making statutory institutions vibrant, responsive …...making statutory institutions vibrant,...
Post on 07-Feb-2020
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Study of Institutional Structures for Safeguarding Socio-Economic Interests and Rights of Minorities
Making Statutory Institutions Vibrant, Responsive and Accountable
Synthesised National Report on Status of State Commissions for Minorities
Making Statutory Institutions Vibrant,Responsive and Accountable
1Introduction
Study of Institutional Structures for Safeguarding
Socio-Economic Interests and Rights of Minorities
Synthesised National Report on Status of State Commissions for Minorities
2 Introduction
PACS publication series:Study on Statutory Commissions for Socially Excluded Groups
Year of conducting study: 2013Year of publication: February 2014; Second Edition Publication: May 2015
The content produced in the study is a joint initiative of Poorest Areas Civil Society (PACS) Programme and Society for Participatory Research In Asia (PRIA).
Contact info@pacsindia.org for re-printing and references.The report can also be downloaded from www.pacsindia.org
Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorised without prior written permission provided the source is fully acknowledged.
Editorial Team: Priyanka Sarkar, Nini Mehrotra Lali, Priyanka Dale - PACS
Disclaimer: Views and opinions expressed in this document do not necessarily represent the official policies of PACS.
Preface 5
Acknowledgements 7
Abbreviations 8
Profile of Minorities in India 10
Rights of Minorities in India 11
National Ministry of Minority Affairs 12
Union Government’s Initiatives and Approaches in 12th Five Year Plan 13
National Commission for Minorities 13
State Commissions for Minorities 13
Study Design and Methods 15
Schematic Representation of Study Design 16
Mandates of Minority Commissions 17
Institutional Design 17
Institutional Effectiveness 19
References 31
About the Study 33
Annexure 35
Chapter 1: Background 9
Chapter 2: Study on Status and Functioning of Minority Commissions 15
Chapter 3: Analysis of Data and Findings 17
Chapter 4: Emerging Issues 25
Recommendations 29
Contents
Contents 3
Synthesised National Report on Status of State Commissions for Minorities4
Preface
Preface
Socially excluded groups experience greater challenges in moving out of poverty. Being
systematically pushed to margins, their life experiences are marked with experiences of inequality;
whether in accessing rights, entitlements or opportunities. This inequality manifests in contrasting
figures of differential access to entitlements and even in access to constitutional rights. It is in the
context of this chasm that Poorest Areas Civil Society (PACS) programme's interventions are
positioned. Focusing on Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Muslims, Women and Persons with
Disabilities, the programme works to assist the groups to claim their rights and entitlements while
addressing issues of differential access. For PACS, strengthening demand as well as the supply side of
the governance processes is strategically critical to ensure inclusive policies, programmes, and
responsive institutions. Promoting social justice hence gets inevitably linked with making institutions
for the socially excluded as well of the socially excluded vibrant, effective and accountable.
Recognising the tremendous historical barriers and discrimination that the socially excluded groups
have faced and continue to face, the Constitution of India has various provisions and instruments for
safeguarding their rights and addressing their development needs. For putting an end to all visible
and invisible forms of discrimination however, it is crucial that all such protective and developmental
measures are implemented and are continuously responding to the requirements of the people they
are mandated to address. This is where the role of Statutory Institutions gains centrality.
Having the constitutional mandate, the Statutory Institutions are to perform the important role of
overall safeguarding interests and rights of socially excluded, of being the supervisory body
with the primary responsibility of monitoring the entire gamut of protective, compensatory and
developmental measures and mechanisms. It is in this context that the study of the Statutory
Institutions* was undertaken by PACS in collaboration with the Society for Participatory Research in
Asia (PRIA) across PACS programme focused states; viz. Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya
Pradesh, Odisha, Uttar Pradesh & West Bengal.
The national level reports synthesise the findings and the experiences of the State level studies vis-à-
vis each commission. The study has been conducted by using participatory tools and has generated
important information through interviews with various stakeholders, focus group discussions with
community members, and multi-stakeholder state level workshops in each state. People across the
states and stakes expect concrete initiatives for strengthening of these commissions.
The underlying directional idea of this action research study has been to create a critical and
collaborative space for various stakeholders to engage with. Developing this pathway of engagement,
the study (I) brings to fore interesting and important analysis on issues of legislative mandate,
structure, composition, modes of functions of the Statutory Institutions (ii) assesses awareness levels
and practical experience of community members and (iii) puts together a set of recommendations
for advocacy and dissemination based upon the findings.
*State Commissions for Women, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Minorities and Persons with Disabilities
5
The study draws attention to the fecundity of the various commissions and at the same time also to
the areas which need inputs for them to play their role more effectively.
There is a real and an urgent need to strengthen the presence and engagement of the commissions
and to address issues of access and visibility. There is an equally pressing need for the civil society,
the activists, the campaigns and the Statutory Institutions to work together for promoting the rights
of socially excluded communities.
We hope that the study is able to generate useful debates and discussions towards making Statutory
Institutions vibrant, responsive and accountable.
In solidarity,
Rajan Khosla Dr. Rajesh TandonDirector PresidentPACS PRIA
Synthesised National Report on Status of State Commissions for Minorities6
The study team would like to thank the office bearers of all the State Commissions, of the
Nodal Departments of the State Governments, members of the Urban Local Bodies and of the
Panchayati Raj Institutions who took time out, provided the study team the information they
needed as well as their insights and valuable suggestions in this process of exploring ways of
strengthening the statutory institutions. This study could not have proceeded without their
support.
This study would also not have been completed without the support of the civil society
organisations and individuals who are working very closely with community people, at the
grassroots . We would especially like to thank Vikas Vihar,
Chhapra (Bihar), Development Education & Environmental Programme (DEEP), Patna (Bihar),
Dalit Vikas Abhiyan Samiti (DVAS), Patna (Bihar), Nav Manas Kalyan Kendra, Bihar Sharif (Bihar),
Disha Samaj Sevi Sanstha, Kanker (Chhattisgarh), Shikhar Yuva Manch, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh),
Badlao Foundation, Jamtara (Jharkhand), Vedic Society, Latehar (Jharkhand), Samarthan – Centre
for Development Support, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh), Sangini Gender Resource Centre, Bhopal
(Madhya Pradesh), Adivasi Sanrachna Sewa Sansthan, Betul (Madhya Pradesh), Mansi – Centre for
Human Development Research & Initiative, Panna (Madhya Pradesh), Institute of Social Sciences,
Bhubaneswar (Odisha), Centre for World Solidarity, Bhubaneswar (Odisha), Women Organisation
for Socio Cultural Awareness (WOSCA) Keonjhar (Odisha), Ekta Parishad Trust, Kalahandi
(Odisha), Tarun Chetna, Pratapgarh (Uttar Pradesh), PACE, Pratapgarh (Uttar Pradesh), Gramin
Vikas Sansthan (Uttar Pradesh), Child in Need Institute (CINI), South 24 Parganas (West
Bengal), Nari-O-Shishu Kalyan Kendra, Howrah (West Bengal) for their contributions and time.
We would also like to thank Rekha Panigrahi, L.S Hardenia, Upasna Behar, Adv. Milind Wankhede
and Mr. Jeet Parmar for their support study in its various phases.
We also wish to acknowledge the persistent work that has been put in by the PRIA team
under Dr. Alok Pandey who anchored the study on behalf of PRIA. A special thanks to Dr.
Rajesh Tandon, Dr. Martha Farrell, Dr Namrata Jaitely and Mr. Majoj Rai who have drafted these
reports.
Last, but definitely not the least, our heartfelt thanks to all the community people who not only
gave us time but also shared their experiences and personal information with us; and to whom
we would like to dedicate this report with a hope of being able to translate it into real actions
for them.
Hoping these reports part a significant strategy towards empowering the marginalised
community.
In solidarity
Priyanka Dale
Programme Manager, PACS
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements 7
CLM Commissioner for Linguistic Minorities
CWC Central Waqf Council
ERs Elected Representatives
GO Government Order
MAEF Maulana Azad Education Foundation
MCDs Minority Concentration Districts
MsDP Multi-sectoral Development Programme
MP Madhya Pradesh
NCM National Commission for Minorities
NMDFC National Minorities Development and Finance Corporation
OBC Other Backward Communities
PwDs Persons with Disabilities
SCMs State Commissions for Minorities
SCs Schedule Castes
STs Schedule Tribes
ToRs Terms of References
UP Uttar Pradesh
WB West Bengal
Abbreviations
8 Synthesised National Report on Status of State Commissions for Minorities
Introduction
Cha
pter
1
Minority Commissions in India
1Government of India’s response in Rajya Sabha http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-08-13/india/41372208_1_minorities-act-constitution-religious-minorities2Madhya Pradesh Act 1996, Section 2(c); Delhi Act 1999, Section 2(g); Section 2(d).3Report of the National Commission for Religious and Linguistic Minorities (Justice Rangnath Mishra Commission), 2007, Ministry of Minority Affairs, Government of India
In common language, “minority” means a group
comprising less than half of the population. This
group may differ from other groups especially
from the majority section, in race, religion,
traditions, culture, language and practices. The
Oxford Dictionary defines the term as “a smaller
number or part/ a number or part representing
less than half of the whole/ a relatively small
group of people, differing from others in race,
religion, language or political persuasion”. The
Subcommittee on the Protection of Minority
Rights appointed by the United Nations Human
Rights Commission in 1946 defined the ‘minority’
as those “non-dominant groups in a population
which possess a wish to reserve table ethnic,
religious and linguistic traditions or characteristics
markedly different from those of the rest of the
population.”
In India, the term ‘minority’ has been defined in
different ways in different contexts. The terms
‘minority’ and ‘minority-rights’ have always been
politically debated. The Constitution of India does
not define the term . However, it uses the word
‘minority’ or its plural form in Articles 29 to 30 1and 350A to 350B . While Article 29 of the
Constitution refers to any section of citizens
having a distinct language, script and culture;
Article 30 speaks about two categories of
minorities - religious and linguistic. Article 350
relates to linguistic minorities. The National
Commission for Minorities Act, 1992 says that
“Minority for the purpose of the Act, means a
“community notified as such by the Central
Government”- Section 2(7). Acting under this
provision on 23rd October 1993, the Central
Government notified the Muslim, Christian, Sikh,
Buddhist and Parsi (Zoroastrian) communities to
be regarded as religious ‘minorities’ for the
purpose of this Act.
Act,
1992, most of the states in the country enacted
their respective State Minority Commission Act to
open ways for the constitution of statutory
minority commission in the state. The State
Minorities Commission Acts usually empower the
State Governments to notify the minorities. For
instance, Bihar Minorities Commission Act 1991,
Section 2(c); Karnataka Minorities Commission Act
1994, Section 2(d); Uttar Pradesh Minorities
Commission Act 1994, Section 2(d); West Bengal
Minorities Commission Act 1996, Section 2(c);
Andhra Pradesh Minorities Commission Act 1998,
Section 2(d). Similar acts of Madhya Pradesh
(1996) and Delhi (1999) however, say that
government’s notification issued under the
National Commission for Minorities Act 1992 will 2apply in this regard . In several states e.g.
Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh,
Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand, Jains
have been recognised as a minority as well. The
Jain community approached the Supreme Court
seeking a direction for the Central Government
for a similar recognition at the national level and
their demand was supported by the National
Commission for Minorities. But the Supreme
Court did not issue the desired directive, leaving
it to the Central Government to decide the issue
(Bal Patil Case, 2005). In a later ruling however,
another bench of the Supreme Court upheld the
Uttar Pradesh law recognising Jains as a minority 3(Bal Vidya Case, 2006) .
Post National Commission for Minorities
9
community and a Cabinet Note in this regard had
been circulated to various Ministries/Departments
for their comments/views for notifying Jains as a
minority community under Section 2(c) of the
National Commission of Minorities Act, 1992. 4Pending the outcome of the court cases.
Information on religion was duly collected in
Column 7 of the Census 2011 Household
Schedule. But Census 2011 has yet not released
analysis of its data on minority population in India.
However, Table 1.1 below shows population by
the religion as found in 2001 Census.
Profile of Minorities in India
The issue of notification of Jains as a minority
community under section 2(c) is based on various
representations of Jain organisations, individuals,
RTI applications and also even through some VIPs.
There have been a number of petitions filed in
various courts seeking a mandamus to declare
Jains as a minority community. As per the
Supreme Court judgments, identification of a
minority community has to be done state-wise
and not for the entire country. The state-wise
declaration of minorities may have implications for
existing notification of minorities under Section
2(c) NCM Act. The Government of India has
considered the above demand of the Jain
Table 1.1: Distribution of Population by Religion & Literacy Rates
Literacy Rates
All religious communities % Total
(Number 1,028,610,328) 100.0 75.3 53.7 64.8
Hindus 80.5 76.2 53.2 65.1
Muslims 13.4 67.6 50.1 59.1
Christians 2.3 84.4 76.2 80.3
Sikhs 1.9 75.2 63.1 69.4
Buddhists 0.8 83.1 61.7 72.7
Jains 0.4 97.4 90.6 94.1
Others (including Parsis) 0.6 60.8 33.2 47.0
Source: Census of India 2001
RE
LI
GI
ON
As per the Census Report 2001, the literacy rates
among religious minorities are as given in Table
1.1. According to the data, literacy rates for
Muslim minorities are at a far below as compared
to other religious minorities.
Data on higher education suggests a similar trend. 5
Sachar Committee Report as well as independent
analysis of census and other data reveals that the
literacy rate among Muslims (59.1%) in 2001 was
far below the national average (65.1%) and other
SRCs (70.8%). The state level estimates suggest
that the literacy gap between Muslims and the
general community average is greater in urban
areas and for women. Owing to their socio-
economic backward conditions, Muslims have not
been able to respond to the challenges of
improving their educational status, whereas other
communities like Schedule Castes (SCs) and
Schedule Tribes (STs) have been able to reap the
benefit in the field of education with active
support from the Government. The increase in
enrolment in schools has been highest among SCs
and STs (95%) followed by Muslims (65%).
10 Synthesised National Report on Status of State Commissions for Minorities
5Rajinder Sachar Committee Report (2006). The Committee was appointed in 2005 by the Prime Minister of India, to prepare report and recommendations on socio-economic and educational conditions of Indian Muslims
4http://www.minorityaffairs.gov.in//sites/upload_files/moma/files/factfile_14.11.2013.pdf
As many as 25% of the Muslim children in the 6-
14 year age group have never attended school.
For those who have, dropout rate is amongst the
highest in the country. School education
attainment levels of Muslims are close to SCs/STs
and it is much lower than those of other SRCs.
The attainment levels of Muslims in rural areas
are lower than those of SCs and STs. Similarly,
the health status of the Muslim community,
especially women, is directly linked to poverty and
the absence of basic services like clean drinking
water and sanitation. This leads to malnutrition,
anaemia, and a variety of diseases resulting in
poor life expectancy. In terms of employment, in
no state does the representation of Muslims in
the government departments match their
population share. The incidence of poverty among
Muslims in urban areas is as high as 38.4%
followed closely by 36.4% for SCs/STs.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948
and its two International Covenants of 1966
Rights of Minorities in India
declare that “all human beings are equal in dignity
and rights” and prohibit all kinds of discrimination.
The UN Declaration against All Forms of
Religious Discrimination and Intolerance 1981
outlaws all kinds of religion-based discrimination.
The UN Declaration on the Rights of Minorities
1992 enjoins the states to protect the existence
and identity of minorities within their respective
territories and encourage conditions for
promotion of that identity; ensure that persons
belonging to minorities fully and effectively
exercise human rights and fundamental freedoms
with full equality and without any discrimination;
create favourable conditions to enable minorities
to express their characteristics and develop their
culture, language, religion, traditions and customs
and plan and implement national policy and
programmes with due regard to the legitimate
interests of minorities.
India has no state / official religion. In tandem
with its secular stance, there are constitutional
provisions that protect religious liberty. Article 25
CO
MM
UN
IT
Y
Table 1.2: Educational Levels among different Communities
Upto Middle Secondary Senior Diploma Graduation Unclassified
Primary Secondary
Level
All Religion 55.57 16.09 14.13 6.74 0.72 6.72 0.02
Hindus 54.91 16.18 14.25 6.92 0.71 7.01 0.01
Muslims 65.31 15.14 10.96 4.53 0.41 3.6 0.05
Christians 45.79 17.13 17.48 8.7 2.19 8.71 0.01
Sikhs 46.70 16.93 20.94 7.57 0.90 6.94 0.02
Buddhists 54.69 17.52 14.09 7.65 0.35 5.7 0.01
Jains 29.51 12.27 21.87 13.84 1.03 21.47 0.01
Others 62.12 17.48 11.24 4.55 0.26 4.35 0.01
Source: Census 2001
Minority Commissions in India 11
gives all religious communities the right to
‘profess, propagate and practice’ their religion. It is
pertinent to note that the right to propagate
one’s religion was included in deference to the
concerns of the minority communities, particularly
Muslims and Christians, who maintained that
preaching and propagating their faith was an
essential part of their religion. While most
societies grant individuals the right to religious
belief, in India, communities enjoy the right to
continue with their distinct religious practices.
Perhaps, the most significant part of this is that in
all matters of family, individuals are governed by 6their community personal law . Religious
communities also have the right to set up their
own religious and charitable institutions; they can
establish their own educational institutions, and,
above all, these institutions can receive financial
support from the state. Taken together, these are
ways by which public recognition has been
granted to different religious communities and
space made for them to continue with their way
of life.
Article 30 of the Constitution provides that all
minorities, whether based on religion or language,
shall have the right to establish and administer
educational institutions of their choice. The
Constitution thus envisages that minorities can be
based on religion or language. In India, Articles 15
and 16 of the Constitution prohibit the State
from discriminating on the grounds of religion,
race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence
or any of them either generally i.e. every kind of
state action in relation to citizens (Article 15) or
in matters relating to employment or appointment
to any office under the state (Article 16).
However, the provisions of these two articles do
take adequate cognisance of the fact that there
had been a wide disparity in the social and
educational status of different sections of a largely
caste-based, tradition bound society with large-
scale poverty and illiteracy. Therefore the
Constitution permits positive discrimination in
favour of the disadvantaged and the backward.
This is also in agreement with the chapter of the
Constitution relating to Directive Principles of
State Policy.
Article 46 mandates the state to “promote with
special care the educational and economic
interests of the weaker sections of the people
and protect them from social injustice and all
forms of exploitation.” This Article refers to
SCs/STs in particular but does not restrict to
them the scope of “weaker sections of the
society”. Article 15 was amended by the 93rd
Amendment Act 2005 to empower the state to
make special provisions, by law, for admission of
socially and educationally backward classes of
citizens.
The Ministry of Minority Affairs was created on
29th January 2006 to ensure a focused approach
towards issues relating to the minorities and to
facilitate the formulation of overall policy, planning,
coordination, evaluation and review of the
regulatory framework and development
programmes for the benefit of the minority
communities. The Ministry aims for inclusive
development of notified minorities namely
Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and Parsis
under National Commission of Minorities Act
1992, who constitute about 18.42% of the total
population of India as per 2001 Census. Similarly
many other states have created special ministry or
department for minority affairs. The objectives of
National Ministry of Minority Affairs are:
(i) educational empowerment of minority
communities; (ii) minority area development;
(iii) institutional strengthening and (iv) socio-
economic empowerment. The Ministry is also
responsible for six constitutional /statutory
/autonomous bodies namely (i) Commissioner for
Linguistic Minorities (CLM) (ii) National
Commission for Minorities (NCM) (iii) Central
WAQF Council (CWC); (iv) National Minorities
Development & Finance Corporation (NMDFC);
(v) Maulana Azad Education Foundation (MAEF)
and (vi) Durgah Khawaja Saheb, Ajmer. It also acts
as nodal ministry for implementation of the i)
Durgah Khawaja Saheb Act, 955 (ii) National
Commission for Minorities Act, 1992 and (iii)
WAQF Act, 2010. Among six
statutory/autonomous bodies mentioned above,
National Commission of Minorities is perhaps the
only institution dealing with all inclusive well-being
of all notified religious minorities.
National Ministry of Minority Affairs
6http://www.idea.int/publications/dchs/upload/dchs_vol2_sec3_4.pdf
12 Synthesised National Report on Status of State Commissions for Minorities
Union Government’s Initiatives and th
Approaches in 12 Five Year Plan
To facilitate an equitable opportunities for
minority communities in education, employment,
economic activities and to ensure their upliftment,
Prime Minister’s New 15-Point Programme for the
Welfare of Minorities was announced in June,
2006. It provides programme specific interventions
with definite goals which are to be achieved in a
time bound manner. The objectives of the
programme are: (a) enhancing opportunities for
education; (b) ensuring an equitable share for
minorities in economic activities and employment
through existing and new schemes (c) enhanced
credit support for self-eployment and recruitment
to State and Central Government jobs
(d) improving their living conditions by ensuring
their participation in infrastructure development
schemes and (e) prevention and control of
communal disharmony and violence.
Beside various education programmes and welfare
schemes, Government of India has also launched
the Multi-sectoral Development Programme
(MsDP) in 2008-09. The programme aims at
improving the quality of life of the people and
reducing imbalances in the minority concentration
districts (MCDs). Identified ‘development deficits’
are addressed through a district specific plan for
provisioning of better infrastructure towards
primary and secondary education, sanitation, pucca
housing, drinking water and electricity supply,
besides beneficiary oriented schemes for creating
income generating activities. Absolutely critical
infrastructure linkages like connecting roads, basic
health infrastructure, ICDS centres, skill
development and marketing facilities required for
improving living conditions and income generating
activities and catalysing the growth process are
possible provision as options for inclusion in the
plan. The Ministry of Minority Affairs also provides
scholarships. These include: (a)pre-matric
scholarship scheme (b) post-matric scholarship
scheme (c) merit-cum-means scholarship scheme
(d) the Maulana Azad National Fellowship (MANF)
(e) the free coaching and allied scheme (f)
leadership development of minority women
scheme (g) grant in aid scheme to State
Channelizing Agencies of National Minorities
Development & Finance Corporation.
Planning Commission has made an allocation of
Rs. 17,323 crore for the 12th Five Year Plan
(2012-17) against Rs. 7,000 crore for the 11th
Five Year Plan (2007-12) to the Ministry of
Minority Affairs.
The setting up of Minorities Commission was
envisaged in the Ministry of Home Affairs
Resolution dated 12 January1978 which specifically
mentioned that, despite the safeguards provided in
the Constitution and the laws in force, there
persists among the minorities a feeling of
inequality and discrimination. In order to preserve
secular traditions and to promote national
integration the Government of India attaches
highest importance to the enforcement of the
safeguards provided for the minorities and is of
the firm view that effective institutional
arrangements are urgently required for the
enforcement and implementation of all the
safeguards provided for the minorities in the
Constitution, in the Central and State Laws and in
the government policies and administrative
schemes enunciated from time to time. In 1984
the Minorities Commission was detached from
Ministry of Home Affairs and placed under the
newly created Ministry of Welfare. With the
enactment of the National Commission for
Minorities Act, 1992, the Minorities Commission
became a statutory body and was renamed as
National Commission for Minorities (NCM). The
first Statutory National Commission was set up 7on 17th May 1993.
Following the constitution of NCM at union level,
states of Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar,
Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Jharkhand, Karnataka,
Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Manipur, Rajasthan,
Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh and West
Bengal have also set up State Minorities
Commissions in their respective States after
bringing in ‘conformity’ State Acts and/or Orders
for creation of State Commissions for Minorities
National Commission for Minorities
State Commissions for Minorities
Minority Commissions in India
7http://www.ncm.nic.in/Genesis-of-NCM.html
13
(SCMs). Their offices are located in the State
capitals. The functions of these Commissions,
inter-alia, are to safeguard and protect the
interests of minorities provided in the
Constitution and laws enacted by Parliament and
the State Legislatures.
Aggrieved persons belonging to the minority
communities may approach the concerned State
Minorities Commissions for redressal of their
grievances. They may also send their
representations to the National Commission for
Minorities as a final step. List of the state
minority commissions is provided in Annexure 1.
14 Synthesised National Report on Status of State Commissions for Minorities
Cha
pter
2C
hapt
er 2 Status and Functioning of
Minority Commissions
In order to understand the status of
constitution, composition and functioning of
SCMs state specific studies were undertaken as
part of a larger study on functioning of Statutory
Commissions mandated for the socially excluded
groups (viz. the Commission for Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribe, Women, Minorities and Persons
with Disabilities (PwDs)).
This study began in January 2013 as a joint
initiative of PRIA and PACS with the following
specific objectives:
To understand the legislative mandate,
structure, composition, modes of
functioning of these Commissions in 7
selected states of Bihar, Chhattisgarh,
Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Uttar 8Pradesh and West Bengal.
To assess the awareness levels and
peoples’ experiences with the State
Commissions for Minorities in each of the
seven states.
To arrive at a set of recommendations for
advocacy and dissemination efforts to
make the institutions ‘vibrant, responsive
and accountable’.
Following outcomes were envisaged at the end of
this participatory study:
Sensitisation of officials in the selected
institutions about the constraints
experienced by petitioners from
marginalised and excluded communities.
Identification of important issues/action
points for reforming these institutions
through advocacy initiatives.
Awareness and sensitisation of community
leaders from marginalised and excluded
l
l
l
l
l
l
communities about the mandates of these
institutions in safeguarding their socio-
economic rights.
Catalysing awareness and engagements of
civil society actors,
Wider dissemination of findings and
advocacy agenda for reforming these
institutions.
l
l
Study Design and Methods
l
The first phase of study generated data on
review of the statutory and legislative
mandates of each institution including their
official terms of references (ToRs), actual
constitution, composition, structure and support
system, general functioning, and process of
appointments of commissioners and officials for
the SCMs in all seven states, namely, Bihar,
Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh,
Odisha, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. After
analysis of findings of the preliminary data on
SCMs and initial discussions with officer-bearers
and/or associated actors of these Commissions,
State Commissions for Minorities in states of
Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal were
selected for the study. Demographic, socio-
economic and political indicators for the
minority populations in these states were also
taken into account.
From each of the selected three states,
two districts with larger minority populations
were selected at random to generate
primary data on different components of the
study on the SCMs, using following data collection
methods:
Focused Group Discussions (FGDs):
Eight FGDs (two each in rural and urban
8PACS focus states
Status and Functioning of Minority Commissions 15
locations in each district separately for
men and women) were organised with
members of minority communities to
assess the level of awareness, accessibility,
approach and effectiveness of the State
Minority Commissions
In-depth interviews of the community
members local functionaries, NGO
workers, local leaders and others (60 in
each district) were conducted to gain
further information on various aspects of
l
the functioning of SCMs.
Tracking of cases: Attempts were made
to track ten cases (from any district in the
state) handled by the SCM within the last
two years. These cases were tracked in
order to understand the actual procedures
and time taken after a complaint is
registered with the State Commission.
The district-wise details of FGDs, interviews and
tracked cases are given Table 2.1 below.
l
Table 2.1: Detail of FGDs Interviewed and Tracked Cases (District wise)
State Districts FDGs No. of No. of cases
Number Participants Interviews tracked
Bihar Saran, Nalanda 8 103 60 8
Uttar Pradesh Mau, Pratapgarh 7 70 50 4
West Bengal Murshidabad, 8 70 60 0
South 24 Pargana
STAGE 1: Study of State Minority
Commissions in 7 selected states
State 1: Bihar
State 2: Chhattisgarh State 3: Jharkhand
State 4: Madhya Pradesh State 5: Odisha
State 6: Uttar Pradesh
State 7: West Bengal
Preliminary study reports on
status of State Minority
Commissions in 7 selected states
Draft analysis of findings
on 3 State Commissions
for Minorities
STAGE 4: Finalising in-depth
analytical reports
Final in-depth reports on State
Commissions for minorities in Bihar,
Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal
Schematic Representation of Study Design
STAGE 3: Consultations with key stakeholders
• Technical experts to review findings
• One-to-one discussions with key stakeholders
STAGE 2: In-depth survey of State Minority
Commissions in 3 states with the following methods:
Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal
Draft analysis of findings on 3 State
Commissions for Minorities
A: FGDs
4 FGDs (convenience sample of 7-10 members)
per district (separately for rural and urban areas;
and men and women) in 2 districts
B: Tracking cases of petitioners
Maximum 10 cases per state
Total number of cases - 30
Synthesised National Report on Status of State Commissions for Minorities16
The following findings are based on data
available on functioning of State Commissions
for Minorities in seven states, data generated
through FGDs and interviews in state of Bihar,
Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal and secondary
data available on related aspects.
The NCM subscribes to the UN Declaration of
18 December 1992 which states that “States shall
protect the existence of the National or Ethnic,
Cultural, Religious and Linguistic identity of
minorities within their respective territories and
encourage conditions for the promotion of that
identity.” As per Section 9(1) of the NCM Act,
1992, the NCM is required to perform nine
categories of functions, as described in the Table
3.1. Most of the states which created NCMs have
more or less followed the same institutional
design.
Among the seven states studied at primary levels,
as shown in Table 3.2a, states of Odisha and Uttar
Pradesh have not constituted their commissions
for minorities. In remaining 5 states, the
commissions have been constituted and are
functioning. In Uttar Pradesh, at the time of study,
the minority commission was not constituted
despite Allahabad High Court directive to
constitute the current commission by 10th
November 2013.
Beside the similarities in functional domain of
national and state commissions, there are also
some significant variations in the mandates, as
could be seen in Table 3.1. While NCM has been
mandated to systemically study the causal factors
behind prevailing discriminations against minorities
Mandates of Minority Commissions
and suggest to the Central Government, measures
required to remove those causes, State
Commission in Bihar and UP have no such
mandate as such. This may restrict the functional
effectiveness of these two SCMs as they could
not take initiatives to go deep into the problems
of discrimination and/or atrocities against
minorities.
Institutional Design
To facilitate the proper functioning of the NCM,
the Commission have also been provided powers
for (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance
of any person from any part of India and
examining him/her on oath (b) requiring the
discovery and production of any document (c)
receiving evidence on affidavit (d) requisitioning
any public record or copy thereof from any court
or office and (e) issuing commissions for the
examination of witnesses and documents. Similarly
institutional designs of the state commissions have
been facilitated by the State Governments by
providing certain powers and functional supports.
Table 3.2a provides an overview of current
compositions of the minority commissions at
national and state levels. The data has been
updated till 30th November 2013.
In terms of composition and terms of members
of the Commissions, Central and State
Governments seem to be following similar
patterns. Most of the states where commissions
have been constituted, positions of Chairpersons
and members remain vacant; as in the cases of
NCM and SCM in states of Jharkhand,
Chhattisgarh, and Madhya Pradesh. The state of
West Bengal has appointed two more members in
addition to nine proposed members. Interestingly
Cha
pter
2C
hapt
er 3
Analysis of Data and Findings
Analysis of Data and Findings 17
Bihar UP WB
Table 3.1: Comparisons of Mandated Functions of Commissions for Minorities
Evaluate the progress of the development of minorities
under the Union and States
Monitor the working of the safeguards provided in the
Constitution and in laws enacted by Parliament and the
State Legislatures
Make recommendations for the effective
implementation of safeguards for the protection of the
interests of minorities by the Central Government or
the State Governments
Look into specific complaints regarding deprivation of
rights and safeguards of the minorities and take up
such matters with the appropriate authorities
Cause studies to be undertaken into problems
arisingout of any discrimination against minorities and
recommend measures for their removal
Conduct studies, research and analysis on the issues
relating to socio-economic and educational
development of minorities
Suggest appropriate measures in respect of any
minority to be undertaken by the Central Government
or the State Governments
Make periodical or special reports to the Central
Government on any matter pertaining to minorities
and in particular the difficulties confronted by them
Any other matter which may be referred to it by the
Central Government
3 3 3
3 3 3
3 3 3
3 3 3
— — 3
3 3 3
3 3 3
3 3 3
3 3 3
— 3 —
most of these appointments have been political
appointments in nature. There are some visible
trends in appointment of the members and
Chairpersons of these commissions:
Most of Minority Commissions (except in
case of Chhattisgarh) are headed by
Chairperson from Muslim community
(majority among the minorities)
There is no fixed criteria/procedure for
selection and appointment of Chairperson,
Vice-chairperson and members.
l
l
In some of the State Commissions not all notified
minority communities have representation as
members of the Commission. No minority
commission (state or national) is lead by a
woman chairperson. This has happened despite
much debated double deprivations of and ever
rising atrocities against women of minority
communities. This should be seen in the context
of the reports of Rangnath Mishra Commission,
Sachar Committee, Planning Commission and most
recently National Advisory Council which have
pointed out exclusions of women and have
therefore advocated for the leadership of women
from minority communities.
18 Synthesised National Report on Status of State Commissions for Minorities
Analysis from detailed data available on the quality
of staffing showed that the number of staff
actually appointed to support the functioning of
the commissions (see table 3.2a) is grossly
inadequate.
Except Chhattisgarh, neither national nor other
State Commissions have as many staff as has been
proposed in government’s own order. Interestingly
‘defunct’ UP Minority Commission has all
sanctioned positions filled in. Among the staff
available with other commissions, most of them
are much junior in their hierarchy and exposure.
The National and SCM are statutory institutions
who should have full time senior officers capable
of coordinating with various agencies for effective
functioning of these commissions. But in most of
the Commissions, even positions of secretaries are
either lying vacant or occupied by a junior officer.
The interactions with staff reveal their de-
motivated condition and anxiety with regard to
the functioning of the minority commissions. The
details of annual reports and budget are
symptomatic of a compounded problems. As seen
from the table, budget details available on website
of the NCM raise many questions.
In case of SCM, there seem to be wide variation
among State Governments on resourcing their
commissions financially. The annual budget of Bihar
Minority Commission, for example, is Rs. 8,
59,400. As per Census 2001, the minority
population in Bihar was 1.72 lakhs. Since 2011
Census figures for minorities are still not available
in public domain, we could use 2001 census data
to calculate per minority person budget available
for comparison sakes. Accordingly the per capita
per year availability of budget with SCM-Bihar
comes out to be less than 5 paisa during 2013-14.
On the other hand with 2001 Census minority
figures as denominator, per capita per year budget
of SCM-Chhattisgarh was Rs. 6 in 2009-10.The
State Government of MP has also provided
relatively better financial supports to its SCMs to
make it financially capable for effective functioning.
In case of West Bengal, the financial support
available to its SCM is not at par with
expectations from the commission.
National and State Commissions regular annual
reports are not accessible; which reflects that they
do not regularly prepare, produce and disseminate
these documents at regular intervals (refer to
table 3.2b). Annual reports are the only key
documents that can provide information to people
about the progress and plan of activities of the
Commissions;’ in the absence of which SCMs as
well as NCM lose opportunity to make people
aware about their activities and intentions.
The Statutory Commissions for Minorities were
also expected to perform grievance redressal
functions. Sample FGDs with minority community
members and interviews with supposedly ‘better
informed’ panchayat members, municipal council
members, NGOs, local government officials and
other prominent citizens brought discouraging
findings. Details of findings on institutional
effectiveness are discussed below:
General Awareness
l In none of the selected districts (except
Pratapgarh district in UP) even 1% of the
FGD participants were aware about the
existence of the Commission. All the FGDs
were curtailed due to high level of
ignorance about the existence and
functioning of the Commission. The FGDs
were expected to bring forward people’s
own understanding, perception and
awareness levels; in the complete absence
of which the investigators decided to
proactively share first information about
the Commission with the community
invited for the FGDs. In Pratapgarh
relatively better awareness could be
attributed to the fact that one of the
members of SCM-UP was an active local
politician, who frequently organised public
camps on the platform of the State
Minority Commission, UP.
As depicted in Table 3.3a, about 55% of
respondents were aware about the existence of
the commission. Most of the respondents came to
know about the Commission more recently from
local NGOs, and one NGO-associated member of
the Bihar Minority Commission. In UP and Bihar,
31% and 22% of respondents respectively knew
about the existence of the Commission.
Institutional Effectiveness
Analysis of Data and Findings 19
Table 3.2a: Current Status of National Commission
Commissions National Bihar Jharkhand Chhattisgarh
for Minorities (NCM) Commission
Year of enactment 1992 1991 2001 1996
Year of 1978 (non- 1991 2001 2001
constitution of the statutory
first commission commission)
1993 (statutory
commission)
Year of 2011 2012 2013 2011
constitution
Current 1 Chairman, 1 1 Chairperson, 1 Chairperson, 1 Chairperson
Commission Vice-Chairman & 2 Vice- 2 Vice- and 2 members.
Top Management 5 members. Chairpersons Chairpersons
Proposed Only the post of and 8 members. and maximum 1 Chairperson
In office the Vice-Chairman All top posts 8 members. and 1 member
is lying vacant. filled. 1 Chairperson
and 1 Vice-
Chairperson,
6 members.
Staffing 65 administrative 28 posts 16 posts 16 posts
Proposed posts are sanctioned. sanctioned. sanctioned.
In office sanctioned. 23 posts filled, 13 posts are
NA while 5 are filled while 3 All posts are
lying vacant are lying vacant filled.
Table 3.2b: Annual Reports and Annual Budget of the NCM and the SCMs
Commission for Minority Latest Annual Report in Budget as shown on
Public Domain Website and/or Reported
National 2011-12 Rs. 56,300 (2013-14) as per information
available on NCM website
Bihar 2010-11 Rs. 8.59 lakhs (2013 – 14)
Chhattisgarh 2009 - 10 Rs. 60.00 lakhs (2009 – 10)
Jharkhand 2006 - 07 Rs. 24.29 lakhs(2006-07)
Madhya Pradesh 2010 - 11 Rs. 91.63 lakhs (2009-10)
Odisha SMC not constituted
Uttar Pradesh Nil Not Available
West Bengal 2011-12 Rs. 19.54 Lakh (2011-12)
20 Synthesised National Report on Status of State Commissions for Minorities
for Minority and the SCMs in 7 states
Madhya Pradesh Odisha Uttar Pradesh West Bengal
1996 — 1994 1996
1982 (non- Commission is 1969 1996
statutory not formed.
commission)
1994 (statutory
commission)
2011 _ Non-existent 2012
1 Chairperson and _ 1 President, 1 1 Chairperson, 1
4 members. Chairperson and 6 Vice-Chairperson,
members. 9 members, and
1 Chairperson, 2 Commission is 2 ex-officio members.
members with the defunct and all
commission. positions vacant All posts are filled.
Additionally, 2 more
members were included in
the Commission from the
13th of March’ 2012.
20 posts are – 14 administrative 15 administrative
sanctioned. posts are sanctioned posts are sanctioned.
13 posts are filled All posts are filled 8 posts are filled,
while 7 are lying vacant
Sources of Information
Whatever little awareness about the SMC does
exist among people, it is because of some
particular local cases of atrocities which have
been or could have been taken up with the
Commission. Local NGOs and activists are biggest
source of information across the states followed
by local newspapers. The Commission’s own roles
(except recent efforts of a newly appointed
member of the Bihar Minority Commission) in
raising awareness levels amongst people have been
abysmal in all the three states.
Accessibility/Transparency of the Commissions
As discussed above, all three SCMs have had
limited outreach and people themselves too have
found it difficult to access these Commissions.
Out of all the respondents, only 5-7% had ever
accessed the Commission. Even their experiences
with the response of Commissions were not
encouraging. Most of the commissions are located
in ‘secured and inaccessible’ corridors of state
capital without any extension centre or camp
office at local levels.
Analysis of Data and Findings 21
22 Synthesised National Report on Status of State Commissions for Minorities
Table 3.3a: General Awareness about the State Commission for Minority
Awareness Level (%)
Bihar UP WB
Existence/Mandate 55 31 22
Location of Office 32 8 7
Nodal Department 8 6 1
Ever Accessed the SCM 7 7 5
Aware about Criteria for
Selection of Members 10 3 2
Criteria for Selection
Should be criteria 23 - -
If yes, minimum Graduate 86 98 48
Expertise on minority issue 14 - -
Parametersof Awareness
about the SCM
Table 3.3b: Indicators of Transparency of the Commission
S. No. Parameters of Transparency Awareness Level (%)
Bihar UP WB
1 Awareness about the Local Visits by the Commission 2 0 0
2 Knowledge about the Annual Report of the SMC 0 0 0
3 Knowledge about the Budget of the SMC 0 0 0
Instances of visits by the Commission members in
districts are few, which have often been limited to
meetings with ‘some invited’ people in venues like
circuit houses. Field interactions have revealed that
the environment in these meetings has been far
from congenial for them to express and share
their problems and challenges with the
Commission members. Data from Table 3.3b
shows a low level of awareness about the SCMs
and their programmes, which in turn implies a
lack of proactive disclosure about activities, budget
and progress on disposal of complaints by the
SCMs.
Responsiveness
Among those very few who have ever visited the
Commission to file complaints, in most cases, have
experienced a lack of support and initiative from
the officials. Although no suo–moto case was
tracked, it was observed that taking up of suo-
moto cases has been very rare with the State
Minority Commissions. The general perception
that emerged was that even these cases that were
taken up by the Commission, they were those
which were highlighted by the media or, were
either politically sensitive or there was pressure
exerted by the human rights activists or other
groups for ensuring justice to the victims.
Disposal of the Cases
Review of tracked cases in UP has brought to
light that in four out of eight instances, the
Commission took cognizance of the complaints
and made a formal communication to the highest
authority of the Agencies concerned, within 45
days of filing of the complaints. The longest period
recorded in receiving response from the
Commission was about 90 days. Whereas, in Bihar
the Commission has not been following any
standardized time frame as far as even an initial
response is concerned. Despite repeated requests
and public commitments (in state workshop) to
share information on cases by the Chairperson of
SCM-WB and also commitment by the Vice-
Chairperson, information about cases were not
made available. An analysis of the available cases
from states of UP, Bihar and West Bengal reveal
the following patterns in stages of disposal of a
case.
Usually a victim files complaints with the
Commission for redressal of his/her grievances or
violation of safeguards in respect to provisions of
the Constitution and various legislative measures.
Common reasons for filing a complaint are
discrimination in appointments to government
jobs, encroachment on religious lands/properties
or communal violence. In most of the cases an
ordinary complainant is unaware of all the
procedures and in more than 80% of such cases
the complaint is made through a facilitating agency,
typically an NGO. In cases where the complainant
approaches the Commission directly, it is both
through post and personal visit.
It may be mentioned here that most of the
complainants approach the SCM only after their
grievances have not been addressed by local
police station or local government functionaries.
Since SCM is seen as the last resort for
redressing the complaints, people do have a very
high level of expectation from the Commission
for timely resolution and justice. But in people’s
experiences the entire process is full of
uncertainties. Most of the complainants reported
that they were not aware of the status of
progress of their cases. In almost all the cases
tracked, it was found that the SCM had not been
regular in sending updates on the progress of the
cases, except initial acknowledgment in some
cases. None of the SCMs have any fixed time slot
and/or standard operating procedures for
redressal of the cases even if states like Bihar and
UP have frameworks like the Public Service
Guarantee Act.
Process of filing a complaint and way forward
Commission takes cognisance(i) but does not act
(ii) and acts by sending notice to authorities concerned
Complainant/victim
Asks district officials to investigate the case
Copy of order reachescomplainant
Investigation reportis submitted to the SCM
SCM takes decision and passes order and
disposes the case
SCM may call the parties concerned and discuss
SCM or through post:
Usually with the support from a
facilitating agency/NGO
Analysis of Data and Findings 23
All SCMs depend on local police and/ or civil
officials for assistance in discharge of their duties
and this has the potential of making the whole
process of enquiry unaccountable and independent
of time-limit. Since SCMs do not have functional
powers and authorities to exercise effective
control over local officials, the enquiries
conducted by them stand a firm chance of being
biased and hence questionable, as most of the
complainants approach the SCM only after they
fail to reach a resolution with the assistance and
guidance of the same officials. This aspect of the
Commission’s functioning also affects its credibility
and in most of the cases (more than 70% of
tracked cases) complainants were not satisfied
with the process and the end result.
Internal Capacity of the SCM
Like NCM, most of SCMs have quasi-judicial
powers for:
Summoning and enforcing the attendance
of any person from any part of the state
and examining him on oath
Requiring the discovery and production of
any document
Receiving evidence on affidavits
Requisitioning any public record or copy
thereof from any court or office
Issuing commissions for the examination of
witnesses and documents
Any other matter which may be
prescribed
But as seen from Table 3.2b, none of SCMs have
adequate and quality staffing. The Commissions are
understaffed and under- resourced. For everything,
the SCMs have to depend on nodal departments
and local government officials including police. As
l
l
l
l
l
l
most of members of the SCMs (and also of
NCM) are political appointees, they often lack
appropriate legal, administrative and/ or judicial
competence. As a result the Commission is not
capable of playing its quasi-judicial role
independently and in fair and timely manner.
Even if judgments are passed by the Commissions,
these decisions carry with them several infirmities
in the present situation. The complainant is not
given any opportunity to express his/her feedback
on the judgment to the Commission. There is no
mechanism within the Commission to enforce its
judgment and ensure that penalty is indeed meted
out to the offender/ perpetrator. There is no
follow-up mechanism to monitor whether the
grievance has indeed been redressed and offense
stopped following the implementation of the
judgment. It was found that more than 75% of the
complainants were not satisfied with the final
response of the Commissions. This was either due
to much delayed decision by the SCM or
satisfactory verdict or non-implementation of the
decision of the orders of the Commissions.
Reflections on the NCM
Though field data was not collected with
reference to functioning of the NCM, occasional
references of the NCM during conversations in
the field and workshops reveal similar patterns in
the functioning of the NCM. Secondary data
available from its website and also in some studies
and reports reinforce that general awareness
about the NCM is quite low. Transparency,
Responsiveness and Effectiveness of the
functioning of NCM is equally questionable. It
could be safely assumed that patterns emerging
from the data and other findings on the SCMs
also relate to the NCM in equally appropriate
ways.
24 Synthesised National Report on Status of State Commissions for Minorities
Cha
pter
2C
hapt
er 4
Emerging Issues
As has been discussed during preceding
sections of this report, minority commission
in states as well as National Commission for
Minorities are not known to people at large and
their functioning and so far has not been found
satisfactory by the people. The ever-rising
vulnerabilities of minority communities in different
parts of the country have also been highlighted by
the media and various study reports. These
Commissions and their responsibilities are more
relevant today than they were at the time of their
conceptualisation and actual creations. However,
there are some important issues related to the
constitution, composition and functioning of these
Commissions which need to be addressed sooner.
Some of them have been discussed below:
Ambiguity in Mandate: The NCM and most
of the SCMs are statutory bodies having
quasi-judicial powers expected to safeguard
rights of minorities and promote their socio-
economic development. However, SCMs of UP
and Bihar are not mandated to study the
causes behind violations of rights or hampered
development.
Some of the provisions of national and state
acts need to be elaborated and expanded so
that current ambiguities in understanding and
action could be avoided. For example, there
are questions regarding NCM and/or mandate
on human rights aspects of minorities, power
to inquire suo-moto or on a petition into
complaints, visits to jails for assessing
decimation, if any, with minority prisoners and
unfortunate arrest of innocent under terror
acts.
Duplication of Responsibilities: At present,
the mandates of NCM and SCMs are similar
l
l
in nature, which in turn leads to jurisdictional
ambiguities and duplication of the
responsibilities and the roles of the SCMs and
the NCM. This has also resulted into parallel
functioning and sometimes it has even
undermined the roles of the two.
Constitution of Commissions: National as
well as State Acts specify constitution of
Commissions to safeguard minority rights and
promotion of socio-economic development of
minorities. But Commissions do not have a
continuous institutional structure (such as The
Election Commission of India, State Election
Commissions, information commissions, et al).
Hence, making the constitution of the
Commission dependent on the Government
that is in power. There are many states where
Commissions have not been constituted (e.g
UP). Usually it is the decision of the State
Governments to constitute a new commission
once the term of the existing Commission is
over or if members resign due to (often)
political reasons.
Composition of Commissions &
Autonomy: There are no fixed criterion for
selection of Chairpersons and members of the
Commissions. In the absence of a clear-cut
eligibility criteria and a pool of ‘eligible’
candidates, nominations to such posts loose
gravity and are often political in nature. This
has resulted into ‘polarisation’ of functioning of
the Commission and has also affected people’s
trust in Commissions.
Skewed Identity: Minority Commissions are
meant to address the issues of religious
minorities. But NCM Act restricts its
jurisdiction to only five religious minorities
l
l
l
Emerging Issues 25
namely: Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists
and Zoroastrians. Memorandum for inclusion
of Jains as notified minorities is under
consideration of Union Government though
some states such as MP and UP have already
included Jains as minorities in these states.
Autonomy: Theoretically by definition of
being statutory, the SCMs and NCM are
supposed to be independent of Central and
State Governments. But in actual practice they
are greatly dependent on their nodal
departments and governments. A major reason
for lack of autonomy is the absence of
criterion and procedure for appointments of
Chairperson and members of these
Commissions. All appointments are made on
political party affiliations, without concern for
competence and commitment to the mandate.
As a result, the Commission is unable to
speak out on issues, violations and indifference
of the Central and State Governments with
respect to safeguarding the rights of minority
communities. The nodal department in the
Central and State Governments substantially
influences the functioning of the Commission.
Even the annual budget allocations to the
Commission are entirely dependent5 on the
nodal department, its minister and the State
Government. Annual budgets fluctuate, and
remain unlinked to annual plans of the
Commissions.
Physical Accessibility and Outreach: The
offices of these Commissions are usually
located amidst government office premises,
which have, over time, become inaccessible to
general public due to security reasons. Also,
the Commissions don’t have their contact
offices in different locations of the state,
although the NCM has regional chapters but
they are located in state capitals or bigger
cities hence making them inaccessible and out
of reach of the complainant(s).
Despite the known physical inaccessibility,
none of the Commissions have taken steps to
extend their outreach through designated
offices in districts or accredited volunteers in
local areas. The functioning of SCMs is limited
to responding to cases and complaints and
some political functions assigned by the party
and ruling political executives. In order to
l
l
perform its functions of monitoring safeguards
for minorities, it needs to be heard, known
and visible. In the absence of that outreach,
many governmental and non- governmental
agencies working on issues of empowerment
of minority communities do not provide
support to the Commission. In the course of
this research, not a single case of any
independent study undertaken by the
Commission came to light in these states. In
the absence of a solid and firm understanding
of the functioning of various Constitutional
provisions, for the safeguard and socio-
economic development of the SC community,
the Commission will not be able to fulfil its
mandate.
Proactive Disclosures: Proactive disclosure
about the Commission itself is critical. The
present state of transparency in the
functioning of the Commissions leaves much
to be desired. Steps towards creating an open
forums to facilitate communication in respect
to progress on complaints, a mechanism which
is now being used by many other public and
government agencies need to be urgently
taken. If the SCMs and the NCM have to fulfil
their mandates, they need to systematically
engage in proactive outreach and disclosure
about their functions, procedures, activities and
plans.
Institutional Capacity: Per their mandates
of these Commissions are expected to act as
watchdogs to safeguard Constitutional rights
and provisions of the minority community in
the state. In several of these states, the
minority population is large. Many of them
have perpetual violations of safeguards meant
for them, including atrocities against them.
Given the enormity of the task and
expectations from them, the institutional
capacity of these Commissions is weak. This
weakness of institutional capacity starts from
the size and types of staff. An administrative
staff cannot alone be expected to fulfil the
mandate. There is a need to include a highly
competent and professional staff, who are well
aware of the problems faced by the minorities
and who in turn are able to guide them and
make them aware of their rights and the
means to achieve them. In the absence of legal
competence amongst their staff, the
l
l
26 Synthesised National Report on Status of State Commissions for Minorities
Commissions are unable to provide any
guidance and legal support to complainants. In
addition, the Commission is unable to conduct
a free, fair and speedy enquiry and trial in
case of offences.
The assigned budgetary allocations are random
in nature and they also fluctuate annually. In
the absence of clearly defined budgetary
guidelines for provisions, the Commissions do
not have clear annual plans in respect of
certain concrete outcomes necessary to
respond effectively. Neither any planning is
undertaken, nor is there a budgetary support
for plans made.
There is no formal system for undertaking
various activities. Procedures and rules for
conducting enquiry, for communicating with
the complainant and for undertaking functions
related to planning of socio-economic
development of minority community have not
been clearly formulated and communicated.
The existing procedures of nodal departments
have been implemented inadvertently.
It is necessary that the standard operating
procedures for the designation of roles and
responsibilities, planning and monitoring and
handling of its various activities are formulated,
keeping its mandates in view.
Institutional Linkages: The SCMs and the
NCM stand in isolation, and function likewise.
There are a number of different public
agencies which are mandated to work towards
the empowerment of minorities and ensure
social justice. Yet, operational and organic
linkages between them at the state and
district level do not exist.
a) Outreach Links: The panchayats and
municipalities are important stakeholders
as well as platforms who must be engaged.
They are key to an effective role and a
wider outreach.
Judicial Panchayats (Gram Kachahari) in
states such as Bihar could be a very
useful ally to extend the reach and
support for effective redressal of the
complaints.
l
n
n
n
Locally active religious leaders and
institutions (Wakf Boards, madarsas,
Imams, Fathers, et al) could be credible
ambassadors of the SCMs and the
NCM.
In addition, many civil society
organisations and NGOs are working
on issues of empowerment of minority
communities in the states who can be
partnered with.
b) Research Linkages: Currently there are
no linkages with local universities and
colleges, who could appropriately
supplement the research and information
dissemination capacities of the
Commissions.
c) Legal Linkage: The most critical absence
of linkage is with the judiciary. Given the
quasi-legal nature of these Commissions,
and their responsibility in conducting the
enquiry in case of complaints, it is
necessary to have a mechanism with the
district courts and the local judicial
process. Likewise, the Legal Assistance
Cells in each district are mandated to
provide free legal aid to the members of
deprived community in matters related to
claiming their legal rights and facing legal
enquiry.
d) Legislative Linkage: Each state legislature
has a Sub-committee focused on minority
affairs and monitors the budgets and
performance of the Government in the
implementation of development schemes
for the minorities. A part of the function
of oversight of socio-economic
development can be performed through
better linkages with this sub-committee.
e) Peer Learning and Linkages: There is
no institutional platform where all SCMs
could come together and learn from each
other’s experiences through peer sharing
and review of better practices and
common issues in their functioning.
Emerging Issues 27
28 Synthesised National Report on Status of State Commissions for Minorities
Cha
pter
2C
hapt
er 5
Building on the key findings of the study and
the critical issues highlighted, a set of
recommendations is included for making the
Minority Commissions more ‘vibrant, responsive
and accountable’. This section includes suggestions
for the Commissions to enhance autonomy,
strengthen institutional capacity, expand outreach
and forge relationships. It also builds on the
voices of the respondents of the study:
There should be a clear-cut functional
allocation/activity mapping for the NCM
and SCMs.
NCM should periodically convene meetings
of the SCMs to facilitate sharing on
effective learning.
There must be a provision of continuity of
Commissions with fixed terms of members
including the chairpersons. The new
Commission should be constituted just
before the current commission’s term
expires so that any state should not have
the absence of commission at any point of
time.
Clear selection criteria for the
Commission members are needed to be
formulated. This is because people, who
were completely unaware of minority
issues, were often selected to important
positions, probably to address their
political aspirations.
Budget tracking of schemes should be
taken up by the Commission. Absence of
such mechanism led to diversion of funds
meant to benefit the minorities, which
therefore results into perpetuating further
exclusion.
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
There is a pressing need to decentralise
the office of the Commission at the
district, block and panchayat/municipal level.
The centralised natures of Commissions
hamper their outreach and citizens’ access.
There should also be efforts directed
towards training and capacity building of
the members and the officials in the
Commission. This should primarily aim at
increasing their knowledge levels with
respect to the provisions meant for the
minorities. Herein, help could be sought
from the various expert institutions and/or
NGOs working in this sector.
The importance of conducting mass
awareness programmes by the Commission
cannot be contested. Such efforts to reach
out to the minority groups would not only
build trust in the people, but also give
them a feeling of being secure and
protected.
The Commission being a constitutional
body has some important roles to
perform. Therefore, once constituted, it
needs to be ensured that they are
provided with sufficient facilities/resources
(human/ financial/technical) which can help
them carry out their responsibilities in a
better way.
The Commission should also be given a
fair share of power so that they can
pressurise the system to fall in line with
its recommendations and expectations.
Action Taken Report in state legislatures
on the recommendations of Commissions
should be made mandatory.
Recommendations
Recommendations 29
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
The Commission must initiate independent
research studies through the channel of
other institutions. Such efforts would help
them get first-hand information on the
status of minorities, which would thence
help in formulating a future plan of action.
The Minority Commission must strive to
address the issues of all sections of
minorities equally.
Media must be used as a vehicle for
information dissemination to the masses.
The Commissions should also make sure
that they share their annual reports in the
public domain in a timely manner. This will
not only ensure its transparency but will
also enable civil society to suggest positive
improvements, which can in turn help
them perform better.
The Commission should focus on
“promotive, preventive and curative”
policies. Through such a framework, it
could focus on examining policies, status of
schemes, monitoring of the end objectives
and give suitable recommendations to the
Government. Having such a system in
place, would contribute immensely to
increase the efficacy of the Commission
and strengthening the same.
The Commission needs to increase its
pro-activeness and take up cases on a suo
moto basis more frequently based on its
own findings and reporting.
In order to increase the effectiveness of
the Commission, one of the main pre-
requisites is to have appropriate linkages
functioning in a proper way. This may be
with the judiciary, NGOs, civil society at
large, other institutions working in similar
capacities, people, other commissions etc.
The Commission should therefore ensure
that it is effectively linked to various
institutions/capacities, which can help it
perform better.
Commissions must come up with a status
reports/periodical reviews on the ongoing
programes and play their part in shaping
policy discussions and in national / state
planning.
Apart from paying attention to the cases
of atrocities and violence, the Commission
is also required to focus on community
development issues. The status of schemes
concerning sectors like education should
be taken into consideration, and efforts
should be channelized in a proper way,
within the socio-economic framework of
the minorities.
The process of initiating, processing and
concluding of any enquiry of activity must
be clearly spelt out so that there is no
ambiguity among the staff and the task is
completed appropriately and effectively.
The provisions of the National Act on
Minorities and consequent State Acts for
creation of the SCMs should be amended
to conform with provisions of the Human
Rights Commissions in states and at the
national level so that NCM and the SCMs
are also mandated to
To inquire suo moto or on a petition
into a complaint
Intervene in any proceedings involving
violation of human rights pending
before a court.
Visit jails or other institutions in any
State to know the conditions
To review safeguards provided by or
under the Constitution or any law in
force for protection of human rights.
Review the factors including acts of
terrorism that inhibit the of human
rights lens.
l
l
l
l
n
n
n
n
n
30 Synthesised National Report on Status of State Commissions for Minorities
References
Ministry of Minority Affairs (2013).List of State Minority Commissions. Retrieved 27 December
2013 from http://www.minorities.in/info.php
Ministry of Minority Affairs (2013, November). A fact file. Retrieved December 27, 2013 from
http://www.minorityaffairs.gov.in//sites/upload_files/moma/files/factfile_14.11.2013.pdf
Ministry of Minority Affairs (2007).Report of the National Commission for Religious and Linguistic
Minorities. Retrieved December 27, 2013 from http://www.minorityaffairs.gov.in/sites/upload_
files/moma/files/pdfs/volume-1.pdf
Ministry of Minority Affaitrs (2006, November). Social Economic and Educational Status of the
Muslim Community in India-A Report (Sachar Committee Report). Retrieved 27 December, 2013
from http://www.minorityaffairs.gov.in/sites/upload_files/moma/files/pdfs/sachar_comm.pdf
Mahanjan, G. (N.A.) Negotiating Cultural Diversity and Minority Rights in India. Retrieved 27
December 2013 from http://www.idea.int/publications/dchs/upload/dchs_vol2_sec3_4.pdf
National Commission for Minorities (2013).Genesis of NCM. Retrieved 27 December 2013 from
http://www.ncm.nic.in/Genesis_of_NCM.html
The Times of India (2013, August 13). Constitution does not define minorities, govt tells RS. The
Times of India. Retrieved December 27, 2013 from http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-
08-13/india/41372208_1_minorities-act-constitution-religious-minorities
References 31
32 Synthesised National Report on Status of State Commissions for Minorities
This study was initiated by Poorest Areas Civil Society (PACS) programme in collaboration with
the Society for Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA) to look into some critical areas and
aspects of selected institutions in Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand,Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Uttar
Pradesh and West Bengal.
To understand the legislative mandate, structure, composition, modes of functioning and
delivery of institutions mandated to safeguard constitutional rights of Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, Women, Minorities and Persons with Disabilities.
To assess the awareness levels and practical experiences of members of socially excluded
communities towards two selected institutions, from the five mentioned, in each of the
seven states.
To arrive at a set of recommendations for advocacy and dissemination of efforts to
make these institutions vibrant, responsive and accountable.
Field visits and desk review were conducted during the first phase of the study. The mandates
and remit of each of the above mentioned commissions were studied through secondary
sources gathered from websites, existing literature and reports of the commissions. Meetings and
interviews with the office bearers of the commission were also held.
In the second phase, 14 commissions were shortlisted from the first 35 for a deeper study. This
was done after taking into account various aspects, the population of a particular social group
and functioning of the respective institutions in a particular state. In this phase two distinct
processes were involved, two districts were selected; two blocks each, to conduct interviews of
persons from socially excluded communities. This was to assess awareness levels, experience of
engagement with commissions in cases of violations. Eight focus group discussions were also
organised.
To ensure participation by women in the study and promote them to voice their perspectives
separate focused group discussions were held. Ten cases were taken for the study to get an
assessment of the on-ground situation of the cases those were taken up these commissions.
This study is conducted by using participatory tools and it has been able to generate
information through interviews (with all possible stakeholders), Focus Group Discussions with
community members, and multi-stakeholder state level workshops in each state.
Objectives of the study
l
l
l
Methodology
Cha
pter
2
About the Study of Statutory InstitutionsConducted by PACS in Association with PRIA
About the Study of Statutory Institutions 33
34 Synthesised National Report on Status of State Commissions for Minorities
Cha
pter
2
AnnexureList of State Minority Commission
SN State Address Tel. No./Fax
1. Andhra Pradesh A.P. State Minorities Commission 040- 23453078 (O)/
(Statutory Commission) Room No. 301, 040- 23453206
A-Block, Secretariat Building,
Hyderabad – 500 022
2. Assam (Non-Statutory) Assam State Minorities O361-2341026 (O)
Commission, Sujata Apartments, 9864056217
1st Floor, Nilomani Phukan Path, 9954093902/
Christian Basti Guwahati – 781005 0361-205992
3. Bihar (Statutory) Bihar State Minorities 0612-2213595 (O)
Commission, Barrack No. 7, 0612- 2290217 (R)
Old Secretariat, Patna – 300 015 9431020324/ 0612-22215051
4. Chhattisgarh (Statutory) Chhattisgarh Minorities 0771-2434807 (O)
Commission C-186, Shailendra 9893701100,9203907800/
Nagar, Raipur – 492 001 (C.G.) 0771-2424809, 4048667
5. Delhi (Statutory) Delhi State Minorities 011-23370825, 23379753
Delhi State minorities Commission, 1st Floor, C-Block (D)/ 011 23378269
Commission Act, 1999 Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi – 110 002
6. Jharkhand (Statutory) Jharkhand Minorities 0651-2400946, 2212518
Commission, Building No. 3, 9431362950,
Artisen Hostel, Dhurwa, 9939676721/0651-2400946,
Ranchi – 834 004 2400952
7. Karnataka (Statutory) Karnataka State Minorities 080-22864204, 22863400 (O)
Commission , 5th Floor, 080-25714775 (R)
Vesveshwariah Tower(M) 9448456480/
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi, 080-22863282
Bangalore – 560 001
8. Madhya Pradesh M.P. State Minorities Commission, 0755- 2732204/0755-2732204
(Statutory) E-Block, Old secretariat,
Bhopal – 462 011
Annexure continued on next page
35Annesure
SN State Address Tel. No./Fax
9. Maharashtra (Non- Maharashtra State Minorities 022-22610156, 22650085 (O
Statutory) Commission, Behind J. J. School 022-23000108 (R)
of Arts, BadruddinTayabji Marg, 9820356063/
Near C.S.T. Railway Station, 022-22610156
Mumbai – 400 001
10. Manipur (Non-Statutory) Manipur State Minorities 0385-2459665, 2220198 (O)
Commission, Ministers’ Block, 2221946 (R)
First Floor, Room No.140 & 141, 9862241975, 9856169137,
Secretariat, Imphal – 795 001 9436080057/0385- 2459665
11. Punjab Punjab State Minority 0172-2740611/Extn.4910
Commission, 9815524355/
Room No. 40, 4th Floor, 0172-2740936
Civil Secretariat Punjab,
Chandigarh
12. Rajasthan (Statutory) Rajasthan State Minorities 0141-2227100, 2227222 (O)/
Commission, Room No. 308-309, 0141-2227497
SSO Building, Secretariat, Jaipur – 302 001
13. Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu State Minorities 044-28510303 (O)
(Non-Statutory) Commission, No. 735, 044-24349235 (R)
LLA Building, 3rd Floor, 9444028305/ 044-28111129
Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002
14. Uttar Pradesh (Statutory) U.P. State Minorities Commission 0522-2287097(O)
609, Indira Bhawan, 9415217074/
Lucknow – 226 001 0522-2288710
15. Uttarakhand (Statutory) Uttarakhand State Minorities 0135-2671201(O)
Commission, 14/1, Laxmi Road, 9837050564/ 0135-2671201
Dehradun – 248 001
16. West Bengal (Statutory) West Bengal Minorities 033-24398877 (O)
Commission, Bhawani Bhawan 033-24792894/95
(2nd Floor), West Alipore, 9830586998/
Kolkata – 700 027 033-24398592
Source: http://www.minorities.in/info.php
36 Synthesised National Report on Status of State Commissions for Minorities34 Synthesised National Report on Status of State Commissions for Minorities
Poorest Areas Civil Society (PACS) Programme is an initiative of the UK Government's Department for International Development (DFID) aimed at assisting the socially excluded groups to claim their rights and entitlements while addressing issues of differential access.
www.pacsindia.org
Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA) is an international centre for learning and promotion of citizen participation and democratic governance. PRIA's professional expertise and practical insights are utilised by other civil society groups, NGOs, governments, donors, trade unions, private business and academic institutions around the world.
www.pria.org
top related