The Hindu : Opinion / Interviews : "Fight terrorism, but be mindful of human rights"

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Dec 14, 2005

Opinion

Opinion - Interviews

"Fight terrorism, but be mindful of human rights"

Siddharth Narrain

A.S. Anand, Chief Justice of India between October 1998 and November 2001, became Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission in February 2003. In an interview, Mr. Anand spoke on a range of subjects including terrorism and the death penalty. Excerpts:

A.S. Anand: "Strong State Human Rights Commissions would go a long way in the better promotion of human rights." — Photo: V. Sudershan

What is the role of human rights in tackling terrorism? R.C. Lahoti, who recently retired as CJI, has called for stronger laws to tackle terrorism. Your view?

The Commission has always taken up the cause of victims of acts of terrorism and taken steps for providing relief and rehabilitation to them. The Commission believes that all persons responsible for acts of terrorism should be proceeded against in accordance with the law and that the existing laws are sufficient by and large. It is the firm view of the Commission that though the terrorist threats that we are facing now are on an unprecedented scale but since the fundamental rationale of anti-terrorism measures has to be to protect human rights and democracy, counter-terrorism measures should not undermine democratic values, violate human rights, and subvert the rule of law. While fighting the war against terrorism, the state cannot be permitted to be either selective in its approach or to go overboard and declare a war on the civil liberties of the people.

There are an increasing number of voices (including that of the President) that are asking for a more lenient view of cases on death row. Many countries have struck down the death penalty as a violation of the right to life. What is the NHRC's stand on the death penalty in India?

The constitutional validity of the death penalty has been considered and upheld by the apex court in a number of decisions. The law laid down by the Supreme Court is the law of the land at the moment. It is for Parliament to consider the issue of death penalty but while doing so, Parliamentarians will have to keep in view whether life imprisonment should not mean imprisonment for life of the convict and not any less.

What has been the present Government's response to the NHRC's suggestions to amend the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993?

The Commission is yet to receive any formal communication from the Government with regard to the notification of the amendments to the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, a proposal that was referred to the Government as far back as March 2000. Recently, the Commission has come across reports in the media that the Cabinet was to consider amendments to the statute. However, in the absence of a formal communication from the Government it would be difficult to know the exact status and scope of the amendments being considered.

Why have Human Rights Commissions not been appointed in all States so far? Is there sufficient coordination between the NHRC and the State Human Rights Commissions?

The Commission has, whenever it has interacted with the State Governments, emphasised the need and importance of human rights commissions at the State level in accordance with the statute and compliant with the Paris Principles. In fact, it invariably forms an important agenda of the Commission in its discussions with those State authorities where State Human Rights Commissions have not yet been set up. As of date, and, as per information available with the Commission, 16 States have set up Human Rights Commissions. The Commission firmly believes that in a multi-cultural, multi-linguistic, and extraordinary diverse environment that our society is based on, strong and independent State Human Rights Commissions would go a long way in the better promotion and protection of human rights, as many of the problems are best understood and tackled locally. The Commission has been conscious of the fact that many of the State Human Rights Commissions, especially those that have been set up recently, could greatly benefit with the experience of the NHRC, which has had a head start, having been set up in 1993. The NHRC also believes that interactions with the State Commissions help it to better understand human rights issues at the state level. Therefore, it is indeed, a symbiotic relationship between the NHRC and the various State Human Rights Commissions. In recognition of this relationship, the NHRC has been continually striving to forge synergic partnerships with the State Human Rights Commissions and identifying areas of cooperation in the field of human rights.

In an effort to institutionalise the arrangements, the Commission has been holding annual meetings with all the State Human Rights Commissions, regularly since the last two years.

The NHRC recently dismissed a petition filed in the Punjab Mass Cremations Case that asked the Commission to look into the method and manner, and whether there was a pattern to the deaths. According to the petitioners, there is no question of `closed issues' in a matter involving the violation of the right to life. What is your response?

The matter was considered in detail by the Commission after hearing the parties, and decided on October 24, 2005. The details of the orders passed are available on the NHRC website. We must remember that the Commission is bound by the terms of the remit from the Supreme Court, and knowingly the CIIP keeps on raising the issue even after the Commission and the Supreme Court have repeatedly non-suited them on the matter.

There has been a lot of criticism that the NHRC made the contents of the Justice Sadashiva Panel Report (on atrocities committed by the Joint Special Task Force during its anti-Veerappan operations) public only after pressure from the complainants and the media. What is your response?

This is not true.

How many complaints has the NHRC received in 2004 and so far in 2005? How many of these have been disposed of?

During the year 2004-2005, against an institution of 85,661 complaints the Commission disposed of 74,401 complaints. Similarly during the year 2005-2006 (up to November 15), against an institution of 49,836 complaints, the Commission has disposed of 44,981 complaints.

Are there any follow-up mechanisms within the Commission for the implementation of its judgments and orders?

As per our experience, by and large the recommendations made by the Commission are accepted by the concerned authority in the Central or State Government. Cases in which either the implementation of the recommendations is delayed or the authorities are not inclined to accept the recommendations, the Commission uses persuasive measures for ensuring implementation of its recommendations.

Why doesn't the NHRC make all its orders and judgments accessible to the public on the lines of court judgments?

All orders passed in every case with their latest status are available on the website of the Commission. All important cases decided during a year are reflected in the annual report of the Commission.

There have been demands for an in-house complaint mechanism for the non-registration of complaints. What is your response to these demands?

Every complaint received in the Commission is duly processed and registered. On account of the large inflow, the processing and registration of insignificant cases, ordinarily not falling within the jurisdiction of the Commission, take time. However, as an in-house mechanism, there is a facilitation counter at the doorstep of the Commission for assisting the complainants.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

The cash for questions scandal

Is it Iraq's army or militia?

Celebrating Christmas by other names

Equal access to education: the last chance

An ultimatum to Ukraine

Balance shifts between secular and Islamist Iraq

Why the arts matter

A shock to the nation

"Fight terrorism, but be mindful of human rights"