The "Sign Board" Commission of Manipur

Dr. Shukhdeba Sharma Hanjabam *

'Manipur Human Rights Commission (MHRC) is the "Sign Board" Commission of Manipur'. This observation was made by the former Chairperson of MHRC, Justice WA Shishak, (former Chief Justice of High Court of Chattisgarh and Himachal Pradesh), when he was asked about the status of the Commission. The observation is valid if we analyse the situation of the MHRC since its establishment.

As a background, during the heights of the structural adjustment programme undertaken by India (liberalisation), it was mandatory for India to have an act pertaining to human rights. As a result, an act popularly known as the Protection of Human Rights Act was created in 1993; subsequently, it was amended in 2006. This Act is the source for creating Human Rights Commissions in India including MHRC.

Taking reference from the Act, MHRC was constituted on 27th June 1998 with Justice Surendra Nath Bhargava, retired Chief Justice of the Sikkim High Court, as the first Chairperson. He was also the Chairperson of the Assam Human Rights Commission. Subsequently, the members were appointed on 13 October 1998. The members joined their duty on 10th December 1998.

The Commission started functioning at the State Guest House, Imphal. The temporary office was shifted to the first floor of the Family Court building situated at the Court Complex, Lamphelpat, Imphal. Even after 13 years, the commission is still functioning from this premise.

After the tenure of the first Chairperson was over, Hon'ble Mr Justice WA Shishak, was appointed on 23rd September 2003. He started working with three members for a limited period of time as the tenure for the members (first batch) was over by 9th December 2003. He was working alone without any member till mid 2005 when the members were appointed.

This has severely hindered the activities of the Commission for nearly two years as the Act requires assent of two members in any decision. Surprisingly, the leader of Opposition who is one of the members in recommendating the Commission's Chairperson and members have also not raised the issue in any platform including the State Assembly.

It seems that the ruling and Opposition are not in favour of the MHRC. The other members are Chief Minister, (ii) Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, (iii) Minister in-charge of the Department of Home.

In response to the indifferent attitude, a civil activist filed a Public Interest Litigation WP/(PIL) No 1 of 2005 to the Guwahati High Court, Imphal Bench on 27th January 2005. As a response, the Hight Court ordered immediate appointment of the commission members. Thus, the second batch of the commission members were appointed in 2005.

The situation of re-activation of the Commission emerged again after all the members and Chairperson completed their term. The last member retired on 9th May, 2010. Since then, the Commission has been dysfunctional. The office of the commission remains closed most of the time and no petition can be filed at the commission.

How is the Commission a "Sign Board Commission" ?

There are various points that make this commission a sign board commission but here, I would like to discuss two important points amongst others which need urgent attention. First one is the need of police and investigating staff and the second point pertains to budget.

Article 27.1 of the HRP Act states that the State Government shall make available to the commission,

(a) An officer not below the rank of a Secretary to the State Government who shall be the Secretary of the State Commission,—to be contd (b) Such police and investigating staff under an officer not below the rank of an Inspector General of Police and such other officers and staff as may be necessary for the efficient performance of the functions of the State Commission.

But in reality, the Commission had a Deputy Secretary instead of the secretary as provided by the Act that also having an additional charge. Unfortunately, the investigating staff is not deputed even today. But the state government seems to be consciously trying to avoid the situation which is a violation of the Act and also the Constitution of India which is the source of this Act.

Budget is the other crippling issue which have arrested proper functioning of the Commission. Article 33 (1) of the Act states that, The State Government shall, after due appropriation made by Legislature in this behalf, pay to the State Commission by way of grants such a sum of money as the State Government may think fit for being utilised for the purposes of the Act.

But, till the second term of the commission, the State Government has not deposited any amount to the Commission. It was from time to time that the State Government sanctioned for the utilisation of the Commission. But, the situation here is not only violating the Act but also a huge constraint in delivering service to the people.

For instance, if the member(s) or Chairperson wants to visit a situation(s) of human right concerns anywhere in the State, then it cannot be done as the process for budget has to be passed through the Government offices. Such disheartening experiences were shared by the Commission members and chairpersons. This not only delayed the visit but also the very purpose of establishing the commission was diluted.

Conclusion:

In a conflict situation like Manipur, establishing the MHRC seems to be a good decision of the Government but their intention for establishing the commission seems to be different. This is the same logic of calling 'democracy and imposing draconian Armed Forces Special Powers Acts 1958'; or 'observing Law and Order and sending thousands of army and para-military personnel who are trained to fight external aggressions'.

Former Chairperson and the members admitted that the Government does not reply to their letters. The Human Rights Watch also reported this in an interview with the DGP of Manipur in 2008. But, when the Commission asserted for their rights, the Chief Minister refused to give audience inspite of sending a request letter signed by the chairperson and the members. In this manner, a prestigious human rights mechanism has been transformed to a sign board commission by the Government.

However, such a pathetic attitude of the Government cannot deny the fact MHRC is needed by the people of the State. On one hand, there is the reality of the prevailing armed conflict situation. On the other hand, is increasing process of globalisation. Both affect not only life situations of the people but also can take away lives.

These forces can certainly crush the people and MHRC can be a safety valve. Therefore, there is an urgent need to re-activate the commission. In this regard, a commendable initiative has been undertaken by the North East Dialogue Forum, starting with a public consultation in Tampha Hotel on September 17, 2011. The initiative needs to be appreciated and supported for a stronger human rights commission in Manipur which the people can rely on.