Haryana says it doesn’t need a rights commission

• And figures compiled by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) for 2005-06 say 288 cases of atrocities against the Dalits took place in Haryana. These include 10 murders, 35 rape cases, and 15 kidnappings.

BUT despite all this, and against pressure from the National Human Rights Commission and rights groups, successive governments in Haryana have refused to set up a state human rights commission.

Earlier this year, Chief Secretary Prem Prashant asserted that “Haryana is a small state and no violation of human rights has been made here.” And on January 18, 2006, the government had told the Punjab & Haryana High Court that it had no intention of setting up a state human rights commission.

The same stand was repeated in November this year during the hearing of a public interest litigation filed by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) asking the high court to direct the government to set up a commission.

This time the government counsel also told the court that an “adequate mechanism” existed for dealing with people’s grievances and, therefore, the government had decided “there is no need to set up a separate state human rights commission.”

The previous government of Om Prakash Chautala, too, had refused to set up such a commission. It is learnt that when Chautala was advised by senior officials to agree to the formation of a rights commission, he said no.

But critical observations from the high court may force the current Congress government to do a rethink. A division bench headed by Chief Justice Vijender Kumar Jain has asked the state to “place on record an affidavit as to what is the meaning of adequate mechanism to deal with the grievance of the people.”

The bench observed in its order that “although, it is the domain of the state to say that for certain reasons at a particular stage, it is not in a position to have a state human rights commission, but to say that there is an adequate mechanism available to deal with the grievances of the people under the existing administrative hierarchy is against the spirit of the international treaties and covenants, which stress upon the protection of the human rights.”

It also noted that “in our considered opinion, the mechanism involving the officials and other persons who are associated with the administration of the state, may not provide a sound system for redressal of grievances of citizens of that state.”

Says senior advocate R.L. Batta, who is arguing the matter for the petitioners, “The argument advanced by the Haryana government is ridiculous, to say the least. Tell me, if a state like Haryana doesn’t require a human rights commission, which state does?”

While senior government functionaries refused to say anything, a senior officer who is part of the team handling the matter confirmed that the government was doing a rethink of “all aspects connected with the demand” and a final decision would be taken in a few days.

The hearing resumes in the high court on January 15.