COMPOSITION AND FUNCTIONS AND POWERS OF NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION[1]:
INTRODUCTION:
The United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) mooted the thought of the making of a fair establishment for the assurance of human rights in the States as ahead of schedule as 1946. In compatibility of the goals of the General Assembly embraced in 1966[2] the Economic and Social Council asked for the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations to consider the subject of making a National Commission of Human Rights to play out specific capacities identified with the recognition of the International Covenants on Human Rights. The inquiry was taken up by the Commission in 1970 and it prescribed that the topic of foundation of National Commission of Human Rights in every Member State of the United Nations should be chosen by every Government of the Member State keeping in view the customs and establishments of every nation. The Commission in 1978 again underlined the requirement for the making of a National Institution. Be that as it may, trouble these endeavors, notwithstanding, were unbeneficial.
Understanding the significance of such an organization or commission, the World Conference on Human Rights in 1993 encouraged Governments to fortify national structures and foundations of society, which assume a job in advancing and shielding human rights. The Vienna Declaration and Program of Action embraced by the World Conference provoked various States to set up such foundations.
COMPOSITION OF NHRC:
Chapter II of the Act manages the constitution of the National Human Rights Commission (N.H.R.C.). Section 3 of the Act sets out that the Central Government will comprise a body known as the National Human Rights Commission.[3]
N.H.R.C. is an eight-part body. The Commission comprises of [4]
a) A Chairperson who has been a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court;
b) One Member who is, or has been a judge of the Supreme Court;
c) One Member who is, or has been, the Chief Justice of a High Court;
d) Two Members to be appointed from among people knowing about, or down to earth involvement in, matters identifying with human rights.
Other than these, the Commission will include[5]:
e) The Chairperson of National Commission for Minorities;
f) The Chairperson of the National Commission for the Scheduled Stations and Scheduled Tribes;
g) The Chairperson of the National Commission for Women;
The Act additionally makes arrangement for a Secretary General who will be the Chief Executive Officer of the Commission, who will exercise such powers and release such elements of the Commission as are appointed to him[6].
As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Paramajit Kaur v. Territory of Punjab[7]
the Chairperson of the Commission in his ability as a judge of the High Court and after that as a judge of the Supreme Court and furthermore as Chief Justice of India, thus likewise the two different individuals from the Commission who have held high legal workplaces as Chief Justice of High Courts, have all through their tenure, considered, elucidated and upheld the essential rights and are, in their own particular manner, specialists in the field.
The central command of the National Human Rights Commission (N.H.R.C.) is situated at Delhi. The Commission may, in any case, with the past authorize of the Central Government set up workplaces at different places in India[8].
‘
APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRPERSON AND OTHER MEMBERS:
The President names the Chairperson and different individuals from the Commission in the wake of getting the suggestions of the Committee comprising of.[9]
- Prime Minister – Chairperson
- Speaker of the House of People – Member
- Minister responsible for Ministry of Home Affairs in the Government of India – Member
- Leader of the Opposition in the House of the People – Member
- Pioneer of the Opposition in the Council of States – Member
- Deputy Chairperson of the Council of States – Member
TERM OF OFFICE OF THE MEMBERS:
The individual selected as Chairperson and the individuals will hold the workplace for a term of five years from the date of their arrangement or until the point that he or she achieves the age of seventy years[10] whichever is prior. The Chairperson and the individuals will hold office for a time of five years from the date on which they enter upon their office. They are qualified for reappointment for another term[11].
REMOVAL OF A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION:
The Chairperson or some other individual from the Commission might be expelled from his office by a request of the President on the ground of demonstrated misconduct or insufficiency after the Supreme Court on enquiry, announced that the Chairperson or such other part should on any such ground to be evacuated[12]. However, regardless of this arrangement, the President may by a request expel from office the Chairperson or some other part if the Executive or such other individual is [13]
- adjudged a wiped out or
- engaged amid his term of office in paid work outside the obligations of his office or
- unfit to proceed in office by reason of ailment of psyche or body or
- of unsound personality and stands so proclaimed by an able court.
- indicted and condemned to detainment for an offense which in the supposition of the president includes moral turpitude
FUNCTIONS:
The National Human Rights Commission in its 15 yearly reports has indicated profound worry over the expanding episodes of custodial deaths and torment in the criminal organization. The commission has kept on acting with assurance to end the horrible events of custodial demise, assault and torment that has hampered the request mechanical assembly of our nation. The commission has recommended a few measures. The commission upheld the addition of area 114-B[14] in Evidence Act, as suggested by the Law Commission in its 113th report[15]. Additionally, in segment 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to relate the need of administrative authorize for the arraignment of a cop where by all appearances case has been built up in an enquiry directed by a Sessions Judge.
The different capacities performed by NHRC are to[16]:
(a) inquire, suomotu or on an appeal to introduced to it by a casualty or any individual for his benefit, into dissension of
(i) infringement of human rights or abetment thereof or
(ii) carelessness in the counteractive action of such infringement, by an open worker;
(b) intervene in any procedure including any charge of infringement of human rights pending under the watchful eye of a court with the endorsement of such court;
(c) visit, under implication to the State Government, any correctional facility or some other establishment under the control of the State Government, where people are kept or held up for motivations behind treatment, transformation or assurance to examine the living states of the detainees and make suggestions subsequently;
(d) review the shields given by or under the Constitution or any law until further notice in power for the assurance of human rights and prescribe measures for their viable usage;
(e) review the components, including demonstrations of psychological oppression that hinder the pleasure in human rights and suggest suitable healing measures;
(f) study arrangements and other universal instruments on human rights and make proposals for their compelling execution;
(g) undertake and advance research in the field of human rights;
(h) spread human rights proficiency among different areas of society and advance consciousness of the shields accessible for the assurance of these rights through productions, the media, courses and other accessible means;
(i) encourage the endeavors of non-legislative associations and establishments working in the field of human rights;
(j) Such different capacities as it might think about important for the assurance of human rights.
CONCLUSION:
In nutshell, it can be concluded that the National Human Rights Commission is an independent body which is functioning to protect the human rights. The NHRC has been a tremendous development in the area of protection of human rights. The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, provides for the establishment of a body named National Human Rights Commission. It can be said that it is an outcome of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The NHRC has been provided with vast powers to deal with all types of matters relating to the protection of human rights under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
[1] WRITTEN BY: MR. P. ARAVIND KUMAR, B.B.A.LL.B, 3RD STUDENT AT LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY & CAMPUS AMBASSADOR AT LAW AUDIENCE: EDITED BY: MR. VARUN KUMAR (FOUNDER & CEO & EDITOR-IN-CHIEF).
[2] United Nations General Assembly Resolution, 2200(c) XXI, December 1 6, 1 966.
[3] Section 3, The protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, No. 10, Acts of Parliament, 1993 (India).
[4] Section 3(2), The protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, No. 10, Acts of Parliament, 1993 (India).
[5] Section 3(3), The protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, No. 10, Acts of Parliament, 1993 (India).
[6] Section 3(4), The protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, No. 10, Acts of Parliament, 1993 (India).
[7] A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 340-344 (India).
[8] Section 3(5), The protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, No. 10, Acts of Parliament, 1993 (India).
[9] Section 4 (a-f), The protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, No. 10, Acts of Parliament, 1993 (India).
[10] Section 6(1), The protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, No. 10, Acts of Parliament, 1993 (India).
[11] Section 6 (2), The protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, No. 10, Acts of Parliament, 1993 (India).
[12] Section 5(2), The protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, No. 10, Acts of Parliament, 1993 (India).
[13] Section 5(3), The protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, No. 10, Acts of Parliament, 1993 (India).
[14] “114-B. (1) In a prosecution (of a police officer) for an offence constituted by an act alleged to have caused bodily injury to a person, if there is evidence that the injury was caused during a period when that person was in the custody of the police, the court may presume that the injury was caused by the police officer having custody of that person during that period.
(2) The court, in deciding whether or not it should draw a presumption under sub-section (1), shall have regard to all the relevant circumstances including, in particular,
(a) the period of custody,
(b) any statement made by the victim as to how the injuries were received, being a statement admissible in evidence,
(c) the evidence of any medical practitioner who might have examined the victim, and (d) evidence of any magistrate who might have recorded the victim’s statement or attempted to record it.”
[15] Law Commission of India Report No. 113 (Oct. 15, 2018, 5:00 PM), http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/Report273.pdf.
[16] Section 12, The protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, No. 10, Acts of Parliament, 1993 (India).
