In a recent judicial proceeding, the Gauhati High Court at Itanagar has raised significant concerns regarding the Arunachal Pradesh State Human Rights Commission (APSHRC). The court has questioned the state government on its failure to constitute the APSHRC in accordance with Section 21 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. This inquiry underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that human rights institutions function effectively within the state.
Background of the Public Interest Litigation
The division bench, comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita, was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the operational status of the APSHRC. The counsel for the petitioner highlighted that despite a prior notice issued on May 24, 2022, the commission remains inadequately staffed, currently operating with only a single member. This situation raises questions about the commission's ability to fulfill its mandate effectively.
Legal Framework: Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, provides the statutory framework for the establishment of State Human Rights Commissions. Section 21 of the Act mandates that each state should constitute a commission comprising a chairperson and members to investigate human rights violations. The Act outlines the qualifications for these positions and delineates the powers and functions of the commission, emphasizing its role in safeguarding human rights at the state level.
Court's Queries to the State Government
The High Court posed several pertinent questions to the Arunachal Pradesh government to assess the status and functionality of the APSHRC:
Non-Constitution of the Commission: Why has the state not constituted the APSHRC as prescribed under Section 21 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993?
Historical Functionality: Has the APSHRC ever operated at its full strength since its establishment?
Financial Obligations: Has the state cleared the dues of past chairpersons and retired staff of the commission?
Current Financial Support: Are the current salaries and office expenses being duly paid and provided to the commission?
Alternative Mechanisms: In the absence of a fully functional commission, is the state complying with Section 28 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, which pertains to the referral of cases to the National Human Rights Commission?
Legal Representation: Has a Special Public Prosecutor been appointed for the APSHRC in accordance with Section 31 of the Act?
Investigative Mechanisms: Has the state government constituted a Special Investigation Team as per Section 37 of the Act?
These questions aim to evaluate the state's commitment to upholding human rights through a functional and adequately staffed commission.
State's Response and Court's Directive
Upon the government's request for an adjournment, the court directed the Chief Secretary of Arunachal Pradesh to ensure that a comprehensive affidavit addressing the aforementioned queries is filed by an officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary. This affidavit is to be submitted at least two days prior to the next hearing, scheduled for February 24. The court's directive indicates its intent to hold the state accountable for the operational status of the APSHRC.
Implications of an Understaffed Human Rights Commission
The current state of the APSHRC, operating with only one member, raises concerns about its capacity to effectively address human rights issues in Arunachal Pradesh. A fully constituted commission is essential for:
Timely Investigation: Promptly addressing allegations of human rights violations.
Public Confidence: Maintaining trust in the state's commitment to human rights.
Compliance with Legal Mandates: Fulfilling obligations under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
The absence of a fully functional commission may lead to delays in justice and a potential increase in unaddressed human rights violations.
The Role of State Human Rights Commissions
State Human Rights Commissions play a pivotal role in:
Monitoring Violations: Investigating complaints of human rights breaches.
Advisory Functions: Providing recommendations to the government on human rights issues.
Public Awareness: Educating citizens about their rights and avenues for redress.
An effectively functioning commission serves as a watchdog, ensuring that the state's actions align with human rights principles.
Challenges in Constituting State Human Rights Commissions
Several challenges may impede the proper constitution and functioning of State Human Rights Commissions:
Political Will: Lack of commitment from the state government to prioritize human rights institutions.
Resource Allocation: Insufficient funding and resources to support the commission's activities.
Administrative Hurdles: Delays in appointing qualified members and staff.
Addressing these challenges requires concerted efforts from both the government and civil society to ensure that human rights bodies operate effectively.
Comparative Perspective: Functioning of Human Rights Commissions in Other States
Examining the status of human rights commissions in other states can provide insights into best practices and common challenges. Some states have successfully established fully functional commissions that actively engage in:
Proactive Investigations: Initiating inquiries into systemic human rights issues.
Policy Advocacy: Influencing state policies to align with human rights standards.
Collaborations: Working with non-governmental organizations to promote human rights education.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.