Express Focus -- SOCIETY -- by Indian Express

December 04, 2000

When compensation is less

BAD news came looking for Prabhakar L. Mehta on November 16. On that day, the Enforcement Directorate challenged in the Delhi High Court a National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) decision asking the Centre to pay interim compensation of Rs 50,000 to Mehta. The businessman was allegedly beaten up by ED officials in Mumbai during his interrogation for alleged Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) violations by his brother-in-law.

A division bench stayed the NHRC’s order of September 8, and issued notices to both the NHRC and Mehta. This verdict begs the question: how effective are the NHRC’s rulings, how many people get their compensation, and who has the final say in human rights affairs — NHRC or the courts?

Activists feel that the Commission is not doing an adequate job, a point of view that’s contested by the NHRC’s secretary-general, N. Gopalaswamy, who feels that the accused has the right to go to a court of law and get a stay on an adverse order.

Ordering compensation to victims of state excesses is one of the most important recommendations of the NHRC. According to the Commission, state governments accept almost 98 per cent of their recommendations, and rarely does a state or institution challenge its verdict.

Beastly tales from Punjab

WHENEVER Rajeev Ratan (33) visits Punjab these days, he drags his 70-year-old father along, even if it’s for a bank promotion test. Rajeev’s father, O.P. Bhargav, a retired finance ministry official, says: ‘‘Rajeev is now a shattered soul.’’
Ratan was picked up and allegedly tortured on false grounds by the Punjab police. On March 6, 1995, Ratan, who was working as a clerk-cum-cashier in the Shivalik Kshetriya Gramin Bank at Kharwar in Punjab, was taken to the police station for questioning in a bank forgery case. The bank manager, P.K. Bhandari, alleged that Ratan had stolen Rs 3.95 lakh from the bank safe.
‘‘The SHO, Didar Singh along with two of his constables Paal Singh and Harchand Singh, entered my house without knocking my door. The SHO asked me my name and then dragged out of my house.’’
He continues, ‘‘The SHO and police constables stripped me and started beating me brutally. They stretched my thighs to almost 180 degrees and shoved cotton soaked in petrol into my rectum followed by chilli powder. Then they hung me upside down and belted me.’’ The beatings continued till March 12, and Ratan was released only on March 19. The torture dislodged a bone in Ratan’s leg, and he now has a steel hip that needs changing every eighth year.
Ratan’s family approached the NHRC which took up the case and had the policemen who tortured him booked. According to the NHRC findings released on November 1999, ‘‘The Ropar police had illegally detained and tortured Rajeev Ratan. The government of Punjab in their response has attempted to cover up the police action.’’ The NHRC team also asked the Punjab government to pay 2.5 lakh compensation and to conduct an in-depth inquiry and initiate criminal proceedings against the police officials charged. While the compensation has been paid, it’s up to the government to take action.
n Ratan now works in the Hindon Gramin bank, Ghaziabad, where he is on deputation. His mother relieved that the policemen were atleast named. ‘‘If we didn’t get justice I would’ve believed that there’s no justice in India at all.’’

Since its inception, the NHRC has granted compensation in 598 cases. It has ordered payment of Rs 767,836,34, starting from 1993 up to September 30 this year.

This is a very positive beginning, says Balweer Arora, a political science professor at the Jawarharlal Nehru University. Even though it’s not legally binding on the state government to implement NHRC’s reports, the fact that something is being done for victims is definitely a break from the past, he feels.

However, there are rumblings within the human rights community on the NHRC’s role and functioning. For one, activists believe that the commission shouldn’t just engage itself with compensation, but try and work on the attitude of law enforcement agencies.

Ashok Agrawaal, a Delhi-based lawyer feels that ‘‘Compensation is just peanuts.’’ He says, ‘‘Are we trying to say that we’ve set up a tribunal like the motor accident claims tribunal to grant compensation as a remedy to victims of state atrocities? The state seems to be telling its people, we’ll continue to oppress you and if you are bold enough to complain, we’ll throw some crumbs your way.’’
Aggarwal also criticised the ‘‘bureaucratic manner’’ in which the Commission functions. ‘‘Even as a moral force, the NHRC hasn’t functioned in full honesty. It has played the game of the establishment. It tries the patience of complainants by dragging on a case for too long.’’

Nishant Akhilesh, a People’s Union for Civil Liberties activist from Jharkhand, feels that the Commission should be granted more investigative powers. Akhilesh points says that the Commission depends on the accused, which is the state itself in most cases, in its investigations.

National General Secretary of PUCL, Y.P. Chibber, adds, ‘‘If there are 100 cases in a day, most of it will be against the police. It is difficult for the NHRC to send its own investigation team, so it has to depend on other agencies. If there’s a case against Dhanbad police station, they will first write to the Bihar police, it will then be passed on to the Dhanbad police station, and it will land in the same police station, if not with the same officer.’’

Chibber also feels that the government isn’t serious about taking consciousness about human rights to the administration. ‘‘The attitude of the members should change. Every member of the Commission has to assume the role of an activist. Now, it takes a purely technical view of things.’’ Chibber adds.

The NHRC receives on an average a whopping 100 complaints every day, alleging state excesses of various kinds. According the NHRC, 60 per cent of cases are from UP’s Meerut division. Gopalaswamy says it has more to do with the fact that Meerut is so close to Delhi, the NHRC’s headquarters, than anything else.
Gopalaswamy admits a delay in approval. ‘‘If there is any genuine case where the state government denies payment, we have the power to approach the high courts or the Supreme Court asking them to help enforcing the recommendations.’’

The Secretary General illustrates his point that the Commission’s orders are not taken lightly: When the Tamil Nadu government challenged an NHRC order to pay compensation in the high court, the court didn’t just order the government to pay the amount recommended, but also pay interest. The court also told the government to compensate the NHRC for extra costs incurred on the case.