Annual Report - National Human Rights Commission

Complaints Before the Commission
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
○
4.98 While considering the aforesaid submission, the Commission, analyzed the various
provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and held that the provisions of
Section 19 of the Act are specific provisions to deal with the complaints of violations of
human rights by members of the Armed Forces and prescribes specified procedure, which
is somewhat different than the procedure prescribed u/s 17 for inquiry into complaints of
violation of human rights in general. Whereas, the Commission while inquiring into the
complaints of violation of human rights generally, may call for information or report from
the Central Government or any State Government or any other authority/organization
subordinate thereto within such time as may be specified by it and initiate an inquiry and
take any of the steps prescribed in Section 18 of the Act, whereas in cases of complaints of
violation of human rights by members of the Armed Forces, the Commission shall not conduct
an inquiry, but it may, either on its own motion or on receipt of a petition, seek a report from
the Central Government and after the receipt of the report, it may, either not proceed with
the complaint or make its recommendations to the Government. The Parliament in its supreme
wisdom did not place any restrictions on the jurisdiction of the Commission to make its
recommendations after the receipt of a report from the Central Government u/s 19 of the
Act. The power u/s 19(1)(b) of the Act is wide in its amplitude and it would include, without
any doubt, the power to recommend to the concerned Government grant of such compensation
including grant of “interim relief” to the victims or the members of their family as the
Commission may consider appropriate in the nature of “immediate interim relief” envisaged
u/s 18(3) of the Act.
4.99 The Commission further emphasized that the payment of compensation in cases like the
present one is in the nature of an order of making monetary amends for the wrong done due to
breach of public duty of not protecting the human rights of the citizen. The Commission has,
thus, not only the power and jurisdiction to make recommendations u/s 19(1)(b) but also an
obligation to grant interim relief, in the nature of what is envisaged by Section 18(3) of the Act,
while exercising its powers of 19(1) (b) of the Act in deserving cases.
4.100 In view of the above analysis, the Commission recommended that Rs. 2 Lakhs be paid
to each of the next of kin of the deceased. The Ministry of Home Affairs submitted their
compliance report regarding the payment of compensation amount.
16. Death of Shri Vikram by negligence of R.P.F., Maharashtra - Case No. 21/1/2003-
2004
4.101 The Commission received a complaint from Shri Bhaskar Mahadeorao bringing to the
notice of the Commission a news item published in the “Daily Maharashtra Times” on 8-1-
2003. It was reported in the newspaper that one Shri Vikram, a samosa vendor, was pushed
down from running train by the Police as he was travelling without a ticket. He lost his hand
and a leg.
42
National Human Rights Commission Annual Report - 2004-2005
AR-Chapter-1-19-10-6-06.p65
62
7/17/06, 6:29 PM