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

INDIA HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT 2005 NHRC’s Inefficiency
has resulted in a corresponding delay in
releasing its contents to the public. In the
process, both the elected representatives
and the public have, in effect, been denied
timely and comprehensive information on
the work and concerns of the
Commission”- lamented the National
Human Rights Commission of India in its
Annual Report 2002-2003
One wished NHRC followed what it
rightly preaches to the government of
India. Once NHRC registers a complaint,
the State authorities submit the reply.
NHRC has no standard practice to provide
such response from the State to the
complainant.
In the case of shooting on a teenaged
youth, Naorem Naobi (15/14/2003-2004)
in Manipur by the police, NHRC received
the reply from the State government of
Manipur on 6 September 2003. The
NHRC sat over the reply from the State
government of Manipur for about two
years and then issued notice to the Asian
Centre for Human Rights on 18 June 2005
directing it to reply by 23 July 2005. As
ACHR is still inquiring from the victim,
NHRC will most probably dismiss the
complaint for non-receipt of comments!
The NHRC does not practice right to
information. In the complaint filed by the
Committee for Citizenship Rights of the
Chakmas of Arunachal Pradesh (D.O
NO.5/1/2001 - PRP&P) NHRC
telephonically informed that permission
cannot be given to inspect the file.
In a number of cases, Asian Centre for
Human Rights has not received any
288
response except the initial
acknowledgement (please look into the
web edition for details). Many NGOs did
not receive any response for about five
years.
c. The Kangaroo Court: Violation of
cardinal principle of jurisprudence
The fact that three out of five
members of the NHRC consist of persons
who have been Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court, a judge of Supreme Court
and a Chief Justice of the High Court has
not resulted in the NHRC upholding the
cardinal principle of administration of
justice. The cardinal principle of
jurisprudence requires that both the
prosecution and defence must be provided
copies of each other replies. In a number
of cases cited below, Asian Centre for
Human Rights has not received except the
acknowledgement and the final order.
ACHR was never permitted to submit
comments. It is more disappointing
considering that the NHRC exercises the
powers of a civil court relating to
inquiries under section 13 of the HRPA.
In the case of alleged extra-judicial
execution of 14-years-old Jitendra Reang,
a class VIII student of Ranguna High
School under Pechartal Police Station of
North Tripura district of Tripura by
Tripura police on 11 February 2002,
NHRC registered the complaint (No.
24/23/2002-2003/UC) on 4 September
2002. Thereafter, there was no information
from the NHRC until 28 March 2005 when
it gave its final order and closed the case.