VISION FOR ALL
- 270 Posts
- 28 Comments
Corrupt Rules Of the NHRC
राष्ट्रीय मानवाधिकार आयोग ने चिरंजीवी राय,प्राचार्य,जवाहर नवोदय विद्यालय,बिरौली,समस्तीपुर के विरुध्द विद्यालय के छात्र/छात्राओं से जबरन वसूली के मामले में दायर कराई गई शिकायत को ये कहकर निष्तारित कर दिया है कि शिकायत पत्र का सिर्फ COPY (प्रतिलिपि) आयोग को प्रेषित किया गया। राष्ट्रीय मानवाधिकार आयोग की वेबसाइट nhrc.nic.in पर फाइल नंबर 3683/4/30/2014 डालकर इस केस पर आयोग द्वारा पारित आदेश देखा जा सकता है।लेकिन मैंने शिकायत पत्र का प्रतिलिपि आयोग को प्रेषित नहीं किया था बल्कि शिकायत पत्र को दस जगह एक साथ प्रेषित किया गया था जिसमें दूसरे नंबर पर राष्ट्रीय मानवाधिकार आयोग को संबोधित किया गया था।जब शिकायत की सिर्फ प्रतिलिपि भेजी जाती है तो आवेदन पत्र के अंत में सबसे नीचे Copy To लिखकर संबंधित विभागीय अधिकारी का नाम लिखा जाता है ना कि आवेदन के ऊपर में ही सभी विभागीय अधिकारियों को क्रमानुसार एक साथ संबोधित किया जाता है।मैंने आयोग में सिर्फ आयोग को संबोधित करते हुए पुनः आवेदन दायर किया है जिसका पंजीकरण हो चुका है और आयोग के विचाराधीन है।आयोग के वेबसाइट पर फाइल नं 3862/4/30/2014 डालकर इस शिकायत का स्टेटस चेक किया जा सकता है।
आयोग ने शिकायत को निष्तारित करने का उपरोक्त नियम(राष्ट्रीय मानवाधिकार आयोग प्रक्रिया संशोधन विनियम,1997 का विनियम 9) अपने मन से बनाया है जो भारतीय संसद द्वारा पारित मानवाधिकार संरक्षण अधिनियम,1993 की धारा 36 के विपरीत है।सर्वोच्च न्यायालाय ने भी एक निर्णय (Ramdeo Chauhan @ Rajnath Chauhan VS Bani Kant Das & Ors on 19 November, 2010 later reported as AIR 2011,SC 615) में मानवाधिकार की रक्षा करना आयोग का सर्वोच्च दायित्व माना है,इसलिए उपरोक्त आधार पर मेरा शिकायत को निष्तारित करना सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के फैसला के मूल में छिपी भावना के विपरीत है।देखना अब ये है कि दोबारा दायर की गई शिकायत पत्र पर आयोग अब क्या फैसला सुनाती है।मैंने सारे कानूनी तथ्य का विस्तृत वर्णन आयोग में दोबारा दायर किए गए आवेदन में किया है,जिसके आधार पर आयोग यदि मामला की सुनवाई करने के बजाय निष्तारित करती हैं तो आयोग द्वारा अपने मन से बनाए गए राष्ट्रीय मानवाधिकार आयोग प्रक्रिया संशोधन विनियम,1997 का विनियम 9 के विरुध्द सर्वोच्च न्यायालय में जनहित याचिका दायर करना पड़ेगा।
दोबारा दायर किया गया आवेदन नीचे प्रस्तुत है-
Gmail Rahul Kumar
Request to admit my complaint and initiate action against the illegal levy imposed by Chiranjiwi Roy,Principal of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,Birauli,Samastipur,Bihar against the students of the said school-Regarding,Ref:-File No.3683/4/30/2014 as assigned by the Commission
1 message
Rahul Kumar 7 October 2014 07:59
To: nhrc.india@nic.in, covdnhrc , jrlawnhrc , “ar2.nhrc”
To
The Chairperson
National Human Rights Commission
New Delhi
Date:-07/10/2014
Sub:-Request to admit my complaint and initiate action against the
illegal levy imposed by Chiranjiwi Roy,Principal of Jawahar
Navodaya Vidyalaya,Birauli,Samastipur,Bihar against the students of
the said school-Regarding
Ref:-File No.3683/4/30/2014 as assigned by the Commission
Sir
The learned commission has dismissed in limine my complaint File
No.3683/4/30/2014 as assigned by the Commission on dt 1/10/2014 with
an observation that
“The complaint is addressed to other authority with only copy sent to
this Commission. The authority is expected to take appropriate action
in this matter. Hence, no action is called for. File.”
Only copy of complaint was not sent to the commission.The commission
was addressed to S.No.2 in the list of all ten authorities addressed
in my complaint and all authorities were addressed altogether.Nowhere
Copy of the complaint was sent.There is difference between addressing
all authorities altogether and sending a copy of the complaint.In
addressing all authorities altogether ,name of all authorities is
written serial wise and in sending a copy of complaint,at the last of
the application “Copy To” is written for the information and
appropriate action.So,my complaint was not addressed to other
authority but it was addressed to all authorities altogether.
So,in exercise of the power conferred under Regulation 9(xiii) of
the National Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Amendment
Regulations ,1997 my complaint can’t be dismissed in limine.
There is difference between a complaint dismissed in limine and a
complaint dismissed after a decision.
Dismissed in limine refers to the dismissal of the complaint at the
admission stage-before exercising trial.Since my complaint has not
been dismissed after a decision as under Regulation 9(xii) of the
National Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Amendment Regulations
,1997, commission is empowered to dismiss in limine of such complaint
where matter is covered by a judicial verdict/decision of the
Commission ,so if i admit this complaint again after
rectifying/removing the grounds for which it was dismissed if it has
not been dismissed because decision has already been passed by the
commission,the complaint ought to be entertianed by the commission to
protect the human rights.In view of the above fact,a fresh application
is being submitted before the commission by only addressing the
commission.
National Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Amendment Regulations
,1997 is made by the commission in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (2) of 10 of the Protection of Human Rights Act 1993
(Act 10 of 1994),and section 10(2) of the act is cited below-
“Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made
thereunder,the Commission shall have the power to lay down by
regulations its own procedure.”
After the analysis of the section 10(2) of the act,it is obvioused
that making regulations for the procedure is confined to the extent
which will be not in conflict with the provisions of the Protection
Of the Human Rights Act,1993.
In this regard,section 36 of the act may be observed in the manner
whether certain provisions of the Regulation 9 of the National
Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Amendment Regulations ,1997 is in
conflict with section 36 or not.
36.Matters not subject to jurisdiction of the Commission-
(1) The Commission shall not inquire into any matter which is pending
before a State Commission or any other Commission duly constituted
under any law for the time being in force.
(2) The Commission or the State Commission shall not inquire into any
matter after the expiry of one year from the date on which the act
constituting violation of human rights is alleged to have been
committed.
After the analysis of the section 36 of the act,it is obvioused that
the complaint concerning the matter not subject to the jurisdiction of
the commission as provided under section 36 of the act may only be
dismissed in limine.
So,except Regulations 9(iv) and 9(V) of the National Human Rights
Commission (Procedure) Amendment Regulations ,1997 ,all other
regulations enshrined under Regulation 9 is in conflict with the
section 36 of the act and thus Regulation 9(xiii) of the National
Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Amendment Regulations ,1997 is
also in conflict with the section 36 of the act and that’s why
dismissing in limine a complaint if only copy of the complaint is sent
to the commission and originally complaint is addressed to other
authority is in conflict with the section 36 of the act.However,i have
not sent only copy of the complaint,but complaint has been addressed
to all authorities altogether.
Honb’ble Supreme Court has observed in para 46 of Ramdeo Chauhan @
Rajnath Chauhan vs Bani Kant Das & Ors on 19 November, 2010 (AIR
2011,SC 615 ) that “The NHRC has been constituted to inquire into
cases of violation of and for protection and promotion of human
rights. This power is an extensive one, which should not be narrowly
viewed.”Further in para 47 it has been observed that “It must be
jurisprudentially accepted that human right is a broad concept and
cannot be straitjacketed within narrow confines. ”
After the analysis of the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court,it can
be concluded that the power of NHRC is not merely vested in dismissing
in limine a complaint but it’s power is vested in to inquire into
cases of violation of and for protection and promotion of human
rights. Further,as per para 47, it can be concluded that human rights
can not be straitjacketed or suppressed merely on the facts of some
legal trappings because fact remains constant that there is the
violation of human rights.
The commission is a tribunal as it has power of court under section 13
of the Protection Of Human Rights Act,1993 and it has to exercise
its power independently and in many Judgements (around 25),the High
Courts and the Supreme Court held that a tribunal has an inherent
power of rectification of its mistake.But i am not of the opinion to
give burden to the commission to rectify its mistake but i am of the
opinion to rectify the mistake occured in my complaint and after the
rectification,this appliction is filed before the commission only by
addressing the commission and this time my application may be
entertained because there is difference between a complaint dismissed
in limine and a complaint dismissed after a decision.
Dismissed in limine refers to the dismissal of the complaint at the
admission stage-before exercising trial.Since my complaint has not
been dismissed after a decision as under Regulation 9(xii) of the
National Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Amendment Regulations
,1997 ,commission is empowered to dismiss in limine of such complaint
where matter is covered by a judicial verdict/decision of the
Commission ,so if i admit this complaint again after
rectifying/removing the grounds for which it was dismissed if it has
not been dismissed because decision has already been passed by the
commission,the complaint ought to be entertianed by the commission to
protect the human rights.
Complaint which was assigned by the commission as File
No.3683/4/30/2014 was addressed also to the Central Vigilance
Commission but the Central Vigilance Commission has not initiated any
action yet in regard to this complaint ,so this complaint is presently
not under the considertaion before any other commission and same is
not barred under section 36(1) of the Preotection Of Human Rights
Act,1993 and same can’t be dismissed as per Regulation 9(iv) of the
National Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Amendment Regulations
,1997.
Therefore,a fresh application is again submitted before the commission
with the summary cited below:-
“Approx 1 Lakhs rupees have been collected from the girls students of
the JNV Samastipur by the principal and 44 new fans of brand namey
Havells have been purchased.But it is easy to visualise that 44 fans
may not carry cost of approx 1 lakhs.Further,it is to inform you that
taking money for any kind of work is illegal because Jawahar Navodaya
Vidyalaya is established by the Govt of India and it is a school
providing education free of cost and fund is provided by Govt of India
(by the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti) for such works like instituting
fans and repairing articles.
It appears that the fund provided for the these works has been chewed
up or is going to be chewed up by the said principal and by the way
of levying money from the students,he is now going to do those works
which were/are to be done by the fund provided.
Now,principal is going to levy money in the name of instituting new
television for the male students.The television available for the boys
will be sent to girls hostel and the television available in the girls
hostel will be sent to the Guest House.What amount will be levied from
each student has not been fixed yet.Money has not been levied yet
from the male students in the name of instituting new fans and
repairing other articles but it has been planned to levy Rs 1000 from
each male students of the class 6 and Rs 500 from each male students of
class 7 and 8 and house master of the hostel has been directed to
collect the money.
levying money from students is criminal breach of trust by the public
servant which is an offence under section 409 of the IPC and it is
also an offence under section 417 and 420 of the IPC. Students are
forced to give money and forcibly levying money is just an economic
and mental harassment and same economic and mental harassment is
violation of article 21 which confers right to freedom from torturing
as included in right to life and thus it is also a case of violation
of human rights.
Above information is based on inputs provided by some students of the
said school which has been mentioned on my email complaint of dt
13/9/2014 and its reply of dt 15/9/2014 and 26/9/2014.
Therefore,it is requested to admit my complaint and ensure all
appropriate necessary actions.
Thanking You
Yours
Rahul Kumar
S/O-Jagannath Ray
Vill+Post-Sughrain
Via-Bithan
Distt-Samastipur
State-Bihar
PIN-848207
Mob-07759071885 and 07654528780
Read Comments