When human rights are violated, victims need justice quickly. Delays in the legal system can compound the trauma experienced by those whose fundamental rights have been infringed. Recognizing this urgent need, India established a specialized judicial mechanism through the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. This mechanism includes Human Rights Courts, designated to fast-track cases involving violations of life, liberty, equality, and dignity.
Table of Contents
Legal framework for Human Rights Courts
The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 provides the statutory foundation for Human Rights Courts in India. Under Section 30 of this Act, state governments are empowered to designate a Court of Session in each district as a Human Rights Court. This designation requires the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the respective High Court and must be notified officially.
These courts are specifically established to provide speedy trials for offences arising from human rights violations. The Act defines human rights as those relating to life, liberty, equality, and dignity of the individual, guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in international covenants and enforceable by courts in India.
How Human Rights Courts function
Human Rights Courts operate at the district level, making them accessible to individuals seeking redressal. These courts are headed by district judges or additional district judges with expertise in human rights matters.
Section 31 of the Act mandates that state governments appoint Special Public Prosecutors for these courts. These prosecutors must be advocates with at least seven years of practice, ensuring that cases are conducted by experienced legal professionals who understand the complexities of human rights law.
The courts try offences related to alleged violations of human rights, particularly those committed by public servants. This includes cases of custodial deaths, torture, illegal detention, and police brutality.
The implementation challenge
Despite the clear statutory provision, the establishment of Human Rights Courts across India has been inconsistent. In the landmark case of Dilip K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal (2015), the Supreme Court criticized state governments for their laxity in forming these courts. The Court noted that smaller states like Sikkim had complied with the mandate, while larger and better-resourced states had failed to do so.
The Supreme Court clarified an important interpretive issue in this case. While Section 30 uses the word “may,” the Court held that this should be interpreted as “shall and must,” making the establishment of Human Rights Courts mandatory rather than discretionary.
Following this directive, Delhi established a Human Rights Court in each district. However, many states continue to lag behind in implementation. As of recent reports, Human Rights Courts have been established in only a handful of states including Assam, Andhra Pradesh, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh.
Challenges facing Human Rights Courts
Ambiguity in jurisdiction: One significant challenge is the lack of clarity about what constitutes “offences arising out of violations of human rights.” The Act provides a wide and uncertain interpretation, leaving courts and prosecutors unsure about the exact scope of cases these courts can handle.
Procedural complexities: Under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, a Sessions judge cannot take cognizance of an offence independently. They can only try cases committed to them by a Magistrate under Section 193. This creates a procedural hurdle that wasn’t addressed when Human Rights Courts were conceived, leading to confusion about how cases should be initiated.
Resource constraints: Many states cite administrative and logistical challenges as barriers to establishing these courts. The backlog of cases in regular courts, combined with insufficient infrastructure and trained personnel, makes it difficult to set up specialized courts.
Lack of awareness: A significant portion of the population remains unaware that Human Rights Courts exist or that they have the right to approach these courts for redressal. This limits access to justice for those who need it most.
The role of the National Human Rights Commission
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) plays a complementary role in India’s human rights protection framework. While Human Rights Courts handle prosecution and trial of offences, the NHRC investigates complaints, conducts inquiries, and makes recommendations to authorities.
The NHRC stays in touch with concerned High Courts to clarify the precise nature of offences to be tried in Human Rights Courts and other details regarding the conduct of their business. This coordination is essential for the effective functioning of these specialized courts.
Recent developments and the path forward
In July 2019, a petition was filed in the Supreme Court seeking to solidify human rights protections and ensure proper implementation of Sections 30 and 31 of the Act. This petition underscores the ongoing struggle to establish functional Human Rights Courts across all states.
The rise in custodial deaths and widespread reports of police brutality make the need for specialized courts more urgent. In Shakti Vahini vs. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court emphasized that courts must act as sentinels to zealously guard the right to liberty as a paramount manifestation of individual dignity.
For Human Rights Courts to fulfill their intended purpose, several steps are necessary. States must prioritize establishing these courts in every district. Clear guidelines must be developed to define the types of offences these courts will try. Adequate resources, including trained judges and prosecutors, must be allocated. Public awareness campaigns should inform citizens about their rights and the existence of these courts.
Significance for human rights protection
Human Rights Courts represent a critical innovation in India’s justice delivery system. By creating a specialized forum for human rights cases, these courts promise to address violations more efficiently than the overburdened regular court system.
The specialized nature of these courts means that judges can develop expertise in human rights law, leading to more informed decisions. The presence of Special Public Prosecutors ensures that cases are prosecuted by lawyers familiar with the nuances of human rights violations. Most importantly, the mandate for speedy trials offers hope to victims who might otherwise wait years for justice.
However, the promise of Human Rights Courts remains largely unfulfilled in many parts of India. The gap between legislation and implementation highlights a broader challenge in India’s legal system – the difficulty of translating progressive laws into tangible outcomes for citizens.
What do you think? How can state governments be motivated to prioritize the establishment of Human Rights Courts in every district? What role should civil society organizations play in creating awareness about these courts and helping victims access them?
References
- https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/Protection%20of%20HR%20Act1993_0.pdf
- https://lawcrust.com/human-rights-courts-india/
- https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/the-struggle-to-establish-human-rights-courts-in-india-an-unfulfilled-promise/
- https://blog.ipleaders.in/national-court-human-rights/
- https://vajiramandravi.com/current-affairs/protection-of-human-rights-act-1993/
Leave a Reply