NHRC reacts to WBHRC’s comments
The National Human Rights Commission, on 24 January 2001, considered a resolution of the West Bengal Human Rights Commission dated 19 January 2001, which was received by the former on 22 January 2001. Taking note of its contents, the National Human Rights Commission felt that a response to it had become necessary even though it had chosen to ignore earlier media reports containing some unfortunate remarks attributed to the Chairperson of WBHRC. The Commission was constrained to make its response in view of the unfortunate stand taken by the WBHRC.
The WBHRC, in a resolution dated 19 January 2001, had stated that it did not appreciate the NHRC "ordering an enquiry into such matters which are pending before this State Commission as the National Human Rights Commission is prevented from enquiring into such matters under the provisions of Section 36(1) of the Protection of Human Rights Act". The resolution had added that the State Commission "would appreciate if prior to the National Human Rights Commission taking a decision of directing an enquiry into any matter in West Bengal, it would specifically be satisfied whether the self-same matter is also pending before the State Commission or not, as otherwise in case matters pending before the State Commission are interfered with by the National Human Rights Commission subsequent to the taking of cognizance of the matter, it would create extraordinary embarrassment to the State Commission and will ultimately tend to undermine the authority and status of the State Human Rights Commission".
The National Human Rights Commission, in reacting, stated "there appears to be some misunderstanding in the WBHRC about the meaning and purport of Section 36(1) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (POHRA) which may have led to this stance of the WBHRC. The opinion required to be formed for the purpose of Section 36(1) was of the NHRC itself, which is not obliged to act on the view taken by the State Commission. For this purpose, the State Commission may communicate to the NHRC, the material facts pertaining to the action, if any, taken by it in a particular matter to enable the NHRC, to form its opinion whether the same matter can be treated as pending before the State Commission prior to its cognizance being taken by the NHRC, and then to act accordingly. The NHRC is not to be governed merely by the view of the State Commission in formation of its opinion. Incidentally, even now the WBHRC had not mentioned any facts pertaining to any specific matter to indicate that it had taken any cogent step in the matter prior to the cognizance being taken by NHRC of the same matter, so that the NHRC can treat it as a pending matter before the WBHRC".
The Commission added "It also needs mention that the POHRA does not exclude any part of India from the jurisdiction of the NHRC nor does it prohibit any person from approaching the NHRC in respect of violation of human rights anywhere in the country, simply because a State Commission exists for that area. Prior clearance of the State Commission is not needed by the NHRC to exercise its functions in any part of India".
The NHRC appreciated the equal concern of WBHRC for the protection of human rights, about which it never had any doubt. The NHRC added that it "would appreciate it even more if the emphasis is greater on discharge our common functions rather than on the debate of comparative authority of the Commissions, which is not conducive to the purpose of its establishment. Moreover, such a stance would only facilitate violations of human rights with impunity".
The WBHRC, in a resolution dated 19 January 2001, had stated that it did not appreciate the NHRC "ordering an enquiry into such matters which are pending before this State Commission as the National Human Rights Commission is prevented from enquiring into such matters under the provisions of Section 36(1) of the Protection of Human Rights Act". The resolution had added that the State Commission "would appreciate if prior to the National Human Rights Commission taking a decision of directing an enquiry into any matter in West Bengal, it would specifically be satisfied whether the self-same matter is also pending before the State Commission or not, as otherwise in case matters pending before the State Commission are interfered with by the National Human Rights Commission subsequent to the taking of cognizance of the matter, it would create extraordinary embarrassment to the State Commission and will ultimately tend to undermine the authority and status of the State Human Rights Commission".
The National Human Rights Commission, in reacting, stated "there appears to be some misunderstanding in the WBHRC about the meaning and purport of Section 36(1) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (POHRA) which may have led to this stance of the WBHRC. The opinion required to be formed for the purpose of Section 36(1) was of the NHRC itself, which is not obliged to act on the view taken by the State Commission. For this purpose, the State Commission may communicate to the NHRC, the material facts pertaining to the action, if any, taken by it in a particular matter to enable the NHRC, to form its opinion whether the same matter can be treated as pending before the State Commission prior to its cognizance being taken by the NHRC, and then to act accordingly. The NHRC is not to be governed merely by the view of the State Commission in formation of its opinion. Incidentally, even now the WBHRC had not mentioned any facts pertaining to any specific matter to indicate that it had taken any cogent step in the matter prior to the cognizance being taken by NHRC of the same matter, so that the NHRC can treat it as a pending matter before the WBHRC".
The Commission added "It also needs mention that the POHRA does not exclude any part of India from the jurisdiction of the NHRC nor does it prohibit any person from approaching the NHRC in respect of violation of human rights anywhere in the country, simply because a State Commission exists for that area. Prior clearance of the State Commission is not needed by the NHRC to exercise its functions in any part of India".
The NHRC appreciated the equal concern of WBHRC for the protection of human rights, about which it never had any doubt. The NHRC added that it "would appreciate it even more if the emphasis is greater on discharge our common functions rather than on the debate of comparative authority of the Commissions, which is not conducive to the purpose of its establishment. Moreover, such a stance would only facilitate violations of human rights with impunity".