11 January 2018
National Human Rights Commission
Manav Adhikar Bhawan
Block-C, GPO Complex, INA
New Delhi – 110023
Ref.:- NHRC Case no. 276/25/6/2017-pf
The complaint dated 14.02.2017 filed by Mr. Kirity Roy, the complainant
Sub.:- A protest letter against the decision of the Commission
On 09.01.2018 I received the email communication from the Commission in connection with NHRC Case no.276/25/6/2017-pf. In the said communication it was mentioned that the Commission has issued direction in the said case. I searched about the case from the Commission's official website and found that the Commission closed the case on the ground that the victim did not submit comments on the police report within the stipulated time as fixed by the Commission.
I was the complainant on the above stated case and I filed the complaint for the victim Master Obaidul Haq and in the capacity of the then Secretary of our NGO namely Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (MASUM). But the Commission did not bother to send me a single official communication till date that my complaint for the victim Master Obaidul Haq was registered. In absence of my knowledge the Commission continued to proceed with the case and called for report from the police department of Cooch Behar district. Even such step was not communicated to me by the Commission. The Commission received police report which was also not disclosed to me. The police report was prepared by holding a secret enquiry and also by pressurizing the victim to shift back from his previous complaint lodged before the Superintendent of Police, District-Cooch Behar.
Then the Commission on its own decided to send the copy of the police report to the victim and put him under an impossible burden to furnish comments on the police report. Does the victim who is only a boy of 17 years old and recently appeared Secondary Examination competent to furnish comments on the police report which involved quasi-legal issues and contents? Even such sending of police report to the victim directing him to furnish comments was not intimated to me by the Commission. The conduct of the Commission itself proved that I remained a name on the record of the case and the Commission intentionally and deliberately threw me away from the proceeding of the case.
The Commission never thought to intimate me the progress of the case at any point of time. The Commission only thought that it is enough to intimate me that ultimate decision of the case that it was closed. Is such kind of practice by the Commission is fair, just and reasonable? The kind of practice is surely in derogation of the provision of Section 12(e) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 which mandates one of the functions of the Commission to encourage the efforts of non-governmental organizations and institutions working in the field of human rights. It was/is always my efforts being a member of our organisation to lodge complaint before the Commission on behalf of the victims of human rights violations and convey their grievances, submission, evidences in proper manner for proper disposal of the case. If the Commission had given me an opportunity to furnish comments on the police report then I had the occasion to furnish the medical report of the victim boy showing that he remained hospitalized from 04.12.2016 to 07.12.2016 and the hospital record mentioned "physical assault" in his diagnosis. Even I had the occasion to show to the Commission that the Public Grievance Cell of the Superintendent of Police, Cooch Behar did not take any action on the written complaint of the victim dated 19.12.2016 which disclosed information commission of cognizable offences by the perpetrator BSF personnel. But his complaint was not referred for registering as FIR which is a clear violation of the principles of laid down by the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari Vs State of U. P. & others (reported in AIR 2014 SC 187). But being the complainant I was deprived to place all those material facts before the Commission. The Commission failed to consider that it was not uncommon that the victim being a minor boy and his family members might have come under threats from the perpetrator BSF personnel to shift back from their previous statement. The Commission only tried its best to increase the number of disposal its cases unethically.
The practice adopted by the Commission is wholly against the principles of the Human Rights Act, 1993, against the principles of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000, against the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted on 20th November, 1989 and also against Clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 of the Constitution of India.
Therefore I put my strong objection against the decision of the Commission and also put my strong protest against the manner in which the Commission proceeded with the case. The Commission did not render any justice to the proceeding of the case. The principles of natural justice have been clearly violated by the Commission just to further raise the number of disposal in its credit.
I hope that the Commission would consider my above mentioned comments in fair way and I request the Commission to reopen the case and give me an opportunity to place my comments on the police to uphold the truth and render justice to the victim by way of a fair, just and reasonable procedure.
Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha
National Convenor (PACTI)
Programme Against Custodial Torture & Impunity
40A, Barabagan Lane (4th Floor)
Tele-Fax - +91-33-26220843
e. mail : firstname.lastname@example.org
Disclaimer:The information in this email is confidential and may be
legally priviledged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access
to this email by anyone else is unauthorised.If you are not the
intended recipient, disclosure,copying,distribution or any action
taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it,it is prohibited and
may be unlawful.In such case,you should destrioy this message and
kindle notify email@example.com by reply email.