CLARIFICATION NHRC yet to order compensation for victims of Punjab `mass cremation’
The National Human Rights Commission has taken cognizance of press reports alleging that the kin of victims of `mass cremation’ in the Punjab have rejected the compensation recommended for them by the Commission on the grounds that the Commission has allowed compensation without fixing accountability for the gross violation of civil rights committed by the Punjab police during the period of terrorism. The Commission would like to clarify that though it has been considering 88 cases of such cremation, it is yet to determine the quantum of compensation.
The Commission had received 88 cases of this kind following a request of the Supreme Court, which had asked the Commission to have this matter examined.
There were three categories of cases, which the Commission had examined. 23 of these cases did not fall within the police districts of Amritsar, Majitha and Taran Taran. Since the Commission had been asked to look into cases pertaining only to these three districts, the Commission excluded these 23 cases from consideration. The Commission had informed the concerned claimants accordingly.
In the second category were 18 cases in respect of which the Government of Punjab offered payment of compensation in accordance with its policy and the Commission considered that offer itself was sufficient “to render the State Government liable for payment of compensation on the above basis. For this conclusion it does not matter whether the custody was lawful or unlawful or the exercise of power of control over the person was justified or not; and it is not necessary even to identify the individual officer or officers responsible/concerned”. It will be clear from a plain reading of this part of the Commission’s order that with the Government of Punjab conceding its liability to pay the compensation in these 18 cases, there was no contest of the cases and the Commission simply reiterated the liability of the Punjab Government for payment of compensation.
Section 18(3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 empowers the Commission to recommend grant of immediate interim relief. This provision of immediate interim relief can be given without waiting for the final decision on the quantum of compensation or deciding the responsibility of the officials concerned whose actions had resulted in the violation of human rights in the interests of providing quick relief to the victim/family. In these 18 cases, the Commission itself has neither decided the total quantum of total compensation nor the interim compensation, but in fact the offer for payment of compensation was that of the Punjab Government. It is therefore incorrect to say that “while the Commission had allowed compensation, it was not ready to fix accountability for the gross violation of civil rights committed by the Punjab Police”.
In the third category, there are 47 claims, which will be scrutinized according to settled principles for award of compensation. For this purpose, the Commission has requested the Counsel for Punjab and the Amicus Curiae to carry out the scrutiny and to report to the Commission to enable the Commission to proceed further. The Commission has made it clear that the quantum of compensation payable in the earlier 18 cases will be decided along with those found fit for payment of compensation out of the third category of 47 cases
The Commission had received 88 cases of this kind following a request of the Supreme Court, which had asked the Commission to have this matter examined.
There were three categories of cases, which the Commission had examined. 23 of these cases did not fall within the police districts of Amritsar, Majitha and Taran Taran. Since the Commission had been asked to look into cases pertaining only to these three districts, the Commission excluded these 23 cases from consideration. The Commission had informed the concerned claimants accordingly.
In the second category were 18 cases in respect of which the Government of Punjab offered payment of compensation in accordance with its policy and the Commission considered that offer itself was sufficient “to render the State Government liable for payment of compensation on the above basis. For this conclusion it does not matter whether the custody was lawful or unlawful or the exercise of power of control over the person was justified or not; and it is not necessary even to identify the individual officer or officers responsible/concerned”. It will be clear from a plain reading of this part of the Commission’s order that with the Government of Punjab conceding its liability to pay the compensation in these 18 cases, there was no contest of the cases and the Commission simply reiterated the liability of the Punjab Government for payment of compensation.
Section 18(3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 empowers the Commission to recommend grant of immediate interim relief. This provision of immediate interim relief can be given without waiting for the final decision on the quantum of compensation or deciding the responsibility of the officials concerned whose actions had resulted in the violation of human rights in the interests of providing quick relief to the victim/family. In these 18 cases, the Commission itself has neither decided the total quantum of total compensation nor the interim compensation, but in fact the offer for payment of compensation was that of the Punjab Government. It is therefore incorrect to say that “while the Commission had allowed compensation, it was not ready to fix accountability for the gross violation of civil rights committed by the Punjab Police”.
In the third category, there are 47 claims, which will be scrutinized according to settled principles for award of compensation. For this purpose, the Commission has requested the Counsel for Punjab and the Amicus Curiae to carry out the scrutiny and to report to the Commission to enable the Commission to proceed further. The Commission has made it clear that the quantum of compensation payable in the earlier 18 cases will be decided along with those found fit for payment of compensation out of the third category of 47 cases