The Gauhati High Court, Itanagar Bench, has raised significant concerns regarding the functioning and constitution of the Arunachal Pradesh State Human Rights Commission (APSHRC). During a hearing on January 30, 2025, the court questioned why the commission has not been fully established as mandated under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

The Background

The case, titled Tarh Gambo v. The State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors. (PIL/12/2022), was brought before a division bench comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita. The petitioner’s counsel argued that despite the issuance of notice on May 24, 2022, the APSHRC remains dysfunctional, operating with just one member. This raises doubts about the government’s commitment to upholding human rights in the state

Read Also:- Kerala High Court Asserts: Elected Representatives Must Resign to Change Political Affiliation

Key Court Queries

The High Court posed the following critical questions to the State Government of Arunachal Pradesh:

1. Why has the APSHRC not been constituted as required under Section 21 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993?
2. Has the APSHRC ever functioned with its full capacity since its establishment?
3. Have the dues of the past chairman and retired staff been cleared?
4. Are current salaries and office expenses being provided on time?
5. In the absence of a fully functioning APSHRC, has Section 28 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, been adhered to?
6. Has a Special Public Prosecutor been appointed as per Section 31 of the Act?
7. Is there a Special Investigation Team in place as mandated by Section 37 of the Act?

Read Also:- Delhi High Court Directs DSLSA to Enhance Monitoring of Legal Aid Counsel Appearances in District Courts

The court directed the Chief Secretary of the Arunachal Pradesh Government to file an affidavit addressing these questions. The affidavit, prepared by an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary, must be submitted at least two days before the next hearing, scheduled for February 24, 2025.

During the proceedings, the government advocate requested an adjournment, citing the unavailability of the Additional Advocate General due to health reasons. The court granted the adjournment but emphasized the need for detailed responses to its queries.

This case highlights the importance of a fully functional human rights commission in safeguarding the rights of citizens. The APSHRC's inactivity raises critical concerns about the state's commitment to human rights, particularly in a region with unique socio-political dynamics like Arunachal Pradesh.

Read Also:- Karnataka High Court Rules: Cheque Bounce Cases Under Section 138 NI Act Are Not Equivalent to Other Criminal Convictions

Remarks from the Court

In its order, the court stated,

“Why maintain a Human Rights Commission if it is not intended to function effectively? Proper adherence to the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, is non-negotiable.”

The Gauhati High Court’s scrutiny serves as a reminder of the state's responsibility to uphold human rights through robust institutional mechanisms. The February hearing will determine the state's next steps toward addressing these concerns and fulfilling its legal obligations.