Petition filed in Supreme Court for setting up of Human Rights Courts in every District
- Introduction
The Supreme Court in July 2019 issued notice to all of the 29 states and 7 Union Territories on PIL filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution by a law student named Bhavika Phore, regarding Sections 30 and 31 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (PHRA) contending that it is required to set up Human Rights Courts in every district and appoint Special Public Prosecutors (SPP) for the same.
Section 2(d) of The Act defines ‘Human Rights’ as 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. It is an indispensable obligation on the State to uphold and dispense the basic Fundamental Rights and follow the Directive Principles of the State Policy under Articles 14, 38 and 39A of the Constitution of India. Section 30 of the PHRA envisages that the State Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of High Court by notification specify for each district a Court of Session as a Court of Human Rights for speedy trial of offences relating to violation of Human Rights. Further, Section 31 provides for appointment of Special Public Prosecutors (SPP) for such cases in the court.
- Contentions raised
The petitioner cited various Human Rights Reports like the Reports on Human Rights Practices 2018, Amnesty International Report 2017/18, etc. All of these reports show the deplorable condition of the human rights of the citizens, violation of the rights due to police brutality, violation of the rights of the Dalits, Minorities and curbing the Freedom of Expression by the Government among others.
Data by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) was also put on record. E.g., it showed that 14, 231 people died in police and judicial custody in India from 2001-2002 to 2009-2010. These numbers do not include the deaths by Armed Forces and the deaths due to torture. Thus, showing that these numbers are much higher than those recorded on paper.
The case of Dilip K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and that of Shakti Vahini v. Union of India were also put forth. In the former case, the court had pointed out how the State Government did not take any action to set up a court even though a small state like Sikkim could do the same. The court further clarified that the word ‘may’ used in the Section 30 of PHRA actually means ‘shall and must’. In the latter case, the court held that it is the obligation of the Constitutional Courts to guard the right to liberty and the right to dignified existence of an individual.
In the end, it was also pointed out that India has been a signatory and has ratified many treaties like The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Bill of Rights, many others. None of them specifically point out as to which act shall be considered a violation of human rights. Therefore, the legislative intent is very broad to include every act which infringe or curtails or violates human rights and basic fundamental freedom of human being can be considered as a human right offence.
Thus, the petition seeks to establish Human Rights Courts in all 725 districts and compulsorily seek the appointment of SPP within 3 months.
By-
Amrashaa Singh
Student Reporter, INBA