Important intervention<br>

NHRC visits violence hit Muzaffarnagar and Shamli Districts of U.P.
A team of the National Human Rights Commission led by Justice Shri Cyriac Joseph, Member visited riot-hit Muzaffarnagar and Shamli districts in Uttar Pradesh from the 10th - 11th October, 2013 to assess the steps taken by the State government for relief and rehabilitation of the displaced persons. The other members of the team comprised Smt. Kanwaljit Deol, DG (I), Shri A.K. Garg, Registrar (Law), Shri C.K. Tyagi, Presenting Officer, Shri S.K. Jain, SSP and Shri Nitin Kumar, Inspector.
Some important recommendations given by the Commission to the State government, on the basis of its team's observations after an assessment of the living conditions in the camps and discussions with NGOs and the District administration, are as follows:
i) Register names, parentage and addresses of all the displaced persons staying in the relief camps for proper computation and distribution of relief material in a transparent manner.
ii) Provide drinking water on priority basis and improve sanitation to prevent outbreak of vector borne diseases. Carry out anti-mosquito spray and fogging on regular basis and upgrade medical facilities.
iii) Immediately disburse monetary compensation for loss/damage of houses and movables. If the compensation is subsequently revised, the additional amount may be paid later.
iv) Take immediate steps to trace the missing persons. The government should consider formulating a policy for providing relief to the families of the missing persons after waiting for a certain period
v) Monetary compensation should be considered for the families of those who died in the camps.
vi) Make adequate arrangements for clothes, blankets etc in view of the approaching winter season.
vii) The complaints relating to offences should be faithfully recorded and FIRs should be registered under appropriate provisions of law. The investigation of offences should not only be fair and impartial but it should also be seen to be fair and impartial.
viii) District Inspector of schools should visit the camps and identify the students who are to appear in the matriculation and intermediate examination of UP Board. The government should take appropriate decision to enable them to continue their studies. The relaxation of attendance criteria for them may also be considered.
ix) The Nodal Officers appointed by the District Administration for the camps should be sensitized about their duties.

NHRC to all States and UTs: Inform about the process used by them to ascertain the age of juveniles
The National Human Rights Commission has issued notices to the Chief Secretaries of all States and Administrators of Union Territories asking them to inform whether due process of law, as laid down in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (JJ Act), was followed to ascertain the age of juveniles who were lodged either in regular jails or Juvenile Homes. Referring to the procedures of the JJ Act, it has said that the determination of the age of a child by the Investigation Officer, particularly in the absence of any of the documents or the proof enumerated under Rule 12 (3), is not recognized in law, and the same cannot be the basis for the juvenile to be dealt under law.
The Commission has also observed that the Magistrate concerned also cannot act on the determination of the age by the Investigating Officer alone and send such a juvenile or a child in conflict with law to a regular prison instead of a Juvenile Home. If the determination of age by the Investigating Officer is accepted as final, it would amount to serious violation of the human rights of a child. Therefore, a due process of law, as laid down, needs to be strictly followed.
The right to determine the age of a juvenile, implicated in a criminal case, is ensured by the Constitution. The process of determination of age of a child is vested in the Court or Juvenile Justice Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, as per the Rule 12 of the Rules, 2007 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
It clearly states that the JJ Committee will decide, within 30 days, after an application is submitted to it for determining the age of a juvenile or a child or a juvenile in conflict with law, prima-facie on the basis of physical appearance or documents like the matriculation or equivalent certificate or birth certificate by school other than a play school or the birth certificate given by a Corporation or a Municipal Authority or a Panchayat and, only in the absence of these three options, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board to decide the age of a child.
In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year.
The Commission took suo motu cognizance of the issue after it was brought to its notice by Dr. Yogesh Dubey, Member, National Commission for Protection of Child Rights that during his visit to the Agra District Jail, 38 juvenile inmates claimed that they were below the age of 18 years on the date of offence for which they were accused. He also said that several juveniles were languishing in regular prisons at Chandigarh, Amritsar, Jaipur, Moradabad, Dhanbad and Lucknow and sought the NHRC's intervention in the matter.

NHRC to Manipur government: Remove arbitrary restrictions on Irom Sharmila
Taking suo motu cognizance of the arbitrary restrictions imposed on access to Ms. Irom Sharmila by the Government of Manipur, the National Human Rights Commission has recommended that it immediately remove them as these were in breach of India's obligations under international human rights standards and principles, and a grave violation of human rights. The Commission in its notice to the Chief Secretary of the State government has said that Ms. Sharmila must be permitted to receive visitors under the regime that governs all persons in judicial custody. The Commission has asked him to report to it on the steps taken in this regard.
The Commission has also observed that it believes that if the Government of Manipur could deny permission to its Special Rapporteur, a retired Director General of Police and to Special Rapporteurs of the UN, to visit Ms. Sharmila, it is unlikely that it gives others access to her. It would appear that, while keeping her alive, since her death would create problems for the State Government, it is trying to break her spirit through this enforced isolation, for which there is no judicial mandate, though she is in judicial custody.
The Commission has said that Ms. Sharmila is a person of concern to it on three counts. She is, firstly, a person in custody, on the terms of whose imprisonment the Commission has received some complaints. Secondly, it has been represented to the Commission, and to the UN Special Rapporteurs who have visited India, that the terms of her imprisonment have deliberately been made harsh because she is a human rights defender. Lastly, in so far as she is held in conditions that are onerous because of her peaceful opposition to an aspect of government policy, a law whose repeal she seeks, she is a prisoner of conscience.
Two Members of the Commission, accompanied by senior officers, had met Ms. Sharmila on the 23rd October, 2013, during NHRC's visit to the State. She was found frail but alert and did not complain of any physical ill-treatment. However, she repeatedly said that she was rarely allowed visitors, whereas all others in the custody of the State Government routinely receive visitors from family and friends. The State Government officers could not give any satisfactory reply to the Commission on this egregious exception made to the practice in her case, but was informed that permission to meet her must be issued by either the Chief Minister or the Deputy Chief Minister.

737 protesters against illegal mining get over Rs. 36 lakh as relief
In a landmark case, the National Human Rights Commission, not only recommended, but also ensured that the Government of Goa paid Rs. 5 thousand each to 737 villagers, whose human rights were violated in police action when they were protesting to stop illegal mining activities in and around village Carvem. The State government has submitted proof of payment of a sum of `36 lakh 85 thousand. The Commission has also directed the State government to make payment to the first class heirs of the three persons who had expired.
In their complaint to the Commission, the villagers had alleged that they were lathi-charged by police when they were protesting against the operation of trucks in mining areas beyond stipulated time causing air and noise pollution. The State government admitted time violation by truckers. But it denied police accesses, which the Commission did not accept on the basis of material on record.

A rape victim gets Rs. 5 lakh as relief
In compliance with the recommendations of the National Human Rights Commission, the Railway Board has finally paid Rs. 5 lakh as monetary relief to a victim of rape by a Constable of Railway Protection Force at New Delhi Railway Station. The incident happened on the 4th September, 2012.
Earlier, in response to the notice of the Commission, the Railway Board had informed that the Constable was arrested and dismissed from the service. However, it was not liable to pay compensation as he was not on duty when he committed the crime.
The Commission did not accept this contention and held that as per the provisions of the Railways Act, it was liable to pay relief. Chapter XIII of the Act on "Liability of Railway Administration for death or injury to passengers due to accidents" defines an "untoward incident" as including "the making of a violent attack"… "by any person …… in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station".
A rape is a violent act under any definition. This rape was committed within the precincts of a railway station, as defined under the Act. Section 124A of the Railways Act lays down that in the event of an untoward incident, irrespective of whether there has been any wrongful act, negligence or default on the part of the railway administration….. "the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed…..".
While such claims would ordinarily be made to the Claims Tribunal, Section 128 of the Act lays down that "the right of any person to claim compensation under Section 124 1 (or Section 124 A) shall not affect the right of any such person to recover compensation payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), or any other law for the time being in force."
Thus setting aside the contention of the Railway Board, the NHRC said that the victim, who suffered grievous harm, was certainly entitled to relief for violation of her human rights .The Commission had registered the case on the basis of a complaint filed by a human rights activist.