SHILLONG, Aug 20: The appointment of Justice (retd) T. Vaiphei, Chairperson of Meghalaya Human Rights Commission (MHRC) by the Meghalaya government to head the judicial enquiry into the death of former HNLC general secretary Cheristerfield Thangkhiew has raised many queries. However, Justice Vaiphei has told The Shillong Times that he sees no problem with taking up the state government’s appointment for the judicial enquiry into the same.
The National Human Rights Commission and the State Human Rights Commission have concurrent jurisdiction.
When Justice Vaiphei was asked if it was not a conflict of interest for him to head the judicial enquiry since the MHRC has taken suo-motu cognition of the incident, he said that the MHRC has not started the investigations hence there is nothing wrong with him taking up the government assignment.
Chief Minister, Conrad K. Sangma too justified the decision of the state government to appoint Justice Vaiphei as the head of the judicial inquiry.
“There is absolutely no rule or law which bars the government from appointing the Chairperson of MHRC to head the judicial inquiry. The Commission of Inquiry Act mandates the judicial inquiry to have more powers than the State Human Rights Commission,” Sangma told reporters on Friday.
Stating that the Commission looks into aspects of human life, he said that the judicial inquiry has the power to go into the background of the case and ask all departments to provide necessary information.
According to him, the State Human Rights Commission does not have such power.
“We are moving forward with this since we felt that he (Justice Vaiphei) would be able to give both perspectives. Therefore, we will be actually gaining more by appointing him as the head of the judicial inquiry,” Sangma said.
The chief minister further said that he (Justice Vaiphei) would be able to include the twin aspects of the investigation and human rights in his inquiry.
“Therefore, we are achieving more than a judicial inquiry. The chairperson of the MHRC would be able to do justice to the inquiry since he is a qualified person with sufficient knowledge of the region,” Sangma added.
Meanwhile, the Deputy Secretary, Home (Political) department, has issued a press note clarifying that as per provisions of Section 21(5) and Section 36 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 the National Human Rights Commission/ State Human Rights Commission does not inquire into the matter when a judicial inquiry is notified under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 as there cannot be two parallel inquiries on the same matter by two statutory bodies. Hence, there is no issue of conflict of interest.
The press note states that the judicial inquiry conducted under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 has a wider jurisdiction as compared to any inquiry by the State Human Rights Commission which is limited by the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
Moreover, there is nothing improper about the nomination of the Chairperson of MHRC to head the Judicial Inquiry Commission since the dignitary is a retired Chief Justice of a High Court and is eligible to head the Commission, the press note added.
Earlier, noted human rights activist Suhas Chakma, Director, Risk and Rights Analysis, New Delhi had pointed to Section 21 (5) of the Act which says that SHRC cannot investigate if the same is already being investigated by the NHRC or some other Commission of inquiry. In the Cheristerfield case, however, the matter has “already” being taken up suo-motu by the SHRC much before the judicial inquiry was instituted by the state government.
“Since the SHRC has made prior intervention the judicial inquiry announced by the government feels improper. The issue under the Act is who initiates first and obviously, the SHRC had initiated first and it should prevail. Why appoint the Chair of the SHRC who has already intervened,” Chakma queried.
