Shopian Fake Encounter case
STATE TIMES NEWS
SRINAGAR: In a much publicised Shopian Fake Encounter case, in which one Sandeep filed a Public Interest Litigation, the Division Bench of J&K High Court comprising Chief Justice (A) Rajesh Bindal and Justice Puneet Gupta observed that public interest petition filed by a third party cannot and should not be entertained, as he has no locus or cause of action to raise that dispute. It cannot be said to be in larger public interest as guidelines for investigation in such type of cases have already been laid down by the Supreme Court in cases referred to by petitioner himself.
The Division Bench, while disposing of the PIL, observed that merely adding certain judgments of Supreme Court laying guidelines with reference to the investigation of persons killed in encounter will not make any difference as the matter raised by parents of deceased persons is already pending consideration in the Court and provisions of law applicable or any judgment with reference to the subject matter can always be cited even if same is not quoted in the pleadings. The claim made is with reference to a specific incident for which the petitioner has not been authorised by aggrieved party to raise a dispute. Further, if parents of deceased can approach the Court by filing a writ petition prior in time, they can always raise whatever grievance they have. In such a situation, public interest petition filed by a third party cannot and should not be entertained as he has no locus or cause of action to raise that dispute.
DB further observed that as far as Constitution of Human Rights Courts in the Union Territory of J&K is concerned, needless to add that vide notification dated 07.02.2019 issued by the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Government of J&K, the Court of the learned Principal Sessions Judge of each district has been designated as Human Rights Courts. Hence, the grievance of petitioner to that extent does not survive. As far as constitution of the State Human Rights Commission in Union Territory of J&K is concerned, a perusal of Section 21 of the 1993 Act provides for Constitution of a Human Rights Commission in States. After enactment of the Reorganisation Act, the Jammu and Kashmir ceases to be a State as now it is a Union Territory w.e.f. October 31, 2019.
DB further observed that section 21(7) of Act of 1993, which is now applicable in J&K, provides that Central Government may, by order, confer upon the State Commission functions relating to human rights being discharged by the Union Territories, other than the Union Territory of Delhi, for which, the powers remain with the National Human Rights Commission and prior to the enactment of the Reorganization Act, the Jammu & Kashmir Protection of Human Rights Act, 1997 was applicable in J&K. In exercise of powers conferred thereunder, the J&K State Human Rights Commission had also been constituted, which was wound up after the enactment of the Reorganization Act. The residents of J&K, if having any grievance regarding violation of their human rights, have to approach National Human Rights Commission. The matter in that regard especially with reference to provisions of Section 21(7) of the Act of 1993 needs to be examined by the Government so that proper remedies are available with aggrieved persons, who are having any grievance regarding violation of their human rights, the DB added.
