From the Editor's Desk

H uman needs have necessitated business, involving exchange of goods and services. Thus, business and human rights have always coexisted. However, a balance is always required between the two because, whenever business tends to dominate human values, whether in-house or outside of an entity in private or public sector, the question of human rights violation crops up. Human rights of employees as well as of prospective consumers are equally important.
Though the relationship between business and human rights may sound farfetched to many, yet the fact remains that these have acquired a centre stage in global parlance, in its various manifestations, these days. The link between the two is more visible ever since the concept of a global village gained momentum with the fast, increased and easy linkages through communication, transportation and connectivity of economies.
Opening of economy, particularly in a welfare State, provides a booming market choice and an opportunity to both, the product manufactures or service providers and the buyers. However, business model, which works on ambiguity to succeed by luring in an unsuspecting customer, is a flawed idea. Non- transparent dealings amount to corruption, be it of money or manners, which may lead to violation of human rights or be an impediment in realization thereof.
The angle of human rights violation gets hooked to business dealings when, for instance, options of multiple products and services of a brand are intended to confuse and thus, take advantage of gullible masses in order to thrive in business: When the conditions, written in fine prints, are obfuscating and not crisp, precise to the point, comprehensible and helpful in guiding a consumer to take an informed decision. Examples of goof ups in public utility schemes, products and services are galore:
One fails to understand why in a cashless medical insurance policy, the consumer still has to pay a part of his hospital fee or pay less for a surgery from his pocket and more, if through a Third-Party Administrator (TPA): Why a customer is not allowed to foreclose a postal life insurance policy and withdraw his money even after completing the minimum locking period: Why a comprehensive car insurance policy does not cover protection to engine, accessories or on road price of the car unless asked for separately: Why a zero depreciation vehicle insurance policy is executed not on hundred percent but ninety five percent of the ex-showroom price: Why despite the RBI giving money to the banks on an equal rate of interest, they pass it on to the customer differently under varied EMI calculation formulas: Why not the services but the interest rates of a bank are made a point of attraction: Why and how telephone calls made on the facility of the same service provider cost differently under ambiguous plans: Why an air ticket for just rupee one, as advertised, costs four to five thousand rupees when actually bought? Why the cost of a product and service is not inclusive of taxes and terms and conditions in a nutshell, leaving little scope for open ended interpretation? The list of such dichotomies may go on endless.
It is incumbent upon the governments as well as the regulatory mechanisms in various fields to conduct periodical social audit of every welfare scheme, service and public utility product to check unethical practices by identifying dichotomies and nip them in bud to do away with the root cause for rights violations and litigations.
The NHRC, given its jurisdiction, may not question directly a private player for laws and rights violation, especially when there are other appropriate forums available to look into such matters, but it may raise a concern, if such a situation arises. The subjects of business and human rights as well as corporate social responsibility, in the context of human rights, are such issues, wherein, the Commission has been expressing its concerns.