Safiya Malik

The Gauhati High Court has sought a detailed response from the Government of Arunachal Pradesh regarding the non-functioning of the Arunachal Pradesh State Human Rights Commission. The court raised concerns over the commission’s incomplete composition, outstanding dues of former officials, and the lack of compliance with statutory provisions under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. The state government has been directed to submit an affidavit addressing these issues before the next hearing.

The matter came before the court through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the petitioner, who argued that despite prior judicial intervention, the Arunachal Pradesh State Human Rights Commission remains non-operational. The petitioner submitted that although the court had issued a notice on May 24, 2022, directing the government to take appropriate measures, the commission still has only one member and is not functioning as prescribed under Section 21 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

The petitioner questioned the necessity of maintaining a human rights commission in the state if the government has no intention of ensuring its proper functioning. He further contended that the commission’s failure to operate effectively has resulted in human rights violations going unaddressed.

The government advocate sought an adjournment on the ground that the Additional Advocate General, representing the State of Arunachal Pradesh, was unwell. The court granted the request but proceeded to issue a set of specific queries to the state government, seeking clarity on the commission’s status and the steps taken for its proper functioning.

The division bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita recorded its concerns regarding the inadequate functioning of the Arunachal Pradesh State Human Rights Commission. The court noted that the commission had not been constituted as per the requirements of Section 21 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and sought an explanation from the state government.

The court directed the government to clarify whether the commission had ever functioned at its full strength since its establishment. It also sought details on whether the salaries and office expenses of the commission were being paid regularly. The court observed that “in the absence of proper functioning of the Arunachal Pradesh State Human Rights Commission, compliance with Section 28 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, must be ensured.”

The court further questioned whether a Special Public Prosecutor had been appointed for the commission as required under Section 31 of the Act. It also sought information on whether a Special Investigation Team had been constituted under Section 37 of the Act to address cases of human rights violations in the state.

Additionally, the court inquired about the status of outstanding dues owed to the former Chairman and superannuated staff of the commission. It sought clarification on whether these dues had been cleared and whether the government had taken steps to ensure the financial stability of the commission.

The Gauhati High Court directed the Chief Secretary of Arunachal Pradesh to ensure that a comprehensive affidavit responding to the court’s queries is submitted before the next hearing. The affidavit must be filed by an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary at least two days prior to the scheduled hearing date.

The court ordered that a copy of its directive be transmitted to the office of the Chief Secretary for immediate compliance. The matter has been listed for further hearing on February 24, 2025.

Case Title: Tarh Gambo vs. The State of Arunachal Pradesh & 2 Ors.
Case Number: PIL/12/2022
Bench: Justice Kalyan Rai Surana, Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita

[Read/Download order]