The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the Act does not make it mandatory to set up a State Human Rights Commission in every state, the court emphasized the need for individuals to have speedy recourse to justice when their rights are violated and considered the financial constraints faced by small states in the North-Eastern Region in setting up State Human Rights Commissions.

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 been 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 offrce of the National Human Rights 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 their complaints easily and expeditiously. Nor is the investigation to the complaints 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.

4. In reply to the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. U.B. Saha, learned Senior Government Advocate, Tripura, assisted by Mr. T.D. Mazumdar and Mr. S. Chakraborty, relying on the averments in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, submitted that the word 'may' in Section 21 of the Act, 1993, indicates that a discretion has been vested in the State Government to constitute or not to constitute a State Human Rights Commission. He pointed out that in contrast to the said word 'may', the word 'shall' has been used in Section 3 of the Act, 1993, and it has been made mandatory for the Central Government to constitute the National Human Rights Commission. According to Mr. Saha, since the Legislature in one and the same Act has used two different expressions, viz. 'shall' and 'may', the Court while considering the provisions of the Act must construe the said two words differently. Thus, the word 'may' in Section 21 of the Act, 1993, would mean that the State Government may or may not constitute a State Human Rights Commission. Mr. Saha, learned State counsel, referring to the averments in para 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition, submitted that this discretion of the State Government whether to constitute or not to constitute a State Human Rights On-mission wi