Search website

 

Good Practice Example 2: Independent People‘s Tribunals to Redress Human Rights and Environmental Rights Violations in India


Organisation or name of the people who used this Strategy:
Human Rights Law Network, India

1. What is the Strategy about?


This strategy provides an alternative forum in which human rights violations and environmental justice concerns can be voiced, allowing affected peoples an opportunity to bring public attention to their struggles. The Indian People‘s Tribunal on Environment and Human Rights (IPT) acts as an alternative court, a “people‘s court,” which conducts investigations on a wide range of human rights and environmental violations and issues recommendations for redressal.


How IPT Functions

Although the recommendations of the IPT are not legally binding, they can be politically powerful tools.  A recommendation by the IPT may provide the basis for successfully pursuing a legally binding resolution through litigation in the Indian courts against state or non-state actors.

2. What is the human rights situation the Strategy is addressing?


In India development projects generally benefit a small group of elites, to the detriment of the poor.  Mining and manufacturing projects have often wreaked havoc on the environment and the health of Indians who depend on the land for their livelihoods. The governmental offices that are responsible for ensuring that development occurs in a manner that is consistent with respect for the human rights of the people and their environment often disregard their own rules and regulations.  Further human rights violations often arise when the poor try to defend themselves against these violations. This strategy can be used effectively against all kinds of systemic human rights violations.


India‘s poor have little access to the judicial system.  Obtaining redress is often prohibitively expensive and even when the poor do gain access to the courts the judiciary is too often unresponsive to their grievances.  As an alternative way to effect changes in the system, the IPT was established in 1993.

3. What is unique about the Strategy?


There are several ways in which the IPT empowers communities suffering from human rights violations and environmental degradation.  First, it provides a forum that is accessible to the affected community.  Members of the tribunal travel to the community and meet with the affected persons.  Thus, the communities‘ complaints are not silenced due to inability to travel, or lack of funds for court expenses.  Having the opportunity to voice your story and be listened to are major factors alone in the empowerment process.  The accessibility of the IPT encourages affected communities to assert their rights, which in turn raises awareness of legal rights in other communities.

Secondly, the IPT brings much greater attention, and political and moral weight to the complaints voiced by the affected community.  The panel that investigates the complaints may be composed of retired judges, academics, economists, scientists, and others.  While it may be easy for society to ignore the statements of disadvantaged communities, simply characterising them as “anti-development,” statements by individuals that are nationally and internationally respected are more difficult to dismiss.  This is especially true given the impartiality of the investigation; all stake-holders are invited to submit information and to speak at the hearing; decisions are made on the basis of law.  Thus, the IPT allows the disadvantaged communities to express their grievances with a more powerful voice.  Finally, the recommendations of the panel can be politically powerful, providing a concrete example to the courts and the government of how issues could and should be resolved. 

4. What was the impact of the Strategy?


One accomplishment of the IPT is the documentation of the human rights abuses and environmental degradation committed by state and non-state actors, thereby serving as a monitoring mechanism. The wide distribution of these reports has brought public awareness to the abuses suffered by disadvantaged groups and stimulated debate over pertinent social issues.  As a result, disadvantaged communities, armed with the knowledge that other communities have fought against similar abuses, are less isolated in their struggle to protect their rights.
 

Kashipur Tribunal

In 2006, the IPT investigated human rights and environmental violations arising from a proposed mining project in Kashipur. The project was opposed by the local people, whose opposition was countered with police brutality and officially sanctioned harassment.  The expert panel investigated, making several site visits, holding a public hearing and acquiring expert testimony under the Right to Information Act.  The panel found that the grant of the mining lease was unconstitutional.  The panel also determined that the mining project would have extremely detrimental effects on the environment and would completely alter the livelihood options open to the affected community.  The panel recommended that the government should abandon the mining project immediately.  At the time of the decision, the government‘s support for the mining project remained strong.  However, Alcan, Inc., a joint partner in the mining project, announced in April 2007 that it would pull out of the project and sell its share.

However, the impact of the IPT has not been limited to increasing awareness and communication.  The reports have often been successful in initiating changes.  In several cases, the recommendations and findings of the IPT have been adopted by the Indian courts, which resulted in relief for the affected community. The IPT report on the Latur earthquake in Maharashtra led to a court order requiring the government to provide housing to those whose homes the earthquake had destroyed.   The Supreme Court of India adopted the findings of IPT‘s report on toxic pollution in Gujarat.  And in some cases, the IPT hearing has provided the opportunity for the affected community and the respondent to engage in a successful dialogue for finding a method of resolving the issue.

In summary, the IPT has fostered awareness of human rights issues, facilitated communication among affected communities, and between affected communities and state and non-state actors, and has challenged the government and the judiciary to effect changes in a system that often ignores the rights of the disadvantaged.  The IPT has provided the opportunity for these disadvantaged to voice their grievances and push for accountability for those who disregard their rights. 

5. Resources and links


For further information, please see IPT website

The information from this case study has been gathered from this website, and in particular the Report of the Indian People’s Tribunal on Kashipur:  An Inquiry Into Mining and Human Rights Violations in Kashipur, Orissa. 

“Alcan Parts Ways with Hindalco,” The Hindu Business Line,
http://www.blonnet.com/2007/04/14/stories/2007041405790100.htm