‘There is a perception that we are unnecessarily interfering’: Maharashtra human rights panel chief lays out challenges

We also visit ashramshalas and work on improving their infrastructure and living conditions. In prisons, we visited an open jail that lacked drinking water facilities. During these visits, we make recommendations for improvements.

When the human rights of individuals from underprivileged classes are challenged, we come to their rescue. Each month, we receive approximately 700 applications, though 70-80 per cent do not fall under the purview of the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission’s regulations. However, as an institution, we continue to address and support these grievances.

Q. Given recent incidents where police officers in places like Beed and Parbhani have come under scrutiny, how do you believe the balance can be struck between maintaining law and order and ensuring the protection of human rights, especially during periods of social unrest?

Sanjay Kumar: There is a mandate that dictates the procedure the police department must follow in any given situation, outlining how they should react to violence, how to curb it, and what the rights of the police are. However, nowhere in the procedure is there any provision that grants the liberty or freedom to behave in a manner that is unjustifiable or not in line with the mandate.

If a government officer violates the fundamental rights of a citizen, relief is available through the human rights commission as well as the constitutional courts. One can also approach the high court by filing a writ petition. However, once the issue is taken up by any constitutional court, the commission cannot intervene and proceed with the matter in parallel.

Q. How responsive has the state government been to the recommendations put forth by the MSHRC?

Sanjay Kumar: The government is required to respond to the recommendations made by the commission. There are two High Court judgments: one passed by the Allahabad High Court and another by the Madras High Court, which states that it is binding on the government to respond, provided they seek judicial review in the High Court. According to Section 18(E) of the State Human Rights Act, the government is supposed to inform the commission about the decision they will take on the recommendations made by the commission within one month after receiving the copy.

The Madras High Court has also stated that the government’s right to seek judicial review is restricted if they fail to respond to the commission’s recommendations, meaning they must be bound by it.

Q. One of the crucial mandates of the commission is to educate and raise awareness about human rights issues in Maharashtra. How are we doing so?

Sanjay Kumar: Every year, we conduct two internship courses for law students. These are month-long internships in which we invite students in batches of 25. We train them on the provisions of human rights laws and regulations and also spread awareness of our methods for conducting inquiries. Another medium we have chosen is allowing people from NGOs to visit the commission, observe its functioning, and interact with the team.

Additionally, we have a collaboration with TISS, where students pursuing a master’s degree in human rights and law come and work with us for a month, conducting research by visiting different locations. We have also written a letter to the director general of police, informing them that we would like to train police personnel on the Human Rights Act and procedures. Furthermore, we are planning to start an in-house certificate course lasting two days, which will be open to all citizens who wish to learn about human rights.

Q. What would you say are the most pressing challenges the MSHRC encounters in its mission to safeguard human rights in Maharashtra?

Sanjay Kumar: The challenges we face include the fact that the recommendations made by the commission, apart from compensation, should be viewed positively by the government. At times, these recommendations are neglected because there is a perception that we are unnecessarily interfering with its functioning.

Currently, only 22-25 per cent of the recommendations are addressed by the government. Another challenge is the lack of proper office space. We had approached the government for this, and funds were previously allocated for the space. Unfortunately, this did not materialise because the person who was supposed to provide the land backed out.

Also, the issue of employee permanency is a concern. Currently, we have around 54 people working in the commission, but only eight are permanent employees, while the rest are either on deputation or on a contractual basis.

Q. Do you think the current infrastructure and resources of the MSHRC are sufficient to effectively address the issues brought before the commission? Would you advocate for additional personnel or an increased budget to enhance the commission’s functioning?

Sanjay Kumar: Currently, we have a sufficient workforce and do not face any budget shortages. However, the issue is that we do not have permanent employees at the MSHRC; instead, we are receiving resources on deputation from other departments. Our office is addressing some infrastructural requirements, so we don’t have significant needs in that area.

The number of members in the commission cannot be increased unless we amend the Act, which currently stipulates three members. We also do not have a budget shortage, as the government provides adequate funding. However, there are some challenges regarding whether we should transition to a fully digital or paperless system, as much of the work is still done manually. If we decide to go fully digital, we will need to submit a fresh proposal.