BIMAL KUMAR CHANDA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a public interest litigation filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner, Sri Bimal Kumar Chanda, had been working as Principal in-charge of the Tripura Government Law College, Agartala, and after his superannuation from Government service he is working for advancing the social interest. He has stated in the writ petition that in recent years, the peace in the State of Tripura has been disturbed, as many as 19 police station areas have been declared disturbed areas and are under the Armed Forces (Special Power) Act, 1958, 111 persons have been killed, 84 persons have beeor kidnapped, arid since 1993 till 1997, 92 police personnel and security personnel have been killed by the extremists. But the State Government of Tripura has not established State Human Rights Commission. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed for an appropriate writ or direction to the State of Tripura to establish State Human Rights Commission for the State of Tripura within a specific period.

(3.) Mr. A.L. Saha, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the preamble of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1993), makes it clear that the Act, 1993, has been made for the Constitution of a National Human Rights Commission, State Human Rights Commission in States and Human Rights Courts for better protection of human rights and for matter connected therewith or incidental thereto. He referred to Section 3 of the Act, 1993, to show that the provision has been made in sub-sec. (5) thereof for establishing offices of the National Human Rights Commission at places in India other than in Delhi with the previous approval of the Central Government. He submitted that despite the said provision no such office of the National Human Rightis Commission has been established in the State of Tripura. As a result, people in Tripura who suffer from human rights violation are not in a position to lodge theiir complaints easily and expeditiously. Nor is the investigation to the complainls against violation of human rights in the State of Tripura by the National Human Rights Commission in Delhi easy and quick. Considering these facts, according to Mr. Saha, a direction should be given to the State Government to constitute a State Human Rights Commission under Section 21 of the Act, 1993. He produced before the Court extracts from the Annual Report of the National Human Rights Commission for the year 1998-99 to show that even the National Human Rights Commission has emphasised the need for setting up of State Human Rights Commission by different State Governments.