5 Arguments against RTI Amendments

1. Incorrect Rational given: Experts have rejected the justifications of government on the rationalisation of status. The decisions of all authorities including those of the President and prime minister are challenged before high courts and that their status does not prevent or debar such challenges. The genesis of the RTI comes from Supreme Court rulings on how right to information is a precondition for informed voting and therefore, parity between information and election commissioners is not an anomaly.
2. Dilutes the independence of CICs and ICs: As the Central government may determine the term and salaries of CICs and ICs. Uncertain term and salary changeable by executive notification reduces CIC to an obedient subordinate. This also hampers accountability as it calls people’s right to information under question. A situation could arise where different commissioners will have different tenures and salaries. If salaries and tenures are downgraded, eminent people may not apply for the vacant posts.
3. Dilutes the status of CICs: Chief Information Commissioner and Chief Election Commissioner (and the state level officers) were kept at the same footing, as according to the Supreme Court of India RTI and Right to vote are equally important fundamental rights. However, the amendments tend to change this scenario.
4. Encroaches upon the state jurisdiction: As the Central government will prescribe the term, status and salary of State Information Commissioners.
5. Lack of consultation: With the civil society and the state Governments, which amounts to undemocratic imposition. It was not put in the public domain and the amendment did not undergo much scrutiny.

5 Success Stories of NHRC

1. NHRC opened the state to judicial and moral scrutiny: One example is the consistent watch the Commission has kept on incidences of ‘encounter killings’ and deaths in custody. It has issued guidelines wherein every death in police action has to be reported to the NHRC within 48 hours of the incident.
2. Vocal in its opinion against laws such as the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) and Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA) – which had scope for misuse and possible human rights violations.
3. Expanding Reach: Over the years, as awareness about the NHRC’s existence and work increased, so has its reach among the people. According to the Commission’s estimate, from 169 complaints received in 1993-94, the NHRC went on to receive 68,713 complaints in 2002-2003 to one lakh in 2007-2008 and 1,17,808 in 2015-16.
4. Suo motu cognisance of human rights violations, based on media reports or other sources of information and investigates them. For example, the NHRC issued a notice to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs over the planned deportation of about 40,000 Rohingya immigrants, and asked the ministry to submit a detailed report within four weeks.
5. Enlarging its ambit/mandate: The Commission has also gone beyond the physical violation of human rights to protect the economic, social and cultural rights of people Example - being assigned to look into the extreme poverty, starvation in Kalahandi, Bolangir and Koraput regions of Odisha etc.

5 Problems in NHRC Working

1. Lack of infrastructure: In 2017, NHRC admitted that despite a 1,455 per cent increase in complaints between 1995 and 2015, its staff strength had decreased by 16.94 per cent in the same period. Commission officials have admitted in Supreme Court that with its current staff capacity, it cannot investigate more than 100 cases a year.
2. Conflict of interest: Almost 50 per cent of the NHRC’s staff is on deputation from other services who keeps changing, leaving the commission constantly short-staffed. Also, the officers conducting investigations are usually on deputation from the same forces that have been accused of violations and will have to inevitably go back to them, creating a conflict of interest.
3. Limiting its ambit of work: In terms of action against excess police action, the NHRC has limited itself to custodial death, rape and torture by police and has refrained from venturing into torture cases related to terrorism and insurgency. Civil society groups argue that NHRC has refrained from asserting its independence by not taking up cases with high political stakes.
4. Questions of independence and govt interference: The very nature of formation of the NHRC – by an Act of Parliament and where the chairperson and the members of the Commission are appointed by the President, on the recommendations of a committee that includes the Prime Minister – which has raised doubts in the minds of many about its ability to function independently. Additionally, the recommendations of the NHRC are not binding on the governments.
5. No power of granting punishment to the accused: While in over 90 per cent of cases financial compensation recommended by the NHRC is paid to the victims by the concerned authorities, the Commission has had very little success in getting the guilty punished. The NHRC may, however, move to SC if its recommendations are not accepted. For example: A Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted to investigate some of the serious cases of 2002 Godhra riots of Gujarat. The NHRC has no powers to investigate human rights violations involving the armed forces. NHRC on receiving a complaint or while taking suo motu cognisance of a violation, can only send queries to the Defence Ministry and make recommendations based on it.

5 Significance of NHRC Amendment

1. The proposed amendments will enable both the National Commission as well as the State Commissions to be more compliant with the Paris Principles concerning its autonomy, independence, pluralism and wide-ranging functions in order to effectively protect and promote human rights.
2. Filling up the Vacancies: The age limit for appointment to the panel has been reduced and qualification required have been eased to fill the vacancies. The amendment has ensured transparency in the appointment of Chairman and members of the Commission.
3. Enabling conditions to incorporate Civil Society: Effort is to also to increase the presence of civil Society in the composition of the Commission. Originally act provided appointment of 2 members having knowledge of human rights to be appointed. This has been expanded to 3, of which at least one will be a women.
4. Ease of accessibility: The applicants in Union Territories can now appeal in the human Rights Commission of nearby states instead of coming all the way to Delhi. Central government may confer on a SHRC human rights functions being discharged by Union Territories.
5. The Act provides for including the chairpersons of the National Commission for Backward Classes, the National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights, and the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities as members of the NHRC.