Human right commission

It should other wise what is the use of setting up the same. if the state is not satisfied with the judgement they can appeal in case of union of India to the supreme Court and in case of the state to the high Court. But I feel uneasy with the Commission. Can the National Human Rights Commission passed judgement without hearing the petitioner?

Thanks Mr. Assumi for your valuable contribution, but issue is not this much simple. Kindly peruse section 18(e) of Protection of Human rights Act,

 "the Commission shall send a copy of its inquiry report together
with its recommendations to the concerned Government or authority and
the concerned Government or authority shall, within a period of one month,
or such further time as the Commission may allow, forward its comments
on the report, including the action taken or proposed to be taken thereon,
to the Commission;"

in this condition the question of law is still open for legal interpretetion and the same provision should be read with section 18(b).

Dear Sandeep, section 18 preceeds section 17 and the two sections are clear about the commission's functions, which is like a toothless body if we go by the negative interpretation, that is, the State may or may not accept the recomendation of the Commission. If the Commission's recomendation can be ignored then the Commission will exist only in name like a toothless man. Apart from that can the Commission passed any judgement at the back of the petitioner was my counter question.

 Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952. Their reports are now history. In the last 57 years, thousands of commissions were appointed by Central and State governments. Their reports generating many tonnes of paper may not be gathering dust. They might have been sold as waste paper. Not only magisterial inquiries, one-man or two-man or three-man committees are appointed to sidetrack the issue and then the proverbial public memory being short etc. etc.

A classic fate of the Inquiry Commission.

In 1977, Charan Singh, as Home Minister, appointed a Commission of Inquiry headed by the ex-CJI J.C. Shah to inquire into Emergency excess during Indira Gandhi's rule. Janta Party falls apart. Elections are held and Indira returns with a thumping majority in 1980. She scraps the Commission. Classic reply:

Since public has reposed confidence in me, the Commission is a waste of public money.

From International Prespective, even Human Rights Commission, which was like a toothless body, is now replaced by Human Rights Council. Our Human Rights commission should be an independant entity. Time to have a fresh look at our Human Rights Commission without playing fraud on the people of India.

Dear Anil Ji, Our Political Leaders wil do what ever suit them to secure their chair, as rightly pointed out by Aung Swu Kiyi of Mayamar Democratic Leader that " The greatest fear is fear of power going out of hand" but fortunately we have that check and balance Constitution with judiciary as the watch dog over the Legislature and the Executive actions by way of review. The question in point is whether our Judiciary are bold enough to say NO and a big No to uncostitutional acts of the Parliament or the Executive.

 Dear Sir,

You yourself  have answered your question. WHETHER IS THE ANSWER.

Accordingly the tussle between the Judiciary and the legislature sonce the early 1970s are just a creation and a declaration of weak Judiciary not the Constitution.

 There is a murder. Police says nobody has reported. So there is no murder.

There are no checks and balances in place which automatically come into play. Either we wait for the executive or for the judiciary and neither works. Even NSG commandos are sent to Mumbai after a 12 hour delay. Reason? Incompetent Home Minister. We have never been proactive. Our response is dismal. Police is no more than the concubine of Netas. The hands of defence forces are tied again by Netas. Full story of the war is never told but it is common knowledge that Indian forces were within striking distance of Lahore when they were halted. 

Judiciary surrendered its supremacy when 4 of the 5 judges upheld during emergency that right to life is not a fundamental right. Since then it has been downward slide.

Anil Ji, I admire your mental attitude to all those version that you have stated and I absolutely agree with you 100%. to change or not to change all lies in the hsands of the people of india, but WE as a Nation are sleeping like a sleeping Lion. 

 Lion is never made to sleep nor ever made to wake up. There is a hackneyed expression that democracy is the worst form of dictatorship. A dictator is defined as:

A dictator is a ruler (e.g. absolutist or autocratic) who assumes sole and absolute power (sometimes but not always with military control) but, without hereditary ascension such as anabsolute monarch.

We adopted democracy and the result is that based on caste, creed, community, language, region, we elect dictators not one but thousands of them all over the country to rule over us. For paucity of time, the bills are guillotined and made into law without a word having been spoken. 

A pious wish: WE SHALL CHANGE ALL THAT.