Apex Court to consider whether NHRC is ‘toothless tiger’

The Apex Court also noted the NHRC’s submission that “it was helpless in taking any coercive measures since it has no power to take action against persons or authorities, who do not follow the guidelines laid down by it (NHRC), nor does it have the power to give directions or pass orders, but can only make recommendations”. 

“We propose to consider the grievance of the NHRC that it as become a toothless tiger, after hearing the Union of India and the NHRC on this important issue,” a Bench of Justices MB Lokur and UU Lalit said while dealing with a PIL on extra-judicial killings in militancy-infested Manipur and the plea for repealing the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA).

Terming it an “important issue”, the court noted the NHRC’s submission that in all cases, state governments invariably take more than reasonable time to submit reports of magisterial inquiry (in all cases of death which occur in course of police action), post-mortem, inquest and those of ballistic experts. And in view of such delay, the NHRC was not in a position to conclude its proceedings early.

“By way of a complaint (if we may call it that), the NHRC states in the affidavit that it has written to the Central government to increase its staff, but the request has not been acted upon. It also states that to give more teeth to the guidelines issued by the NHRC, it would be appropriate if this court directs all the states to strictly comply with them both in letter and spirit,” the Bench noted in its verdict.

“The NHRC has again lamented over the shortage of staff available with it resulting in delays taking place and follow-up action being made more difficult. The NHRC has also lamented over the poor quality of the Magisterial Inquiry reports received by it wherein the family of the person killed is not examined nor independent witnesses examined,” the court noted.

In its order, the Apex Court also noted that the Manipur State Human Rights Commission was defunct due to the non-appointment of members and non-allocation of resources, despite an order of the Gauhati high court in 2011 in this regard.