West Bengal, India
The Acting Chairman
National Human Rights Commission
New Delhi-110001 15.10.2009
Your Ref.:- Your letter dated 17.9.2009//18.9.2009 in Case no. 240/25/13/09-10/OC/SB-2
Our Ref.:- Our Complaint no. MASUM/NHRC/NM/1624/09 dated 15.6.2009
Sub.:- Reply against decision of the Commission
The Commission vide letter dated 17.9.2009//18.9.2009 communicated us that the case of the victim is closed on the ground that the machinery of the law has been set into motion as Jalangi Police Station Case no. 166/09 dated 25.5.2009 under sections 341/325/506 IPC has been started against the accused BSF personnel.
This is a clear cut case of torture in custody by the people in uniform who are paid from public exchequer. There are proofs and witnesses to establish the prima facie allegation. Wherein your commission from the beginning trying to reject the complaint and close the file, under any means which also proves that your commission is trying to safe and to shield the perpetrators. It is most painful to observe that the NHRC of India is discarding the mandate rested upon them and allowing the culprits to torture people.
On 18.7.2009 we received your previous letter dated 9.7.2009 // 10.7.2009 by which the Commission closed the file of the victim Mr. Nrisingha Mondal on the ground that our complaint is not entertainable in accordance with the provisions of Section 36 of the Protection of Human Right Act, 1993 read with Regulation 9 of National Human Rights Commission(Procedure) Regulation, 1994.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such decision of your Commission we accordingly made a reply dated 5.8.2009 mentioning that the complaint of the victim does not fall under the criteria set forth in Section 36 of the Protection of Human Right Act, 1993 read with Regulation 9 of National Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulation, 1994 for closing the complaint.
The men in uniform have no right to perpetrate torture upon innocent persons as they are only bound to act within the boundary of their duty. Therefore the perpetrator BSF personnel by their heinous acts of murderous assault upon the victim violated the right to life and dignity of the as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.
In this context we hereby would like to mention that as per Section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993- “human rights” means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by Courts in India.
Section 36 of the Protection of Human Right Act, 1993 read with Regulation 9 of National Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulation, 1994 nowhere debars the Commission from invoking its jurisdiction into complaint of violation of human rights on the ground of pendency of criminal case against the perpetrators.
Under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the Commission shall while inquiring into complaints under this Act, have all the powers of a Civil Court trying a suit under Code of Civil Procedure (Section 13) and the Commission can even intervene in any proceeding involving any allegation of violation of human rights pending before a court with the approval of such Court [Section12(c)]. Therefore the Commission was supposed to intervene in the matter of the victim and adopt necessary procedure to inquire into our complaint.
Therefore the decision of the Commission of closing our complaint is predetermined and only an act of screening the men in uniform.
Again instead of our earlier demand we found that in the official website of the Commission (http://nhrc.nic.in/display.asp) there is no data and/or present status of the matter of the victim has been posted for public viewing till 13.10.2009. We again demand that the data of the victim’s complaint, the decision of the commission and the communications made between us and the Commission is need to be posted in the official website of the Commission (http://nhrc.nic.in/display.asp). In these circumstances we understand that it would be just to bring the communications of the decisions of the Commission and our replies to the notice of the public in general.
Hence we again demand that the Commission shall reopen the complaint of the victim and take steps giving due considerations to the demands made in the complaint. We hope that the Commission would duly acknowledge our present letter of objection against your decision of closing the case of the victim and place the same in your official website for public viewing.