NEW DELHI, May 29: The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has been functioning on reduced strength for the last four months, after the Government's ``questionable'' decision to make two of its members Governors.

According to the Act of Parliament which brought the NHRC into being nearly four years ago, the statutory body is envisaged as a five-member Commission. But in January, one member, Fathima Beevi was appointed the Tamil Nadu Governor by the Deve Gowda Government and another, S S Kang, made the Kerala Governor. The appointments have reduced the Commission's strength to three including Chairperson M N Venkatachaliah.

There is some disquiet in the Human Rights community over the exit of two members of the Commission for gubernatorial assignments before they had completed their terms with the Commission. But opinion is divided on whether the Deve Gowda Government was at fault by offering them a Governor's job, or whether the two members did wrong by accepting the offers.

The People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), for example, lays the blame on both sides.

The Human Rights Act, 1993, under which the NHRC came into being, says that a person appointed as member of the Commission shall hold office for a term of five years, and be eligible for a second tenure term at the end of it. But no member shall hold office after turning 70.

Fathima Beevi got her gubernatorial assignment just three months before she turned 70. But S S Kang was pulled out of the Commission a year and nine months before his five year term ended.

The Act does not rule out Members resigning from the Commission, or taking up a Governor's job. But some observers feel that the appointments went against the spirit of the Act, which seems to lay emphasis on a fixed tenure for the members.

A member can be removed by the President for ``proven misbehaviour or incapacity''. The short list of grounds on which a Commission member may be asked to go include insolvency, infirmity of mind or body, paid employment outside the Commission, and conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude.

On ceasing to hold office, the members are ineligible for further employment under the Government of India or under any state Government. But as the Supreme Court has ruled earlier, gubernatorial assignments are not counted as Government jobs in this category.

More than the `questionable' mid-term removal of two members, the NHRC circles appears to be concerned about the delay in the appointment of replacements.

A Commission member V S Malimath told The Indian Express: ``If there is genuine concern about Human Rights, there should be genuine concern about filling up the vacancies.'' Commission sources insist that NHRC needs its full quota of five members to deal with the backlog of cases before it.

Apart from working on a range of long-term issues, the Commission receives sackloads of complaints on alleged Human Rights violations. In the week beginning, May 12, for example, the Commission received 778 fresh complaints. During this period it disposed off 234 complaints.

Though the Commission has a staff of over 250 in its Administrative, Legal and Investigative branches, each complaint even if it is flimsy enough to be disposed off at first reading needs to go through a member.

The charitable view is that a change of leadership at the Centre might have delayed the filling up of the vacancies. Going by the Act, one of the new members has to be a Supreme Court Judge. The second one can be picked up from a broader category of persons with knowledge or practical experience relating to Human Rights.

The President appoints members after obtaining the recommendations of a Committee headed by the Prime Minister.

Copyright © 1997 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.