D.K.UPADHYAYA,J. - (1.) U .P. Chapter of People's Union for Civil Liberties has brought this Public Interest Litigation petition, seeking certain directions to be issued by this Court in relation to rehabilitation and payment of compensation to the victims of alleged violation of human rights, which according to the petitioner, was committed in an incident of mass attack and arson on muslim residents of village Asthan, police station Nawabgangj, District Pratapgarh on 23.06.2012. The petitioner prays that apart from issuing direction for rehabilitation of the alleged affected persons and for payment of compensation to the victims for alleged violation of human rights, this Court may also command the State Government to take disciplinary action against the erring police and other officials. The petitioner also prays that an appropriate direction may be issued to conduct the investigation into the incident of 23.07.2012 in regard to which an FIR (Case Crime No. 95 of 2012) has been registered at police station concerned.
(2.) IN addition to the aforesaid prayers relating to framing of rehabilitation scheme, payment of compensation to the victims, taking disciplinary action against the police and other officials and investigation into the case crime no. 95 of 2012, the petitioner has also prayed that as an interim measure, the State Human Rights Commission may be requested for and entrusted with an inquiry into certain aspects relating to the incidents which took place on 23.6.2012 and thereafter on 23.07.2012 and further that based on the inquiry report which may be submitted by the State Human Rights Commission, further directions granting appropriate reliefs be issued by this Court depending upon the facts which may be found in the said inquiry. We have heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Swetashwa Agarwal and Sri Nitin Kumar Mishra, Advocates appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for opposite parties and have also gone through the material available on record of the petition including the report of the Enquiry Committee appointed by the petitioner-organization. It has been contended staunchly by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that from the report of Enquiry Committee which was constituted by the petitioner-organization, it is apparent that the incidents in village concerned which took place on 23.06.2012 and 23.07.2012 have resulted in violation of basic human rights of persons belonging to a particular community and further that on account of the acts of violence, arson and loot etc. in the village, the villagers belonging to a particular community have left the village having no option left to them but to flee their homes. It has further been stated that even after lapse of such a long period from the date of incidents, the villagers have not yet returned back to their homes on account of the fact that their belongings were looted and houses were torched. Attention of the Court has also been drawn to various newspaper reports which have widely reported the incidents which occurred on 23.06.2012 and thereafter again on 23.07.2012. According to the petitioner, newspaper reports are enough indication of large scale violation of human rights of the persons belonging to a particular community which not only warrant rehabilitation of the victims and payment of adequate compensation to them but a thorough probe into the conduct of the police and other officials who acted negligently, otherwise incidents and thereby violation of human rights could have been prevented. Relying on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is couched with amplest powers to appoint independent Enquiry Commissioner such as an independent journalist or a panel of two independent journalists in a case where violation of fundamental rights or human rights are alleged. A reference has also been made by learned counsel for the petitioner to the judgement of this Court rendered in the case of Uttrakhand Sangharsh Samiti, Mussoorie vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (1996) 1 UPLBEC 461 to impress upon the Court that in the said matter by means of an interim order, an inquiry was ordered by this Court to be conducted by Central Bureau of Investigation and the said interim order requiring the CBI to conduct an inquiry into violation of human rights in the said case, was not touched by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Special Leave Petition filed by the State Government of the then existing undivided State of Uttar Pradesh.
(3.) IN the background of these submissions, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner prays that as an interim measure, the State Human Rights Commission be requested to conduct an inquiry into certain aspects of the incidents in question and thereafter on submission of inquiry report by the State Human Rights Commission, further reliefs may be granted by this Court to the victims. It has been submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that National Human Rights Commission or State Human Rights Commission, on their own, are handicapped to conduct an inquiry into a matter like the present one for the reason that under the statutory provisions these Commissions have not been equipped with such machinery and personnel who can effectively complete the task of inquiry. Referring to the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Paramjit Kaur vs State of Punjab and others reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 340, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that in the said case the matter relating to violation of human rights was ordered to be probed by the National Human Rights Commission under the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and on the clarification sought by the Union of India in the said case, it was clarified by the Hon'ble Apex court that since the National Human Rights Commission was probing the matter under the reference made to it by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as such it would not be bound by the statutory provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") and the Commission will rather act as a body sui generis. Sri Jain has, thus, submitted that in the instant case, a request/reference by this Court be made to the State Human Rights Commission to conduct the probe into the matter so as to enable the Commission to conduct the inquiry in an effective manner and to ensure that it does not feel constrained to function within the statutory bounds. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments made by Sri Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the scheme of the Act as also the functions and powers of National Human Rights Commission and State Human Rights Commission, which have been created under the Act. The aforesaid Act was enacted by Parliament with a view to create and constitute National Human Rights Commission, State Human Rights Commissions in the States and Human Rights Courts for better protection of human rights and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The said enactment by the parliament is an expression of commitment of our country to various international human rights covenants. The Act provides for creation and constitution of National Human Rights Commission and State Human Rights Commissions entrusting certain functions to them with a view not only to protect violation of human rights but also to intervene effectively into the matters involving the allegations of violation of human rights. By virtue of Section 29 of the Act, provisions of Chapter III which concern Functions and Powers of the Commission have been made applicable to the State Commissions as well. Apart from Chapter III of Act, Sections 17 and 18 which concern inquiry, complaints and steps which may be taken by the Commission during and after inquiry have also been made applicable to State Commissions. Section 12 of the Act describes the functions and powers of the Commission, according to which, the Commission can inquire into the complaints of violation or abatement of violation of human rights or negligence in prevention of violation of human rights by a public servant. Section 12 (a) provides that such an inquiry can be held by the Commission suo-motu or it can also conduct inquiry on a petition to be presented either by a victim or any person on his behalf or on a direction or order of any court. Thus, the power of Commission to inquire into the allegations of violation of human rights is wide enough to encompass not only the complaints made by the victims but also the petitions presented to it by any person on behalf of the victim. Apart from the power of conducting an inquiry into the allegation of violation of human rights or into negligence by a public servant in prevention of such violation of human rights, the Commission has been vested with the authority to intervene in any proceeding involving any allegation of violation of human rights, to visit any jail or other institutions where persons are detained and lodged, to review the safeguards provided for protection of human rights under law and to recommend measures for their effective implementation. It has also been vested with the authority to review the factors inhibiting enjoyment of human rights and make recommendation for taking appropriate remedial steps. In fact, Section 12 gives power, authority and jurisdiction of very wide amplitude to the Commission so as to enable it to function as a body to protect human rights and further to prevent violation thereof.;