Back
2014 Supreme(SC) 1072
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. Thakur, C. Nagappan and Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ.
Shri Dilip K. Basu - Petitioner
Versus
State Of West Bengal & Ors. - Respondents
Crl. Mp No. 16086 of 1997 in 4201 of 1997 with Crl. M.P. Nos. 4201 of 1997, 4105 of 1999, 2600 of 2000, 2601 of 2000, 480 of 2001, 3965, 10385 of 2002, 12704 of 2001, 19694/2010 in Crl MP no. 4201 of 1997, Crl MP no. 13566 of 2011 in Crl MP no. 16086 of 2008 in Crl MP no. 4201 of 1997 in Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s). 539 of 1986
Decided On : 5-8-2014
For the Petitioners:Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Adv. (A.C.) Pranab Kumar Mullick, Amit Bhandari, Soma Mullick and Suruchii Aggarwal, Advocates.
For the Respondents:- UOI Ms. Pinki Anand, ASG S.W.A. Quadri, Sushma Manchanda, Aditya Sharma, Sushma Suri, CBI P.K. Dey, T.A. Khan, Advocates. Signature Not Verified M. Khairati, Adv. Digitally signed by Mahabir Singh, B.V. Balaram Das, Adv. State of U.P. Ravi P. Mehrotra, Mr. Vibhu Tiwari, Adv., State of Jharkhand Mr. Jayesh Gaurav, Adv. Mr. Ratan Kr. Choudhary, Adv. State of Meghalaya Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. S.C. Ghosh, Adv. Mr. S. Bhowmick, Adv. Ms. Soumi Guha, Adv. State of Chattisgarh Mr. C.D. Singh, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Adv. State of Bihar Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. State of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr. Ritu Raj Biswas, Adv. UT Chandigarh Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. Ms. Vimla Sinha, Adv. State of Haryana Mr. Manjit Singh, AAG Ms. Vivekta Singh, Adv. Ms. Nupur Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Rathee, Adv. Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, Adv. State of Jharkhand Mr. Gopal Prasad, Adv. State of Sikkim Mr. A. Mariarputham, AG Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. Mr. Yusuf, Adv. M/s. Arputham Aruna & Co. State of Assam Ms. Vartika S. Walia, Adv. M/s. Corporate Law Group State of Mizoram Mr. Pragyan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Heshu Kayina, Adv. Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, Adv. State of Orissa Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Ashmi Mohan, Adv. Govt. of Puducherry Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv. Mr. S.J. Aristotle, Adv. Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. State of Rajasthan Mr. S.S. Shamshery, AAG Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Harshvardhan Singh Rathore, Adv. Mr. Varun Punia, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Adv. State of Arunchal P Mr. Anil Srivastav, Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv. State of H.P. Mr. Suryanarayana Singh, AAG Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Adv. State of Manipur Kh. Nobin Singh, Adv. Mr. Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv. NCT of Delhi Mr. Radhakanta Tripathy, Adv. Mr. W.A. Quadri, Adv. Ms. Gunwant Dara, Adv. For Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv. State of W.B. Mr. Anip Sachthey, Adv. Mr. Saakaar Sardana, Adv. State of Punjab Mr. V. Madhukar, AAG Ms. Anvita Cowshish, Adv. Mr. Kuldip Singh, Adv. State of Kerala Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv. State of Telangana Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv. State of Nagaland Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. St of Maharashtra Mr. Shankar Chillarge, Addl. Govt. Adv. Ms. Sonia S. Chillarge, Adv. Mr. A.P. Mayee, Adv. A&N Administration Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Adv. Ms. G. Indira, Adv. Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Sengupta , Adv. Mr. Ajay Pal , Adv. Mr. Anil K. Jha , Adv. Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary , Adv. Mr. Anuvrat Sharma Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan , Adv. Mr. G. Prakash , Adv. Mr. Gunnam Venkateswara Rao , Adv. Mr. Guntur Prabhakar , Adv. Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao , Adv. Mr. K. R. Sasiprabhu , Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Saran, Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna , Adv. Mr. Naresh K. Sharma Adv. Mr. Pravir Choudhary, Adv. Mr. P. V. Dinesh , Adv. Mr. Ratan Kumar Choudhuri Adv. Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Adv. Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv. Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Adv. Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Adv. Mr. T. C. Sharma, Adv. Mr. T. Harish Kumar, Adv. Mr. T. V. Ratnam, Adv. Ms. Indra Sawhney, Adv. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Advocate.
Granting one more opportunity to States/Union Territories to respond to the application concerning the establishment of State Human Rights Commissions and filling up of vacancies, with a clear directive that no further opportunity shall be granted.
Headnote:
Human Rights - State Human Rights Commissions - The court granted one more opportunity to States/Union Territories to respond to an application concerning the establishment of State Human Rights Commissions and filling up of vacancies, with a direction that no further opportunity shall be granted.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition was filed in public interest by a former Judge of the High Court of Calcutta in 1986, concerning the protection of human rights of citizens. The court has delivered multiple orders on various aspects related to human rights over nearly three decades.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted one more opportunity to States/Union Territories to respond to the application concerning the establishment of State Human Rights Commissions and filling up of vacancies, with a direction that no further opportunity shall be granted.
Issues: The issues concerned the establishment of State Human Rights Commissions in States/Union Territories and filling up of vacancies in those commissions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided to grant one more opportunity to the States/Union Territories to respond to the application, emphasizing the importance of protecting the human rights of the weaker sections of society.
Final Decision: The proceedings were adjourned for two months to allow the States/Union Territories to submit their responses, with a clear directive that no further opportunity shall be granted for this purpose.
ORDER :
Heard.
2. In this writ petition, filed initially in public interest by a former Judge of the High Court of Calcutta as early as in August, 1986, this Court has over the past nearly three decades delivered as many as eight different orders on various aspects touching protection of the human rights of the citizens in this country. These decisions have been reported in law journals from 1997 onwards till 2003, referred to in para `(I)' of Crl. M.P. No.15492 of 2014 filed by the learned amicus. In the said application the amicus curiae has prayed for certain further directions on the subject including directions for establishment of State Human Rights Commissions in States/Union Territories, where such commissions have not already been set up, and filling up of all the vacancies in other States/Union Territories where such commission have been set up but for one reason or the other the appointments have not been made. As many as six States/Union Territories have already responded to the application filed by the amicus including the State of Maharashtra. A large number of States including Union Territories have not however responded to the prayers made in this application so far. We were inclined to conclude these proceedings which have been pending for past thirty years but for the fact that Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned amicus, submits that some of the prayers made in this application are very essential for an effective enforcement of the directions issued earlier and for prevention of atrocities on the weaker sections of the society especially minorities and dalits in the country. He submits that on the basis of responses which the States/Union Territories have filed and may file within a time-frame, to be fixed by this Court, the learned amicus curiae would identify specific areas/recommendations for the consideration of this Court so that these proceedings can eventually be wound up with appropriate directions in those areas.
3. In the circumstances, therefore, and keeping in view the fact that the case concerns protection of human rights especially of the weaker section of the society, we are inclined to grant one more opportunity to the States/Union Territories which have not responded to the said application with the direction that the States/Union Territories in default shall submit their responses expeditiously but not later than four weeks from today. We make it clear that no further opportunity for the purpose shall be granted. We request Mr. Singhvi, learned amicus curiae, to collate all the responses in the form of a statement and make specific recommendations for the consideration of this Court by the next date of hearing. These proceedings shall accordingly stand over by a period of two months from today to be listed again on Tuesday, the 14th October, 2014.
