Mere safety valves

For the democratic well being of any country, constitutional bodies have a big role to play. They act as force multipliers in providing adequate checks and balances on the myriad responsibilities of the government. It is their job to provide the cutting edge to governance after all the light and sound is over and done with.

So there is the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) which looks into human right violations by either government agencies or private individuals; the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) is expected to provide legal and constitutional safeguards for the most socially depressed members of society and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) is mandated to do the same in the matter of deprived children. The main agenda for the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) is to look at and suggest changes for the safe keep of the rights of those deemed minority in India.

To be sure, capable individuals and men with proven track records either in the judiciary and civil services often head or are members of such Commissions. They have a fair sense of how the system works, its strengths and weaknesses and the desired sensitivity that is essential to ensure the right of a human being is ensured.

So theoretically, these heavy duty constitutional bodies are the bloodline of a democratic system, a set of tools designed to ensure that those left out of the government’s downward filtration mechanism, get what is justifiably their due.

In practice, however, things change. While in theory, the Commissions have been accorded powers to summon, raise objections and suggest a consensual course of action, in reality the situation is different and perhaps, bereft of actual powers.

For instance the recommendations of the NCM are merely in the nature of proposals and are not a coercive decision, although the commission does exercise the powers of a civil court. Many states do not have minorities’ laws of their own. Central model laws have been prepared and while some states have adopted them, there are many others who have prepared their own formulation on the question of minorities.

The National Commission for Women (NCW)which is designed to provide  equal opportunities to women is turning out to be a non-starter for a variety of reasons that are connected more to inter-governmental turf war than any serious thoughts on women rights. First came the quarrel between the Women and Child Welfare Department and the Commission. The Commission was given a status subordinate to the ministry. Instead of becoming an autonomous body, as was intended in the legislation, it became subservient to the Women and Child Welfare Department. The power of the Joint Secretary in the department can easily veto recommendations from the NCW thus defeating the very purpose of it coming into existence.

In the last couple of years or so, the NCW has become a patronage tool for the government; those that a ruling party cannot accommodate in the government or reward with a governorship, end up in the NCW.

Then there is the question of the role of state governments who more often than not just decide to overlook the recommendations of Commissions like the NCW. The constitutional bodies have no power on earth to force the hands of the state or even the central government on any future course of action.

The ever-critical issue of budget looms large before the functioning of these bodies. With inadequate funds and even more inadequate infrastructure, some of these Commissions are virtually working on paper. A recent decision of the government, for instance, has withdrawn judicial powers to the NCW. How is it then expected to function and deliver its mandate?

The NCHR, whose funding is better than most, too believes that their role will expand greatly if they are in a position to provide better financial assistance to their state counterparts, most of whom run on shoe-string budgets making it very difficult for them to be effective.

A lot has to do with the formation of these Commissions which has tended to ignore talent and motivation in favour of political patronage. The role of the NCM has often been described as being `invisible.’ Why is it not seen or heard or heard as much as it should, given the importance of its agenda? According to those in the know, the reasons for this non-visibility are many but most importantly have to do with the organizational setup of the Commission itself. The NCM Act envisages that the Chairperson and members of the Commission shall be nominated by the government. That being the case, nominated members are hardly expected to speak their mind or to take up issues which might hurt the interest of the powers that be. Resultantly, critical voices from within different minorities have been kept at bay when it comes to nominating members of the Commission.

Proposals to select Commission members by a collegiate of civil rights activists has so far fallen on deaf ears. Only then perhaps the commission can call itself an autonomous body and function independently. The problem is compounded because the the NCM, such as it exists now, is a toothless body. While it does have the powers of a civil court, its demands for penal powers have been consistently thwarted because that would end government patronage in selecting specialist members, something that the Commission needs urgently. By just putting all Commissions under the charge of bureaucrats will not help the situation; in fact it will make it worse.