all the wide powers of a civil court to summon witnesses and order discovery, they can hear complaints against state agents from most everyone; make inquiries on their own; visit jails, detention centres, government hospitals, and recommend improvements. Their mandates require them to be not mere adjudicators of complaints but be fully proactive human rights champions. These institutions were set up to ensure people of the country had robust and vigilant local mechanisms available to hold actors vested with the state’s authority accountable for rights violations such as extra-judicial killings, torture, illegal detentions, abuse of power and discrimination.
State governments afford commissions low priority. Allocated budgets ranged from a meagre ₹64 lakhs to ₹8 crore in 2020-21. For 10 of them, budgets actually reduced between 2019 and 2020. Salaries and administrative work take up the lion’s share leaving little for research or awareness raising efforts. Over five years, (2016-2021), nine commissions registered a decrease in utilisation.
A state commission is required to have a chairman and two members, one of them a judge. Too often they are left to limp along with long duration acting chairs and frequent member deficits. The National Commission itself has one member who is doubling up as acting chair. At 2021 figures, Uttar Pradesh, Manipur and Jharkhand were without any members and, since 2020, the Chhattisgarh commission functioned with an acting chairperson and one member.
Non-judicial members are supposed to be drawn from “among persons having knowledge of or practical experience in matters relating to human rights”. In the absence of any publicly examined record of devotion to upholding human rights, this broad formulation has too often allowed posts to be dominated by former police personnel and bureaucrats on the assumption that by virtue of office, they are on the right side of upholding rights. Civil rights activists and professionals from diverse backgrounds like psychology, social work, health and education who could bring in diverse life experiences from different classes, religions, castes and class are absent. As of 2022, none had a woman chairperson and just three could boast one woman member each.
Probing human rights violations, especially where powerful State agencies are involved, requires skilled and independent investigative staff. Almost every commission with the exception of Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttarakhand reports a shortfall. Without a cadre of its own, commissions draw staff from within law enforcement who must eventually revert to their own cadres. With this in-built conflict of interest, the key ingredient of independent functioning is undermined at the outset.
In the absence of comprehensive data bases and fulsome annual reports there is no way of knowing what the process or reasoning behind rejecting a complaint is or how many decisions were reached after a full investigation — and indeed no clear record of compliance with their decisions.
As such commissions have missed the opportunity to research and publicise patterns of bad institutional behaviour that could have put them on the path of mending. There is little evidence to show that their presence has had a positive impact on police sub-cultures or engendered a habit of obedience to the procedural and substantive imperatives of a rule-of-law country. Enthusiastic and active SHRCs can take a significant step towards a future where human rights and rule of law are respected and protected for all. The ball is in their court.
Maja Daruwala is chief editor, India Justice Report, and senior advisor, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative.The views expressed are personal
Get Current Updates on…
See more
