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) and (ii) create Human Rights Courts at district level under S. 30 of the.

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; S. 3 of the 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 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 Presidents Rule, issued a Notification on 4-4-1996 under S. 21 (1) of the 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 Honble 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.

4. Counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, sworn by Secretary (Home), Government of U. P. on 21-8-98. It was stated, inter alia, therein that the State attaches utmost importance to the human rights and a Human Right Cell has been constituted (i) in the Home Department, and (ii) in the Police Organisation under the direct supervision of D. G. P. , U. P. and an officer of the rank of A. D. G. is its incharge; the State Government is endeavouring to protect the fundamental rights and human rights of the person and is taking all precautions to ensure that no violation of human rights or abatement thereof or negligence in the prevention of such violation by any one should take place; the State is taking all actions necessary to prevent the abuse, violation, abatement of human rights as well as any negligence in the prevention of such violation; it has already constituted Minority Commission, Backward Caste Commission and Schedule Caste Schedule Tribe Commission; any violation of human rights or abatement thereof or negligence in the prevention of such violation with regards to women, minorities, backward castes, scheduled castes and scheduled tribes are being enquired into, intervened, investigated upon and reviewed; the factors and safe guards provided by or under the Constitution or any law for the time being in force and for protection of rights are being looked into by the respective Commissions; it is mandatory for the officer incharge of any Police Station to report about every arrest to concerned District Magistrate, who can make an enquiry with regard to any arrest with or without warrant; S. 58 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has sufficient checks on any violation of human rights in the police custody; under S. 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whenever any death occurs in police custody or a person dies in a police encounter a Magisterial enquiry can be ordered to bring about correct facts; whenever any report is made under the aforementioned sections the Magistrate takes all necessary action in accordance with law to safeguard the person in police custody and ensures that no violation of any fundamental right and human right of the person takes place; enlightened citizens keep invoking these provisions to ensure that the human rights are not violated by the police; and in view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances on 16-6-98 the State decided not to constitute the State Human Rights Commission at this stage, the constitution of which is also not mandatory as the has left a decision to be taken by the State Government in this regard; the figures as obtained from the Annual Report 1996-97 of the National Human Rights Commission showed that 2900 were the number of total cases registered during 1995-96 and 8728 during 1996-97; the State Government attaches utmost importance to maintenance of law and order and the contention that they are extremely grim is denied; the Notification dated April 4, 1996 was issued by the State Government with a view to honour the suggestions made by this Court during the Presidential Rule and the contention that it was issued on account of extremely grim law and order situation is not correct; it would be wrong to conclude that only S. H. R. C. could address to the public grievances; the popular government would directly handle all matters relating to violation of human rights, if any, and through the legislature, which is the supreme body before which matters relating to human rights violation are brought up and debated; besides Judicial Officers are competent to take cognizance where someone has suffered due to wrongful act; rapid rise in the number of complaints received by the N. H. R. C. is a pointer of increasing awareness regarding human rights as well as its activities; N. H. R. C. is based in Delhi, adjacent to the State of U. P. which is the most populous and its citizen find it convenient to address the grievances to it due to its proximity, which is the prime factor responsible for origin of maximum complaints; as per Annual Report 1996-97 N. H. R. C. U. P. accounts for 42. 17% of total cases out of which 8048 cases (42. 8%) were dismissed in limine during 1996-97, out of 2272 cases disposed of with directions U. P. accounted for 56. 99% and out of 6503 cases considered/admitted for disposal during 1996-97 U. P. accounted for 40. 38%; the statements made in Paragraphs 37, 38 and 39 (pertaining to the statements made in a press conference and in the interview by the Special Correspondent Out Look) are false and frivolous and are denied and it is submitted that the statements should be read with reference to context "clamping down the illegal activities of criminals in order to maintain "law and order" and emphasizes that the police should not give up its fight against offenders of law and human rights and in safeguarding the law abiding citizens; there is complete communal harmony at present, even the long standing Shia-Sunni dispute at Lucknow has been resolved amicably recently, the direction of the State Government to the police is to improve law and order situation by clamping down heavily on the criminals and to make the society a safe place for law abiding citizen and in pursuance of this objective stringent measures have been taken by the police; in some hot pursuit there have been exchange of fire between the police and the criminals in which at times police men and/or criminals fall victim which are commonly termed as encounter, though it is well within the ambit of law for the police to fire in exercise of its right of self-defence and to term this as extra-judicial killings of the criminal is distortion of fact.

5. To the aforementioned Counter-Affidavit a Rejoinder was filed by the Petitioner stating following facts:- There has been concealment of a very material fact that the Chairperson of National Human Rights Commission wrote a letter on 30-7-1998 (appended as Annexure-RA1) to the Respondent No. 2 referring to the Notification for setting up of a State Human Rights Commission after taking into consideration of his suggestions and the view of the Division Bench of this Court telling that a logical sequence would have been a final Notification under Section 21 (2) of the Act, the letter further indicated that substantial percentage of the complaints received in his office pertain to this State and a State Commission will provide quicker access to remedy to the victims of human rights violation and will obviate the need for aggrieved parties to approach Courts and burden the already heavy docket of the Courts of law; yet another Division Bench of this Court in Hari Krishan Maheswari alias Hari Maheshwari v. State U. P. , 1996 JLC 1034, had made request to the State Government to constitute a State Human

Rights Commission and Human Rights Courts as provided under the as early as possible; in a matter like this in which extremely serious allegations of violation of human rights were made against him, the Chief Minister himself should have filed his counter-affidavit; in regard to the press reports the petitioner shall place the clipping of the newspapers and news magazine containing the reports; according to the press report the greatest form of human rights violations are occurring in U. P. these days, like of which might not have been found in any democratic country at any point of time in the human history; in D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal decided by the Supreme Court on 18-12-96 (reported in AIR 1997 SC 610 [LQ/SC/1996/2231] ), it took judicial notice of the fact that custodial torture could be ascertained by reading morning newspapers and the High Court may also take notice of the relevant reports through press; despite request of National Human Rights Commission and by this Court through its two Division Bench judgments the decision of the State Government not to constitute a State Human Rights Commission shows that it has no regard to human rights and no concept in regard to what the human rights are and why such a Commission is required, and its disregard in that requires passing of a very severe stricture by this Court against the present Government.

6. On 25-8-1998 the case was heard further by the earlier Division Bench, as stated above comprising one of us. The learned Advocate General came up with a prayer for adjournment on the ground that some new facts have been stated in the Petitioners Rejoinder. The Bench repeatedly asked as to whether the State Government has any real intention to constitute a State Human Rights Commission or not in regard to which the learned Advocate General took up a stand that this will require some further consultation with the Government. The Bench also reiterated that the Court intends to dispose of this writ petition at the stage of admission itself.

7. On 9-9-1998 this case was placed before a Division Bench consisting one of us (Binod Kumar Roy, J.) and Honble Justice J. C. Mishra. The case was heard directing the State Government to produce the entire records to know as to what action it has taken in regard to the directions made by the Court earlier in the two cases (Uttarakhand and H. K. Maheshwari) and in regard to the request made by the Chairperson of National Human Rights Commission. The National Human Rights Commission was permitted to be impleaded as Respondent No. 3.

8. The case was again listed before the aforementioned Bench on 22-9-1998 and Sri Shashi Kant Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 3 informed the Bench that he has instructions to state that the Chairperson of Respondent No. 3 has already twice recommended to the State Government for setting up of a State Human Rights Commission at Lucknow as also in districts at the earliest and that Respondent No. 3 stands by recommendation aforementioned made by its Chairperson.

9. In 24-9-1998 the Bench was informed by the learned Advocate General that the two Mandamus issued earlier by the Court were considered by the Cabinet which, however, took a decision not to constitute a State Human Rights Commission as it was considered not beneficial. On that day an affidavit was filed, sworn by the Under Secretary (Home), stating that the letter sent by the Chairperson of National Human Rights Commission has not been received. The learned Advocate General further informed the Bench that there will be every likelihood of inclusion of an agenda in the meeting of the Cabinet for consideration in regard to the desirability of constitution of a State Human Rights Commission. In this view of the matter the case was adjourned noting in its order dated 24-9-1998 that the letter of the Chairperson of National Human Rights Commission has already been reproduced in Courts order dated 9-9-1998 and since the Court after Pooja holiday will reopen on 5-10-1998 the case is adjourned to 27-10-1998 hoping and trusting that the two Mandamus issued by the Court earlier and the letter of the Chairperson of National Human Rights Commission shall be considered by the Cabinet further stating that it is needless to clarify what the word "considers" means.

10. On 27-10-1998 this case was listed before a Division Bench comprising M. Katju and S. L. Saraf, JJ. but it was directed to be placed before a Bench of which Honble Mr. Justice M. Katju is not a member. The then Honble the Chief Justice vide his order dated 6-11-1998 directed this case to be placed before a Bench presided over by one of us (Binod Kumar Roy, J.). That is how this case was placed before this Bench.

11. An affidavit of General Secretary, Home Department, U. P. Government was filed stating that the question of desirability of constituting State Human Rights Commission was considered in extenso by the State Cabinet and it was decided that as the existing institutional frame work for redressal of human rights related grievance are adequate, therefore, its constitution is not necessary; and that pursuant to the aforesaid decision of the Cabinet, vide Notification No. 2238/6-H. R. /98 dated October 26, 1998 (copy enclosed as Annexure-1 to this affidavit) the earlier Notification No. 2254 KHA/6-496 dated April 4, 1996 has been rescinded.

12. We heard Sri R. K. Jain, learned Senior counsel in part, who drew our attention to the fact that the direction in regard to production of the entire records by the State was not complied with. His submissions will be referred to later. We adjourned this case for further hearing reiterating the earlier order of the Court for production of the records by the State.

13. On 16-11-98 the petitioner filed an application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India for taking suo motu action of contempt against Sri Kalyan Singh, the Chief Minister and his Cabinet colleagues for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit.

14. On 20-11-98 Sri Yatindra Singh, the learned Additional Advocate General filed documents in a sealed cover but indicated that the State claims privilege and intends to file an appropriate application supported by an affidavit.

15. On 1-12-98 an application was filed on behalf of the State praying to recall the order summoning the records and uphold the privilege and protection of the records and for return of the documents on the grounds, inter alia, that apart from the fact that those documents are not required for decision of the case, they cannot be looked into in view of Article 163 (3) of the Constitution and are also privileged documents under Section 123 of the Evidence Act. In the affidavit supporting the said application it has been added that the records are unpublished official records relating to the affairs of the State, which include papers prepared for the submission to the Cabinet for taking a decision about establishment of the State Human Rights Commission, Cabinet meetings, cabinet papers and high level documents relating to framing of policy which are confidential as well as of sensitive nature; and that the public interest will suffer by their disclosure.

16. An objection was filed by the petitioner in regard to the application aforementioned stating, inter alia, that it is a result of an afterthought; the claim of privilege and protection is manifestly misconceived; the submission that the public interest will suffer by the disclosure of the documents, and as such production is withheld, is of the deponent of the affidavit and not based on the legal advice of the Advocate General or some State Law Officer, the State has come out for the first time at the advancement stage of hearing that they are entitled to privilege; by no stretch of imagination it can be conceived that the disclosure of documents will be against public interest rather non-disclosure of the documents is injurious to the public interest.

17. Thereafter Sri S. K. Agrawal, learned counsel for Respondent No. 3, was heard on 4-1-1999 and 5-1- 1999. On 5-1-1999 Sri Agrawal informed us that a writ petition was filed earlier before the Lucknow Bench of the Court in this record but details thereof are not available with him and he was requested to furnish details thereof. Sri S. K. Agrawal, had contended as follows:- The Notification under Section 21 (1) of theconstituting State Human Rights Commission having been made, the only issue before this Court was to command the Government of U. P. to (a) nominate the Members of the Commission in terms of Section 21 (2) of theand (b) appoint necessary staff in accordance with Section 21 (3) of theand we are very much competent to issue such a direction. Reliance in this regard was placed by him on the observations made by the Supreme Court in Paragraphs 631, 734, 735 and 1251 to 1253 of S. P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149 [LQ/SC/1981/463] . The direction of this Court in its order dated 24-4-1998 for consideration of the matter has really not been obeyed and the circumstances clearly unfold the capricious and mala fide conduct of the State Government. In the garb of consideration of the issues it was not open for the Government to recall the Notification constituting the State Human Rights Commission itself inasmuch as the Court never meant nor had it permitted the Government to do so. National Human Rights Commission stands by every word written through its Chairperson to the Chief Minister advising him for constitution of State Human Rights Commission which, if constituted, would even reduce the workload of the High Court in entertaining writ petitions concerning the subjects touching human rights. The claim of privilege was made by the State much after passing the order for production of the documents so that we could not peruse them through the Affidavit which is not in terms of the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdeo Singh, AIR 1961 SC 493 [LQ/SC/1960/270] and Amar Chand Butail, AIR 1964 SC 1658 [LQ/SC/1964/77] . It does not involve any policy decision but the matter being of considerable public importance touching the constitutional safeguards provided to its citizens as well as non-citizens both, it would be in the interest of justice to overrule the privilege and peruse the records so as to find out as to whether the stand taken by Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are borne out of the records and are correct or not. The explanation given in the Counter are merely eye-wash and highly capricious.

18. Thereafter Sri Yatindra Singh, learned Additional Advocate General was heard. The learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, contended as follows:- The reasons advanced for non- constitution of State Human Rights Commission are valid; though the State has no objection to the perusal of the records, which were produced but nevertheless privilege is being claimed having regard to the sensitivity etc. ; It is a question of Policy which is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable hence it cannot be quashed by placing reliance on K. Kakkanath v. Govt. of Kerala, AIR 1997 SC 128 [LQ/SC/1996/1723 ;] ">AIR 1997 SC 128 [LQ/SC/1996/1723 ;] [LQ/SC/1996/1723 ;] ; Indian Railways v. D. R. T. S. A. , 1993 Supp (4) SCC 473 and State of Punjab v. R. L. Bagga, 1998 (4) SCC 117 [LQ/SC/1998/261] : (AIR 1998 SC 1703 [LQ/SC/1998/261] ). The High Court cannot issue a Mandamus for constitution of State Human Rights Commission which is a policy matter of the Government. Reliance was placed on A. K. Roy v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 710 [LQ/SC/1981/462] : (1982 Cri LJ 340); Aeltemesh Rein v. Union of India, 1988 (4) SCC 54 [LQ/SC/1988/370] : AIR 1988 SC 1768 [LQ/SC/1988/370] : (1988 Cri LJ 1809); Bar Council of U. P. v. Union of India, 1997 (3) UPLBEC 1551 [LQ/AllHC/1997/1177] ; Misbah Alam Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra, 1997 (4) SCC 528 [LQ/SC/1997/238] : (AIR 1997 SC 1409 [LQ/SC/1997/238] ) and Tata Cellular v. Union, 1994 (6) SCC 651 [LQ/SC/1994/685] : (AIR 1996 SC 11 [LQ/SC/1994/685] ). No reliance can be placed on the newspapers report which are inadmissible. No contempt was committed by the Chief Minister Sri Kalyan Singh or his Cabinet colleagues and the contempt petition being thoroughly misconceived is fit to be dismissed summarily.

19. By 12-1-1999 Mr. Jain concluded his replies who also pressed the petition filed for initiation of proceedings in contempt against the Cabinet including the Chief Minister of the State. He also addressed us in regard to the petition dated 12-1-1999 filed for impleadment of Sri Kalyan Singh as one of the respondents for the facts and reasons disclosed in the accompanying affidavit but without serving a copy on Sri H. R. Misra, learned Standing Counsel for the State and the Chief Minister. In the affidavit accompanying the application seeking impleadment reference was made to several killings in the State and several X-rox copy of paper clippings were also produced and referred to.

20. The judgment was reserved by us on 12-1-1999. Thereafter we tried our level best to locate the reference of the case said to have been filed before the Lucknow Bench but could not succeed partly due to the reason that Sri S. K. Agrawal, learned counsel for Respondent No. 3, was elevated to the Bench in February, 1999. Thereafter we learnt from newspapers that some of the aspects touching this case had been pressed before another Bench by Sri Jain and in another writ petition before the Lucknow Bench. Before we could deliver the judgment Sri Jain desired to be heard further and the case was brought up for further hearing giving further opportunities to him as well as learned Advocate General.

20. 1. Sri Jain contended inter alia that as serious allegations have been made by the Petitioner against the Chief Minister Respondent No. 2 in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in R. P. Kapoor v. Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon, AIR 1961 SC 1117 [LQ/SC/1960/250] : (1961 (2) Cri LJ 161), he owed a duty to file an affidavit stating the correct position regarding the allegations and not to leave their refutation to the Secretary of the Departments who could speak only from the Records and thereby the allegations be accepted by us; that the Commissions referred to by the learned Advocate General/additional Advocate General are no substitute of State Human Rights Commission at all, which has to consist of a former Chief Justice of a High Court, a Member who has been or is a Judge of a High Court, another Member who has been or is a District Judge of our State and two Members to be appointed from amongst persons having knowledge of, or practical experience in matters relating to human rights and thereby an expert body. At the time when this Court had passed its order for production of records no privilege was claimed; nothing has been produced by Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to show that the two requests made earlier by the Court and the interim Mandamus issued even by us have been considered. The attitude of Respondent No. 2 the Chief Minister from his statements that criminals have no human rights etc. made to the journalists from time to time, which are on the record, and which were not denied by filing of any counter by him personally, is crystal clear that he and/or his Government does not want to fulfil the legislative intention enshrined in Section 21 of theby constituting State Human Rights Commission. Even resort to falsehood has been taken in the Counter filed on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in stating that since the decision was taken to constitute State Human Rights Commission at a time when the popular Government was not in power but when the State was under the Presidential Rule inasmuch as after the decision taken by the Governor Sri Moti Lal Vora Miss Mayawatis Government, as a popular Government, had in fact taken a decision for constitution of State Human Rights Commission which because of mere obstinacy of Sri Kalyan Singh is not being followed up to his logical end. The defence taken in regard to financial crunch is also of no significance at all because the Chief Minister has formed a Zumbo Cabinet burdening the State exchequer unnecessarily and the attitude of the State Government in regard to non-constitution is apparently callous and condemnable. He is seriously pressing the petitions filed for initiating proceedings in contempt against the then Chief Minister Sri Kalyan Singh and his Cabinet colleagues as well as the application seeking impleadment of the former.

21. The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 repeated the arguments made earlier by Sri Yatindra Singh, the learned Additional Advocate General, who in the meantime was elevated to the Bench. He contended that no contempt was committed by the then Chief Minister and his Cabinet colleagues. The petition seeking impleadment of the then Chief Minister is infructuous due to his resignation and formation of the new Government under the Chief Ministership of Sri Ram Prakash Gupta which, however, is of the same view in regard to non-constitution of S. H. R. C. He informed us that under Section 30 of thealmost in every district Human Rights Courts have been established. In this regard Sri Jain took up a stand that those Courts are not functional, to which the learned Advocate General stated that those Courts will be made functional expeditiously even by specifying the Special Public Prosecutors as contemplated under Section 31 of the.

22. Our Findings:-

22. 1. The purpose of the reads thus:-

"an Act to provide for the constitution of a National Human Rights Commission, State Human Rights Commission in States and Human Rights Courts for better protection of human rights and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. "

From this the intention of the Parliament is crystal clear that S. H. R. C. is for better protection of human rights.

22. 2. Section 12 of theenumerates the functions of the Commission, which reads as follows:-

"functions of the Commission.- The Commission shall perform all or any of the following functions, namely:-

(a) inquire, suo motu or on a petition presented to it by a victim or any person on his behalf, into complaint of-

(i) violation of human rights or abetment thereof; or

(ii) negligence in the prevention of such violation,

by a public servant;

(b) intervene in any proceeding involving any allegation of violation of human rights pending before a Court with the approval of such Court;

(c) visit, under intimation to the State Government, any jail or any other institution under the control of the State Government, where persons are detained or lodged for purposes of treatment, reformation or protection to study the living conditions of the inmates and make recommendations thereon;

(d) review the safeguards provided by or under the Constitution or any law for the time being in force for the protection of human rights and recommend measures for their effective implementation;

(e) review the factors, including acts of terrorism, that inhibit the enjoyment of human rights and recommend appropriate remedial measures:

(f) study treaties and other international instruments on human rights and make recommendations for their effective implementation;

(g) undertake and promote research in the field of human rights;

(h) spread human rights literacy among various sections of society and promote awareness of the safeguards available for the protection of these rights through publications, the media, seminars and other available means;

(i) encourage the efforts of non-Government organisations and institutions working in the field of human rights;

(j) such other functions as it may consider necessary for the promotion of human rights.

22. 3. Section 13 of thestates the powers of the Commission relating to the enquiries into the complaints made under the and Section 14 confers powers on it to utilise the services of any officer or investigating agency of the State with its concurrence, as the case may be.

22. 4. Section 21 of thedeals with the constitution of State Human Rights Commission, which reads thus:-

"constitution of State Human Rights Commissions.- (1) A State Government may constitute a body to be known as. . . . . . (name of the State) Human Rights Commission to exercise the powers conferred upon, and to perform the functions assigned to, a State Commission under this Chapter.

2. The State Commission shall consist of-

(a) a Chairperson who has been a Chief Justice of a High Court;

(b) one Member who is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court;

(c) one Member who is, or has been, a district Judge in that State;

(d) two members to be appointed from amongst persons having knowledge of, or practical experience in, matters relating to human rights.

(3) There shall be a Secretary who shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the State Commission and shall exercise such powers and discharge such functions of the State Commission as it may delegate to him.

(4) The headquarters of the State Commission shall be at such place as the State Government may, by notification, specify.

(5) A State Commission may inquire into violation of human rights only in respect of matters relatable to any of the entries enumerated in List II and List III in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution:

Provided that if any such matter is already being inquired into by the Commission or any other Commission duly constituted under any law for the time being in force, the State Commission shall not inquire into the said matter:

Provided further that in relation to the Jammu and Kashmir Human Rights Commission, this sub-section shall have effect as if that for the words and figures "list II and List III in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution", the words and figures "list III in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution as applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir and in respect of matters in relation to which the Legislature of that State has power to make laws" had been substituted. "

The Supreme Court in Paramjit Kaur v. State of Punjab, 1998 (6) JT (SC) 338: (AIR 1999 SC 340 [LQ/SC/1998/931] ) had held N. H. R. C. to be unique expert body in itself which is also a body sui juris created under the Central Act for examining and investigating the question and complaints relating to violation of human rights, as also the negligence on the part of any public servant in preventing such violation in our view the same distinction has to be conferred on S. H. R. C. also.

22. 5. Section 22 of thedeals with the appointment of the Chairperson and other Members of the State Human Rights Commission on the recommendation of a committee consisting of persons enumerated therein, which reads thus:- "appointment of Chairperson and other Members of the State Commission.- (1) The Chairperson and other Members shall be appointed by the Governor by warrant under his hand and seal:

Provided that every appointment under this sub-section shall be made after obtaining the recommendations of a Committee consisting of,-

(a) the Chief Minister Chairperson;

(b) Speaker of the Legislative Assembly -Member

(c) Minister incharge of the Department of Home in that State -Member

(d) Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly -Member:

Provided further that where there is a Legislative Council in a State, the Chairman of that Council and the Leader of the Opposition in that Council shall also be members of the Committee:

Provided also that no sitting Judge of a High Court or a sitting district Judge shall be appointed except after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court of the concerned State.

(2) No appointment of a Chairperson or a Member of the State Commission shall be invalid merely by reason of any vacancy in the Committee. "

22. 6. Section 29 of thetalks of jurisdiction/power of the S. H. R. C. to deal with complaints by applying Sections 9, 10 and 12 to 18 with suitable modification.

23. We take up Prayer No. 2 of the petitioner first in view of the stand taken regarding Section 30 of the.

23. 1. In view of the fair stand of the learned Advocate General noted in Paragraph No. 21 supra we dispose of Prayer No. 2 of the Petitioner as follows:-

Let further steps be taken by the State Government for specifying for each district a Court of Session to be Human Rights Courts in terms of Section 30 of theexpeditiously within three months from today and specify a Special Public Prosecutor or appoint an Advocate as a Special Public Prosecutor for the

purposes of conducting cases of Human Rights Courts aforementioned within 8 (Eight) weeks from today under Section 31 of the.

24. Now we take up the submissions made by the learned counsel in regard to the prayer No. 1 of the Petitioner i. e. for constitution of U. P. State Human Rights Commission as envisaged under Section 21 of the.

25. We do not want to make our order bulky by referring to various decisions cited at the Bar by one or the other learned counsel which were read out before us.

25. 1. According to the learned Additional Advocate General Misbah Alam Sheikh, (1997) 4 SCC 528 [LQ/SC/1997/238] is a direct decision where it was held that no Mandamus can be issued in Policy matters to constitute a Commission. A perusal of the judgment shows, inter alia, following things:- (i) A writ petition filed challenging the abolition of Minority Commission set up by the State Government was dismissed by the Bombay High Court. (ii) On appeal a notice was issued by the Supreme Court why the National Commission should not take up the issue of protecting the interest of the minorities in the State of Maharashtra. (iii) The Central Govt. filed an affidavit that it had undertaken to establish branch of the National Commission at Mumbai. (iv) Due to want of statutory compulsion the State cannot be directed by a Mandamus to constitute Commission or to reconstitute it once abolished. (v) Under these circumstances no compelling reason was found warranting interference.

25. 2. Here the position is somewhat different. A Chief Minister because of his position as Leader of the Party in power is expected to influence his Cabinet to accept his views. The allegation made by the Petitioner against the Chief Minister (Respondent No. 2) have not been denied by him in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kairons Case, AIR 1961 SC 1117 [LQ/SC/1960/250] as rightly argued by Mr. Jain. The legal position, is that facts not disputed are deemed to have been admitted though it is open for a person to show that the allegations are so absurd that they should not be believed. Here there is S. 22 of the under which S. H. R. C. is required to be constituted by a State Government though in its discretion whereas under the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992 there is no such provision enabling the State Government to constitute Minority Commission. The State Govt. was party to uttarakhand maheshwari and the requests made therein by this Court could not be lightly taken. It did not go up before the Supreme Court against the directions issued by the High Court. It cannot lightly brush aside or ignore the Mandamus already issued. This decision is, thus, of no help to Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

26. Human Rights jurisprudence is of recent growth. We do not want to make our order more bulky by referring to various aspects pointed out in several books and Articles published in our Country as well as in other Countries highlighting the necessity of protection of such rights. Relevant in this regard to the very purpose stated in the very beginning of the itself stated earlier.

27. On the spectrum of Human Rights, which are the very essence of human life, there are manifold subjects enumerated in List II/iii of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Some of the general topics are inhuman Existence, freedom of Religion, right to Privacy and Information, legal Aid, clean and wholesome Environment, custodial Violence, torture, terrorism, gangestorism, prisoners right/prison Justice, capital Punishment, atrocities against Women, child Abuse, right of Child, atrocities of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, right of Workers, right of Minorities, right of Juveniles. The S. H. R. C. is vested with the power to enquire into violation of human rights in respect of matters relatable to any of the entries enumerated in List II and List III in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Can they be dealt with effectively by the four Commissions created by our State as strenuously urged by the learned Advocate General/additional Advocate General in preference to S. H. R. C. Our answer is a definite no. The reason is obvious. Under Section 21 of the S. H. R. C. is manned by its Chairperson who has to be an Ex-C. J. , apart from 4 Members out of whom one has to be sitting or an Ex-High Court Judge, the other has to be a sitting or an Ex-District Judge and the remaining two having knowledge of, or practical experience in matters relating to human rights, which as held by by the Supreme Court, is an expert body. The 4 Commissions and the Lokayukt can by no stretch of imagination be equated with S. H. R. C. Thus, it cannot be said that the existence of the 4 Commissions aforementioned and the Lokayukt obviated the need of S. H. R. C.

28. True it is that Article 163 (3) of the Constitution forbids an enquiry in regard to the advice tendered by the Cabinet to the Government. We were/are not interested in regard to that advice. No one suggested either. Thus such is not a case here at all. The law permits us overruling of privilege claimed and perusal of Government records, barring advice part, in a given case in public interest. See State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdeo Singh, AIR 1961 SC 493 [LQ/SC/1960/270] ; Amar Chand Butail v. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 1658 [LQ/SC/1964/77] and S. P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149 [LQ/SC/1981/463] . The facts and circumstances including the public interest involved for constitution of S. H. R. C. compels us to look to the Government records. We, accordingly, reject the petition claiming privilege and perused the two records. After perusal we find that unfortunately the records have not been produced in their entirety inasmuch as we do not find on the record as to how the matter was considered by the Cabinet and what had happened allegedly on 22-10-1998 in the Cabinet meeting earlier or thereafter so as to have a judicial review of the decision of the Government.

28. 1. Be that as it may, the material constituting the records of the Government discloses, inter alia, the following facts:-

(i) Pursuant to the orders passed by the High Court in C. M. W. P. No. 32984 of 1994, Uttarakhand Sangharsh Samiti, Mussoorie v. State of U. P. , State Human Rights Commission was constituted.

(ii) A committee was also constituted by the State Government under Section 22 of thefor the purpose of appointments of Chairperson and 4 Members of the Commission as required under Section 21 of theby a popular Government of which Miss Mayawati was the Chief Minister on 10-5-1997. Even letters were issued to the Members of such Committee.

(iii) The then Chief Mister Miss Mayawati vide her order dated 12-6-1997 directed production of records along with the list of suitable persons for appointment of the Chairperson and the Members of the S. H. R. C.

(iv) Even the then Home Minister of the Govt. of India Sri Indrajit Gupta had written letter dated 15-1- 1998 to the Chief Minister Sri Kalyan Singh for constitution of the State Commission.

(v) In regard to this writ petition it was noted that keeping in view the financial reasons etc. of the State, where there are already Schedule Caste/schedule Tribes Commission, Backward Commission and Minority Commission, constitution of State Human Rights Commission will not be of special advantage.

(vi) The topic for discussion was included in the agenda of the Cabinet Meeting to be held on 22-10- 1998, but in the absence of any material it is not known whether it was in fact discussed or not.

29. Apparently the 2nd request made by the Court in h. K. Maheshwari, to which the State Government was a Party, for constitution of State Human Rights Commission has not at all been considered as it appears from the Records as produced. How and in what circumstances the Court had proceeded to make repeated requests stands fully discussed in the judgments in uttarakhand and h. K. Maheshwari which need not be repeated by us. We gave opportunity to the State to consider the matter. The word consider has been explained by the Supreme Court in a number of decisions. One of such decisions is Ram Chander v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 1173 [LQ/SC/1986/171] : (1986 Lab IC 885) in which it was held to mean an objective consideration after due application of mind which implies giving of reasons for its decision.

30. Following the Ist Mandamus issued by this Court in uttarakhand a Notification was made under Section 21of theduring the Presidents Rule, which was succeeded by Miss Mayawatis Government supported by B. J. P. Miss Mayawatis Government was thus a popular government which has even proceeded to take steps in terms of Section 22 of the. Thus it was wrong on the part of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to take up a stand in the Counter and during submission that since the decision was taken during the Presidential Rule and thus after the popular Government came in power it rightly proceeded to consider the desirability of constitution of State Human Rights Commission and came to a conclusion that it will not be beneficial to do so. It is not even for a moment suggested that it was not open for Sri Kalyan Singhs Government to reconsider the decision taken by his predecessor Miss Mayawatis Government which had proceeded to constitute State Human Rights Commission under Section 21 (1) of theand a committee under Section 22 (2) of the.

31. In Union of India v. S. P. Anand (1998) 6 SCC 466 [LQ/SC/1998/759] : (AIR 1998 SC 2615 [LQ/SC/1998/759] the Supreme Court held that a question regarding justiciability can arise only in respect of an action that has been taken under the Constitution or a law in Supreme Court Advocate on Record v. Union of India 1993 (4) SCC 441 [LQ/SC/1993/858] : (AIR 1994 SC 268 [LQ/SC/1993/858] ) it was held by the Supreme Court that a direction can be issued to fulfil the State obligation of providing speedy justice. Even in Altermesh Rein relied upon by the Sri Singh, the Supreme Court went to the extent of holding that every discretionary power vested in executive should be exercised in a just, reasonable and fair way and that Court cannot allow the Government to leave the matter to lie without applying its mind to the question. Tata Cellular, strongly relied upon by the learned Additional Advocate General, also laid down to the effect that the Government is the guardian of the finances of the State and is expected to protect its financial interest yet the Courts concern regarding its power of judicial review should be whether it committed an error of law and abused its powers. Thus, we hold that the decision of the State Government under Section 22 of thenot to constitute S. H. R. C. is justiciable.

32. As laid down by the Supreme Court in H. C. Suman v. RENEC Home Building Society, AIR 1991 SC 2160 [LQ/SC/1991/429] rescinding of an earlier Notification made purusant to a judicial order cannot be done in an arbitrary manner. The common Judgment dated 18-12-1996 of the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Crl (No. 539 of 1986 (Reported in AIR 1997 SC 610 [LQ/SC/1996/2231] ) D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Writ Petition (Crl) No. 592 of 1987 Ashok K. Johri v. State of U. P. arising out of our own State reported in AIR 1997 SC 610: (1997 Cri LJ 743) belies the tall claim made by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their counter in regard to the following of the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure etc. We accept the entire arguments of Sri S. K. Agrawal in this regard and hold that rescinding and/or nullying the earlier Notification under Section under 21 (1) of the was in any event not fair and/or proper. It was well known to the Government that the only question till then was as to whether the Government should proceed to obtin the recommendations of the committee already constituted under Section 22 (1) of theand proceed to make the already constituted U. P. State Human Rights Commission functional which was not made known to us. The State cannot act as an ordinarily litigant and in the words of the present Honble C. J. I. the action of the State, however, must be right, just and fair vide his speech made on Sept. 27, 1999 at Vigyan Bhawan Printed in 1999 (3) SCC Journal 10. This Court will be failing in its duty in not correcting the acts/omiss- ion/commission of the State Government if it refuses to act as per the constitutional mandate and/or the other Acts/laws. Even conceding that the State Government possessed powers to nullify the earlier Notification, we in the peculiar facs and circumstances are of the view of that it was done arbitrarily. Beyond this we do not want to say in this regard. We are of the view that the State Government shoud have taken the repeated requests of this Court seriously and the views expressed by the Chairperon of N. H. R. C. not lightly and refused to constitute the State Human Rights Commission, an Expert Body, the avowed object for which it was required to be statutorily constituted. We find in this context that the State is blowing hot and cold in the same breath inasmuch as on the one hand it had proceeded to specify Human Rights Courts almost in every district by now under Section 39 of thebut on the other hand refuses to constitute State Human Rights Commission for the State under Secion 20 of the. We also note that much was convassed about the word may used in Section 21 (1) of theby the learned counsel but having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances we are of the view that it cannot refuse to exercise its discretion arbitrarily and discriminatory. We are anguished to make such remarks but we are left with no option. We find an apparent fallacy in the main dfence that there being several Commissions, Lokayaukt and as the departments in Home/police are looking into Human Rights violations, there is no necessity to have S. H. R. C. The other ground namely Financial crunch also does not appeal to us. Both defences are thus rejected. Its decision is not only arbitrary but discriminatory which is writ large.

33. The present State Government has taken a stand before us that it is also not in favour of consistituting S. H. R. C. It was thus rightly contended by Mr. Jain that thus no useful purpose will be served for directing it to consider this matter and this Court cannot remain a silent spectator, and it is required to create new tools and avenues to achieve the avowed objets regarding Human Rights. In fact in Neelabati Behra v. State of Orissa, AIR 1993 SC 1960 [LQ/SC/1993/275] the Supreme Court has held that a protector of Human Rights it is the constitutional object of the Supreme Court and the High Court to forge new tool and invent now remedies to grant relief of enforcement of Fundamental Rights. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Common Cause v. Union of India 1992 (1) SCC 707 [LQ/SC/1991/354] cannot be said to be irrelevant where directions were issued for establishing Consumer Forums under the Consumer Protection Act. The 9 Judges Judgment of the Supreme Court in the Judges case, AIR 1994 SCC 268 that a writ could be issued for fixation of Judges strength in the High Court and its justiciability is also relevant. The decisions relied upon by the learned Additional Advocate General on the other hand are distinguishable.

34. We, accordingly, exercising our constitutional powers enshrined under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India quash the subsequent Notification nullifying the first Notification as contained in Annexure 1 to take Affidavit of the General Secretary (Home) and direct the State Government to take expeditious steps within three months from today for obtaining the recommendation of the statutory Committee constituted under Section 22 (1) of theand to proceed to make the appointments in terms of Section 21 (2) and (3) of thewithin three months from today.

35. The word contempt stands defined under the Contempt of Court Act. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances we are of the view that no contempt at all was committed by the then Chief Minister Sri Kalyan Singh who has also resigned, and his Cabinet colleagues, who have also not been impleaded and that no useful purpose will be served by his impleadment more so when this case has been heard and reheard to its full extent. Accordingly, the petitions, seeking initiation of proceedings in contempt under Art. 215 of the Constitution of India against the then Chief Minister Sri Kalyan Singh and his Cabinet collegagues and impleadment of Sri Singh, both are dismissed.

36. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly but without cost.

37. Let the records produced by the State Government be returned forthwith to the learned Advocate General and/or the learned Standing Counsel Sri H. R. Mishra.

38. The office is directed to hand over a X-rox or Computerised copy of this order latest by tomorrow dated 13th January, 2000 to the learned Advocate General and/or Sri. H. R. Mishra, the learned Standing Counsel of the State for its intimation to and follow up action.

39. The office in also directed to despatch a similar copy to Respondent No. 3 by Post within one week, as its learned counsel Sri. S. K. Agrawal with his elevation to the Bench has ceased to be its counsel.

Order accordingly.