annual report print final.qxd - Asian Centre for Human Rights

INDIA HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT 2005 NHRC’s Inefficiency
detained or lodged for purposes of
treatment, reformation or protection to
study the living conditions of the inmates
defeats the purpose of prison reforms.
d. Procedures for appointment
The appointment of Mr P C Sharma,
former Director of Central Bureau of
Investigation has been challenged before
the Supreme Court. As the Supreme Court
has observed, there is nothing wrong with
the procedures for appointment of Mr
Sharma as a member of the Commission. 2
The critical issue is the conflict of interest
when a police officer is appointed as a
member of the NHRC when most
allegations of human rights violations are
against the police. The issue of conflict of
interest is not restricted to Mr Sharma but
extends to the staffing of the NHRC who
serve on deputation from various
Ministries.
Even though the then leader of
Opposition, Mrs Sonia Gandhi, was part of
the panel but she reportedly did not
respond to the intimation sent to her on the
appointment. 3 The Congress party while in
opposition described the appointment of
Mr Sharma as “highly regrettable”. The
party did not favour the appointment
because Mr. Sharma, as the CBI chief, had
acquired the “odious reputation of being a
pliable police officer,” the AICC chief
spokesperson, S. Jaipal Reddy said. He
had “connived in sabotaging” the Ayodhya
case, he alleged. 4 Yet, the UPA government
led by the Congress in its affidavit
supported Mr Sharma’s appointment.
In July 2005, the People’s Union of
Civil Liberties (PUCL), which had
challenged in the Supreme Court the
appointment of Mr Sharma as National
Human Rights Commission (NHRC)
member, has sought the review of court’s
order approving his selection. 5 The
question is whether the Supreme Court
could regulate conflict of interest when
those who are supposed to nominate
members of the NHRC do not their job.
III. Operational inefficiency
More than the statutory problems, it is
the operational inefficiency of the NHRC
that has been hampering its effectiveness.
The operational inefficiency ranges from
simply non-recognition of complaints to
violation of cardinal principle of
jurisprudence.
a. Non-registration of complaints
In its 2003-2004 Annual Report,
NHRC states that it has taken 3,75,758
cases in its first 10 years. One wonders as
to how many of the complaints were
simply not registered. ACHR did not
receive any acknowledgement on a large
number of complaints (please look into the
web edition for details) despite the
complaints being hand delivered.
b. Denial of the right to information: No
response from the NHRC
“The delays (in making its annual
reports public) have amounted to the
denial of right to information. The delay in
tabling the annual report before Parliament
287