The National Human Rights Commission: Role and Effectiveness

In one line

The Commission's achievements are real and its two statutory limits are severe: section 19 confines it, in complaints against the armed forces, to seeking a report from the Central Government and making recommendations, and section 36(2) forbids inquiry into any matter after one year from the date of the act alleged.

Section 19: the armed forces

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, while dealing with complaints of violation of human rights by members of the armed forces, the Commission shall adopt the following procedure.

(a) it may, either on its own motion or on receipt of a petition, seek a report from the Central Government;

(b) after the receipt of the report, it may either not proceed with the complaint or make its recommendations to that Government.

(2) The Central Government shall inform the Commission of the action taken within three months or such further time as the Commission may allow.

(3) The Commission shall publish its report together with its recommendations and the action taken.

(4) The Commission shall provide a copy of the published report to the petitioner.

Read what has been removed. In an armed forces case there is no power to summon witnesses, no power to compel documents, no power to enter and seize, and no investigation under section 14. The Commission asks the Central Government for a report and then either stops or recommends.

And "armed forces" is defined widely by section 2(a): the naval, military and air forces and includes any other armed forces of the Union, which has been read to include the central armed police forces. So the exclusion covers a large part of the forces deployed in exactly the situations where custodial violations are alleged.

What survives is real but thin: the Commission can still act on its own motion, the Central Government must answer within three months, publication is mandatory, and the petitioner gets the report.

This is the single most criticised provision in the Act, it is the ground on which the Sub-Committee on Accreditation has repeatedly raised concerns, and it is the first thing to write in an answer on effectiveness. [National Institutions and the Paris Principles].

Section 36: matters outside jurisdiction

36(1): the Commission shall not inquire into any matter which is pending before a State Commission or any other Commission duly constituted under any law.

A sensible anti-duplication rule, and it works with section 13(6)'s power to transfer a complaint to a State Commission.

36(2): the Commission or a State Commission shall not inquire into any matter after the expiry of one year from the date on which the act constituting violation of human rights is alleged to have been committed.