Daily Analysis of 'The Hindu' - 21st March, 2020 | Additional Study Material for UPSC PDF Download

 Page 1


Giving Human Rights Commissions more teeth
?In 1993, the Indian Parliament enacted the
Protection of Human Rights Act.
?Purpose: to establish an institutional framework that
could effectively protect, promote and fulfil the
fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian
Constitution.
?TheAct created
?National Human Rights Commission
?Human Rights Commissions at the levels of the various
States.
Page 2


Giving Human Rights Commissions more teeth
?In 1993, the Indian Parliament enacted the
Protection of Human Rights Act.
?Purpose: to establish an institutional framework that
could effectively protect, promote and fulfil the
fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian
Constitution.
?TheAct created
?National Human Rights Commission
?Human Rights Commissions at the levels of the various
States.
?Classical account: democracy is sustained through
a distribution of power between three “branches ”
1. Legislature
2. Executive
3. Judiciary
?However, the complexity of governance and
administration in the modern world has
necessitated the existence of a set of
independent bodies, which are charged with
performing vital functions of oversight.
Page 3


Giving Human Rights Commissions more teeth
?In 1993, the Indian Parliament enacted the
Protection of Human Rights Act.
?Purpose: to establish an institutional framework that
could effectively protect, promote and fulfil the
fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian
Constitution.
?TheAct created
?National Human Rights Commission
?Human Rights Commissions at the levels of the various
States.
?Classical account: democracy is sustained through
a distribution of power between three “branches ”
1. Legislature
2. Executive
3. Judiciary
?However, the complexity of governance and
administration in the modern world has
necessitated the existence of a set of
independent bodies, which are charged with
performing vital functions of oversight.
?Fourth branch institutions
?In the two-and-a-half decades of their existence,
however, the functioning of the Human Rights
Commissions has come under scrutiny and
criticism.
?Politicisation of autonomous bodies
?Selectiveness
?Human Rights Commissions are toothless
Page 4


Giving Human Rights Commissions more teeth
?In 1993, the Indian Parliament enacted the
Protection of Human Rights Act.
?Purpose: to establish an institutional framework that
could effectively protect, promote and fulfil the
fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian
Constitution.
?TheAct created
?National Human Rights Commission
?Human Rights Commissions at the levels of the various
States.
?Classical account: democracy is sustained through
a distribution of power between three “branches ”
1. Legislature
2. Executive
3. Judiciary
?However, the complexity of governance and
administration in the modern world has
necessitated the existence of a set of
independent bodies, which are charged with
performing vital functions of oversight.
?Fourth branch institutions
?In the two-and-a-half decades of their existence,
however, the functioning of the Human Rights
Commissions has come under scrutiny and
criticism.
?Politicisation of autonomous bodies
?Selectiveness
?Human Rights Commissions are toothless
?At the highest, they play an advisory role, with
the government left free to disobey or even
disregard their findings.
?High Court of Madras: A Full Bench of the High
Court will be deciding upon whether
“recommendations ” made by the Human Rights
Commissions are binding upon their respective
State (or Central) governments, or whether the
government is entitled to reject or take no action
upon them.
Page 5


Giving Human Rights Commissions more teeth
?In 1993, the Indian Parliament enacted the
Protection of Human Rights Act.
?Purpose: to establish an institutional framework that
could effectively protect, promote and fulfil the
fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian
Constitution.
?TheAct created
?National Human Rights Commission
?Human Rights Commissions at the levels of the various
States.
?Classical account: democracy is sustained through
a distribution of power between three “branches ”
1. Legislature
2. Executive
3. Judiciary
?However, the complexity of governance and
administration in the modern world has
necessitated the existence of a set of
independent bodies, which are charged with
performing vital functions of oversight.
?Fourth branch institutions
?In the two-and-a-half decades of their existence,
however, the functioning of the Human Rights
Commissions has come under scrutiny and
criticism.
?Politicisation of autonomous bodies
?Selectiveness
?Human Rights Commissions are toothless
?At the highest, they play an advisory role, with
the government left free to disobey or even
disregard their findings.
?High Court of Madras: A Full Bench of the High
Court will be deciding upon whether
“recommendations ” made by the Human Rights
Commissions are binding upon their respective
State (or Central) governments, or whether the
government is entitled to reject or take no action
upon them.
?Under the Protection of Human Rights Act, the Human Rights
Commissions are empowered to inquire into the violations of
human rights committed by state authorities, either upon petitions
presented to them, or upon their own initiative.
?While conducting these inquiries, the Commissions are granted
identical powers to that of civil courts, such as the examining
witnesses, ordering for documents, receiving evidence, and so on.
?These proceedings are deemed to be judicial proceedings, and they
require that any person, who may be prejudicially affected by their
outcome, has a right to be heard.