06.03.2007 - Source: US Department of State

Human Rights in India - Overview ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2006") [ID 18945]

"India is a longstanding and stable multiparty, federal, parliamentary democracy with a bicameral parliament and a population of approximately 1.1 billion. Manmohan Singh was named prime minister following his Congress Party-led coalition's victory in the 2004 general elections, which were considered free and fair, despite scattered episodes of violence. Serious internal conflicts affected the state of Jammu and Kashmir, as well as several states in the northeast. The Naxalite conflict affected Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, and eastern Maharashtra. While the civilian authorities generally maintained effective control of the security forces, there were frequent instances in which some elements acted independently of government authority.
The government generally respected the rights of its citizens; however, numerous serious problems remained. Major problems included extrajudicial killings of persons in custody, disappearances, torture and rape by police and security forces. The lack of accountability permeated the government and security forces, creating an atmosphere in which human rights violations often went unpunished. Although the country has numerous laws protecting human rights, enforcement was lax and convictions were rare. Poor prison conditions, lengthy pretrial detention without charge, and prolonged detentions while undergoing trial remained significant problems. Government officials used special antiterrorism legislation to justify the excessive use of force while combating terrorism and active, violent insurgencies in Jammu and Kashmir and several northeastern states. Security force officials who committed human rights abuses generally enjoyed de facto impunity, although there were investigations into individual abuse cases as well as punishment of some perpetrators by the court system. Corruption was endemic in the government and police forces, and the government made little attempt to combat the problem, except for a few instances highlighted by the media. The government continued to apply restrictions to the travel and activities of visiting experts and scholars. Attacks against religious minorities and the promulgation of antireligious conversion laws were concerns. Social acceptance of caste-based discrimination remained a problem, and for many, validated human rights violations against persons belonging to lower castes. Domestic violence and abuses against women such as dowry-related deaths, honor crimes, female infanticide and feticide, and trafficking in persons remained significant problems. Exploitation of indentured, bonded, and child labor were ongoing problems.
Separatist guerrillas and terrorists in Kashmir, the northeast, and the Naxalite belt committed numerous serious abuses, including killing armed forces personnel, police, government officials, judges, and civilians. Insurgents also engaged in widespread torture, rape, and other forms of violence, including beheadings, kidnapping, and extortion.
In June 2005 the government passed the Right to Information Act (RTI), mandating stringent penalties for failure to provide information or affecting its flow, and requiring agencies to self-reveal sensitive information. The implementation of the act marked a departure from the culture of secrecy that traditionally surrounded the government's rule making.
"

Document(s): Open document

18.12.2006 - Source: Amnesty International

AI deeply concerned that government may seek to retain provisions of Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act 1958 that contravene international human rights obligations and that continue to pose grave threats to human rights ("Amnesty International renews its call for an unconditional repeal of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 [ASA 20/034/2006]") [ID 18119]

Document(s): Open document

13.12.2006 - Source: Asian Centre for Human Rights

Human Rights - Overview ("SAARC Human Rights Report 2006") [ID 18120]

"In SAARC Human Rights Violators Index 2006, India has been given lowest negative ranking because of the existence of institutional checks and balances. There were consistent reports of gross human rights violations in India but the democratic institutions remained intact and operational. Its judiciary, despite being plagued by delay, remained more independent than its SAARC counterparts. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), despite its systematic, institutional and operational flaws remained the most effective in South Asia. Human rights defenders did face challenges but their status virtually remained the same across South Asia. The press freedom was more enjoyed in India. Most importantly, there was no governmental policy per se to repress press freedom. According to the statistics of the National Crime Records Bureau of the Government of India and the National Human Rights Commission show, India had the largest incidents of human rights violations. India also had over one billion (1000 millions) populations in comparison to 152.6 million in Bangladesh according to 2001 census, 132 million in Pakistan according to 1998 census, 22.73 million in Nepal according to 2001 census, 18.73 million in Sri Lanka according to 2001 census, 0.67 million in Bhutan according to 2005 census, and 0.28 million in Maldives according to 2004 census. The vulnerable groups like the Dalits and indigenous/tribal peoples and those who reside in armed conflict situations remained more vulnerable to human rights violations. These violations did occur not because of the lack of laws unlike in few other SAARC countries but because of the lack of implementation of the laws. The attitude of the government of India and its agencies towards human rights violations remained the same as in other SAARC countries. India also had in place a number of laws to provide impunity to the security forces for human rights violations. It is the existence of institutional checks and balances that ultimately improved India's human rights ranking. The activism of judiciary and quasi-judicial institutions like the National Human Rights Commission, despite having flaws, had been instrumental for the realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in India more than in other SAARC countries."

Document(s): Open document

13.12.2006 - Source: Asian Centre for Human Rights

Effectiveness of National Human Rights Institutions ("SAARC Human Rights Report 2006") [ID 18222]

"Established on 12 October 1993, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of India disposed of 85,661 cases during the period from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005 while 49,548 cases were pending before the Commission as on 31 March 2005.[86] Despite its critical role, the NHRC suffered from serious credibility crisis due to both statutory limitations and operational flaws. The statutory limitations included inability to investigate abuses committed by the armed forces, inability to visit prisons without prior permission from the executive authorities, inability to investigate into complaints which are more than one year old, and the lack of power to implement its recommendations. NHRC often failed to respond to the victims in time, ensure transparency in its operation and follow the principle of natural justice for adjudication of the complaints. Only 16 states - Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Manipur, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka and West Bengal - established State Human Rights Commissions. The SHRCs were in shambles. They lacked financial resources, necessary, infrastructure and investigative skills. Since 10 December 2003, Manipur Human Rights Commission had been functioning with a single member, its chairperson, retired Chief Justice W A Shishak. In April 2005, the Imphal branch of Gauhati High Court directed the state government of Manipur to fill up the vacancies[87] but the State government failed to comply with the directions of the Court. On 20 August 2005, Justice Shishak pointed out that he himself had not been getting his salary.[88] The recommendations of the State Human Rights Commissions were seldom implemented. The Jammu and Kashmir State Human Rights Commission stated that the State government did not submit any Action Taken Report (ATR) on the 2,112 cases of human rights violations that had been disposed off by it since its inception in 1997.[89] In its 2003-2004 Annual Report, the State Human Rights Commission of Jammu and Kashmir stated that state government and its officials, especially the Deputy Commissioners, blatantly ignored the recommendations of the Commission, and instead ordered fresh inquiries of their own. The findings of many such fresh enquiries contradicted the findings of the Commission.[90] In January 2005, the then Chairman of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission, Justice V.P. Mohan Kumar alleged that the government of Kerala did not take any action against certain police officials against whom the SHRC recommended action after finding them guilty of committing human rights violations.[91] When the State Government of Karnataka issued the notification on 16 April 2005 to set up human rights courts as provided under Section 30 of the Human Rights Act, 1993[92], there was little euphoria.[93]"

Document(s): Open document

08.03.2006 - Source: US Department of State

Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2005 ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2005") [#46051],  [ID 6332]

"The government generally respected the rights of its citizens; however, numerous serious problems remained. Government officials used special antiterrorism legislation to justify the excessiveuse of force while combating active insurgencies in Jammu and Kashmir and several northeastern states. Security force officials who committed human rights abuses generally enjoyed de facto impunity, although there were reports of investigations into individual abuse cases as well as punishment of some perpetrators by the court system. Corruption was endemic in the government and police forces, and the government made little attempt to combat the problem, except for a few instances highlighted by the media.The lack of firm accountability permeated the government and security forces, creating an atmosphere in which human rights violations often went unpunished. Although the country has numerous laws protecting human rights, enforcement was lax and convictions were rare. Social acceptance of caste-based discrimination remained omnipresent, and for many, validated human rights violations against persons belonging to lower castes. The additional following human rights problems were reported:

• extrajudicial killings and killings of persons in custody
• torture and rape by police and security forces
• poor prison conditions, lengthy pretrial detention without charge, and prolonged detention while undergoing trial
• occasional limits on press freedom and freedom of movement
• harassment and arrest of human rights monitors
• corruption at all levels of government
• legal and societal discrimination against women
• forced prostitution, child prostitution, and female infanticide and feticide
• trafficking in women and children
• discrimination against persons with disabilities
• discrimination and violence against indigenous people and scheduled castes and tribes
• violence based on caste or religion
• exploitation of indentured, bonded, and child labor.

Separatist guerrillas and terrorists in Kashmir and the northeast committed numerous serious abuses, including killing armed forces personnel, police, government officials, and civilians. Insurgents also engaged in widespread torture, rape, and other forms of violence, including beheadings, kidnapping, and extortion."

Document(s): Open document

01.2006 - Source: Human Rights Watch

Annual report on human rights situation in 2005 ("World Report 2006") [#42332],  [ID 6333]

Document(s): Open document

08.11.2004 - Source: Human Rights Watch

Issues of particular concern, highlighted (discrimination against marginalized groups, impunity of security forces, misuse of counter-terrorism laws, failure to protect the rights of children) ("EU: Engage India on Human Rights") [#26851],  [ID 6334]

Document(s): Open document

12.10.2004 - Source: South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre

Violations of the right to privacy ("The Reincarnation of POTA - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Ordinance is POTA’s Second Coming [HRF/106/04]") [#26387],  [ID 6335]

"[...]While certain aspects of the Ordinance attempt to correct the horrors of POTA, and some others prudently revert to the provisions of the CrPC, it is the third aspect, the diminishing of certain safeguards, on which the Ordinance must eventually be judged. The key feature of this regression is the Ordinance’s permissibility of unlimited interceptions of communications.

Though the police were previously authorised to tap phones under the Indian Telegraph Act 1885, under POTA, the police had to abide by specific safeguards to justify their encroachment on the privacy of the individual, including: the submission by a superintendent of an application detailing the facts to justify interception; the permission could be granted only by a specially appointed “competent authority”, which in turn was required to submit this order to the Review Committee; an order of interception was strictly limited to sixty days; misuse carried with it a penalty of imprisonment for up to one year.

The Ordinance has done away with these safeguards in their entirety, so that any interceptions collected, without any authorisation, shall be admissible as evidence. Thus the safeguards of POTA have been swiftly and inexplicably discarded. Where one worthwhile chapter of POTA existed, now two paragraphs remain.

Such unregulated power has created an aperture for future misuse and may become a cause of serious violations of the right to privacy. Article 17 of the ICCPR also provides for the right of every person to be protected against arbitrary or unlawful interference with his/her privacy, family, home or correspondence.

Rather than adopting legislative measures to prohibit such activity, the Indian legislature has fully sanctioned it. This amounts to a direct violation of Article 17, and is the Ordinance’s most regrettable contribution to the catalogue of misfortunes that have resulted from hastily devised anti-terrorist legislation in India.
[...]"

Document(s): Open document
Open document

10.2004 - Source: UK Home Office

Huma rights issues - overview ("Country Report - October 2004") [#28325],  [ID 6336]

"[...]6.3 In a report dated 26 April 2000, Amnesty International highlighted their concerns about a range of abuses against the actual human rights defenders themselves. Amnesty acknowledged that steps had been taken by the Indian Government over a number of years to support the work of human rights defence, for example through the establishment of statutory human rights institutions and the ratification of international human rights treaties, and acknowledged the support that Government agencies have given to sectors of social activism through government-funded programmes and government-NGO co-operation. [3i](p3) However, Amnesty International (AI) in its 2004 annual report (covering events in 2003), noted that,
“Human rights defenders continued to face accusations of “anti-national” activities, harassment by state agents, political groups and private individuals, including threats, preventive arrest and detention, and violence.” In an example of the harassment of human rights defenders, AI noted that, “There were reports that following an assassination attempt on the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh in October, allegedly by naxalites, retaliatory harassment was initiated against human rights defenders. At least six members of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee (APCLC) were detained for questioning in October in connection with the assassination attempt and APCLC activists were put under constant surveillance and were repeatedly detained for questioning. In November there were growing concerns the APCLC could face a ban following statements by the Director General of Police indicating that the organization was sympathetic to the naxalites.” [3k](p.4)
[...]

6.6 Amnesty International note in a 1998 submission that the NHRC is also empowered to study treaties and other international instruments on human rights and recommend measures for their effective implementation. The NHRC has suggested that the Protection of Human Rights Act should be amended to incorporate International Covenants. [3c](p79)

6.7 Amnesty International (AI) in its 2004 annual report (covering events in 2003), noted that, “The government failed to consider the recommendations made by the NHRC in 2002 for amendments to the Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 under which the NHRC operates. These amendments would have permitted the NHRC to investigate allegations of human rights violations committed by the army or paramilitary forces, as well as those committed by the police, and incidents that took place more than a year before the complaint was made. The government’s failure to deal with these amendments served to strengthen impunity for human rights violations. State human rights commissions, established in 13 of the 28 states, continued to suffer from lack of resources and expertise.” [3k](p.3)

6.8 Amnesty International in a Submission to the Human Rights Committee in July 1997 noted that, “In several high profile cases, the NHRC has disregarded this limitation in its mandate and intervened in incidents of human rights violations by security forces, for example in Jammu and Kashmir in the case of the killing of lawyer Jalil Andrabi in March 1996 and the killing of civilians by security forces in Bijbehara in October 1993.” [3c] (p.79)

6.9 As noted in Amnesty International’s India Submission to the Advisory Committee 1998, Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act limits the NHRC to investigating allegations of abuses only up to a year after the alleged abuse took place. This has been overlooked in certain cases, but other cases over a year old have been disregarded. Amnesty International considers this problematic, as many victims approach the NHRC as a last resort, after using other mechanisms such as the courts. Lack of resources is often an obstacle to filing a complaint within the time frame required. A human rights violation may not come to light until over a year after the original incident or a rape victim may have compelling reasons not to come forward immediately. [3d](p15-16)

6.10 However, according to a news article in The Tribune, in September 1998, the Supreme Court ruled that the NHRC's probe into the alleged mass cremation of 2,000 bodies by the Punjab police in 1994-5 could not be barred by the one-year time limit. The Supreme Court ruled that the jurisdiction exercised by the NHRC in these matters is of a special nature not covered by the enactment of law and thus acts sui generis (a case of its own kind). [12c]

6.11 According to Indian news agency PTI on 8 July 1998, one of the NHRC's first actions was to request that it be informed of death or rape in police custody within 24 hours of occurrence, and while it had not succeeded in implementing this directive in states such as Jammu and Kashmir, the NHRC has become an important monitor of the extent of custodial violence. [3c] As reported in the Indian news agency on 8 July 1998, the NHRC has recommended that army and paramilitary forces should also follow the same procedure and report any death or rape in custody to the NHRC within 24 hours. The Indian Government rejected this, saying that the existing procedures laid down in the Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 were sufficient. [10c]

6.12 Amnesty International noted in a 1998 submission, that while the NHRC is conducting enquiries, it has the powers of a civil court, including summoning attendance of witnesses, compelling the provision of information and referring cases of contempt to a magistrate. There have been occasions when the NHRC's work has been hampered by delays in receiving reports from State authorities. [3d](p8)

6.13 Amnesty International in a 1998 submission note, “The NHRC has been active in recommending the granting of compensation in many cases in which it has found prima facie evidence of human rights violations… and it has actively pursued the granting of compensation with the authorities to ensure that victims or their relatives are provided with prompt financial redress”. [3d](p10)

6.14 Amnesty International’s submission to the Advisory Committee 1998 states that the NHRC has recommended changes to existing legislation to ensure that human rights are protected, as part of its mandate to review safeguards provided under the Indian Constitution or legislation. The NHRC played a significant role in calls for the abolition of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), which was allowed to lapse in 1995. The NHRC, in a submission to the Supreme Court, has expressed the view that the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act is unconstitutional. The NHRC played a key role in encouraging the Indian Government to ratify the Convention against Torture. Nevertheless, Amnesty International believes that the NHRC should adopt a more systematic and consistent approach in reviewing existing or proposed legislation. [3d](p20-21)
[...]"

Document(s): Open document

10.2004 - Source: UK Home Office

The Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act (ITPA) ("Country Report - October 2004") [#28325],  [ID 6337]

"[...]The USSD 2003 noted that,
“The Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act (ITPA), supplemented by the Penal Code, prohibits trafficking in human beings and contains severe penalties for violations. The Constitution also prohibits trafficking in persons.”[2c](p32-33) 6.158 According to the USSD 2003, “However, the country's prostitution and trafficking laws were selectively enforced by police; clients and organizers of the sex trade tended not to be penalized, while prostitutes found soliciting or practising their trade in or near (200 yards) public places were arrested. Due to the selective implementation, the "rescue" of sex workers from brothels often led to their revictimization. Using the ITPA's provisions against soliciting or engaging in sexual acts, police regularly arrest sex workers, extort money from them, evict them, and take their children from them. Clients of prostitutes, by comparison, largely were immune from any law enforcement threat, as clients committed a crime only if they had engaged in a sex act with a sex worker in a public place or had had sex with a girl under the age of 16 years (statutory rape). Therefore, although the intention of the ITPA was to increase enforcement efforts against the traffickers, pimps, and border operators, the opposite occurred. Implementation of the ITPA's provisions for protection and rehabilitation of women and children rescued from the sex trade was extremely poor. NGOs familiar with the legal history of prostitution and trafficking laws regarded the failure of the judiciary to recognize this inequity in the law's implementation as a continuing "blind spot." Over the last several years, arrests and prosecutions under the ITPA increased slightly, while all indications suggested a growing level of trafficking into and within the country.”[2c](p33) [...]"

Document(s): Open document

10.2004 - Source: UK Home Office

State Human Rights Commission ("Country Report - October 2004") [#28325],  [ID 6338]

"[...]6.246 As reported by BBC monitoring service on 2 May 1997, the Jammu and Kashmir Protection of Human Rights Act 1997 established a State Human Rights Commission and human rights courts. The Commission is empowered to enquire into any complaint of a violation of human rights presented to it by a victim or any person on his/her behalf. It can also intervene in any proceeding involving any allegation or violation of human rights pending before a court with the approval of the court. [10b]

6.247 The same report continues that the Commission may also visit any jail or detention centre. It can also review human rights legislation and recommend measures for its effective implementation. [10b]

6.248 However, the USSD 2003 states that the state human rights commission established in Jammu and Kashmir by an act of the state legislature had no power to independently investigate alleged human rights violations committed by security force members. [2c](p22-22) [...]"

Document(s): Open document

11.09.2004 - Source: Asian Centre for Human Rights

Background report on National Human Rights Institutions in South Asia ("Commissions and Conflicts: Briefing Papers on the Role of National Human Rights Institutions in Conflict Situations") [#25938],  [ID 6339]

Document(s): Open document

26.05.2004 - Source: Amnesty International

Annual Report 2004 ("Annual Report 2004") [#22668],  [ID 6340]

"There was increasing concern at the erosion of human rights protections in the context of “anti-terrorism” measures against armed political groups, and continuing communal tensions. Systemic discrimination against vulnerable groups – including women, religious minorities, dalits and adivasis (tribal people) – was exacerbated by widespread use of security legislation, political interference with the criminal justice system and slow judicial proceedings in a continuing climate of impunity. Tensions remained high in the state of Gujarat in the aftermath of widespread communal violence in 2002. Witnesses to the violence and human rights defenders were threatened and concerns grew about the impartiality of institutions of the criminal justice system in the state, including the police, prosecution service and elements of the judiciary. A committee constituted by the Ministry of Home Affairs suggested recommendations for the reform of the criminal justice system which could potentially undermine human rights protections even further. [...]

Human rights commissions

The government failed to consider the recommendations made by the NHRC in 2002 for amendments to the Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 under which the NHRC operates. These amendments would have permitted the NHRC to investigate allegations of human rights violations committed by the army or paramilitary forces, as well as those committed by the police, and incidents that took place more than a year before the complaint was made. The government’s failure to deal with these amendments served to strengthen impunity for human rights violations. State human rights commissions, established in 13of the 28 states, continued to suffer from lack of resources and expertise."

Document(s): Open document
Open document

04.2004 - Source: UK Home Office

Overwiev: Human Rights Issues ("Country Report - April 2004") [#22427],  [ID 6341]

"6.1 According to the US State Department Report 2003, “India is a longstanding parliamentary democracy with a bicameral parliament…The judiciary is independent; however, the judiciary was underfunded, overburdened, and NGOs alleged that corruption influenced court decisions. The Government generally respected the human rights of its citizens; however, numerous serious problems remained. Significant human rights abuses included: Extrajudicial killings, including faked encounter killings, custodial deaths throughout the country, and excessive use of force by security forces combating active insurgencies in Jammu and Kashmir and several northeastern states; torture and rape by police and other agents of the Government; poor prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and incommunicado detention in Jammu and Kashmir and the northeast; continued detention throughout the country of thousands arrested under special security legislation; lengthy pretrial detention without charge; prolonged detention while undergoing trial; occasional limits on freedom of the press and freedom of movement; harassment and arrest of human rights monitors; extensive societal violence against women; legal and societal discrimination against women; forced prostitution; child prostitution and female infanticide; discrimination against persons with disabilities; serious discrimination and violence against indigenous people and scheduled castes and tribes; widespread intercaste and communal violence; religiously motivated violence against Muslims and Christians; widespread exploitation of indentured, bonded, and child labor; and trafficking in women and children."[2c](p1)
6.2 The report continues, ”These abuses were generated by a traditionally hierarchical social structure, deeply rooted tensions among the country’s many ethnic and religious communities, violent secessionist movements and the authorities’ attempts to repress them, and deficient police methods and training. These problems were most visible in Jammu and Kashmir, where judicial tolerance of the Government’s heavy-handed counterinsurgency tactics, the refusal of security forces to obey court orders, and the terrorist threats have disrupted the judicial system.”[2c](p1-2) According to the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1997 other reasons nclude poverty, disparities in the distribution of wealth, persistence of traditional practices and customs particularly affecting women, and discrimination against underprivileged classes and castes. [6c](p2)
6.3 In a report dated 26 April 2000, Amnesty International highlighted their concerns about a range of abuses against the actual human rights defenders themselves. Amnesty acknowledged that steps have been taken by the Indian Government over a number of years to support the work of human rights defence, for example through the establishment of statutory human rights institutions and the ratification of international human rights treaties, and acknowledged the support that Government agencies have given to sectors of social activism through government-funded programmes and government-NGO co-operation. However, Amnesty were concerned that much of the State's actions in defence of human rights was at a rhetorical level and sporadic in their implementation, and believed that there was an urgent need for the State to take active steps to ensure the protection of activities in defence of human rights. [3i](p3) According to an Amnesty International report 2001: India: “Killings of human rights defenders must be investigated”, in the wake of two killings of human rights defenders in the space of four months that were linked to police, Amnesty, in a news release dated 19 February 2001, called on the State Government of Andhra Pradesh to take immediate action. They asked that the attacks be impartially investigated and human rights defenders protected. [3j](p1) A BBC news report dated 22 November 2000 stated for their part, the Government of Andhra Pradesh had announced in November 2000 that it intended to set up an independent body to deal with complaints against the police, headed by a High Court judge. [32y]
6.4 The United Nations Human Rights Committee noted in a 1997 report, the existence of a broad range of democratic institutions and a comprehensive constitutional framework for the protection of human rights. It referred to the work of the National Human Rights Commission, and the establishment of human rights commissions in a number of States, and the establishment of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the National Commission for Women in 1992 and the National Commission for Minorities in 1993. [6c]
6.5 The US State Department Report 2003 states that, "The main domestic human rights organization operating in the country is the Government-appointed National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). The NHRC has powers to investigate and recommend policy changes, punishment, and compensation in cases of police abuse. In addition, the NHRC was directed to contribute to the establishment, growth, and functioning of human rights NGOs. The Commission acted independently of the Government, often voicing strong criticism of government institutions and actions. However, the NHRC faced numerous institutional and legal weaknesses, which human rights groups said hampered its effectiveness. From 2002 until year's end, the NHRC recorded 68,776 complaints, more than 50 percent of which were from the state of Uttar Pradesh. Approximately 54,013 of these 68,776 were dismissed or disposed."[2c](page24)
6.6 According to the US State Department Report 2003, “The NHRC has also influenced the legislative process, particularly by issuing recommendations on women's issues, persons with disabilities, and children's rights. The NHRC encouraged the establishment of human rights cells in police headquarters in some States; however, this policy was not implemented in any meaningful way.[2c](p24)
6.7 Amnesty International note in a 1998 submission that the NHRC is also empowered to study treaties and other international instruments on human rights and recommend measures for their effective implementation. The NHRC has suggested that the Protection of Human Rights Act should be amended to incorporate International Covenants. [3c](p79)
6.8 Amnesty International in a 1998 submission comment that Section 19 of the protection of Human Rights Act limits the mandate of the NHRC and specifes that it is not empowered to investigate allegations of human rights violations by the armed forces. Whenever human rights violations by members of the armed or paramilitary forces are reported to the NHRC, its mandate restricts its action to seeking a report from central Government. After receiving the report, the NHRC can either not proceed with the case if it is satisfied with the report, or make recommendations. The Government is required to inform the Commission of the action taken on its recommendations within 3 months. The effect of this restriction is that the NHRC is reliant on the Government's version of events or the version of events as given by the alleged perpetrator. [3d](p13-14)
6.9 In several high profile cases, the NHRC has disregarded this limitation in its mandate and intervened in incidents of human rights violations by security forces, for example in Jammu and Kashmir in the case of the killing of lawyer Jalil Andrabi in March 1996 and the killing of civilians by security forces in Bijbehara in October 1993. [3c]
6.10 As noted in Amnesty International’s India Submission to the Advisory Committee 1998, Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act limits the NHRC to investigating allegations of abuses only up to a year after the alleged abuse took place. This has been overlooked in certain cases, but other cases over a year old have been disregarded. Amnesty International considers this problematic, as many victims approach the NHRC as a last resort, after using other mechanisms such as the courts. Lack of resources is often an obstacle to filing a complaint within the time-frame required. A human rights violation may not come to light until over a year after the original incident or a rape victim may have compelling reasons not to come forward immediately. [3d](p15-16)
6.11 However, according to a news article in The Tribune in September 1998 the Supreme Court ruled that the NHRC's probe into the alleged mass cremation of 2,000 bodies by the Punjab police in 1994-5 could not be barred by the one-year time limit. The Supreme Court ruled that the jurisdiction exercised by the NHRC in these matters is of a special nature not covered by the enactment of law and thus acts sui generis (a case of its own kind). [12c]
6.12 One of the NHRC's first actions was to request that it be informed of death or rape in police custody within 24 hours of occurrence, and while it had not succeeded in implementing this directive in States such as Jammu and Kashmir, the NHRC has become an important monitor of the extent of custodial violence. [3c] As reported in the Indian news agency on 8 July 1998, The NHRC has recommended that army and paramilitary forces should also follow the same procedure and report any death or rape in custody to the NHRC within 24 hours. The Indian Government rejected this, saying that the existing procedures laid down in the Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 were sufficient. [10c]
6.13 Amnesty International note in a 1998 submission, while the NHRC is conducting enquiries, it has the powers of a civil court, including summoning attendance of witnesses, compelling the provision of information and referring cases of contempt to a magistrate. There have been occasions when the NHRC's work has been hampered by delays in receiving reports from State authorities. [3d](p8)
6.14 Amnesty International in a 1998 Submission note, “The NHRC has been active in recommending the granting of compensation in many cases in which it has found prima facie evidence of human rights violations… and it has actively pursued the granting of compensation with the authorities to ensure that victims or their relatives are provided with prompt financial redress”. [3d](p10)
6.15 Amnesty International’s submission to the Advisory Committee 1998 states that the NHRC has recommended changes to existing legislation to ensure that human rights are protected, as part of its mandate to review safeguards provided under the Indian Constitution or legislation. The NHRC played a significant role in calls for the abolition of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), which was allowed to lapse in 1995. The NHRC, in a submission to the Supreme Court, has expressed the view that the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act is unconstitutional. The NHRC played a key role in encouraging the Indian Government to ratify the Convention against Torture. Nevertheless, Amnesty International believes that the NHRC should adopt a more systematic and consistent approach in reviewing existing or proposed legislation. [3d](p20-21)
6.16 According to the US Department of State report 2003, in addition to these state human rights commissions, special courts to hear human rights cases were established in Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, and Andhra Pradesh. However, the courts in Uttar Pradesh did not function, despite a 1999 court order that they be reactivated.” [2c](p25)
6.17 The US State Department Report 2003 states that “The Human Rights Act recommends that each state to establish a state human rights commission, but not all states have done so. Commissions exist in 14 of the 25 states…” [2c](p24) According to the National Human Rights commission website accessed May 2004, State Human Rights Commissions exist in: Assam, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Manipur, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Chhattisgarh.[47b] According to the US Department of State report 2003, Gujarat has not officially established a state commission, but in 2002 appointed a two-member judicial commission to investigate the violence in Gujarat. The commission had not reported its conclusions by year's end. The state human rights commission established in Jammu and Kashmir by an act of the state legislature had no power to independently investigate alleged human rights violations committed by security force members." [2c](p22-22)
6.18 The US State Department Report 2003 noted that “Although the Supreme Court in July 2002 ordered regular checks on police stations to ascertain the incidence of custodial violence against persons, the government and local authorities failed to comply in the overwhelming majority of police stations throughout the country; however, the checks were conducted in a small number of police stations in the States of Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal.” [2c](p4)"

Document(s): Open document

25.02.2004 - Source: US Department of State

Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2003 ("Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2003") [#19765],  [ID 6342]

"The Government generally respected the human rights of its citizens; however, numerous serious problems remained. Significant human rights abuses included: Extrajudicial killings, including faked encounter killings, custodial deaths throughout the country, and excessive use of force by security forces combating active insurgencies in Jammu and Kashmir and several northeastern states; torture and rape by police and other agents of the Government; poor prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and incommunicado detention in Jammu and Kashmir and the northeast; continued detention throughout the country of thousands arrested under special security legislation; lengthy pretrial detention without charge; prolonged detention while undergoing trial; occasional limits on freedom of the press and freedom of movement; harassment and arrest of human rights monitors; extensive societal violence against women; legal and societal discrimination against women; forced prostitution; child prostitution and female infanticide; discrimination against persons with disabilities; serious discrimination and violence against indigenous people and scheduled castes and tribes; widespread intercaste and communal violence; religiously motivated violence against Muslims and Christians; widespread exploitation of indentured, bonded, and child labor; and trafficking in women and children.

These abuses were generated by a traditionally hierarchical social structure, deeply rooted tensions among the country's many ethnic and religious communities, violent secessionist movements and the authorities' attempts to repress them, and deficient police methods and training. These problems were most visible in Jammu and Kashmir, where judicial tolerance of the Government's heavy-handed counterinsurgency tactics, the refusal of security forces to obey court orders, and terrorist threats have disrupted the judicial system. In the Northeast, there was no clear decrease in the number of killings, despite negotiated ceasefires between the Government and some insurgent forces and between some tribal groups.

[...]International human rights organizations were restricted. For example, during the year the government refused HRW access to the country. The Government also denied the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Killings permission to visit the country.
The 1993 Protection of Human Rights Act recommends that each state to establish a state human rights commission, but not all states have done so. Commissions exist in 14 of the 25 states: Assam, Chhattisgarh, Manipur, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, and Rajasthan. Gujarat has not officially established a state commission, but in 2002 appointed a two-member judicial commission to investigate the violence in Gujarat. The commission had not reported its conclusions by year's end. The state human rights commission established in Jammu and Kashmir by an act of the state legislature had no power to independently investigate alleged human rights violations committed by security force members.
[...]"

Document(s): Open document

25.02.2004 - Source: US Department of State

USDOS: Forced or bonded labour and trafficking in person ("Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2003") [#19765],  [ID 6343]

"The Constitution prohibits forced or bonded labor, including by children; however, such practices were widespread. The Bonded Labor System (Abolition) Act prohibits all bonded labor, by adults and children. Offenders may be sentenced to up to 3 years in prison, but prosecutions were rare. Enforcement of this statute, which was the responsibility of state and local governments, varied from state to state and generally was not effective, due to inadequate resources and to societal acceptance of bonded or forced labor. On the occasions when inspectors referred violations for prosecution, long court backlogs and inadequate funding for legal counsel frequently resulted in acquittals. NGOs estimated that there were 20 to 65 million bonded laborers in the country, including a large number of children (see Section 6.d.). Persons born into a traditionally subordinate caste were expected to work without pay for those above them in the traditional social structure. For example, according to a Government report more than 85 percent of bonded laborers were scheduled castes and scheduled tribes.
A 1983 Supreme Court decision defined forced labor as work at less than the minimum wage, usually set by the state governments. Under this definition, which differed from that of the International Labor Organization (ILO), forced labor was widespread, especially in rural areas.

Bonded labor, the result of a private contractual relationship whereby a worker incurs or inherits debts to a contractor and then must work off the debt plus interest, was illegal but widespread. The Government estimated that between enactment of the Bonded (Abolition) Act in 1976 and March 2003, 283,158 bonded workers were released from their obligations. Other sources maintained that those released constituted only 5 percent of the total number of bonded laborers. State governments provided a sum of money to workers freed from bondage for their rehabilitation. The NHRC formed a high-level Central Action Group, which routinely reviewed compliance with the Bonded Labor System Act. The NHRC also appointed a special Rapporteur to work in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu and report on compliance. In addition, the NHRC instituted a system for receiving regular reports on bonded labor from the states. The NHRC also assessed the bonded labor problem, identifying state districts in which it especially was acute. It identified and evaluated NGOs working in these areas and conducted training in bonded labor law enforcement for district officials in the acutely affected areas. Some press reports in 2002 indicated that Tamil Nadu alone had 25,800 bonded laborers, in response to which the state government began implementing and continued to work on rehabilitation plans. Government officials worked to release other bonded laborers in many states. In West Bengal, organized traffic in illegal Bangladeshi immigrants was a source of bonded labor (see Section 6.f.).

NGOs such as the Bonded Labor Liberation Front and Society for Community Organization Trust worked to release bonded laborers throughout the year.

Female bondage, forced prostitution, and trafficking in women and children for the purpose of prostitution were widespread problems (see Section 6.f.). According to press reports, prison officials used prisoners as domestic servants and sold female prisoners to brothels (see Section 1.c.). Devadasis, prepubescent girls given to a Hindu deity or temple as "servants of God," were taken from their families and required to provide sexual services to priests and high caste Hindus. Reportedly many eventually were sold to urban brothels (see Sections 5 and 6.f.).

Trafficking in Person
The law prohibits trafficking in persons; however, trafficking in persons was a significant problem. NGOs alleged that corruption at the enforcement level helps to perpetuate the problem. The country was a significant source, transit point, and destination for numerous trafficked persons, primarily for the purposes of prostitution and forced labor.
The country was a destination country for Nepali and Bangladeshi women and girls trafficked for the purpose of labor and prostitution. Internal trafficking of women and children was widespread. To a lesser extent, the country is a origin for women and children trafficked to other countries in Asia, the Middle East, and the West. The country serves as a transit point for Bangladeshi girls and women trafficked for sexual exploitation to Pakistan, and for boys trafficked to the Gulf States to work as camel jockeys. NGOs reported that sexual exploitation of children for sex tourism increased sharply in the states of Goa and Kerala.

Child prostitution occurred in the cities, and there were an estimated 500,000 child prostitutes nationwide. More than 2.3 million girls and women were believed to be working in the sex industry within the country at any given time, and more than 200,000 persons were believed to be trafficked into, within, or through the country annually. Women's rights organizations and NGOs estimated that more than 12,000 and perhaps as many as 50,000 women and children were trafficked into the country annually from neighboring states for the sex trade. According to an ILO estimate, 15 percent of the country's estimated 2.3 million prostitutes were children, while the U.N. reported that an estimated 40 percent were below 18 years of age. A large proportion of the women forced into sexual exploitation were tribals.

Trafficking in, to, and through the country largely was controlled by organized crime.

There was a growing pattern of trafficking in child prostitutes from Nepal and from Bangladesh (6,000 to 10,000 annually from each). Girls as young as 7 years of age were trafficked from economically depressed neighborhoods in Nepal, Bangladesh, and rural areas to the major prostitution centers of Mumbai, Calcutta, and New Delhi. NGOs estimate that there were approximately 100,000 to 200,000 women and girls working in brothels in Mumbai and 40,000 to 100,000 in Calcutta.

In West Bengal, the organized traffic in illegal Bangladeshi immigrants was a principal source of bonded labor. Calcutta was a convenient transit point for traffickers who send Bangladeshis to New Delhi, Mumbai, Uttar Pradesh, and the Middle East.

Within the country, women from economically depressed areas often moved into the cities seeking greater economic opportunities, and once there were victimized by traffickers who forced or coerced them into the sex trade. In some cases, family members sold young girls into the sex trade. Extreme poverty combined with the low social status of women often resulted in the handover by parents of their children to strangers for what they believed was employment or marriage. In some instances, parents received payments or the promise that their children would send wages back home.

Many indigenous tribal women were forced into sexual exploitation. According to the Indian Center for Indigenous and Tribal Peoples (ICITP), more than 40,000 tribal women, mainly from Orissa and Bihar, were forced into economic and sexual exploitation; many came from tribes that were driven off their land by national park schemes. Press reports indicated children were routinely trafficked from Assam into Haryana and other North Indian states for sexual slavery under the pretext of entering into arranged marriages.

The number of women being trafficked to other countries was comparatively low.

Some boys, often as young as age 4, were trafficked to West Asia or the Persian Gulf States and became camel jockeys in camel races. Some boys end up as beggars in Saudi Arabia during the Hajj. The majority of such children worked with the knowledge of their parents, who received as much as $200 (9,300 Rs) for their child's labor, although a significant minority simply were kidnapped. The gangs bringing the jockeys earned approximately $150 (6,975 Rs) per month from the labor of each child. The child's names were usually added to the passport of a Bangladeshi or Indian woman who already had a visa for the Gulf. Girls and women were trafficked to the Persian Gulf States to work as domestic workers or sex workers.

The National Commission for Women reported that organized crime played a significant role in the country's sex trafficking trade and that women and children who were trafficked frequently were subjected to extortion, beatings, and rape. How women were trafficked varies widely: Although some were abducted forcibly or drugged, most were trafficked through false offers of marriage, employment, or shelter. Poverty, illiteracy, and lack of employment opportunities contributed to the trafficking problem, although organized crime was a common element in all trafficking incidents, as was police corruption and collusion. Although corruption was endemic in the country, there was no known anti-corruption initiative that was linked specifically to corruption as it related to trafficking during the year. NGOs alleged that ignorance, a lack of political resolve to tackle it, and corruption at the enforcement level perpetuated the problem.

Although the police were charged with enforcing the country's laws on prostitution and trafficking in women and children, NGOs, observers, and sex workers have viewed police actions as part of the problem. Sex workers in Mumbai and Calcutta claimed that harassment, extortion, and occasional arrests on soliciting charges usually characterized police intervention. NGOs, victims, and the media continued to identify corruption at the enforcement level as an impediment to swifter and fairer justice for trafficked women and children.

Victims of trafficking were subject to threats, including emotional blackmail, violence, and confinement, as well as the threat of apprehension by authorities, detention, prosecution and deportation.

The penalty for traffickers was prescribed by the Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act (ITPA). If the offense had been committed against a child (under 16 years), the punishment was imprisonment for 7 years to life. If the victim was a minor (16 to 18 years), the punishment was from 7 to 14 years. Other penalties under the act range from minimum terms of imprisonment of 1 year for brothel-keeping, to minimum terms of 7 years to life imprisonment for detaining a person, with or without consent, for prostitution.

The Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act (ITPA), supplemented by the Penal Code, prohibits trafficking in human beings and contains severe penalties for violations. The Constitution also prohibits trafficking in persons. The ITPA toughened penalties for trafficking in children, particularly by focusing on traffickers, pimps, landlords, and brothel operators, while protecting underage girls as victims. The ITPA required police to use only female police officers to interrogate girls rescued from brothels. The ITPA also required the Government to provide protection and rehabilitation for these rescued girls. In addition, under the ITPA, prostitution is not a crime; the ITPA criminalizes only solicitation or engaging in sex acts in or near a public place. Some NGOs noted that this ambiguity, which was intended to protect trafficking victims, instead was exploited to protect the sex industry.

However, the country's prostitution and trafficking laws were selectively enforced by police; clients and organizers of the sex trade tended not to be penalized, while prostitutes found soliciting or practicing their trade in or near (200 yards) public places were arrested. Due to the selective implementation, the "rescue" of sex workers from brothels often led to their revictimization. Using the ITPA's provisions against soliciting or engaging in sexual acts, police regularly arrest sex workers, extort money from them, evict them, and take their children from them. Clients of prostitutes, by comparison, largely were immune from any law enforcement threat, as clients committed a crime only if they had engaged in a sex act with a sex worker in a public place or had had sex with a girl under the age of 16 years (statutory rape). Therefore, although the intention of the ITPA was to increase enforcement efforts against the traffickers, pimps, and border operators, the opposite occurred. Implementation of the ITPA's provisions for protection and rehabilitation of women and children rescued from the sex trade was extremely poor. NGOs familiar with the legal history of prostitution and trafficking laws regarded the failure of the judiciary to recognize this inequity in the law's implementation as a continuing "blind spot." Over the last several years, arrests and prosecutions under the ITPA increased slightly, while all indications suggested a growing level of trafficking into and within the country.

NGOs and others alleged that police did not act effectively against brothels suspected of enslaving minors, and did not coordinate with NGOs. Therefore, the police action often worsened the situation of girls and women indebted to traffickers and brothel owners. Girls rescued from brothels were treated as criminals. In many cases, the police or the staff of government remand centers, where they were housed temporarily, abused them sexually. In most cases, arrested prostitutes were quickly returned to the brothels after the brothel operators paid bribes to the authorities. In still other cases, arrested prostitutes were released into the custody of traffickers and madams posing as relatives. In these cases, the debt owned by the girls to the brothel operators and traffickers further increases as the costs of bribing or legally obtaining release of the girls is added to their labor debt.

NGOs also have demanded that special ITPA courts for speedy resolution of cases allow videotaped testimony so that underage victims need not be summoned back for trial. For example, videotaped testimony was allowed during a Mumbai trial.

The Government continued a campaign to improve police training and sensitivity to trafficking issues. According to NGOs, there were improvements in investigations and arrests of traffickers in Mumbai and Calcutta. During the year, police and NGOs rescued 12 minor girls from brothels in New Delhi. There were roughly 80 NGOs in ten states around the country working for the emancipation and rehabilitation of women and children trafficked into the sex trade. A group on child prostitution established by the NHRC includes representatives from the National Commission for Women, the Department of Women and Child Development, NGOs, and UNICEF. It continued to meet throughout the year to devise means of improving enforcement of legal prohibitions.

Some NGOs were very knowledgeable about the trafficking situation and could identify traffickers and the locations of girls being held captive by brothel owners. However, most of these NGOs were reluctant to trust the police with this information due to the past conduct of police in brothel raids and the likelihood that many trafficking victims would be arrested and revictimized rather than assisted by such raids. Press reports in August said the 37 girls had been successfully rescued due to the joint efforts of the state government of Maharashtra and a local NGO.

Efforts to improve NGO coordination were being made in Calcutta, where 10 NGOs met monthly as part of the Action Against Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation of Children (AATSEC) forum. Every 3 months, the group attempted to meet with its Bangladeshi and Nepalese counterparts. Calcutta NGOs such as Sanlaap also were seeking to build stronger working relationships with local police.

The Government cooperated with groups in Nepal and Bangladesh to deal with the problem. Training and informational meetings took place under the AATSEC and the South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation. The NHRC asked the committee that oversees the Hajj (pilgrimage) to require individual passports for children instead of allowing them to be included on that of their escort, in order to reduce trafficking of children. NHRC also advised the Government of West Bengal to make efforts to educate Muslims about child trafficking. In addition, the Central Police Academy conducted, in conjunction with local state police academies, improved training designed in part to sensitize officers to the problem of trafficking and strengthen police responsiveness to trafficking victims."

Document(s): Open document

01.01.2004 - Source: Asian Centre for Human Rights

Analysis of the POTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act) judgement and POTA Amendment Bill 2003 ("Interpreters of the Draconian: An analysis of the POTA judgement and POTA Amendment Bill 2003 (ACHRF/01/2004)") [#18832],  [ID 6344]

Document(s): Open document
Open document

06.11.2003 - Source: Amnesty International

Report presenting well-founded reports of the use of arbitrary and illegal detention by Crime Branch police in Ahmedabad in the past year ("India: Abuse of the law in Gujarat: Muslims detained illegally in Ahmedabad") [#17350],  [ID 6345]

"[...] Amnesty International’s concerns about provisions of POTA - under which people can be arrested on mere suspicion, can be remanded for exceptionally and dangerously long periods in police custody and detained without charge or trial for six months - are on record. To date POTA has been used to arrest and detain political opponents, members of particular communities and even children under 18 in states throughout India. [...]

This report does not address the application of POTA in these cases as such, although Amnesty International believes that there is an urgent need for a review of the application of POTA in Gujarat, as in other states.(25) The organization is concerned about the exclusive application of the Act against the minority community under definitions of "terrorist acts" which are extremely vague, and criminalization of conspiracy, abetment, advocacy and incitement (Section 3(3)) which are extremely broad. There are indications that the Act is being used arbitrarily and punitively against Muslims (as referred to earlier, the Act has been used only against Muslims and one Sikh in the state): reports indicate that police regularly threaten those illegally detained and their relatives that they will be charged under POTA if they fail to cooperate or make complaints about their treatment to the courts or human rights organisations. Such threats seriously call into question the legal and evidential basis on which individuals are being detained and subsequently charged under POTA and reinforce concerns expressed by Amnesty International and other human rights organizations at the time of the enactment of the Act that it would lead to an increase in human rights violations. [...]"

Document(s): Open document
Open document

19.09.2003 - Source: Amnesty International

Report commenting on the report of the Malimath Committee on Reforms of the Criminal Justice System ("Report of the Malimath Committee on Reforms of the Criminal Justice System: Some observations") [#16255],  [ID 6346]

"The Committee thus proceeds to recommend a series of measures to enable easier convictions; reduce the threshold of evidence, effectively remove the right to silence, reverse the burden of proof, make confessions made to police officers admissible as evidence and increase summary trials. On the other hand the Committee has little or nothing to say about ensuring greater justice and so is silent on issues of excessive and wrongful arrest, torture and custodial violence, the large number of under-trials, impunity, endemic corruption in the criminal justice system, the crisis in legal aid, protecting the rights of the poor, dalits, minorities and other disadvantaged communities. These are all issues that Amnesty International and numerous Indian human rights organisations have raised over a number of years and which unless addressed, will perpetuate some fundamental shortcomings in the criminal justice system which have so far resulted in a failure to provide proper justice for all citizens. [...]

Though the Committee claims to have applied its mind to the "grave problems facing the country", there is little to suggest that it considered the grave problems facing the most vulnerable sections of Indian society vis-à-vis the criminal justice system. This is clearly reflected in the deafening silence in the report on the criminalisation of poverty, the crisis in legal aid and the abject failures of the criminal justice system in protecting the human rights of the poor, dalits, minorities and other vulnerable sections of society. By ignoring the enormous challenges and sufferings endured by the most vulnerable in seeking redress from the criminal justice system the Malimath Committee ignores the problems of not just at least 50 per cent of the 'people' of India, but also a large majority of those who enter the criminal justice system.

It is well known that the poor constitute a disproportionately large number of the criminal defendants going in and out of the criminal justice system. (12) A large percentage of the 2.7 lakh prisoners in India(13) belonging to the economically weaker section of society, are by and large illiterate and unaware of the law or working of the legal system.(14) [...]

The approach of the Committee and the premises and assumptions it rests on are not only faulty but also appear exclusionary and biased in nature. The nature of discussions on the problems facing the criminal justice system and the direction and content of the reforms recommended and, equally importantly, the silences in the Report suggest that the Committee is actually attempting to undermine the entire normative framework of the criminal justice system rather than address the real systemic problems facing the criminal justice system today.

What the Committee ends up doing is projecting the criminal justice system today as being too 'soft' and making several prescriptions to render it 'hard'. In doing so the Committee seems to endorse specific political views rather than advance human rights standards. Amnesty International India believes that irrespective of the nature of specific recommendations, these grounds alone are sufficient for the human rights community to reject the Malimath Committee report."

Document(s): Open document
Open document