Friends, "One letter, two reply"- both for refusing to entertain the application. This is what the NHRC did in the case presented by Sri Paramjit Singh from Punjab. IRDS has also taken up the issue. We are sending a letter again to the Chairman to take the matter very seriously and to take action against erring officials, if any. Here is the second letter sent by us to NHRC. We request you to take up the cause at your end as well. Dr Nutan Thakur To, The Chairman, NHRC, New Delhi Subject- Letter No- 1303/4/26/2010 dt. 10.07.2010 and 1297/4/26/2010/OC dated 08/07/2010 of the Commission Sir, Kindly refer to my letter No- Lt No- IRDS/NHRC/ Param/01/10 Dated- 13/07/2010 about a letter by Sri Paramjit Singh, resident of 34/10, Raj Nagar, Jullundhur, Punjab sent on 26/05/2010.As said there the matter pertained to the beating of a boy and was based on a news clipping flashed in India TV where an 10 year old orphan child was badly beaten and tortured in Patna by the Public in the presence of Police on the allegation of theft. Despite the fact that the matter naturally falls under the realm of the NHRC and it should immediately have been taken up, the NHRC closed the matter saying that- “The complaint is addressed to other authority with only copy sent to this Commission. The authority is expected to take appropriate action in this matter. Hence no further action is called for. File” In my letter I had clearly explained why that order of the NHRC was incorrect and was akin to shirking responsibilities. Thus I had requested you not only to reconsider the matter but also to give very specific instructions to the concerned officials in the Commission to refrain from such casual and inappropriate approach in the future. But as if that was not enough, the same officer sent another letter No- 1303/4/26/2010 dt. 10.07.2010. In this it was said that- “The complaint is not entertainable in accordance with the provision of section 36 of the protection of human rights act 1993 read with regulation 9 of the national human rights commission (procedure) regulation 1994 as amended. Hence no action is called for and the file is closed.” One fails to understand why two replies were needed in the same matter, for a single letter, that too when the NHRC was closing the matter. Now, when one goes deeply into the issue, many startling and serious facts emerge. The first is that section 36 of the PHR Act 1993 talks about matters not subject to jurisdiction of the Commission. It says that the Commission shall not inquire into any matter which is pending before a State Commission or any other Commission duly constituted or after the expiry of one year. In this particular case, none of these facts hold true. As per the matter presented in Sri Paramjit Singh’s letter, no other Commission has taken up the matter as yet. Secondly, the matter does not get clarified as being more than one year old. Thus, on what grounds does section 36 apply here? Coming to regulation 9 of the NHRC regulations 1994, it is about minutes of the meetings which don’t seem to make much sense here. Thus, we from Institute for Research and Documentation in Social Sciences (IRDS), Lucknow ask you to personally get verified these two facts- 1. Why was this matter refused to be enquired into, citing wrong reasons and legal provisions? 2. What was the need to send two replies in the same matter, both the time refusing to act upon a very genuine case? At the same time, we would also request you to take suitable action against any erring official of NHRC if found so, in a suitable internal enquiry. Your timely intervention in this matter would help serve justice, because the matter seems to be very serious, as it is related with brutal beating of a child, that too in the presence of policemen. Otherwise, a grave injustice would be caused. Lt No- IRDS/NHRC/ Param/02/10 Dated- 16/07/2010 Regards, Dr Nutan Thakur, Secretary, IRDS, 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow # 94155-34525
