Dear All,
The following appeared in "Times of India", Mumbai Edition on June 15, 2009, page no. 09.
Keep Smiling ... HemantAgarwal
09820174108
HUMAN RIGHTS (SHRC) working comes under HC scanner
Court Seeks Reply From State Government Within Three Weeks On Alleged Irregularities
Mumbai: The Bombay high court has directed the state government to file a reply within three weeks in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging a shockingly low finding of human rights violations by the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission (SHRC), systemic irregularities and alleged improprieties by senior members of the commission. Relying on information received under the Right to Information Act (RTI), the PIL states that of the 28,083 cases filed before it till June 2008, the commission had directed action against erring public servants in only 39 cases.
The cases of human rights violations filed by citizens that come up before the commission are against the state, its various organs and public servants. The commission disposed of 24,071 cases and 4,012 were pending as of June 2008. The PIL said it would be absurd to suggest that as many as 24,032 complaints were frivolous and devoid of any merit. “It would mean that in only 0.16% cases was the ‘allegation’ of human rights violations proved.’’
When the PIL filed by a businessman-turned-activist Pushkar Damle came up before the bench of Chief Justice Swatanter Kumar and Justice S C Dharmadhikari on Thursday, they lost no time in calling for a detailed reply from the state. Government counsel G W Mattos too sought time on the grounds that the ‘allegations’ against the commission and its members were “exhaustive.’’
The petitioner sought to make it clear that though he had had a case dismissed by the commission a few years ago despite a positive finding into an ‘allegation’ against a HC public prosecutor for having threatened him, he was “not trying to settle scores.’’ He said thanks to the “indignities he suffered, it broadened his outlook and he dug deep to find that the problems of the commission were systemic in nature requiring intervention from the HC.’’
To begin with, the PIL stated that the state government has chosen not to implement or bring into effect a 2006 amendment to the Protection of Human Rights Act of 1993. By the amendment, the constitution of the commission had changed from chairperson (a retired Chief Justice of any high court) and four members, to a chairperson and two members. The PIL ‘alleged’ that in 2006 for six months, the commission functioned with only a chairperson C L Thool heading it. Thool has since finished his term.
However, within seven days of the amendment being gazetted on September 14, 2006, and before its actual implementation date of November 23, 2006, a committee headed by the Maharashtra chief minister selected three persons who were appointed by the governor as commission members on October 10, 2006, the PIL alleged.
The members who continue till date are T Singaravel (a former police commissioner of Nagpur), Subhash Lalla (a former personal aide of the Maharashtra CM) and Vijay Munshi (a former high court judge).
The PIL says that the HR Act, despite being amended, has not yet been implemented in Maharashtra and the home department in reply to queries has only said that the amendment file has been moving from desk to desk since December 2007 with no rational explanation for its status since December 2006 when it had been received. The law requires the state to implement a central Act from the date of its notification, the PIL pointed out and is questioning “the Maharashtra government’s attempt to frustrate the spirit of the modification in law by refusing to implement it.’’
Relying on RTI replies, the PIL stated that one of the members proceeded on medical leave for a cancer surgery a day after his appointment. The state picked up the tab of Rs 6.25 lakh for extensive medical treatment. Yet another member, the PIL alleged, travelled with his wife for official visits several times flouting mandatory guidelines.
In one instance, a member produced and was sanctioned a taxi-travel reimbursement of Rs 3,422 from his Marine Lines residence to the Santa Cruz airport, a distance of about 30-35 km. “This fare is by no stretch of the imagination logical and shows that the scrutiny for TA bills is a farce,’’ said the PIL.
In an instance of systemic lethargy, the petitioner’s advocate Amit Karkhanis stated that though the sessions courts have been designated as human rights courts, special public prosecutors have not been appointed by the state for the past eight years. As a result, both the victim and the state exchequer is burdened as every complaint has to be filed before the SHRC.
