Supreme Court pulls up Centre over Delhi rights panel delay

The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the Centre as to why it was not approving the Delhi government’s decision to set up State Human Rights Commission.

A bench of Chief Justice T.S. Thakur and Justice Uday Lalit, hearing a contempt petition on the inordinate delay, did not buy the argument of solicitor-general Ranjit Kumar that the National Capital Region of Delhi is not a State within the meaning of Article 246 of the Constitution as it is still a Union Territory.

Mr Kumar submitted that the Delhi government had made a recommendation, which is now before lieutenant-governor Najeeb Jung and he has to make a reference to the Centre. However, the Delhi government is not a state for the purposes of setting up of SHRC. He said the National Human Rights Commission had recommended amendments to the Protection of Human Rights Act so that rights panels can be set in Union Territories as well. The recommendation is under the consideration of the Central government and Parliament will have to amend the law.

The CJI brought to the solicitor-general’s notice that the 2015 judgment directing constitution of rights panels had specifically mentioned Delhi as a state. The solicitor-general quoted a nine-judge Bench decision of the apex court in 1997 which categorically held that Delhi is only a UT and not a state. The CJI told Mr Kumar this judgment is only for the purposes of making a law with reference to a state. “We are on the question whether Delhi is a state for the purpose of Human Rights Commission.”

When Mr Kumar stuck to his submission that Delhi is only a UT, for which the NHRC has to be approached, the CJI retorted: “Are UTs an utopia and there is no human rights violation. Should the people of Andaman and Nicobar or Daman and Diu come all the way to Delhi for filing a complaint with the NHRC. You (the Centre) cannot create islands of immunity for human rights violations. We will give a liberal interpretation of Article 246 and say that for the purpose of setting up SHRC, Delhi is a state and not a UT.”

The CJI asked the solicitor-general to file a detailed affidavit indicating the Centre’s stand whether or not SHRC will be constituted in Delhi; whether for Northeastern states there can be one Human Rights Commission; whether the existing UTs other than Delhi can be attached to the SHRCs, wherever it is feasible. The bench directed the matter to be listed for further hearing on April 29.