- (1.) .The petitioner has come up to this Court for commanding Respondent No. 1 the State of U.P. to (i) constitute a State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as S.H.R.C.) under S. 21 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and (ii) create Human Rights Courts at district level under S. 30 of the Act.
(2.) . The case of the petitioner is to this effect :- The petitioner is a non-political organisation of such citizens of India who are committed to promote and protect, inter alia, human rights; a copy of its aims and object is being filed as Annexure-1; after recording his satisfaction that the circumstances existed for an immediate action for protection of human rights and to achieve the objects/purpose as contained in S. 2(1)(d) read with preamble the President of India promulgated Protection of Human Rights Ordinance, 1993 (Ordinance No. 30 of 1993) on 28-9-1993 which was later replaced by the Act; S. 3 of the Act provides that the Central Government shall constitute a body to be known as the National Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as N.H.R.C.) pursuant to which Respondent No. 3 was constituted; S. 21 of the Act provides that the State Government may constitute a body to be known as S.H.R.C. Respondent No. 3 started functioning immediately, and receiving complaints in regard to custodial deaths, rapes, fake encounters and other police excess; this Court passed direction for consideration by the State of U.P. for establishing a S.H.R.C. on the ground that the legislative intent of the Parliament is being ignored for long vide its Judgment and Order dated 9-2-1996 in C.M.W.P. No. 32984 of 1994 Uttarakhand Sangharsh Samiti v. State of U.P.; the Governor of U.P., when the State was under President's Rule, issued a Notification on 4-4-1996 under S. 21(1) of the Act for constitution of S.H.R.C. realising the extremely grim condition of law and order problem in the State; the former C.J.I. Sri R. N. Misra, after he became a Member of Rajya Sabha, revealed on 22-7-1998 on the floor of the Rajya Sabha of the fact aforementioned which is evident from the report published in the Newspaper "Times of India" 23-7-1998 Edition appended as Annexure-2; Respondent No. 3 in its Annual Report 1996-97 stated that "a country of the size and diversity of India needs Human Right Commission at the State level, the reasons are obvious, the redressal of grievances must be swift and inexpensive, the message of human rights must reach the grass-root level in the languages of the people of the country, the federal character of our Constitution must be respected, the nation-wide challenge needs an army of activists in each State and in each district, if societal and attitudinal changes are to be brought about"; State Human Rights Commissions have been established in the States of West Bengal, Himachal Pradesh, Assam, Punjab and Tamil Nadu; Respondent No. 3 had received 8497 complaints from our State out of total number of 20833 in 1996-97; Sri Kalyan Singh the present Chief Minister had openly said in a press conference and in his interview with Sri Rajesh Joshi, Special Correspondent of "Out Look" that a criminal should have no human rights, he should either be in jail or dead; according to press report as many as 156 criminals have been killed in encounter with the police; it is common knowledge that the State is also prone to communal disturbances about which this Court should take judicial notice; the Parliamentary Affairs Minister Sri Hukum Singh on 23-7-1998 made a statement on the floor of the Assembly that the government has taken a decision that there is no need of constitution of a State Human Rights Commission for the reasons mentioned in his speech and hence this writ petition.
(3.) . This writ petition came up for consideration before one of us (Binod Kumar Roy, J.) and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Mahajan, since retired, on 10-8-98. After submissions were made by Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, time was granted to Sri H. R. Misra, learned Standing Counsel with an observation, inter alia, that the writ petition is likely to be disposed of at the stage of admission itself and that a copy of the counter-affidavit, if any, must be served on the petitioner by 21-8-98.;