Reaction to Assam Chief Minister’s comments on the working of the Commission
The Commission, in its meeting on 23 April 2001, considered media reports regarding the statement of the Assam Chief Minister Shri Prafulla Kumar Mahanta in which he had expressed a strong reaction to the proceedings of this Commission which had directed him to consider the propriety of continuing Shri Rajendra Mushahary as a Minister in the State Cabinet. The Assam Chief Minister was reported to have said "the NHRC has crossed its purview by attempting to pass an opinion on a sub-judice matter".
The Commission was constrained to observe that if the newspaper reports were correct, the Chief Minister of Assam had completely missed the point made by the Commission and he had made observations which depicted lack of appreciation of the Commission’s role and functions envisaged under the Statute. Under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, besides its other functions, the Commission is also required to inquire into violation of human rights or negligence in prevention of such violation; review the safeguards provided by or under the Constitution or any law for the protection of human rights, and such other functions as it may consider necessary for the promotion of human rights.
The Commission had requested the Chief Minister to consider the propriety of continuing such a person as a Minister in the State Cabinet, as it appeared to run counter to the basic rudiments of the rule of law in–as-much as the prime accused being a Minister was likely to give the impression that the investigation and prosecution of the case might lack fairness and impartiality. Good governance in accordance with the rule of law is a basic human right. If the newspaper reports were correct, the Chief Minister’s statement made a mention of the matter being in the Court. The Commission felt that it had been overlooked and the point missed that the court was concerned with the trial of the offence, and there was no material brought to indicate that the propriety of the continuance of the prime accused as a Minister in the State Cabinet was under consideration in any Court.
Thus the Commission reiterated its earlier observation and pointed out to the Chief Minister of Assam that it would be constrained to declare that the continuance of the principal accused of such an offence as a Minister, in its view, was an erosion of the rule of law. As a consequence, this was a serious violation of human rights. The Commission added that it would, even now, like to believe that the Chief Minister would correctly appreciate the true position under the Constitution and the laws and proceed to act accordingly.
The Commission’s directions were sent to the Chief Secretary of Assam on 23 April 2001 for placing before the Chief Minister. Another copy was sent to the Secretary to the Governor of Assam to be placed before him for information.
The Commission was constrained to observe that if the newspaper reports were correct, the Chief Minister of Assam had completely missed the point made by the Commission and he had made observations which depicted lack of appreciation of the Commission’s role and functions envisaged under the Statute. Under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, besides its other functions, the Commission is also required to inquire into violation of human rights or negligence in prevention of such violation; review the safeguards provided by or under the Constitution or any law for the protection of human rights, and such other functions as it may consider necessary for the promotion of human rights.
The Commission had requested the Chief Minister to consider the propriety of continuing such a person as a Minister in the State Cabinet, as it appeared to run counter to the basic rudiments of the rule of law in–as-much as the prime accused being a Minister was likely to give the impression that the investigation and prosecution of the case might lack fairness and impartiality. Good governance in accordance with the rule of law is a basic human right. If the newspaper reports were correct, the Chief Minister’s statement made a mention of the matter being in the Court. The Commission felt that it had been overlooked and the point missed that the court was concerned with the trial of the offence, and there was no material brought to indicate that the propriety of the continuance of the prime accused as a Minister in the State Cabinet was under consideration in any Court.
Thus the Commission reiterated its earlier observation and pointed out to the Chief Minister of Assam that it would be constrained to declare that the continuance of the principal accused of such an offence as a Minister, in its view, was an erosion of the rule of law. As a consequence, this was a serious violation of human rights. The Commission added that it would, even now, like to believe that the Chief Minister would correctly appreciate the true position under the Constitution and the laws and proceed to act accordingly.
The Commission’s directions were sent to the Chief Secretary of Assam on 23 April 2001 for placing before the Chief Minister. Another copy was sent to the Secretary to the Governor of Assam to be placed before him for information.