From the Editor's Desk

Foundation Day of any institution serves as a mile stone in the journey towards its mission. This becomes a motivating factor for the people working in that institution to re-dedicate themselves with more vigour towards its mission, which for the National Human Rights Commission is ensuring promotion and protection of human rights.
Ever since its inception on the 12th October, 1993, the Commission has relentlessly pursued the cause of human rights as per its mandate, elucidated in the Protection of Human Rights Act. The Commission's decisions are only recommendatory. The Governments are not bound to implement them. It is open for them to challenge NHRC recommendations in High Courts. But since these come from a highly placed panel of wise men, they generally accept them. Therefore, compliance of most of the NHRC recommendations, as also reflected in this edition of the newsletter, appears impressive.
But this cannot take away the fact that some State Governments, in the recent past, have simply refused to accept the NHRC recommendations for relief in a few cases and for this they are not even required to seek the sanctity of an order by a court, unless challenged by the NHRC. The Commission on its part, having limited resources, would not like to indulge in litigation in every such issue, as it may amount to affecting disposal of complaints of human rights violations, which is its main function.
Imagine who would suffer in the matter, when the government does not go to court against the NHRC recommendations and simply set them aside and the Commission is also constraint to fight it out legally? Obviously, the victim of human rights violation. And therefore, the question arises, why have in place Human Rights Commissions when their recommendations are not enforceable.
Be that as it may, the need for giving more powers to the Human Rights Commissions was, perhaps, never felt more as it is now. The question is why? The Commission's can also approach High Courts, but it may, perhaps, not withstand the judicial scrutiny, if a government, instead of challenging its recommendations on the merits of law points, has taken refuge in the provision of the PHR Act that these are not binding. Moral binding is different than the legal.
The learned judges of High Courts and the Supreme Court are aware of this limitation of the PHR Act. On several occasions, both in courts and outside, they have expressed so in the recent past. They, perhaps, understand that the NHRC recommendations, if challenged merely on the technicality of a provision, would do no good to the cause of human rights, if not respected for being passed by a highly placed panel, comprising two Members from higher judiciary and two other Members of eminence, led by a former Chief Justice of India as Chairperson.
Therefore, empowering the Commission would definitely be a mile stone in its journey. If the PHR Act is suitably amended to make, at least, the payment of NHRC recommended monetary relief binding, the courts would also not be constraint to be drawn out into the petitions challenging them merely on the ground that the government is not bound to accept them.
As it is, in the matters wherein a criminal action is involved under the IPC, the NHRC neither has the powers to pronounce nor it recommends sentence to the guilty: It rests with courts only. In all such cases, the NHRC, at the most, pushes for initiating proceedings for a departmental or a criminal action by the respective governments against its official(s) found guilty of human rights violation.