Annual Report - National Human Rights Commission

An Overview
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
○
inequalities and whose systems fail to provide any hope for justice are fertile breeding grounds
for terrorism, which, more often than not, thrives in environments where human rights and more
particularly Economic, Social and Cultural Rights are denied by the State and Political rights are
violated with impunity, both, by the State and non-State actors. Systemic denial of Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights, like Right to food, health, education etc. are causative factors of
conflict and terrorism. Any worthwhile strategy to resolve conflicts and terrorism will have to
ensure enjoyment of the full range of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
2.9 While inquiring into complaints of serious injuries or death due to electrocution as a result of victim
coming into contact of live transmission wire hanging at a low level or fallen on the ground, the Commission
while applying rule of strict liability observed that a State professing to be a welfare State is expected to
ensure liberal constructions of benefits and benevolent legislation like Section 18(3) of the Protection of
Human Rights Act, 1993, to promote the philosophy of the Constitution and the statute. The Commission
also observed that the loss of human life by fact other than natural death is not capable of being calculated
in term of Rupees. The Commission emphasized that object of granting “immediate interim relief u/s
18(3) of the Act of Constitutional Human Rights – right to life – is only in the nature of an immediate
help to the next of the kin, in their hour of distress, by applying balm to their wounds. The grant of
immediate relief is only a palliative for the act of instrumentalities of the State, which result in infringement
of the fundamental rights of the citizen. Grant of relief is only a step to enable the State and its instrumentality
to repair the damage done to the rights of the victim.
2.10 The National Human Rights Commission firmly believes that protection and preservation of
Civil and Political Rights is possible only if there is an efficient and effective criminal justice delivery
system in the country, which enables fulfillment of the mandate in Part-III of the Constitution. With a
view to evolve some effective guidelines to ensure fair trial as well as proper protection to the victims
and the witnesses of the crime, the Commission approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by
way of Special Leave Petition (which was later on converted by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition)
against the judgement dated 27.6.2003 passed by the trial court in the famous case, known as, Best
Bakery Case acquitting all the 21 accused, as a result of witnesses turning hostile due to external
pressure, resulting in mis-carriage of justice. The details of the case from the stage of filing SLP and
other appeals in the case, till passing of the order dated 12.04.2004 by the Supreme Court allowing
the criminal appeals and setting aside the order of the acquittal of all 21 accused, have been reported
by the Commission in its Annual Report for the year 2003-2004. The Supreme Court further directed
re-trial of the case outside the State of Gujarat. The trial of the case before the trial court in Mumbai is
at an advanced stage, at present. The larger issues touching upon the credibility of criminal justice
delivery system, such as, protection of witnesses and victims of the crime and the need to lay down
guidelines on account of witnesses turning hostile at the trial, are still under consideration of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition of 109 of 2003.
2.11 Major events in Gujarat, court proceedings and the Commission’s orders in Case No.
256/6/2003-2004-WC (Case of Ms. Bilkis Yakoob Rasul) leading to the orders passed by the
National Human Rights Commission Annual Report - 2004-2005
5
AR-Chapter-1-19-10-6-06.p65
25
7/17/06, 6:29 PM