LexDILIP K. BASU versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015) 7 S.C.R. 814 A DILIP K. BASU v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. B (Crl. M. P. No.16086of1997 in Crl. M. P. NO. 4201of1997) JULY24, 2015 [T.S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] Human rights - Violation of - Instances of custodial c deaths and torture in police station and jails - Recommendation by Amicus Curiae to curb these - Issuance of certain directions by this Court- States of Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Tripura and Nagaland to set up State Human D Rights Commissions(SHRC) for their respective territories · within a period of six months- Vacant post of Chairperson or Member of SHRC to be filled up by State Governments within a period of three months - State Governments to take appropriate action in terms of s. 30 in regard to setting up/ E specifying Human Rights Courts - Direction issued to State Governments to install CCTV cameras in all the prisons within one year - States to consider installation of CCTV cameras in police stations- State Governments to take steps to appoint non-official visitors to prisons and police stations F - State Governments to launch appropriate prosecution for the commission of offences disclosed by such enquiry report and/or investigation -And that each police station to have at least two women constables - Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993-ss. 21, 30. ' G Disposing of the petitions, the Court HELD: 1.1 On examining the scheme of the legislation and the provisions of s.21 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the following brpad features H emerge that the Act is aimed at providing an efficacious 814 DILIPK. BASU v. STATEOFWESTBENGAL&ORS. 815 and transparent mechanism for prevention of violation A of human .. nghts both at national level as also at the state level; ·that the National Human Rights Commission is vested with the powers and functions set out in Chapter- 111 of comprising Sections 12 to 16 of the Act. While in relation to State Human Rights Commissions similar B provisions of Sections 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 to 18 apply mutatis mutandis subject to certain modifications referred to in clauses (a) to (d) of the said provision. This implies that the powers exercisable by the State Commissions under the said provisions are pari materia C with the powers exercisable by the National Human Rights Commission; and that while Section 3 does use the word 'shall' in relation to the constitution of a National Human Rights Commission, the absence of a similar 0 expression in Section and the use of the word 'may' makes little difference as the scheme of the Act and the true intention underlying the legislation is to be determined by the Court depending upon whether the power was coupled with a duty to exercise the same or E was conferment of power simpliciter. [Para 13) (837-D- H; 838-A-B] . ' Sardar Govind Rao and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 1222 : 1965 SCR 678; The Official Liquidatorv. Dharti Ohan Pvt. Ltd. 1977 (2) SCR 964: (1977) 2 SCC 166; N.D. Jayal andAnr. v. Union of/ndia and Ors. 2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 152: (2004) 9 SCC 362; Manushkhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat 1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 705: (1997) 1 sec 622; Bachahan Devi and Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur and Anr. 2008 (2) SCR 424: (2008) 12 SCC 372 - referred1o:· , · Julius v. Bishop of Oxford (1880) 5 AC 214- referred to. F G H 816 A SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 7 S.C.R. 1.2 The power of the State Governments under Section·21 to set-up State Human Rights Commission in their respective areas/territories is not a power simpliciter but a power coupled with the duty to exercise such power especially when it is not the case of anyone B of the defaulting States that there is no violation of human rights in their territorial limits. The fact that Delhi has itself reported the second largest number of cases involving human rights cases would belie any such claim even if it were made. It is not the case of the North- C Eastern States where such Commissions have not been set-up that there are no violations of Human Rights in those States. The fact that most if not all the States are affected by ethnic and other violence and extremist D activities calling for curbs affecting the people living in those areas resulting, at times, in the violation of their rights cannot be disputed. Such occurrence of violence and the state of affairs prevailing in most of the States cannot supp
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.