Human rights protection under the Act requires functional State Commissions, speedy vacancies, Human Rights Courts, and custodial safeguards.

The statutory power to constitute State Human Rights Commissions was read as a power coupled with duty, because a permissive construction would defeat the Act's object of effective State-level human rights protection. Vacancies in Commissions were required to be filled expeditiously to keep them functional and avoid administrative delay undermining redress. States were also directed to take appropriate steps under the Act to specify Human Rights Courts for speedy trial of human rights offences. Additional safeguards, including CCTV coverage, non-official visitors, action in custodial culpability cases, and deployment of women constables where needed, were treated as practical measures to strengthen prevention and enforcement.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the power of a State Government under Section 21 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to constitute a State Human Rights Commission is discretionary or a power coupled with duty; (ii) whether vacancies in State Human Rights Commissions must be filled within a fixed time so that the Commissions remain functional; (iii) whether the State Governments should take steps under Section 30 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to specify Human Rights Courts; and (iv) whether additional measures such as CCTV coverage, non-official visitors, prosecution in cases of custodial culpability, and deployment of women constables should be acted upon to strengthen protection of human rights.

Issue (i): whether the power of a State Government under Section 21 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to constitute a State Human Rights Commission is discretionary or a power coupled with duty.

Analysis: The statutory scheme was read in the light of the object of the enactment, namely effective protection of human rights at the State level. The use of the word "may" in Section 21 was held not to be conclusive of discretion; its meaning depended on the purpose of the legislation, the context, and the consequences of a permissive reading. The Court relied on established principles of construction that statutory powers may carry a corresponding obligation where the object of the statute would otherwise be defeated. The absence of State Commissions was found to undermine access to justice and the legislative promise of human rights protection.

Conclusion: The power under Section 21 is a power coupled with duty, and the State Governments were required to constitute State Human Rights Commissions.

Issue (ii): whether vacancies in State Human Rights Commissions must be filled within a fixed time so that the Commissions remain functional.

Analysis: The Court held that a Commission without a Chairperson or Members is effectively non-functional and frustrates the statutory purpose. Since the Commissions are intended to act as watchdogs and provide redress, bureaucratic delay or administrative apathy cannot be allowed to render them ineffective. The Court therefore directed that existing vacancies be filled promptly and that future vacancies be anticipated and processed in advance to avoid prolonged vacancies.

Conclusion: Existing and future vacancies in State Human Rights Commissions were required to be filled expeditiously, and in any event within the time indicated by the Court.

Issue (iii): whether the State Governments should take steps under Section 30 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to specify Human Rights Courts.

Analysis: The Court noted that Section 30 enables the State Government, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, to specify Courts of Session as Human Rights Courts for speedy trial of offences arising from human rights violations. As the provision is designed to secure prompt adjudication, the States were expected to examine and take action on the creation or specification of such Courts, subject to the statutory framework.

Conclusion: The State Governments were directed to take appropriate action under Section 30 to establish or specify Human Rights Courts where required.

Issue (iv): whether additional measures such as CCTV coverage, non-official visitors, prosecution in cases of custodial culpability, and deployment of women constables should be acted upon to strengthen protection of human rights.

Analysis: The Court treated these measures as practical safeguards against custodial abuse and as aids to the enforcement of human rights. It accepted the utility of CCTV cameras in prisons and considered phased installation in police stations. It also approved consideration of non-official visitors, prosecution where enquiries reveal culpability in custodial deaths or injuries, and deployment of women constables where circumstances so require.

Conclusion: The States were directed or expected to take appropriate steps on these protective measures in accordance with the Court's directions.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings were concluded with binding directions to strengthen the State-level human rights protection framework, ensure functional commissions, promote speedy redressal, and adopt preventive safeguards against custodial abuse.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory power is conferred to advance a public welfare object, the word "may" can be construed as imposing a duty, and the Court may direct compliance when a permissive interpretation would defeat the purpose of the legislation and deny access to justice.

---