Constitution and Polity

All (4050)Current Affairs (4038)Mains Practice (126)Mains PYQs by Subjects (40)

No Immunity for MPs/MLAs Taking Bribe for Vote/Speech in Legislature: Supreme Court

Context: Supreme Court in the Sita Soren vs Union of India judgement has overruled its 1998 judgement in P V Narsimha Rao Vs State (CBI/SPE) which granted immunity to the legislators in context of votes made in parliament and legislative assemblies.

Background of the Issue (P V Narsimha vs State (CBI/SPE) Case)

Article 105(2) of the Constitution of India grants immunity to Members of Parliament (‘MPs’) against prosecution in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee. Article 194(2) of the Constitution grants similar immunity to the members of Legislative Assembly.  

PV Narsimha Rao case, Constitution Bench of 5 judges upheld the above immunity to the MPs as per Article 105(2) which included the speech or vote made in furtherance of receiving illegal gratification or bribe.

Privileges provided by the Constitution of India:

  • In context of Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and its Members, Article 105(2) reads:
    • No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes, or proceedings.
  • In context of Powers, Privileges and Immunities of State Legislatures and their Members, Article 194(2) reads:
    • No member of the Legislature of a State shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the Legislature or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of a House of such a Legislature of any report, paper, votes, or proceedings.

Observations in Sita Soren vs Union of India

  1. Nature of Privileges in India:
    • Privileges not absolute: Unlike the House of Commons in the UK, India does not have ‘ancient and undoubted’ privileges which were vested after a struggle between Parliament and the King. Privileges in pre-independence India were governed by statute in the face of a reluctant colonial government. The statutory privilege transitioned to a constitutional privilege after the commencement of the Constitution.
    • Individual Member's Claim of Privilege: An individual member of the legislature cannot claim privilege to seek immunity from prosecution under Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution for charges of bribery related to their votes or speeches in the legislature.
    • Such claim of immunity fails to meet the twofold test which involves examining whether such action is (1) connected to the collective functioning of the legislative house and (2) the action has a functional relationship "to the discharge of the essential duties of a legislator."
    • Purpose of Articles 105 and 194: Articles 105 and 194 aim to create an environment conducive to debate and deliberation within the legislature.
    • This purpose gets undermined when a member is influenced to vote or speak in a particular manner due to bribery.
    • Interpretation of Expressions: The expressions "anything" and "any" in Articles 105(2) and 194(2) must be interpreted in the context of the accompanying expressions.
    • The phrase "in respect of" means 'arising out of' or 'bearing a clear relation to' and cannot be construed to include anything remotely connected to the speech or vote given by a legislator.
  • Bribe as a crime:
    • Bribery and Immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194: Bribery is not immune under Article 105(2) and its corresponding provision in Article 194 because it constitutes a crime that is not essential to the casting of a vote or the ability to decide how a vote should be cast.
      • The same principle applies to bribery in connection with a speech in the House or a Committee.
    • Impact of Corruption and Bribery:
      • Corruption and bribery by members of the legislatures undermine probity in public life.
    • Misuse and Immunity:
      • The potential for misuse against individual members of the legislature is neither increased nor decreased by recognizing the court's jurisdiction to prosecute a legislator alleged to have engaged in bribery.
    • Completion of Bribery Offense: The offense of bribery is completed at the moment when the legislator accepts the bribe, regardless of whether the agreed action is performed or not.
    • The majority interpretation in the PV Narasimha Rao case created a paradox. While accepting a bribe and voting as promised granted immunity, whereas voting independently or contrary led to prosecution. This situation has been corrected by the present case.

Conclusion:

  • By committing an act of bribery, the immunity of speech or action without fear or favour is taken away when a member votes in a certain way not because of their belief or position on an issue but because of a bribe taken by the member.
  • Corruption and bribery of members of the legislature erode the foundation of Indian Parliamentary democracy. It is destructive of the aspirational and deliberative ideals of the Constitution and creates a polity which deprives citizens of a responsible, responsive, and representative democracy.

Privilege Committees of Lok Sabha & Rajya Sabha

Context: SC stays Lok Sabha privileges panel proceedings on West Bengal BJP MP’s ‘injury complaint’.

Parliamentary privileges

  • Each House of Parliament and its Committees collectively and members of each House individually enjoy certain rights, privileges and immunities without which they cannot perform their functions efficiently and effectively.
  • The object of parliamentary privilege is to safeguard the freedom, the authority and the dignity of Parliament.
  • They are enjoyed by individual members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members and by each House collectively for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity.
  • The Constitution has also extended the parliamentary privileges to those persons who are entitled to speak and take part in the proceedings of the house i.e. attorney general of India and Union Ministers.
Collective PrivilegesIndividual privileges
Enjoyed by each house of the parliament collectivelyEnjoyed by the members of each house individually
Right to publish its reports, debates and proceedingsMPs cannot be arrested during the session of Parliament and 40 days before the beginning and 40 days after the end of a session.
Exclude strangers from its proceeding for secret sittingsFreedom of speech in parliament (article 105) and freedom of speech in state assembly (article 194).
Make rules to regulate its own procedure and conduct of businessExempted from jury service, can refuse to give evidence, and appear as a witness in a case pending in a court when parliament is in session
Punish members as well as outsiders for breach of its privileges or its contempt 
Right to receive immediate information of the arrest, detention, conviction, imprisonment, and release of a member 
Institute inquiries and order the attendance of witnesses 
Courts are prohibited to inquire into the proceedings of a house or its committees 
No legal process can be served within the precincts of the House without the permission of the presiding officer 

Committee of Privileges

  • Examines the cases of breach of privileges of the house and its members and recommend appropriate action.
  • Members: 15 members in Lok Sabha and 10 members in Rajya Sabha respectively.
  • The speaker refers the issue of disqualification under the anti-defection rules to this committee for enquiry.
  • can summon relevant individuals for examination and study pertinent documents.
  • After reviewing the incidents or cases brought before it, the Parliament Privileges Committee makes recommendations "as it may deem fit”.
  • The privilege committee of the Rajya Sabha is chaired by the Deputy Chairperson but in Lok Sabha, there is no such rule.

Maharashtra Assembly passes bill for providing 10% reservation for Maratha Community

Constitutional background of Reservation in India

  • Article 15(4) and Article 15(5) provide for reservation to Socially and Educationally Backward classes and SC/STs in admission to educationally institutions.
  • Article 15(6) provides for reservation to economically weaker sections of society in admission to educational institutions, added through 103rd constitutional amendment.
  • Article 16(4) provides for reservation to backward classes and SC/STs in public employment.
  • Article 16(6) provides for reservation to economically weaker sections in public employment.
  • Article 335 provides for enabling provision of reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to services and posts under the union and the state. However, the efficiency of administration should be maintained.
  • The 77th amendment in 1995 provided for reservation in promotion of any services under the state for SC/STs.

Judicial take on OBC Reservations

  • V.P. Singh government in 1990, declared reservations of 27% government jobs for the OBCs. In the Mandal case or Indra Sawhney case, the Supreme Court upheld the OBC reservation, but imposed certain conditions like ceiling limit of 50% on reservation quota, no reservation in promotion, etc. The court accepted that the Caste continues to be marker for identifying socially and educational backwardness.
  • Similarly, in Janhit Abhiyan Case, Supreme Court upheld the EWS reservation granted through the 103rd constitutional amendment.

Maratha Reservation issue

  • 1997: First major Maratha agitation for reservation in government jobs and educational institutions was organised by the Maratha Mahasangh and the Maratha Seva Sangh. 
  • 2014: Maharashtra government brought 16% reservation for Marathas in government jobs and education. However, the High court put a stay on it and this stay was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court.
  • 2017: The Maharashtra government then set up Gaikwad Commission to study the social, financial and educational status of Maratha community. Based on commission's recommendation, Socially and Educationally Backward Class Act, 2018 was enacted to provide 16% reservation to Marathas in education and government jobs.
  • 2021:Supreme Court holds Maratha Reservation unconstitutional and strikes down the law. The court opined that the government failed to provide sufficient data to justify exceeding the 50% quota ceiling. But the Supreme Court allowed the State Government to collect empirical data for showing the backwardness of the community.
    • Exceeds the 50% ceiling limit imposed on reservations by Indra Sawhney judgement.
    • Gaekwad Commission report lacks reliable, scientific and adequate data to justify the backwardness of Marathas.
    • The Act created a special class of reservation for Marathas outside the OBC class and violates Article 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution by bestowing them with special benefits.
    • The Act was passed without complying with procedural requirements mandated by 102nd Constitution (Amendment) Act, 2018.
  • 2023: The State government set up Justice Shukre panel to conduct large scale survey of the community.
  • Salient Features of Shukre Panel's report:
    • Marathas accounted for 28% of the population of the State, of which 84% of them are backward. So, such a large scale of backward community needs to be provided with separate reservation bracket.
    • It gave reasons like decline in agricultural income, partitions in land holdings, extreme poverty as reasons for Maratha's backwardness.
    • 94% of farmers who died by suicide in the state belonged to Maratha community.
    • Inadequate representation of the community in all the sectors of public service, which has kept them excluded from the mainstream.

Issues/Concerns with providing reservations to Marathas

  • Providing community specific reservations will flare similar demands in other provinces.
  • Reservations in Maharashtra will overshoot the 50% limit, hence compromise the principle of superiority of merit.
  • Discriminates other communities by giving Marathas a special privilege.
  • Reinforces the grip of caste-based politics and mobilisation.
  • Against the constitutional structure of providing reservations for SCs, STs, OBC and EBC.
  • Demand for reservations among agrarian communities is due to following reasons:
    • Low income in agricultural households
    • Feeling of relative deprivation
    • Feeling of losing of dominance in rural areas as communities lower in social hierarchy such as SCs have gained economically and politically from the reservations.
    • Low participation in modern economy sectors like IT, Finance, Banking etc.

Thus, the government should be focusing on modernizing agriculture, education and opportunities for these communities.

Conclusion:

So, this time the State government has backed up its Maratha reservation law with broader set of empirical data. But it is now for the Judiciary to decide whether the law stands the test of Constitutionality.

SC upholds SEBI probe in Adani-Hindenburg case

Context: Writ petition was filed in SC because of concerns raised over the decline in investor wealth and volatility in share market due to fall in share prices of Adani group.

.GxNy3qpycZBvrpj9sAUDV8z4yNhrePlQ1WdLPvylE8taGWcZ HTJCB9Hk5pvuzgAlqgBwJE9aV76heYSbEzz5Hj4WnAAzR9P9yPqbaRn4Mx VX862f

Background: The situation was caused by a report published by Hindenburg research about the financial transactions of the group.

  • The report alleged that the Adani group manipulated its share prices and failed to disclose transactions with related parties and other relevant information in violation of the regulations framed by SEBI and provisions of securities’ legislation.
  • Subsequently, Hindenburg Research took a short position in the Adani group through US-traded bonds and non- Indian traded derivative instruments. 

Outcome of judgement:

  • SC has said that the Investigation conducted by the SEBI into the Adani Group “inspires confidence” and was prima facie comprehensive. The market regulator had already completed 22 out of the 24 investigations into the group.
  • The court has further ordered the SEBI to expeditiously complete the pending investigations, within three months, and said the regulator could not leave the probe “open-ended and indeterminate in time”.
  • The judgment refused the allegation that SEBI’s amendments in the Foreign Portfolio Investors Regulations and Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements (LODR) Regulations had been conducted as an exercise in “first opening a loophole and then plugging the loophole with deferred effect” and has now hindered the regulator’s investigation.

About Securities and Exchange Board of India:

  • The Securities and Exchange Board of India was constituted as a non-statutory body on April 12, 1988 through a resolution of the Government of India.
  • The Securities and Exchange Board of India was established as a statutory body in the year 1992 and the provisions of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992.

Objectives of SEBI

  • SEBI is entrusted with regulating the functioning of the Indian capital market. The objectives of SEBI as a regulatory body are to monitor and regulate India's securities market to safeguard investors' interests.
  • It aims to inculcate a safe investment environment by implementing several rules and regulations and formulating investment-related guidelines.
  • One of the main objectives is to avoid malpractices in the Indian stock market.

Notaries and Issues with their functioning

Context: Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law & Justice recently released a report on the 'Functioning of Notaries'.

About Notaries

  • Notary (also called Public Notary) is a public official whose chief function is to authenticate contracts, deeds and other documents by an appropriate certificate with a notarial seal.
  • The profession of notaries in India is presently regulated by the Notaries Act, 1952 (Passed by Parliament) and Notaries Rules, 1956.
  • Notaries Act is a Central Legislation but the subject 'Legal Profession' falls in the Concurrent List of the VIIth Schedule of the Constitution of India. Hence, both Central and State Governments are administratively competent to appoint notaries.
  • Appointment of Notaries: Under the Notaries Act, both the Central & State Governments have been vested with powers to appoint any legal practitioners or persons who possessing prescribed qualifications as notaries. Central Government can appoint notaries for the whole or any part of India while State Governments can appoint notaries for the whole or any part of the State. Currently, an interview based system is followed by Central/State Governments to appoint Notaries.
  • Period of Practice: According to Notaries Act, Notaries are entitled to practice for 5 years, which may be renewed for 5 years. Thus, before the end every 5 year period, Notaries need to renew their certificate of practice as Notaries from their appointing authorities.
  • Maximum number of notaries to be appointed by Central and State governments is specified in the Notaries Rules, 1956.
  • Eligibility criteria for appointment as a Notary: Notary Rules, 1956 prescribes eligibility criteria for appointment as a Notary. They qualifications are as follows:
    • At least 10 years of practice as an Advocate, or
    • At least 7 years of practices as an Advocate for a person belonging to SC/ST/OBC/Woman, or,
    • A person who had been a member of the Indian Legal Service under the Central Government, or,
    • A person who had been at least for 10 years

(i) a member of Judicial Service, or

(ii) Held an office under the Central/State Government requiring special knowledge of law after enrollment as an advocate, or

(iii) Held an office in the department of Judge Advocate General (JAG) or the legal department of Armed Forces.

  • Duties of Notaries: According to Notaries Act, following functions are performed by Notaries.
    • Verify, authenticate, certify or attest the execution of any instrument.
    • Present any promissory note, hundi or bill of exchange for acceptance or payment or demand better security.
    • Administer the oath to or take affidavit from any person.
    • Translate or verify the translation of any document from language to another.
    • Act as a Commissioner to record evidence in any civil or criminal trial if so directed by any court or authority.
    • Act as an arbitrator, mediator or conciliator, if so required.

Of the above functions, the bulk of work performed by notaries is related to verifying or authenticating the execution of an instrument and administering oaths or taking affidavits from any person.

  • Fees to be charged by Notaries: Currently, fees to be charged by Notaries for Notarial act is prescribed by the Notaries Rules, 1956.

Issues with Profession of Notaries:

  • Degradation of profession of notaries: Notaries have been known to issue false certificates leading to fraud and other legal issues. Notaries have been known to operate from public vehicles and taxis, thus lowering the dignity of Notarial profession, this happens as there is no designated spaces for notaries to sit.
  • Low fees prescribed for Notaries: Currently, Notaries Rules, 1956 prescribes the fees to be charged by Notaries which is very meagre. This fees was last updated in 2014. Notaries do not receive any remuneration or pay from the government.
  • Lack of transparency in appointment of Notaries: Present interview appointment system for notaries lacks transparency and objectivity and is ritualistic. There is no objective criterion for holding interviews for the selection of notaries. There have been allegations of corruption and misuse of transparency in the process.
  • Low sanctioned strength of Notaries: Notaries Rules, 1956 prescribes the maximum number of notaries to be appointed by Central/State Governments and enhancement of this quota in line with population. However, the number of notaries is limited and unevenly distributed across the country, leading to difficulty is accessing notarial services, especially in rural and remote areas.
  • Issues with qualifications of notaries: Current requirement of 10 years of practice as advocate for practice as eligibility for appointment as notary is very high. Also, there have been many instances where applicants having no experience of practicing in courts to be appointed as notary based on their years of enrolment as advocates.
  • Issues in renewal of certificate of practice of Notaries: There are huge delays in the disposal of applications for renewals of certificates of practice. This leads to many Notaries sitting out of work leading to loss of their practice, income and reputation. There are also allegations of corruption and misuse of discretion in the renewal process.
  • Lack of training of Notaries: Notaries in India are not adequately trained and supervised and there is no mechanism for ensuring their accountability and quality of service.
  • Issues in notarising of documents: Notarial work is largely paper based and manual which increases the risk of fraud, forgery and tampering of documents. There is a lack of digitisation, standardisation and verification of notarial records and certificates.

Suggestions for Notaries

  • Raising of fees charged by Notaries: There is a need to appropriately raise the fees charged by notaries which indexed to inflation. This will allow notaries to have a decent standard of living. This fees should be revised at regular intervals, every 5 years.
  • Appointment of Notaries: The interview based appointment of notaries should be done away with and instead appointment of notaries should be based on an objective type written examination along the lines of All India Bar Examination (AIBE) conducted by Bar Council of India.
  • Sanctioned Strength of Notaries: Sanctioned strength of notaries in a state should be determined based on a set of objective criteria like population, volume of litigation, economic and commercial activities in the state etc. and this should be reviewed regularly.
  • Qualification of Appointment of Notaries: Eligibility for appointment as notaries should be reduced to 5 years from the current 10 years. This will attract young aspirant lawyers to this profession.
  • Renewal of certificate of practice of Notaries: Renewal of certificate of practice of Notaries is done to know about the antecedents of the Notaries and to ensure that the applicant is alive and ensure that nobody else is practicing in their place. To ensure smooth practice of Notaries, the committee has recommended that renewal of certificate of practice every five years should be done away with. After their appointment, notaries should be allowed to practice till a particular age prescribed by the Government.
  • Diversity in notaries' profession: Ideally, notaries profession should reflect the diversity of the state which will enrich the notarial profession and the legal system. Thus, adequate representation should be given to SCs, STs, OBCs, Women, Physically Challenged, Minorities etc.
  • Training of Notaries: Notaries should be provided with regular trainings and guidance and their performance and conduct should be monitored and evaluated by an appropriate government/authority. Some ethical and professional standards should be laid out by such government/authority to which notaries should adhere to. Also, complaints or grievances against Notaries should be promptly addressed and resolved.
  • Use of technology in appointment and notarial work: Government should make the Notary Portal of Department of Legal Affairs into a one-stop place for advertising vacancies of notaries, making applications, submitting fees, publishing results and downloading e-certificates of practice. Annual returns under Notaries Rules, 1956 should also be filled through this portal. Also, general public should be provided with state-wise list of public notaries, updated on a real-time basis, for verifying credentials of notaries. Services of this portal can be extended to States/UT also. Notaries should be equipped to handle electronic transactions, digital documents and online notarisation.
  • Designated areas for sitting of notaries: Government should ensure designated areas for sitting of notaries in every court complex from where they can do their notarial work in a dignified manner.
  • Change of notarial years for annual returns: The Notarial year should be changed from calendar year to financial year as this will help the notaries to synchronise their returns with that of Income Tax returns.
  • Notarising of documents: Notarial work should be modernised and digitised and the use of electronic signatures, stamps and seals should be encouraged. Notarial records and certificates should be stored and maintained in a centralised online database, which can be accessed and verified by concerned authorities and parties. Governments should ensure that all public notaries maintain a digital register to keep records of documents notarised by them.

National Human Rights Commission: An Analysis

Context: The National Human Rights Commission accreditation status under Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GHNRI) is about to be reviewed by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI).

About Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI):

  • GANHRI is a global network of 114 NHRCs which coordinates the relationship between NHRIs and United Nations.
  • It was conceived at the International conference held in Tunis in 1993. Participating NHRIs established the International Coordinating Committee of NHRIs (ICC) with the goal of coordinate the activities of the NHRI network. 
  • In 2016, the ICC changed its name into Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI).
  • GANHRI is incorporated as a legal entity under the Swiss law and has a Bureau consisting of 16 “A status” NHRIs representing the four regions of GANHRI. General annual meetings of GANHRI are held in cooperation with UN Human Rights in its capacity as the GANHRI secretariat.

The Subcommittee on accreditation: It conducts a peer reviewed process for initial accreditation and re-accreditation in every five years. Presently, India’s Human Rights body NHRC has A rating.

ciaHMiFdjTGwD8JUK Vma9bzPfU918TlDTeCmiRA0qbmPeTIxIGD3YkEBFEmG8UsZMrd7JVKe HIzxUTWrlyqMViGiBLmigJfmhXrdtkwDCvRemerN1Q8VsUAJ8fV

About National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)

  • It is a Statutory body established in 1993 under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
  • It is considered as a watchdog of human rights in the country, i.e. rights related to life, liberty equality and dignity of individuals.

Composition of NHRC

  • It consists of Chairman and 5 members.
    • Chairman: Should be retired Chief Justice of India or a judge of Supreme Court.
    • Members: Serving or retired Judge of Supreme Court, serving or retired chief justice of High court and 3 members having knowledge or practical experience with respect to human rights (out of which at least one should be a woman.)
    • Ex-officio Members: Chairpersons of following bodies are ex officio members.
      • National Commission for Minorities.
      • National Commission for SCs
      • National Commission for STs
      • National Commission for Women
      • National Commission for Backward Classes
      • National Commission for Protection of Child Rights
      • Chief commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Functions of NHRC

  • To enquire into violation of Human Rights or Negligence the prevention of such violation by a public servant.
  • To intervene into any proceeding involving allegation of violation of Human Rights.
  • Visiting jails and detention centers to study the living conditions of inmates.
  • Reviewing constitutional and other legal safeguards for the protection of human rights and recommend measures for their effective implementation.
  • Reviewing factors like terrorism, naxalism, militancy that inhibit the enjoyment of human rights and recommend remedial measures.
  • Study international treaties and instruments on human rights and make recommendations for their effective implementation.
  • To undertake and promote research in the field of human rights.

Achievements of NHRC

  • Intervention in mega projects: Intervention in individual cases of displacement on account of mega projects, disasters, and conflicts.
    • Outcome: Commission examined the provisions of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 2007 and the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2007 and recommended relief measures to the displaced.
  • Issues related to excessive use of police force: At various instances, commission has taken cognizance of killing of Adivasis and excessive use of force on Adivasis protesting Narmada Project and called for a report from the State DGP.
    • Outcome: Based on the reports, the commission recommended relief measures such as dropping of charges and implementation of adequate rehabilitation measures.
  • Intervention against high Suicide rates: The Commission took Suo motu cognizance of the reports about suicide by farmers of Maharashtra and sought reports from Government.
    • Outcome: The Government of Maharashtra in its report informed the Commission that it had appointed a Committee at District level under the Chairmanship of District Collector to monitor and supervise the implementation of various schemes, to assist farmers and to curb, dissuade them from committing suicide.
    • Families of farmers who had committed suicide were being provided financial assistance as per norms laid down by the State Government. The Government of Andhra Pradesh had also constituted a Farmers Welfare Commission to go into the causes of suicide. The Commission has set up a committee to study the problem and suggest solutions.
  • Violence against Adivasis: Violence by Maoists and Salwa Judum in Dantewada, Chhattisgarh was brought to the notice of the Commission.
    • Outcome: The Commission called for a report from the State Government. While the matter was under consideration of the Commission, the Supreme Court based on a writ petition filed before it, directed the Commission to examine/verify allegations relating to violation of human rights by Naxalites and Salwa Judum and the living conditions in the refugee settlement colonies.
  • Ratification of International conventions: India is not a signatory to UN Convention against torture, the commission is constantly advocating for its early ratification.

Issues or concerns with NHRC

  • Recommendatory nature: Functions of the commission are merely recommendatory; it has no power to punish the violation of Human rights.
    • The recommendations are also not binding upon the concerned government or body.
  • Limited powers concerning armed forces: Limited role, power, and jurisdiction with respect to violation of human rights by armed forces.
  • Administrative constraints: Being a Paris principle compliant institution, it must have functionaries and infrastructure suited for its smooth functioning, which is lacking at present.
  • Financial constraints: Presently, the commission receives grants in aid from MHA to function, for the effective functioning, it must have financial autonomy.
  • Manpower Constraints: Commission has rarely functioned at the sanctioned strength, due to increasing workload, it is compelled to hire retired government officials as consultant on contract basis.
    • Lack of legal manpower: The law division of commission lacks adequate resources to deal with cases because of shortage of trained manpower in field of human rights.
  • Lack of Suo moto uptake: Activists have alleged that arrests are made under UAPA law for exercising rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, NHRC has maintained silence on these issues.
  • Lack of diversity: Critics argue that since the Chairman and members are mostly drawn from judicial fraternity, it restricts the diversity and plurality of the board. There is no mandatory representation of minority, SCs and STs in the commission.
  • Political Interference: The composition of the selection committee is highly skewed in favour of the party in power. This may result in political interference in the working of the NHRC.
  • Narrow Jurisdictions: NHRC can only investigate complaints of Human right violations which are registered within 1 year of the incident. This reduced the Jurisdiction of NHRC.
  • Control of Home Ministry: Most instances of human rights violations that the NHRC investigates are against the police and, it raises concerns as the commission comes under the Home Ministry. 

Suggestions to Make NHRC more effective:

  • Constitutional body: NHRC can be made a constitutional body on the similar lines of South African Human Rights Commission.
  • Report to be presented in parliament: It is suggested that the report of NHRC should be tabled in parliament, and based on the NHRC report, an action taken report on the recommendation should be presented by the government.
  • Mandatory time frame for action taken: Act should be amended to include a time frame for action taken and response formulation on NHRC recommendations.
  • Independent cadre: NHRCneeds to develop an independent cadre of staff including legal and human rights expert.
  • Financial independence: Commission must be provided financial autonomy to function because of the increasing workload and responsibilities.
  • Jurisdiction: Period of jurisdiction must be expanded; commission should be allowed to investigate the matters which are older than 1 year.
  • Contempt powers: NHRC should be accorded with power of contempt to ensure effective implementation of the recommendations.

About Paris Principles

The Paris Principles were defined at the first International Workshop on National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights held in Paris on 7–9 October 1991. They were adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Commission by Resolution 1992/54 of 1992, and by the UN General Assembly in its Resolution 48/134 of 1993.

The Paris Principles set out six main criteria that NHRIs require to meet. These are: 

  • Mandate and competence.
  • Autonomy from Government
  • Independence guaranteed by a Statute or Constitution
  •  Pluralism
  • Adequate resources
  • Adequate powers of investigation.

Trending now

Cyborg Botany: The Emerging Fusion of Plants and Electronics