NHRC on Wednesday issued a show-cause notice to Delhi government asking it to explain as to why it should not be directed to pay compensation to the 12 African women victims of "racial prejudice" in the midnight raid by former law minister Somnath Bharti after its probe proved that there was "gross violation of human rights" in the case.
The National Human Rights Commission also asked the Delhi Police Commissioner to keep it posted about the status of the FIR in the case.
In a statement on Wednesday, NHRC said it has issued a notice to the government of the NCT of Delhi through its Chief Secretary to show cause why relief under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, should be not recommended to be paid to the 12 African women in connection with the raid in which Bharti was involved along with his supporters.
"It has also asked the Delhi Police Commissioner to inform (about) the status of FIR No.76/2014 dated January 19, 2014, at Malviya Nagar Police Station. Both the authorities have been given six weeks' time to respond," the statement said.
NHRC passed the recommendatory orders after careful consideration of the report of its Investigation Division as well as the inquiry report of BL Garg, retired Additional District and Sessions Judge, and observed that it is prima facie proved that there was gross violation of human rights of the African women in the case.
The Garg report provided by Delhi government has concluded that the then law minister and his supporters were involved in illegally stopping the vehicles passing the Khirki Extension area looking for African women.
"The African women were wrongfully restrained and humiliated without any fault of theirs as no drug was found from their possession. They were subjected to racist slurs, assault, misbehaviour and molestation with threat of dire consequences," the statement further said.
The Inquiry Officer concluded that the response of the police in the light of the intervention of the then law minister was adequate and in conformity with the law.
The role of the then law minister was not as per the existing provisions of the law as, prima facie, he violated the provisions of law while holding a constitutional post.