The Gauhati High Court, in a recent order, raised significant concerns about the functioning of the Arunachal Pradesh State Human Rights Commission.
The Itanagar Division Bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Tarh Gambo, a resident of Arunachal Pradesh, who sought to highlight the inadequacies of the state human rights commission.
During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner, S Mow, submitted that despite the issuance of notice in the PIL, the Arunachal Pradesh State Human Rights Commission was still not functioning properly.
He pointed out that the commission had only one member at present, and questioned the necessity of maintaining a human rights commission if the government had no intention of filling it up to its full strength.
In response, the government advocate, P Pangu, sought an adjournment, citing the illness of the Additional Advocate General. The court allowed the prayer and adjourned the matter.
While adjourning the matter, the court posed several queries to the state of Arunachal Pradesh, seeking clarification on the status of the state human rights commission.
The court asked why the state had not constituted the commission as per the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
It also sought information on whether the commission had ever functioned properly with its full strength, and whether the state had cleared the dues of the past chairman and superannuated staff.
Furthermore, the court asked whether the current salary and office expenses were being duly paid and made available to the commission.
It also sought clarification on whether the provision of section 28 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, had been complied with in the absence of a properly functioning commission.
Additionally, the court asked whether a special public prosecutor had been appointed for the commission, and whether the state government had constituted a special investigation team as per the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
The court directed the chief secretary to the government of Arunachal Pradesh to ensure that an affidavit responding to the queries raised in the order was filed by a concerned officer not below the rank of a joint secretary.
The matter was listed for further hearing on February 24, 2025.