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