Says nodal cell adequate; HC Bench had felt otherwise
Chandigarh: Growing importance of rights issues notwithstanding, the UT administration is of the opinion that the there is no need for a full-fledged rights commission, keeping in view UT’s small size and few complaints of rights violations.
The opinion has been expressed in a reply dated July 24 by the joint secretary, Home, administration, to a PIL filed by H.C. Arora before the high court.
The reply stated that the petition filed by Arora was not maintainable in view of the high court order dated Februray 25, 2005, which dismissed a petition raising a similar issue.
It has been asserted in the reply that the UT had constituted a rights cell on the pattern of Daman and Diu, comprising the IGP, district magistrate, SSP, district and sessions judge or his representative. The legal remembrancer had been designated as the nodal officer for the UT in matters relating to the violation of rights.
The reply also highlighted the fact that under Section 10 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, there was a provision for the commission to meet at such time and place as the chairperson might think fit for the disposal of allegations of rights violations.
“It is also a matter of record that any person aggrieved does not personally have to go to the NHRC in Delhi. The complaint regarding rights violations can be submitted in writing by the victim or any other person on his behalf through post, telegram, fax or e-mail,” the reply stated.
The reply when juxtaposed with the high court order dated April 9, 2004, by a Division Bench of the then Chief Justice B.K. Roy and Justice Rajive Bhalla makes an interesting reading. The order had asserted that a nodal cell could hardly be said to fulfill the will of the people reflected by Parliament. The Bench had pondered over the question as to whether the UT, with a population of about a million, besides a floating population, needed a separate rights commission.
The reply of the UT was then sought over the matter.
It is another matter that a different Division Bench had dismissed a similar petition by Puran Singh on February 25, 2005.
Source: TNS