BACKGROUND
This
organisation was formed for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the people of
Maharashtra a state of India and also entire country,
to address the specific need or issues common to
various parts of the country and local region. The
needs vary from atrocities of police, social injustice,
women liberation and protection, and speedy addressing
of the issues concerning the public at large. With
the specific aim of preventing, recurrence and ensuring
basic human rights. The
organisation was registered and is approved by
the Government of India under the reference No.
MAH/ 697/07/THANE. The Human Rights organisation
is run by highly acclaimed personalities of the
country like Retired Hon’ble Justice’s
and sitting judges as well as prominent personalities
of the society, and is very famous for championing
the cause of the poor, needy and deprived.
This organisation
was formed with a clear aim to serve the needy
and people in distress due to exploitation by
the various government bodies.
OUR AIM
To Make Human Rights Act
of India the principles and norms all pervasive.
All "public authorities", including
the police service, will need to have Human Rights
in mind when making any decisions affecting peoples
civil and political rights.
The Act provides,
for the first time, a clear definition of fundamental
rights in India. It gives a clear message to public
authorities, defining precisely what is (and is
not) a basic human right. All public authorities
will be under a statutory obligation to use this
baseline as the starting point for their public
service work.
Predictions
about the impact of the act range from "the
unrealistically optimistic to the pessimistically
cynical". It has been described as a "new
beginning" and a "new era of rights
and responsibilities in the quest to develop and
protect human rights in India. Overall, we are
striving to get the police service broadly compliant
with the Act which provides an opportunity for
us to strengthen and formalise our professional
and ethical base and set a vision of becoming
a champion of human rights in India.
THE LEGISLATION AND WHAT WE DWELL UPON
The Act sets out rights,
prohibitions and freedoms in absolute, limited
and qualified terms in sections referred to as
'articles'. For example, there are no circumstances
in which torture can be justified as being in
the interests of the state; it is an 'absolute'
right. No "interference" with a right,
protected by the Act, is permissible unless it
has a legal basis. Any interference must have
a legitimate aim such as being in the interests
of public safety, national security or to prevent
disorder or crime. Additionally, the concept of
proportionality must be considered, the test being
whether the interference is "necessary in
a democratic society".
The Organisations
aim is to protect individuals against the power
of the State and other "Public Authorities"
such as the police. Only someone who is directly
affected by the action, a "victim" in
the terms of the Act may bring a Human Rights
Challenge. Additionally, Human Rights breaches
may be argued in existing criminal and civil proceedings.
Where cases
relate to wrongful detention and police misconduct
the damages awarded can be substantial. Judges
and magistrates will now have to openly give reasons
for their decisions. This may impact upon complaints
and civil actions if police evidence is considered
to be inaccurate or untruthful. Additionally,
the interpretation of the act will no doubt result
in Judges redefining the roles and responsibilities
of public authorities. This will increase their
power, and may have constitutional implications
for the police service. The training provided
for this legislation has been the largest ever
judicial training exercise indicating its complexity.
The act may therefore, threaten the existence
of unqualified lay magistrates.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF OUR
ORGANISATION
In addition to the requirement to uphold convention
rights, the police are also under an obligation,
in certain circumstances, to protect individuals
from the actions of others. This covers three
areas;
A duty to safe guard the life and physical integrity
of individuals known to be at risk.
A duty to investigate
crime effectively.
A duty to ensure
that individuals can enjoy their rights, such
as the right of peaceful assembly.
So as Therefore,
the definition of a victim can be wide ranging
under this statute.
The Indian
Judiciary and the Indian Human Rights Commission
has imposed an obligation upon states to respond
with "strict diligence" to any breaches
of fundamental rights by public officials. "a
through and effective investigation capable of
leading to the identification and punishment of
those responsible". There is therefore, unlikely
to be any refuge for culpable police officers
and public servants.
The Indian courts have, on occasion, acceded to
the argument that immunities and privileges in
domestic law can be a serious impediment to civil
rights. "Police forces should exercise considerable
caution before applying to have claims for negligence
struck out on the basis of public policy immunity."
This decision will have implications for senior
officers who are responsible for authorising the
police use of firearms as well as a myriad of
other operational decisions where risk assessment
is part of the process.
IMPLICATIONS AND OUR ROLE
To always have a hawks eye on the application
of force, from the police use of firearms to the
handcuffing of individuals is a subject about
which all police staff must have a clear understanding.
The availability and use of "less than lethal"
options and the "continuum of force"
principle will be issues that we from time to
time inform the respective departments and the
police which we make sure are considered.
We also communicate
with all the police departments and states in
regards to the,
1) Surveillance should be limited to serious and
properly defined offences.
2) It should not
be exploratory, Abusive or general.
3) It should be
limited to cases where conventional means of enquiry
are ineffective or have been unsuccessful.
The definition
and meaning of "reasonable suspicion"
has for many years been a controversial area of
police discretion. Indian case law provides a
number of important principles and highlights
the need to be able to justify, with facts, the
action taken "Having a 'reasonable suspicion'
presupposes the existence of facts or information
which would satisfy an objective observer".
This highlights the need to retain record and
disclose material relevant to any decision that
may have a relevance to individuals Human Rights.
Other areas where
the police will no doubt face challenges while
we are watching, relate to, the media and the
right to freedom of speech, bail, intimate searches,
self incrimination, extensions of detention and
the right to silence to name but a few.
It has been
usefully suggested that police managers need to
have knowledge of, and the skills to use, effective
decision making models in order to deal with these
challenges, comply with the act and be accountable
for their decisions.
DECISION MAKING
We work hard to ensure and to communicate to the
various government authorities and decision-makers
within public authorities:
Consider, and
interpret, existing legislation in such a way
that is compatible with Human rights mandate,
Identify if an
action or decision is compatible with, or an interference
to, an individuals rights,
Ensure that any
incompatibility or interference is within the
scope of the allowable interferences, and proportionate
to the problem that is being tackled.
In future, Indian
Courts may be asked to consider issues relating
to the planning of critical incidents and training
given to deal with life threatening situations
including restraint, first aid and access to medical
treatment. The service response to these issues
must be transparent and robust and we on a daily
basis hammer this point across all areas of government
operations.
The act has, therefore,
a significant importance for strategic, tactical
and operational decision making and the development
of professional and ethical standards. The recording
of decisions and the rationale behind them, compliance
with the "continuum of force" principle
and proportionality will be key skills that will
have to be ever present. The consequences for
police managers and decision makers are that they
must ensure that these principles are upheld by
the provision and use of effective, internal and
external, systems to prevent and detect abuse.
A DIFFERENT
WAY OF THINKING
The Honorable Home Minister
has made it clear that the government expects
cultural change and an embracement of Human Rights
by all public authorities. He has provided us
with a working definition of what he means by
"culture":
the habits of
mind
the intellectual reflexes
and the professional sensibilities
We have written
to the Indian government about many issues concerning
persistent violence and discrimination against
Dalits, or so-called untouchables, a group of
international human rights organizations have
also voiced their concern.
The organizations include Human Rights Watch,
the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice
at New York University School of Law, and the
International Dalit Solidarity Network.
On March 9, the UN Committee on the Elimination
of Racial Discrimination (CERD) issued its Concluding
Observations regarding India's compliance with
the International Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The Committees
report found that de facto segregation of Dalits
persists and highlighted systematic abuse against
Dalits including torture and extrajudicial killings,
an alarming extent of sexual violence against
Dalit women, and caste discrimination in post-tsunami
relief.
The Committee called for effective measures to
implement laws on discrimination and affirmative
action, and sought proper protection for Dalits
and tribal communities against acts of discrimination
and violence. The Committee has given India a
year to respond to four of its recommendations,
including its recommendations on how India can
end widespread impunity for violence against Dalits,
and Dalit women in particular.
The UN Committees concluding observations confirm
that India has failed to properly protect Dalits
and tribal communities, said Brad Adams, Asia
Director of Human Rights Watch. This is a prime
opportunity for India to give its own policies
on discrimination some meaning. Laws need to be
implemented, and those who violate them must be
prosecuted.
The Concluding Observations were issued following
two days of hearings in Geneva on February 23
and 26 between Committee members and the Indian
delegation. During the hearing, Committee members
uniformly took issue with the Indian government's
refusal to acknowledge that caste-based discrimination
is covered by the Convention and is an issue of
international human rights concern.
Inparticular, the Committee called on the
Indian government to:
· Introduce mandatory training on the application
of India's Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act for police, judges
and prosecutors, and take disciplinary measures
against those who fail to implement this law.
· Ensure the protection of witnesses and
victims to caste-based crimes and ensure their
immediate access to effective remedies.
· Prosecute and punish perpetrators of
sexual violence and sexual exploitation of Dalit
women, and sanction anyone found preventing or
discouraging victims from reporting such incidents,
including public officials.
· Eradicate the social acceptance of caste-based
discrimination through public education and awareness
campaigns.
· Ensure equal access to health care, safe
drinking water, and other public services.
· Investigate all alleged cases of discrimination
against Dalits in post-tsunami relief and compensate
or retroactively grant benefits to victims of
such discrimination.
· Take effective measures to reduce dropout
rates and increase enrollment rates among Dalits
at all levels of schooling by providing scholarships
and by ending classroom segregation.
· Ensure proper enforcement of reservations
or quotas to counter the under-representation
of Dalits and tribal communities in government
and public services.
· Adopt measures to enhance Dalits access
to the labor market, including by extending the
reservation policy to the private sector.
· Repeal the Armed Forces Special Powers
Act that, while providing the armed forces with
widespread powers to search, arrest and shoot
suspects, leading to allegations of human rights
abuses, has immunity provisions under which troops
cannot be prosecuted unless authorized by the
Central Government.
The Concluding Observations reflect the Committees
disappointment with Indias presentation before
the Committee on February 23 and 26. Despite Indias
Solicitor General Goolam Vahanvatis claim to the
Committee that the government is deeply conscious
and concerned about caste and is fully committed
to tackling this at every level, the Indian delegation
resorted to a semantic debate on the difference
between caste and race to support its erroneous
assertion that the Convention only covers race-based
discrimination.
Citing Indias
extensive laws and policies to end caste-based
discrimination, none of which have been faithfully
implemented, the Indian delegation also questioned
the credibility of the Committees sources of information.
These sources included reports of Indias own governmental
agencies and numerous reports by Indian and international
nongovernmental organizations, including Hidden
Apartheid, which the NYU Center for Human Rights
and Global Justice (CHRGJ) along with Human Rights
Watch produced as a shadow report ahead of CERDs
review of Indias periodic report.
In its Concluding Observations, the Committee
reaffirm[ed] that discrimination based on the
ground of caste is fully covered by article 1
of the Convention. It cited its position expressed
in General Recommendation No. 29, that discrimination
based on descent includes discrimination against
members of communities based on forms of social
stratification such as caste and analogous systems
of inherited status which nullify or impair their
equal enjoyment of human rights.
The Indian delegations arrogant rejection of well-documented
abuses against Dalits before UN experts in Geneva
mirrors Indias systematic denial of Dalit rights
at home, said Professor Smita Narula, faculty
director of the Center for Human Rights and Global
Justice. India once again squandered an opportunity
to enlist the support of experts in its efforts
to ensure equality in law and practice for its
citizens.
Comprised of independent experts from around the
world, the Committee was led in its review by
Mr. Linos-Alexander Sicilianos of Greece. On December
27, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh likened
the practice of untouchability in India to apartheid
in South Africa. After this statement, Siciliano
said, I sincerely feel that the official position
[of the Indian delegation…] is simply untenable.
The Committee formally noted its appreciation
for the prime ministers remarks in their Observations.
Committee members characterized Indias position
as a broken record, a step backwards, and cautioned
that India should not confuse growth with development.
Sicilianos reminded the government that change
cannot be achieved by legislation alone. The Committee
also highlighted its concern over abuses at the
local level for which radical measures were necessary.
The Indian governments position left Committee
members asking why India did not choose to view
the review as an opportunity rather than a threat.
Committee members also noted that caste-based
discrimination was not unique to South Asia, but
also existed in many parts of Africa
The Committees sharp rebuke to the Indian government
has been matched by growing scrutiny both inside
and outside the country. On February 1, 2007 the
European Parliament passed a resolution voicing
strong concern about the plight of Dalits in India
and urging the government to engage with relevant
UN bodies, including CERD.
Instead of sidestepping its responsibilities,
India should welcome assistance from the international
community to eliminate caste-based discrimination,
said Rikke Nöhrlind, coordinator of the International
Dalit Solidarity Network. The fact that European
Parliament strongly urged its own institutions
to address caste discrimination in all EU-India
relations reflects growing worldwide concern about
Indias hidden apartheid.
More than 165 million people in India continue
to be subject to discrimination, exploitation
and violence simply because of their caste. In
Indias hidden apartheid, untouchability relegates
Dalits throughout India to a lifetime of segregation
and abuse. Caste-based divisions continue to dominate
in housing, marriage, employment and general social
interaction divisions that are reinforced through
|
