Anshika Tiwari –
A division bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court comprising of Chief Justice A.K. Goswami and Justice N. Jayasurya asked the Andhra state government to explain as to why the Andhra State Human Rights Commission has hitherto been operating from Hyderabad.
The Court also asked the government to submit particulars of the office, details of staff and the infrastructure provided for the commission.
The Court was adjudicating on a Public Interest Litigation filed by Malleswara Rao, a civil liberties activist and the joint secretary of AP Citizens’ Rights Society.
Malleswara Rao in his PIL raised issues regarding the inaccessibility of the office and the inability of consumers to file complaints since the panel sat in Hyderabad.
He sought direction from the court to the AP Government to provide office, staff and infrastructural facilities for the APHRC.
Counsel for the petitioner, Suresh Kumar said that the government had failed its duty to provide staff and infrastructure to the commission members.
“There is no mechanism as of now to receive complaints and process them,” he said.
The bench sought to know as to why the APHRC was located in Telangana and remarked that even the smallest states had the Human Rights Commission located within their own jurisdiction.
In response, Advocate General S.Sriram said they had readied an office in Pollution Control Board building in Hyderabad for locating the APHRC office, but the Telangana government took over the building.
Government special counsel Suman explained to the court that, “Bifurcation of some institutes including SHRC was yet to be completed as per the Reorganisation Act. (DC)”
The commission has taken up cases online and issues interim directions also, she said.
The advocate general explained to the court that there are some pending issues that need to be solved between the two states.
In his defence, he also claimed before the court that Lokayukta and AP state electricity regulatory commission had also been working from Hyderabad and their location away from the state “did not impact” their functioning.
However, the bench opined that there is no need for the HRC to be located in another state.
The stance of the court was clear. It said that it should be convenient for people to approach the body for redress.