No power to execute our own recommendations, says Justice Mishra

Herald: Are you satisfied with the working of the commission in the state of Goa? Justice Mishra: There is a gap between expectation of people and the actual working because of the statutory constraints. People don’t understand that we only have the power to recommend to the concerned authorities whether government or public departments. We don’t have the power to execute our own recommendations under the Human Rights Commission Act 1993. We only make recommendations and it is up to the concerned authorities to implement them. They may also not implement them in several cases. So in that way I would say there is a gap between the people and the statutory provisions. Herald: Do you think there is a need to close this gap? And if so, how can it be done? Mishra: This gap can be closed but only with the help of an amendment. There is no other way. The amendment should be made at the central government since it is a central act. The other way is by change of attitude of authorities concerned. Suppose they implement the conditions, then obviously this gap will be narrowed but if they decide not to follow recommendations and instead challenge them in the High Court. We don’t have power over the orders we issue. Unless the Parliament amends this order there is no way out for us. Herald: Have you from your end suggested for an amendment to the Act? Mishra: Yes indeed. There was a meeting of the chairpersons in Chandigarh a year ago. We have made a suggestion that the act needs amendment. At a conference too, the GHRC suggested for the change to give more teeth to the commission. Herald: There have been cases where the government has challenged your recommendations in the High Court? Mishra: Yes of course there has. There was an instance where we had recommended a sum of compensation of Rs. 1,500 be paid to a government employee because his suspension allowance which is his fundamental rights was not being given to him. So we said that because he had undergone not only mental agony but without an allowance he couldn’t sustain his family. Therefore we made the recommendation of only Rs. 1,500. The government thought it fit to challenge it in the High Court and instead of spending Rs. 1,500 are now paying much more in court fees. The case is still pending in the high court. This is just one instance for such a matter being challenged. If authorities could even consider that this being a statutory body with a retired judge heading the commission, therefore the recommendations should be taken seriously and not taken to the court of law. Herald: Can you give us some statistics as to the number of cases you get in a year and what do most of these cases comprise of? Mishra: We get roughly 200 cases per year most of which are suo moto cases. So there are the suo moto cases and then the ones that are based on complaints filed. The definition of human right is very vague and many people come to us with many issues some that don’t even in the act. So people feel any violation can be decided and orders but the provisions of the act are very different. Not only the public but the advocates themselves need to told of the restrictions of the act. The scope therefore is very limited. Herald: For the amount of work your office puts into the running of this commission, do you not think it is time for this situation to change? Mishra: As per the act, we have to have an investigation team headed by the Inspector General of Police. We’ve completed four years but this team has not been made available to us. Till now the senior most investigators here has been an inspector. The act however says it must be headed by IGP. The excuse is that there aren’t enough working. There can be a dual charge system put in place. This government has not responded at all. I had an interview with the ex Chief Minister on this matter, but still nothing. They have not been fulfilling the provisions of the act at all.