state human rights commissions

Nearly 1 in 2 Positions Are Vacant in India’s State Human Rights Commissions: Report

The lack of investigative staff also seriously hinders SHRCs’ ability to probe alleged rights violations and find remedies, the India Justice Report notes.

New Delhi: There are 25 State Human Rights Commissions set up across India, along the lines of the National Human Rights Commission. However, the India Justice Report (IJR) 2022 details the significant lack of manpower in these state commissions – highlighting that they may be in no position to carry out the work they have been tasked with.

The National Human Rights Commission was set up in 1993, under the Protection of Human Rights Act. Between then and now, 25 State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs) have also been set up. These quasi-judicial bodies are tasked with both responding to complaints on violations of human rights and conducting their own investigations when they think rights are being violated. They may also conduct research and awareness activities around issues of human rights.

An SHRC is usually chaired by a former judge or chief justice of a high court. It is supposed to have two additional members – a high court or district court judge, and someone with expertise in human rights. An SHRC is also supposed to have a secretary, for looking after administrative and financial functions.

One of the criticisms of these bodies has been that their recommendations are not mandatory – which means they are often not taken as seriously as they perhaps should be.

While the mandate of SHRCs sounds well and good on paper, the IJR has found that most SHRCs are functioning at well below the required manpower. In 2020-21, 13 states had more than 25% vacancies in SHRC staff.

“As of 2022, all SHRCs except Punjab had chairpersons in place; Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Manipur were carrying on under acting chairs and in 6 states one out of two members was missing. Uttar Pradesh, Manipur and Jharkhand functioned without any members. Set up in 2010 Jharkhand’s Commission has, since 2018, functioned with only an acting chairperson and secretary, and the Chhattisgarh Commission, set up in 2001, has been functioning with an acting chairperson and one member since 2020. Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Telangana and West Bengal commissions worked without secretaries/CEOs,” the report notes.

Source: IJR 2022

The lack of investigative staff also seriously hinders SHRCs’ ability to probe alleged rights violations and find remedies, the report notes. SHRCs have no investigative staff of their own, and so are dependent on staff drawn from other arms of the government. “Sanctioned investigative staff varied from state to state, some included the number of constables in their response, while others like Maharashtra, Odisha, Sikkim and Tamil Nadu did not. All except Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttarakhand, reported a shortfall. Eleven Commissions functioned with an investigative staff strength ranging from one to five in 2022. The Assam, Jharkhand, Manipur and Sikkim commissions reported no investigative staff,” according to the IJR.

Because of these longstanding vacancies and the lack of investigative staff, complaints are rarely disposed off in a timely manner in SHRCs, the report finds. “In 2020-21 alone complaints across all SHRCs stood at 1,02,608. Eight SHRCs disposed of less than 60 per cent of complaints received, with Meghalaya (28 per cent) clearing the least, followed by Maharashtra (29 per cent), Rajasthan (30 per cent) and Odisha (48 per cent). Bihar (99 per cent) and Chhattisgarh (94 per cent) cleared almost all the cases they received. Cumulative arrears at the end of 2020-21 stood at 33,312.”

Source: IJR

It is also not easy to see what the SHRCs are doing because their websites are not as regularly updated as the NHRC’s. Four of the state commissions – Andhra Pradesh, Manipur, Manipur and Telangana – do not have websites at all. “With the exception of Uttarakhand, no state offered a complete bouquet of services to its citizens. Only 11 commissions provided guidelines to citizens on filing complaints, while only 6 commissions uploaded judgments of complaints regularly on their websites,” according to the IJR. In addition, most of these websites were only available in English and not local languages.

Staff Shortage Besets Human Rights Commissions, 10 States Don’t Have Chairpersons: RTI

Three states have no human rights commissions at all, while they are completely non-functional in two other states.

New Delhi: State human rights commissions (SHRC) across the country are facing acute shortage of staff as appointments are not being made. In ten states, even the post of chairperson of the commission is vacant. While three states have no human rights commissions at all, in another two states, they are completely non-functional. Appointments to the post of chairperson have been made only in 13 states.

This information was revealed in a report released by Transparency International India (TII), a non-governmental organisation working on issues of transparency and corruption. The report presents a detailed account of the status and functioning of the state human rights commissions.

According to TII’s report, SHRCs in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Manipur and Meghalaya do not have chairpersons, while those in Himachal Pradesh and Telangana are absolutely non-functional. In addition, 16 of the 48 posts sanctioned for members (judicial and non-judicial) are vacant in 23 state commissions. At present, only 37 appointees have been confirmed.

Meanwhile, appointments have not been made for 286 of the total sanctioned posts for administrative jobs in the commissions. Several states refused to provide information in this regard. SHRCs in Andhra Pradesh and Goa have two posts for judicial and non-judicial members, both of which are vacant. In the absence of a chairperson, these commissions also seem to be completely inactive. The situation is similar in Chhattisgarh, which does not have a chairperson and another post is also vacant. Just one member has been appointed. In Gujarat’s SHRC, one post is vacant. Two posts are unfilled each in Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, whereas one post each is vacant in Uttarakhand, Sikkim, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Manipur and Meghalaya.

Also Read: India’s National Human Rights Commission is Defeating Its Own Purpose

Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram and Nagaland have no human rights commissions.

Besides the posts for chairmen and members, a large number of administrative posts are also unoccupied in human rights commissions across the country. The number of unfilled administrative posts is 41 in Bihar, 40 in Uttar Pradesh, 26 in Odisha, 24 in Andhra Pradesh, 23 in Tamil Nadu, 22 in West Bengal, 18 in Gujarat, 16 in Maharashtra, 11 in Goa, 10 in Haryana, 9 in Jharkhand, 8 in Rajasthan, 2 in Assam, 2 in Manipur and one Kerala.

Source: Transparency Internationl India

TII obtained this information through a Right to Information (RTI) application filed with commissions across the country. Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Tripura and Uttarakhand gave no information regarding the administrative posts in the SHRCs.

National and state human rights commissions have been set up under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. One member post is also vacant in the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) but the commission did not disclose information regarding its administrative positions.

Also Read: Government Shuts Down J&K Human Rights Commission, Information Commission

TII’s executive director Ramnath Jha said that the Human Rights Act was implemented to protect the dignity and self-respect of individuals and so that the country can move towards progressive changes. “This was a milestone law for the country. But if posts in the commissions across the country remain vacant, how can this objective be served? How can the human rights of people be protected?” he asked.

Status of complaints received by SHRCs

According to the TII report, almost 19 lakh complaints/violations have been filed with the 23 SHRCs so far. The highest, 3,60,597, were registered by the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission between 2002-03 and 2018-19. Punjab is second with 2,69,057 cases between 1997-98 and 2018-19. At the other end of the spectrum, 8,539 cases were registered in Uttarakhand and 7,371 in Jharkhand.

Source: Transparency Internationl India

The NHRC registered 16,62,519 cases between 1993-94 and 2016-17 and as of December 3, 22,043 cases are pending before it.

The Central and state human rights commissions also register cases of death in custody. Documents obtained through RTI applications reveal that the NHRC has so far registered 31,845 cases of custodial deaths.

While Punjab has registered 1,860 cases of custodial deaths, this number is 1,718 in West Bengal, 1,266 in Bihar, 1,118 in Assam, 843 in Tamil Nadu, 629 in Rajasthan, 629 in Gujarat, 391 in Andhra Pradesh, 326 in Madhya Pradesh, 129 in Kerala, 110 in Uttarakhand, 89 in Haryana. In Goa, 15 deaths were recorded, while just two were recorded in Tripura and one in Manipur.

Also Read: Throwing Stones From Inside a Glass House – India’s Human Rights Record Since 2014

Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Meghalaya, Odisha and Sikkim did not disclose this information. The data obtained shows that the commissions are taking suo motu cognizance only in very few cases. The NHRC has taken suo motu cognizance in merely 1,067 cases so far.

The human rights commissions of major states of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, and Odisha did not disclose the data in this regard.

The human rights commissions of Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand, Manipur and Tripura do not have a website and the state commissions which do have a website do not offer information regarding several significant issues. Except Bihar’s commission, there is no information about the assets and liabilities of the chairpersons on the website of any other state and national human rights commission. The documents obtained also reveal that the human rights commissions are not publishing the annual report on time. The annual report for the last two years is not available on the NHRC website.

Translated from the Hindi original by Naushin Rehman.

Centre Continuing to Push ‘Anti-People Agenda’ in Parliament, Says PUDR Report

Looking at a ‘record’ 28 laws passed in the Monsoon Session, rights group says the Centre rushed laws impacting people’s lives without holding adequate discussions.

New Delhi: Going through nine of the ‘record’ 28 new legislations and amendments passed by the Narendra Modi-led NDA government in the Monsoon Session of parliament soon after its return to power with a near two-thirds majority, civil rights group People’s Union for Democratic Rights has accused the Centre of “distorting or side-stepping crucial processes of representative democracy”.

It charged that in the ongoing Winter Session too, the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act has been passed through a similar ‘fast-track’ process. The introduction of the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill is yet another attack on the secular fabric of the Indian Constitution, it said.

‘Deliberations bypassed, opposition steamrolled’

PUDR has said that it analysed nine important legislations of the Monsoon Session in its study. Thereupon, it held that “all the above laws were introduced with little or no notice, bypassed deliberations, ignored proposed amendments, steamrolled opposition, over-ruled demands for scrutiny or references to Select Committees within parliament”.

This, it said, “lays bare the anti-people agenda of the present government to dismantle rights and democratic institutions, but also their methods of distorting or side-stepping crucial processes of representative democracy”.

Also read: Monsoon Session Shows Better Laws Are Not Modi Government’s Preference

In its report, ‘Fast-Track Parliament, Undemocratic Laws: The 2019 Monsoon Session’, PUDR has analysed the “parliamentary performance” during the Monsoon Session 2019 which was termed the “most ‘productive’ session since 1952”.

J&K reorganisation law rushed in just two days

An important legislation, Jammu and Kashmir (Reorganisation) Bill, was listed, tabled and passed within a span of just two days. It, along with the presidential order and presidential resolution, effectively abrogated the special status of Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370 of the Constitution, abolished the state and replaced it with two Union Territories. The Act also repealed protections for land under Article 35A in one stroke.

Stating that the law was passed without any “announcement and deliberation”, the PUDR said people of Jammu and Kashmir were “completely gagged during the process and continue to be gagged” even though more than four months after the law was passed on August 5.

Also read: 17 Opposition Parties Write to Venkaiah Naidu About ‘Hurried’ Passage of Bills

PUDR secretaries Shahana Bhattacharya and Deepika Tandon said the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, brought in to ostensibly protect Muslim women by criminalising instantaneous triple talaq was brought in “to embroil Muslim men and families further within the web of criminality, even though the Supreme Court had already earlier struck down the practice as illegal and upheld statutory protections for Muslim women”.

Rights laws tweaked to give more powers to Centre

The group also pointed out how The Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act was introduced without reason or explanation despite it undermining the autonomy of the National Human Rights Commission and the State HRCs. The law, it said, allows cherry-picking of nominees from an expanded pool of eligible members, reducing their tenure and introducing provision for their re-appointments.

Similarly, PUDR said the Right to Information (Amendment) Act was passed within just three days in both Houses, overruling demands for reference of the amendment to a Select Committee. “The amendment,” it said, “undermines autonomy of democratic institutions – Information Commissions and the RTI” by allowing the Centre to decide on the tenure and salary of all information commissioners.

Government removed checks on its powers

The report said through some of the amendment the government also tried to empower itself to the teeth and remove the checks on it under existing laws.

It said the passage of the Unlawful Activities Prevention (Amendment) Act and the National Investigating Agency (Amendment) Act were two such examples.

“With the MHA refusing RTIs seeking information on cabinet notes relating to the UAPA Amendment, the Parliament approved designation of individuals as ‘terrorist’. The purpose seems to be to silence those inconvenient to the government without any new procedure or punishment,” it said.

Also read: Between the NIA Amendment and Now UAPA, the Squeeze on Human Rights is On

Further, PUDR pointed out that “the amendment enables punishment through social stigmatisation, ostracisation, potential witch-hunts and divesting of basic civil rights, without making any specific charges.”

At the same time, it said the amendment of the NIA Act removed an “important check on the Central Government’s powers by substituting sanction of DGP of state police for certain actions with that of the DGP of NIA”.

‘Child protection law provides death penalty, not certainty of prosecution’

It said another law which was passed during the session was The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act that introduced the death penalty for aggravated penetrative sexual assault, and increased punishment for other offences under Act, with the objective of deterring sexual offences against children.

The rights groups said there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that severity of punishment does not deter crime, and in fact lends itself to discriminatory application against marginalised groups. “The Amendment does not move towards securing certainty of prosecution,” it insisted.

Biometric access to private entities under Aadhaar allowed in just four days

The report also highlighted how The Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Act was passed within a span of four days by both houses of Parliament. It paved the way for private entities to access biometric and personal information of Indian citizens and residents through the UID database.

Similarly, it said The Code on Wages, which was the first in the series of four labour codes seeking to replace 44 labour laws, was brought in. This, it said, was done even though it weakens substantive and procedural protections in wage entitlements and excludes large sections of workers from protection.