[ad_1]
Court will resolve whether or not the reports are merely recommendatory or binding upon govt.
A Full Bench (comprising three judges) of the Madras High Court on Tuesday reserved its verdict on a reference made to it by a Division Bench in July 2017 for answering whether or not the reports of the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) had been merely recommendatory in nature or if they might be binding upon the State authorities.
Justices S. Vaidyanathan, V. Parthiban and M. Sundar deferred their judgment after listening to marathon arguments superior by a battery of legal professionals since February 17 this 12 months. Over 40 advocates made their submissions earlier than the Bench.
Additional Solicitor General R. Shankaranarayanan, Additional Advocate General Narmadha Sampath, Central Government standing counsel M.P. Jaisha and advocate R. Srinivas represented the Centre, the State authorities, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the SHRC, respectively, earlier than the Full Bench and positioned their submissions.
Amicus Curiae B. Vijay wound up the arguments by bringing to the discover of the judges {that a} earlier Full Bench comprising Justices T.S. Sivagnanam, V. Bhavani Subbaroyan and M. Dhandapani had posed 5 important questions, associated to the difficulty, to the State authorities on June 17, 2019 and obtained written replies to them on July 10, 2019.
Cumbersome process
Mr. Vijay informed the courtroom that the State was really following a cumbersome process that may find yourself whittling down the effect of the SHRC reports.
Stating that it had obtained 101 suggestions from the SHRC within the final 5 years with respect to the Home division, the federal government mentioned that 40 of these suggestions had been accepted and 35 had been into account. The suggestions made by SHRC in 26 different instances had been stayed by the High Court, it added.
[ad_2]
