‘Not feasible to refer matters to outside statutory body’
Makes geographical conditions, pendency as ground
Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, Nov 9: Keeping in mind difficult topography and pendency of complaints, the Law Commission (LC) has recommended establishment of a separate Human Rights Commission for the newly created Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Union Territory of Ladakh. Moreover, it has not put any weight behind the idea of conferring the functions relating to human rights upon a State Commission located outside these UTs.
The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 was enacted by the Parliament in response to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic and Social and Cultural Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1965.
Since India was a party to these Covenants, the Act was promulgated with the object of constituting a National Human Rights Commission, State Human Rights Commissions and Human Rights Courts for better protection of human rights and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
Section 2(1)(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 defines “human rights” to mean the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India. Thereafter, amendments were carried out in the Act from time to time.
“Following amendment dated July 27, 2019, this Section provides that subject to the provisions of Section 12, the Central Government may, by order, confer upon the State Commission the functions relating to human rights being discharged by the Union Territories other than the Union Territory of Delhi”, Justice (retd) M K Hanjura, Chairperson of Law Commission has mentioned in the report submitted to the Chief Secretary BVR Subrahmanyam.
This amendment provides that there shall not be a separate body for the National Capital and the fundamental protection mechanism of the people of National Capital of Delhi shall be looked into by the National Human Rights Commission.
However, the amendment empowers the Central Government to bestow upon a State Commission the functions and powers relating to human rights being carried out in the Union Territories other than the UT of Delhi or to direct that a separate Human Rights Commission shall be established in a Union Territory for the reason that word “may” as it exists in the amendment conveys and connotes that it is within the domain, power and the discretion of the Central Government, the Law Commission said.
“Taking into consideration the vagaries of weather, the difficult terrain, the topography, the geographical conditions with which the two Union Territories are confronted with and above all the number of complaints which were pending for disposal at the time of winding up of the Human Right Commission of erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir, it may not be feasible and possible to confer the functions relating to human rights upon a State Commission located outside these Union Territories”, the Law Commission further said.
Accordingly, the Law Commission has recommended that separate Human Rights Commission may be established for the two newly created Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.
It is pertinent to mention here that State Human Rights Commission was closed along with six other State Commissions on October 23, 2019 consequent upon the repeal of several State Acts by the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019. At the time of closure, 600 cases were pending for disposal in the Human Rights Commission.
Since its constitution, the Law Commission has submitted nine reports to the Government on different important aspects but action has yet not been taken on any of them till date and it is hoped that at least during the new administrative arrangement recommendations of the Law Commission would receive due attention.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
