Court seeks clarification on functioning Human Rights Commission

Itanagar, Jan 31: The Gauhati High Court's Itanagar Bench has sought a response from the state government regarding the status and functioning of the Arunachal Pradesh State Human Rights Commission (APSHRC). The court posed several questions to the state, including why the commission has not been constituted as per the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

The matter was heard by a division bench comprising Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Mridul Kumar Kalita.

The petitioner, Tarh Gambo, represented by counsel Sunil Mow and others, argued that despite an earlier notice issued on 24 May 2022, the APSHRC remains non-functional, with only one member currently serving. The petitioner questioned the necessity of maintaining the commission if it is not being staffed appropriately.

The state government, represented by its counsel, sought an adjournment, stating that Additional Advocate General R.H. Nabam was unwell. Granting the adjournment, the court directed the government to file an affidavit addressing key concerns, including reasons for the state's failure to constitute the APSHRC as mandated under Section 21 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

It also asked if the APSHRC has ever functioned at full capacity since its establishment; whether dues of past chairpersons and superannuated staff have been cleared; if salaries and operational expenses are being paid regularly; whether, in the absence of a functional APSHRC, the state is complying with Section 28 of the Act.

The court sought responses from the state government on whether a Special Public Prosecutor has been appointed as per Section 31 of the Act, and if a special investigation team has been constituted under Section 37 of the Act.

The chief secretary has been directed to ensure that a response is filed by an officer of at least Joint Secretary rank at least two days before the next hearing, scheduled for February 24, 2025. The government counsel has also been instructed to communicate the court’s order to the chief secretary.

The case remains pending as the court awaits the state government’s response.

Currently, there is only one member in the Commission who is also the acting chairperson.