Please
find twenty-fourth Annual Report of National Human Rights
Commission (NHRC) for the period from 01 April 2016 to 31 March 2017,which is uploaded on website of Ministry of Home.Please find link as follows:
Two follows cases of PVCHRs’ intervention are
mentioned in report:
Illustrative
Cases Related to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Vulnerable Groups
Dealt by NHRC
1.
Death of Three Workers Belonging to
Scheduled Caste, while Working in the Manhole of Sewage Treatment Plant due to
Poisonous Gas in District Meerut, Uttar Pradesh (Case No.29674/24/54/2011) The
Commission received a complaint dated 25.07.2011 from Dr. Lenin, #PVCHR,
Varanasi inviting attention to a newspaper report published in the Dainik
Jagran dated 25.07.2011 captioned ‘Manhole me sama gai teen jindagi’.
The newspaper report mentioned that on 24.07.2011, in Shatabadi Nagar, Meerut,
Uttar Pradesh two workers, Udairam and Omkar, died while working in the manhole
of sewage treatment plant and one Suresh also died due to poisonous gas in an
attempt to save them. Since the manhole had not been opened earlier in
accordance with the guidelines, gases had collected inside. No safety equipment
had been provided for the workers. Intervention of the Commission was sought
for adequate compensation to the families of the deceased as well as action against
the guilty persons. The Commission, on 22.02.2012, considered the report
received from DIG, Meerut Range, which revealed that Assistant Engineer, Meerut
Development Authority had, on 24.07.2011, lodged a complaint about the death of
the three persons. It was informed that the work of construction of manhole for
joining sewers was awarded to Shri Mukesh Kumar and his representative Shri
Mange Ram, who opened the plug of manhole without any prior information. This
resulted in emission of poisonous gas resulting in 3 deaths. A case Cr. No.
355/2011 u/s 304 IPC was registered and Section 3(2)5 of the Schedule Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was incorporated.
One of the accused had been arrested and efforts were on to arrest the
remaining accused. The report from the District Magistrate, Meerut, revealed
that proposals for release of budget for payment of ` 1,00,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh only) each to the next-of-kin of the two deceased Udai and Suresh Sharma,
under the Farmer Accident Insurance Scheme, had been submitted to the
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Revenue Parishad, Lucknow. No such proposal had
been sent in the case of Omkar since he was not owner of any agricultural land,
as per condition under the scheme. The report also mentioned that on the basis
of collections made by the officials and staff of the Meerut Development
Authority, the next-of-kin of the three deceased had been provided monetary
relief of `1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each. Apart from the criminal case
registered, the firm had also been blacklisted. The Commission, on 27.09.2013,
considered the material placed on record and noted that the work of
construction of manhole for joining sewers was awarded by the State authorities
to Shri Mukesh and due to negligence of his personnel, who opened the plug of
manhole without any prior information resulting in the emission of poisonous
gas led to 3 deaths regarding which Cr. No. 355/2011 u/s 304 IPC r/w Section
3(2)(V) of the Schedule Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 had been registered. The Commission observed that for
this negligence, the State is vicariously liable. The Commission issued a
notice to the Chief Secretary to show cause as to why monetary relief u/s 18 of
the PHRA, 1993, be not recommended to be paid to the next-of-kin of the three
deceased. The Commission also asked whether the Meerut Development Authority
had laid down any Guidelines for safety of the sewage workers and their
insurance under the relevant labour laws and any financial assistance had been
given to the next- of-kin of the deceased to which they are entitled under
section 3(2)(V) of the Schedule Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Rules, 1995. Pursuant to the directions of the
Commission, the Special Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, on
06.01.2015, has forwarded the report of the Vice Chairman, Meerut Development
Authority, Meerut according to which it was clear that the sewer line had been
laid by the Meerut Development Authority for the development of locality
Shatabadi Nagar situated in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh and the entire allotment of
houses and land has been done by the Meerut Development Authority. If, any
accident occurs in the construction or repair of the sewer line, the Meerut
Development Authority cannot escape from its liability along with the State
Government of Uttar Pradesh. Although the work was entrusted to a private
contractor, the Commission was of the view that the Meerut Development
Authority, was the principal employer in this case and it was its duty to
ensure that proper security arrangements were made for the workers, who are
working over the sewer line, which is being laid under its direction. Thus,
from the perusal of the papers available on record, it was established that
Meerut Development Authority, being the principal employer, failed to protect
the life of the workers and it was a prima-facie case of violation of human
rights of the three workers, who had lost their lives while doing work in the
sewer line and the next-of-kin of the deceased are entitled for monetary
compensation from the State Government of Uttar Pradesh. Thus, the Commission
recommended that a sum of ` 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakh only) each be paid to
the next-of-kin of the deceased Uday, s/o Ramesh; Omkar, s/o Raghav; and
Suresh, s/o Sauraj, by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh. This monetary
compensation shall be in addition to the compensation, which is awarded, if
any, to the next-of-kin of the deceased under the Employees Compensation Act,
2012. The compliance report along with proof of payment is awaited from the
Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh.
Latest
direction in above cases: These
proceedings shall be read in continuation of the proceedings dated 31.01.2017.
Commission directed Chief Secretary, Government of
UP, to submit his comments along with the action taken on the recommendation of
the Commission in six weeks.
Commission had drawn the attention of the Chief
Secretary towards the judgement of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the matter
of State of UP vs. #NHRC in WC No. 15570 of 2016 dated 08.04.2016.
No report has been received so far regarding the
compliance.
A letter dated 11.05.2017 had been received from Under Secretary, Department of Home (Human Rights), Government of UP, Lucknow, addressed to the Chief Secretary for making payment as per the directions of the Commission. Similar letter was received earlier which is dated 12.09.2016. This shows that the Chief Secretary deliberately not complying the recommendation of this Commission despite the fact that the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court had categorically ruled that the recommendations are in the nature of directions which should be complied by the Government.
Taking all the facts into consideration, Commission directs that a summon u/s 13 of PHR Act 1993 to the Chief Secretary, Government of UP, to appear in person before the Commission on 09.02.2018 at 11 a.m. at NHRC Headquarters, New Delhi, along with the compliance made and proof of payment of the directions of this Commission.
However, if the report along with the compliance report is submitted one week earlier to the date fixed, the Chief Secretary, need not to appear before the Commission.
A letter dated 11.05.2017 had been received from Under Secretary, Department of Home (Human Rights), Government of UP, Lucknow, addressed to the Chief Secretary for making payment as per the directions of the Commission. Similar letter was received earlier which is dated 12.09.2016. This shows that the Chief Secretary deliberately not complying the recommendation of this Commission despite the fact that the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court had categorically ruled that the recommendations are in the nature of directions which should be complied by the Government.
Taking all the facts into consideration, Commission directs that a summon u/s 13 of PHR Act 1993 to the Chief Secretary, Government of UP, to appear in person before the Commission on 09.02.2018 at 11 a.m. at NHRC Headquarters, New Delhi, along with the compliance made and proof of payment of the directions of this Commission.
However, if the report along with the compliance report is submitted one week earlier to the date fixed, the Chief Secretary, need not to appear before the Commission.
Illustrative
Case Related to Rights of Elderly Persons Dealt by NHRC 1.
Left Ear of an Elderly Person, who was Picked up by the Police Ensuing a Land
Dispute, Pulled off and Uprooted, in P.S. Ahiroli, District Ambedkar Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh (Case No.43832/24/24/2013) Shri Lenin
Raghuvanshi, a human rights activist, has drawn Commission’s attention to a
newspaper report published in Dainik Jagran and Hindustan alleging
suspension of 3 police officials due to uprooting the ear of an old man. As per
complaint, three Constables of PS Ahiroli took away one old man Ram Laut, aged
about 70 years, from his house over a land dispute with another person. At the
police station, the two police constables caught the body of the victim and one
of them, namely Shivram, pulled the left ear of the victim as a result of
which, the victim fell down with serious bleeding injury. On enquiry by Circle
Officer, Sadar, three Police Constables namely Vindresh Yadav, Ram Sagar Yadav
and Shivram Bharti were found guilty and were suspended. As per report
received in the matter, an FIR No. 181/2013 u/s 326/504/506 IPC and 3 (1) (x)
of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
was registered at PS Ahiroli against the then SO and three Police Constables on
the complaint of one Ram Janam, s/o Ram Laut. During investigation, the
allegations against SI Neeraj Rai, constable Ram Sagar and Vindresh Yadav were
found false. During investigation, it was revealed that the Constable
Shivram Bharti had no intention to cause grievous injury to the victim, as such
the crime was converted to Section 335 IPC. The offences u/s 326/504/506 IPC
and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act were not made out against the constable Shivram
Bharti as he belonged to the SC community. A charge sheet u/s 335 IPC only was
filed by the IO against Constable Shivram Bharti alone. The Commission found
the report highly unsatisfactory. The copies of medical report of the victim,
copy of FIR, statements of victim and eye witnesses had not been enclosed. If
there was grievous hurt caused to the victim by the accused, how could it be
inferred that the accused had an intention to cause only simple hurt. It
appears that the enquiry officer has only tried to save the police officials,
the then SO and 2 other police constables from the legal consequences of the
atrocity committed by them on a helpless old man. The matter needed an
independent and fair enquiry. The Commission directed the DGP, Uttar Pradesh to
get fresh investigation conducted into the offence through a Senior Gazetted
Police Officer of CB/CID posted at the Hqrs. As per report received in the
matter, on investigation of FIR No. 181/2013 u/s 326/504/506 IPC and Section 3
(1) (x) the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act of PS Ahiroli, the named accused SO Neeraj Kumar Rai, Constable
Ram Sagar Yadav and Constable Virendra Yadav were not found involved in the
incident, so, the above offences were converted into Section 335 IPC only.
After investigation, Constable Shivram Bharti alone was found guilty and a
charge sheet u/s 335 IPC was filed against him in the Court. During
investigation, the alleged victim Ram Laut and his son Ram Janam told a
different story that the victim sustained injury on his ear due to fall from
his bicycle to the ground, but, the two constables who claimed themselves to be
eye witnesses of the incident stated to the IO that Constable Shivram Bharti
had caused grievous injury on the ear of the victim. The doctor who examined
the injury on left ear of Ram Laut found the injury to be grievous in nature as
the left ear was amputated. The doctor clearly opined during investigation that
the said injury could not be caused by fall of the victim on ground. The IO,
even after concluding that it was Constable Shivram Bharti who had caused
injury to Ram Laut filed a charge sheet against him u/s 335 IPC instead of
Section 325 IPC. The Commission considered the above report and observed that
Section 335 IPC was inapplicable to the facts of the case as, prima facie,
there was no allegation/evidence of grave and sudden provocation caused by the
injured to the constable Shivram Bharti. Thus, the IO clearly failed to invoke
the serious offence of Section 325 IPC, which was prima facie made out
against the accused Constable Shivram Bharti. The CO and SP also failed to
apply their mind to the facts collected during investigation. The SP, Ambedkar
Nagar, UP was, therefore, directed to examine the report of investigation and
to ensure that a supplementary charge sheet under appropriate section of law is
submitted against the accused constable to the Court. He should also report if
any monetary relief/compensation has been paid to the victim Ram Laut and
whether his free medical treatment for the grievous injury suffered by him was
arranged by the Administration. The report of investigation clearly showed that
one police Constable of PS Ahiroli District of Ambedkar Nagar violated the
human rights to life of the victim Ram Laut at the Police Station while posted
on duty. The State Government is, therefore, prima facie liable to
compensate the victim for the violation of human rights to life of a citizen
committed by its employee. The Commission issued a notice to the State
Government of Uttar Pradesh, through its Chief Secretary, to show cause as to
why the Commission may not recommend u/s 18 of PHR Act, 1993 payment of ` 1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh only) as monetary compensation to the victim Ram Laut.
Compliance report and proof of payment is awaited.
Latest
direction in above cases:
These proceedings shall be read in
continuation of the earlier proceedings of the Commission dated 19.4.2016.
The Commission vide proceedings dated 13.10.2014
directed the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh to submit compliance
of payment of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the victim Ram Laut. The matter
relates to alleged beating of a senior citizen, namely, Ram Laut in District
Ambedkar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh by three police constables of P.S. Ahiroli.
In response, the Superintendent of Police, District
Ambedkar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh vide communication dated 8.9.2016 has submitted
the compliance report. Perusal of the same reveals that an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- as recommended by the Commission has been paid to Smt. Ganga Devi
wife of the deceased Ram Laut vide cheque No.330262 dated 2.9.2016. Proof of
payment has also been annexed.
The Commission has considered the matter. The
criminal case registered against the delinquent police personnel is pending
adjudication before the court. An amount of interim relief of Rs.1,00,000/- as
recommended by the Commission has been paid to the wife of the deceased. The
Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh and the Director General of
Police, Uttar Pradesh shall ensure that appropriate departmental action is
taken against all the delinquent police personnel. With these directions, the reports
received from the State Authorities are taken on record and the case is
closed.
Let a copy of these proceedings also be transmitted
to the Deputy Director (M&C), NHRC and to the beneficiary for
information.
No comments:
Post a Comment