Commission closes proceedings on Senari case

The Commission had taken suo-motu cognizance of the alleged police atrocities on women in Senari village of Bihar on the basis of media reports and information given by some local people claiming personal knowledge of the incident. In view of the gravity of the incident and the urgency to take necessary action, the Commission had directed its investigation team to make an immediate inquiry on the spot into the allegation of police atrocities and to submit its report within a week. It had also directed the Chief Secretary and Director General of Police of Bihar to submit their reports on the incident. There was no information given or available to the Commission at that time that the Patna High Court had also taken cognizance of the matter.

Later media reports appearing in the newspapers, as well as a communication received from the Government of Bihar, indicated that the Patna High Court was seized of the same matter. Hence, there was no occasion now for the Commission to proceed further in the matter since the judiciary was already dealing with it. The Commission, therefore, decided to close its proceeding in this case for the reason indicated.

The Commission took this opportunity to place on record its unambiguous perception that it has no doubt that the judiciary is the basic structure for protection of human rights at the national level and this Commission, no matter how wide its powers or efficient its operation, can never adequately substitute for a properly functioning judiciary. The Commission was also clear that its function to receive and act on complaints should be seen as an additional measure of security - a complementary mechanism established to ensure that the rights of all citizens are fully protected. This complementarity implied that the complaint function of this Commission should be able to offer something, which the legal system of other institutionalized processes cannot. "May be, the provision of an investigating mechanism of its own in the Commission gives it the advantage of not being required to rely on the State machinery for inquiring into complaints of violation of human rights when the allegation of violation is against the state machinery itself. However, even in this sphere the role of the Commission is of complementarity to that of the judiciary to enable the judiciary to issue binding directions where violations are proved, which the Commission is not empowered to make. This Commission does not visualize its role as that of an institution conducting a parallel inquiry/proceeding but that of complementarity in investigating complaints to facilitate the judiciary in ascertaining the facts on which its orders/directions can be based".

The Commission has been entrusted such responsibilities in many matters in recent years by the Supreme Court and more recently even by some High Courts. The Commission considered it appropriate to record the perception of its role vis-à-vis the judiciary in view of certain observations in the High Courts proceedings which appeared to give the impression, the Commission hope erroneously, that this Commission chose to embark on a parallel inquiry into the same matter, notwithstanding, pendency of the proceeding before the Patna High Court.