Chapter 57 State Human Rights Commissions In India Structure Function And Limitations

Understanding the Role and Functioning of State Human Rights Commissions in India

The Protection of Human Rights Act of 1993 marked a significant milestone in India's efforts to institutionalize the protection and promotion of human rights across the nation. This legislation not only established the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) at the central level but also mandated the creation of State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs) within individual states. As a result, twenty-six states in India have formally constituted their respective State Human Rights Commissions through official notifications published in the Gazette, thereby decentralizing human rights oversight and creating a framework for addressing violations at the state level.

The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, serves as the foundational legal instrument that provides for the establishment of these bodies. It aims to create a robust institutional mechanism capable of investigating and addressing human rights violations, fostering accountability, and ensuring justice. The State Human Rights Commissions are statutory bodies, meaning they are created by law to perform specific functions within the state, primarily focusing on violations occurring within their territorial jurisdiction.

The formation of these commissions was driven by the broader objective of aligning India’s human rights protection mechanisms with international standards while catering to local needs. By establishing state-level institutions, the law emphasizes decentralization, allowing for more localized and context-sensitive investigations into human rights violations. The process of formation involves each state government issuing notifications through official gazettes, which officially constitute the State Human Rights Commissions and empower them to operate within their respective jurisdictions.

The jurisdiction and powers of State Human Rights Commissions are, however, subject to specific limitations. A crucial aspect of their authority is confined to inquiries into violations related to subjects enumerated in the State List (List-II) and the Concurrent List (List-III) of the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution. The State List comprises subjects on which states have exclusive legislative authority, such as police, public order, and local government, while the Concurrent List includes subjects where both the center and states can legislate, like education and health.

The jurisdiction of State Human Rights Commissions is thus limited to cases that pertain to these subjects. They can investigate complaints or reports of human rights violations concerning issues within their designated areas. However, they are restricted from examining cases that are already under inquiry by the National Human Rights Commission or other statutory bodies. This limitation ensures a clear hierarchy and prevents duplication of investigative efforts, facilitating coordination among various human rights monitoring agencies. When a case is already under investigation by a higher authority, such as the NHRC, the State Commissions are expected to defer their inquiry to avoid overlapping functions and to maintain the integrity of the investigative process.

The inquiry process of the State Human Rights Commissions typically begins when a complaint or report of violation is brought before them within their jurisdiction. The commissions have the authority to investigate these complaints, gather evidence, summon witnesses, and recommend actions or remedial measures. Their investigations aim to establish facts, identify perpetrators, and suggest measures for preventing future violations. Nonetheless, if a case falls within the ambit of the National Human Rights Commission or other statutory bodies, the State Commissions are obliged to defer, respecting the hierarchy established by law.

In the context of Union Territories, which are federal territories governed directly by the Central Government, the law provides for an additional layer of delegation regarding human rights functions. The central government may confer upon the State Human Rights Commissions the responsibility of handling human rights issues that pertain to Union Territories. This delegation allows for a more streamlined approach to addressing violations in these territories, leveraging the existing state-level mechanisms. However, a notable exception exists for the Union Territory of Delhi, which, as the national capital, is directly under the jurisdiction of the National Human Rights Commission. In Delhi, the NHRC retains exclusive authority over human rights investigations, reflecting its special status and the importance of central oversight in the capital.

This arrangement underscores the constitutional structure of India, where Union Territories, especially Delhi, are governed by specific provisions that centralize certain functions to maintain national security, administrative efficiency, and oversight. The delegation of responsibilities for human rights in Union Territories, excluding Delhi, demonstrates flexibility in administrative arrangements, enabling the central government to assign responsibilities based on the territorial and political context. The role of the National Human Rights Commission in Delhi signifies its importance as a vigilant guardian of human rights at the national level, especially in a city hosting the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government.

In conclusion, the legal framework established by the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, reflects India's commitment to safeguarding human rights through a multi-tiered institutional system. The creation of State Human Rights Commissions empowers states to address violations more effectively, respecting the constitutional division of subjects and responsibilities. While their jurisdiction is limited to issues within the State and Concurrent Lists, these commissions play a vital role in investigating complaints, recommending corrective actions, and fostering awareness about human rights. The arrangements for Union Territories further illustrate the nuanced approach India adopts in balancing decentralization with centralized oversight, especially in sensitive areas like Delhi. Together, these mechanisms form a comprehensive system designed to uphold human dignity and promote justice across the diverse fabric of Indian society.

State Human Rights Commission Structure and Appointments

Composition and Functioning of the State Human Rights Commission in India

The State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) is a vital statutory body established at the state level to protect and promote human rights within its jurisdiction. It operates as an independent authority, functioning separately from the executive branch of the government, to ensure impartiality and objectivity in addressing human rights violations. The commission's core structure comprises a chairperson and two members, forming a multi-member body dedicated to its mission.

The appointment process for the chairperson and members of the SHRC is meticulously designed to maintain the commission's independence and credibility. The Governor of the state holds the constitutional authority to appoint these officials, but this power is exercised based on recommendations from a specially constituted committee. This committee typically includes key state officials such as the Chief Minister, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, the Home Minister, the Leader of Opposition, and, in states with a Legislative Council, its Chairman and Leader of Opposition. Such a collaborative appointment process ensures that qualified and impartial individuals are selected, safeguarding the integrity of the commission. The involvement of multiple political figures and officials acts as a check against arbitrary or biased appointments, reflecting the constitutional principles of checks and balances inherent in Indian polity.

Turning to the qualifications of the leadership, the criteria are stringent to ensure that the commission is headed by individuals with substantial judicial experience and expertise in human rights issues. The chairperson must be a retired Chief Justice of a High Court or a Judge of a High Court, emphasizing the importance of judicial wisdom and integrity in guiding the commission's work. Members should be either serving or retired judges with at least seven years of experience or individuals possessing significant knowledge of human rights. The selection process for judges involves consultation with the Chief Justice of the respective High Court, further reinforcing the judicial propriety and competence required for these roles. Such qualifications underscore the importance of judicial experience in establishing the authority and credibility of the commission, enabling it to effectively investigate and address human rights concerns.

The tenure of the chairperson and members is set for three years or until they reach the age of 70, whichever occurs first. This tenure policy ensures a balance between continuity and renewal. Members are eligible for reappointment, allowing experienced individuals to serve additional terms if reselected based on performance and the needs of the commission. The age limit of 70 years aims to promote turnover and fresh perspectives within the institution, preventing long-term stagnation. The fixed tenure and reappointment provisions foster stability while also encouraging accountability, thereby supporting the independence of the commission. After completing their terms, members can continue to serve if reappointed, ensuring the commission retains experienced personnel capable of guiding its functions effectively.

A critical aspect of the commission’s independence relates to the security of tenure and the procedures for removal. Members can only be removed from office by the President of India, not by the state government or the governor, which provides a safeguard against undue political influence. The grounds for removal include misbehavior, incapacity, insolvency, or other legal reasons. In cases of alleged misbehavior or incapacity, the Supreme Court of India conducts an inquiry before any removal takes place, adding a judicial layer of protection. This process requires the President to act on the advice of the judiciary, specifically after an inquiry by the Supreme Court, thereby ensuring that removals are based on substantive grounds and are free from political bias. Such stringent procedures underpin the judicial independence of the commission, aligning with the constitutional safeguards designed for constitutional bodies across India.

Financial autonomy is another pillar supporting the independence of the State Human Rights Commission. The salaries, allowances, and conditions of service of its members are determined by the state government. However, once fixed at the time of appointment, these conditions cannot be reduced or disadvantageously altered, safeguarding the members from arbitrary reductions or political interference. This provision ensures that the commission can operate effectively without fear of financial retribution or undue influence, reinforcing its impartiality and neutrality. The stability of service conditions is essential for maintaining the morale and independence of the commission, enabling it to function as an effective watchdog for human rights.

In summary, the structure and functioning of the State Human Rights Commission in India are carefully designed to uphold its independence, credibility, and efficacy. The appointment process involving key state officials and the judiciary ensures qualified and impartial leadership. The fixed tenure and reappointment provisions promote stability and continuity, while the stringent removal procedures protect against arbitrary dismissal. Financial safeguards further reinforce the commission’s autonomy, enabling it to independently investigate and address human rights violations. These comprehensive measures reflect the Indian constitutional commitment to establishing robust institutions that protect fundamental rights and uphold the rule of law, thereby strengthening democratic governance and human dignity.

State Human Rights Commission's Role in Protecting Rights

Functions and Role of the State Human Rights Commission in India

The State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) plays a pivotal role in safeguarding and promoting human rights within the Indian constitutional framework. Established as a statutory body at the state level, the SHRC is entrusted with a broad spectrum of functions aimed at ensuring accountability of public officials, improving detention conditions, promoting legal awareness, and fostering civil society involvement in human rights issues.

One of the primary functions of the SHRC is to investigate violations of human rights committed by public servants. The Commission possesses the authority to initiate inquiries suo motu—meaning on its own initiative—without requiring a prior petition or external request. This proactive power enables the Commission to act swiftly in addressing potential abuses or negligence by government officials, thereby reinforcing its role as a vigilant guardian of human dignity. Additionally, the SHRC can entertain complaints or petitions presented by victims or concerned citizens, providing a formal channel for grievances related to human rights violations. It can also act upon court orders directing investigations, ensuring a comprehensive approach to accountability.

The Commission's intervention in ongoing court proceedings is another significant aspect of its work. When legal cases involving allegations of human rights violations are pending before courts, the SHRC can step into the proceedings to provide its insights, support, or recommendations. Such interventions can influence the legal process, emphasizing the importance of human rights considerations within judicial adjudications. This interplay between the Commission and the judiciary underscores the integrated approach India adopts toward human rights protection.

In addition to investigations and legal interventions, the SHRC undertakes inspections of detention facilities such as jails and other detention centers. These visits aim to assess the living conditions of inmates, ensure humane treatment, and identify areas requiring reform. The rights of detainees are protected by various legal safeguards, including constitutional provisions and specific laws, which the Commission reviews regularly. These safeguards encompass fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India, as well as statutory laws designed to prevent torture, cruelty, and illegal detention. The Commission evaluates the effectiveness of these protections and recommends necessary improvements to uphold human dignity.

The review of legal safeguards forms an essential part of the SHRC's mandate. By assessing constitutional provisions and other legal frameworks, the Commission identifies gaps or deficiencies and suggests measures for their effective implementation. Strengthening legal safeguards ensures that human rights are not only protected in theory but are actively enforced and upheld in practice across the states.

Furthermore, the SHRC studies various factors that can impede the enjoyment of human rights, such as acts of terrorism, communal violence, or other social issues. Recognizing the complex interplay between security concerns and human rights, the Commission recommends remedial measures to address these challenges without compromising fundamental rights. This balanced approach reflects India’s commitment to maintaining internal security while respecting human dignity.

Promotion of research and awareness about human rights is another crucial function of the Commission. Through research activities, the SHRC contributes to a deeper understanding of human rights issues, helping to shape policy and legal reforms. Moreover, spreading human rights literacy among the populace is vital for empowering citizens to recognize and defend their rights. Public education campaigns, awareness drives, and dissemination of information about legal safeguards aim to foster a culture of respect for human rights throughout society.

The Commission also plays an active role in encouraging and supporting non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working in the field of human rights. NGOs often have close ties with communities and can reach marginalized groups that the state machinery may not effectively serve. By collaborating with NGOs, the SHRC extends its reach and effectiveness, leveraging grassroots efforts to promote human rights awareness and advocacy.

The functions of the SHRC are interconnected and rooted in India’s broader commitment to human rights protections, which are enshrined in the Constitution through fundamental rights such as equality, freedom, and dignity. These rights are further reinforced by numerous laws and policies designed to prevent abuses and promote justice. The SHRC’s activities—ranging from investigations and inspections to research and public education—are instrumental in ensuring these legal safeguards are operational and effective.

In sum, the State Human Rights Commission serves as a vital institution in India’s human rights framework. Its multifaceted functions—investigating violations, influencing judicial processes, inspecting detention facilities, reviewing legal protections, and promoting awareness—collectively contribute to a society that respects human dignity and strives to prevent abuses. By addressing the complex challenges posed by issues like terrorism, social unrest, and institutional negligence, the SHRC embodies India’s enduring commitment to uphold human rights and foster a just and humane society.

State Human Rights Commission Operations

The Working of the State Human Rights Commission

The State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) functions as a vital statutory body established under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, with the primary responsibility of monitoring and safeguarding human rights within the state. It operates as a quasi-judicial authority, endowed with powers that enable it to investigate violations, recommend remedial measures, and ensure accountability from state authorities. Its operational framework is characterized by significant autonomy, particularly in regulating its procedures, which allows it to set internal rules and methods for conducting inquiries, ensuring that its functioning remains independent and effective.

One of the core powers of the Commission is its authority to exercise the powers of a civil court. This grants it the ability to summon witnesses, call for evidence, and conduct hearings with a judicial character. These powers facilitate thorough investigations into allegations of human rights violations, allowing the Commission to gather relevant information and assess the veracity of complaints. Additionally, the Commission can call for reports or information from the state government or any subordinate authority, which aids in its inquiries and ensures transparency.

However, the Commission's investigative authority is limited by a strict temporal boundary. It can only inquire into cases where the alleged violation occurred within one year from the date of the incident. This time restriction emphasizes the importance of timely action in human rights cases, ensuring that investigations are prompt and relevant. After this period, the Commission is barred from inquiring into the matter, underscoring the need for swift intervention to uphold justice and accountability.

During or after an inquiry, the Commission can undertake various steps aimed at remedying human rights violations, though it does not possess punitive powers. Its recommendations include suggesting compensation or damages to the victim, recommending prosecution or disciplinary actions against guilty public servants, and advising the government to provide immediate interim relief to the victims. It also has the authority to approach higher judicial authorities such as the Supreme Court or the State High Court for directions or orders, especially in complex or unresolved cases. Despite these extensive powers, the Commission's functions remain primarily recommendatory; it cannot impose punishments or directly enforce remedies. Nonetheless, the government is obligated to respond to its recommendations by informing the Commission about the actions taken within one month, fostering a measure of accountability.

The Commission’s reports are submitted annually or on special occasions to the state government. These reports are then laid before the legislature, providing a crucial oversight mechanism. The legislature or government can scrutinize the Commission's findings and recommendations, and although the recommendations are non-binding, the government’s acknowledgment ensures a degree of accountability. If the government chooses not to accept any recommendation, it must provide reasons for its decision, thereby maintaining transparency and enabling parliamentary oversight.

The process of inquiry and recommendation involves the Commission initiating investigations based on complaints or reports, calling for information from relevant authorities, and conducting hearings. Upon completing its inquiry, it formulates recommendations aimed at redressing the violations—such as awarding compensation, initiating prosecution against violators, or providing interim relief to victims. The government then has the discretion to act upon these recommendations or ignore them; however, it is required to inform the Commission of its actions within a specified timeframe, maintaining a channel of communication and oversight.

The entities involved in this framework include the State Human Rights Commission itself, a statutory body created to uphold human rights at the state level. It functions as a quasi-judicial authority, ensuring that investigations and recommendations are carried out with judicial rigor. The higher judiciary, comprising the Supreme Court and State High Courts, also plays a significant role. These courts can be approached by the Commission for directions, orders, or writs to enforce human rights or intervene in cases where judicial intervention is necessary to uphold justice.

The functioning of the State Human Rights Commission reflects the broader landscape of human rights protection in India. It operates within a system that includes various statutory bodies and courts dedicated to safeguarding fundamental rights. Its recommendatory nature underscores the importance of government accountability; while it cannot enforce its recommendations directly, the requirement for the government to respond ensures that human rights issues are addressed seriously. The one-year inquiry limit highlights the importance of prompt action, aligning with principles of justice that prioritize timeliness in addressing violations.

In conclusion, the State Human Rights Commission plays a crucial role in the protection and promotion of human rights at the state level. Its powers to regulate procedures, conduct judicial-style inquiries, and make recommendations contribute significantly to the accountability of public authorities. Although its recommendations are non-binding, the obligation of the government to respond fosters a system of checks and balances that is vital for a healthy democracy. The Commission’s activities, supported by judicial oversight and legislative scrutiny, exemplify a comprehensive approach to human rights enforcement, emphasizing timely action, transparency, and the ongoing effort to uphold the dignity and rights of every individual within the state.

Human Rights Courts: A Specialized Judicial System

Protection of Human Rights Act (1993) and the Establishment of Human Rights Courts in India

The Protection of Human Rights Act (1993) marks a significant step in India’s legal framework for safeguarding fundamental rights and ensuring swift justice for violations thereof. One of its key provisions is the establishment of specialized courts known as Human Rights Courts, which are instituted at the district level across the country. These courts are tasked with the speedy trial of cases related to human rights violations, reflecting the government’s commitment to uphold constitutional rights and address abuses promptly and effectively.

Human Rights Courts are established under the authority of the 1993 Act, which mandates their creation to facilitate a focused judicial process for cases involving human rights infringements. The primary objective of these courts is to ensure that victims of human rights violations do not face prolonged delays in justice, thereby reinforcing the accountability of state and non-state actors responsible for such violations. By being situated at the district level, these courts aim to make justice more accessible to victims and witnesses, reducing the procedural hurdles often associated with higher courts.

The process of establishing these courts involves a crucial step of judicial oversight. The state government possesses the authority to set up a Human Rights Court in each district, but this action cannot be taken unilaterally. It requires the concurrence or approval of the Chief Justice of the High Court of the respective state. This requirement ensures that the courts are established with proper judicial oversight, maintaining the integrity and credibility of the judicial process. The approval of the Chief Justice acts as a safeguard, aligning the creation of these courts with judicial standards and priorities.

Once established, each Human Rights Court is assigned a public prosecutor or advocate responsible for prosecuting cases brought before it. The law stipulates that the prosecutor or advocate must have at least seven years of legal practice, ensuring that only experienced legal professionals handle sensitive human rights cases. These legal officers can be appointed directly by the government or designated as special public prosecutors specifically for these courts. Their role is vital in conducting prosecutions effectively, presenting evidence, and ensuring that justice is served efficiently and fairly.

The entire process of setting up a Human Rights Court involves a series of coordinated steps. First, the state government proposes or acts to establish a court within a district. This proposal then requires formal approval from the Chief Justice of the High Court, serving as a judicial checkpoint that upholds the standards of the judiciary. Subsequently, the government appoints a qualified public prosecutor or advocate with the requisite experience to manage prosecutions in the court. These measures collectively emphasize judicial oversight and the importance of legal professionalism in handling cases related to human rights violations.

The entities involved in this process include the state government, which bears the primary responsibility for establishing the courts; the Chief Justice of the High Court, whose approval is essential; and the legal personnel, namely public prosecutors or advocates, tasked with conducting prosecutions. The collaboration among these entities underscores the importance of judicial authority and professional legal standards in ensuring that the courts function effectively and impartially.

This legislative framework and the procedural safeguards embedded within it reflect India’s broader efforts to strengthen its justice mechanisms concerning human rights. By creating specialized courts at the district level, the government aims to address violations swiftly, uphold the rule of law, and reinforce public confidence in the justice system. These courts are aligned with international human rights norms, emphasizing accountability, transparency, and the protection of individual rights.

In essence, the establishment of Human Rights Courts under the Protection of Human Rights Act (1993) signifies a conscious move towards a more responsive and responsible judiciary that recognizes the gravity of human rights violations and the necessity of expeditious justice. The involvement of the judiciary in approving the setup of these courts, coupled with the appointment of experienced prosecutors, ensures that cases are handled with the requisite seriousness and competence. Overall, this legal provision exemplifies India’s commitment to protecting human dignity and ensuring that violations do not go unpunished, thus fostering a more just and rights-respecting society.

2019 Human Rights Act Amendment: Strengthening Indian Commissions

The 2019 Amendment Act of the Protection of Human Rights significantly overhauled and strengthened the framework governing human rights institutions in India, particularly the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the State Human Rights Commissions. This legislative update aimed to enhance their effectiveness, credibility, and operational efficiency by introducing a series of structural, procedural, and jurisdictional reforms.

The original Protection of Human Rights Act, enacted in 1993, laid the foundation for establishing the NHRC and various State Commissions tasked with protecting and promoting human rights throughout India. The 2019 Amendment Act builds upon this legacy, reflecting an ongoing effort to align these institutions with contemporary standards of human rights protection, judicial integrity, and administrative accountability.

One of the pivotal changes introduced by the 2019 Amendment pertains to the eligibility criteria for appointing the Chairperson of the NHRC. Previously, the position was limited to former Chief Justices of India, which, while ensuring judicial expertise, restricted the pool of qualified candidates. The amendment broadens this criterion by making individuals who have served as judges of the Supreme Court also eligible for appointment as the Chairperson of the NHRC. This inclusivity of former Supreme Court judges aims to bring diverse judicial experience to the leadership of the commission, thereby enhancing its credibility and decision-making capacity. The Chairperson, as the head of the NHRC, plays a vital role in overseeing the functioning of the commission, ensuring that human rights violations are addressed effectively and that the institution maintains its independence and authority.

In addition to leadership eligibility, the amendment increases the number of members within the NHRC itself. The total membership has been raised from two to three, with a specific stipulation that at least one member must be a woman. This change underscores a commitment to greater inclusivity, gender diversity, and the incorporation of broader expertise in the commission’s advisory and investigative functions. The inclusion of more members facilitates a wider range of perspectives, enabling the NHRC to better understand and respond to the multifaceted nature of human rights issues across India.

Furthermore, the amendment introduces provisions for ex-officio membership, whereby certain heads of sectoral commissions are now automatically members of the NHRC by virtue of their office. Specifically, the chairpersons of the National Commission for Backward Classes (BCs), the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, and the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities are included as ex-officio members. This integration fosters better coordination among various human rights and social justice bodies, promoting a more unified approach to addressing issues related to vulnerable groups. It ensures that specialized knowledge and sector-specific insights are directly incorporated into the deliberations and actions of the NHRC, leading to more comprehensive and effective human rights advocacy.

In terms of tenure, the 2019 Amendment reduces the term for the Chairperson and members of both the NHRC and the State Human Rights Commissions from five years to three years. While this shorter tenure allows for more frequent leadership renewal, the amendment also permits reappointment, offering flexibility for experienced members to continue their service if deemed necessary. This change aims to inject dynamism into the institutions, potentially fostering fresh ideas and responsiveness, though it also raises questions about maintaining continuity and institutional stability over time.

Addressing the functioning of State Commissions, the amendment makes a significant provision regarding their leadership. It now enables individuals who have served as judges of a High Court to be appointed as Chairpersons of State Human Rights Commissions. This move aligns the qualification standards at the state level with those at the national level, ensuring that experienced judicial figures lead these bodies. Such judicial background enhances the authority and effectiveness of State Commissions in safeguarding human rights within their respective jurisdictions.

A notable feature of the amendment is the delegation of responsibilities concerning the jurisdiction over Union Territories. It authorizes the central government to confer upon State Human Rights Commissions the authority to handle human rights issues in Union Territories, except Delhi. In Delhi, the NHRC continues to oversee such matters, maintaining a centralized oversight at the national level for the capital. This decentralization of powers allows for more localized and specialized attention to human rights concerns in Union Territories like Lakshadweep, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, and others, thus improving the responsiveness and efficiency of human rights enforcement in these regions.

The administrative functioning of these commissions has also been clarified. The Secretary-General of the NHRC now exercises all administrative and financial powers, except judicial functions and regulatory roles, under the direction of the Chairperson. Similarly, the Secretary of the State Human Rights Commission manages its administrative and financial affairs within the framework set by the Chairperson. This delineation of administrative authority ensures that the day-to-day operations of the commissions are conducted smoothly, with clear lines of control and accountability, thereby enhancing their efficiency and transparency.

Overall, the 2019 Amendment Act reflects a comprehensive effort to modernize and strengthen India’s human rights institutions, making them more inclusive, accountable, and capable of addressing contemporary human rights challenges. By broadening eligibility criteria, increasing membership, integrating sectoral commissions, reducing tenure, and decentralizing jurisdiction over Union Territories, the amendment aims to create more robust mechanisms for human rights protection. These reforms are designed to enhance the credibility, independence, and operational effectiveness of the NHRC and State Commissions, ensuring they remain relevant and responsive in a rapidly evolving socio-political landscape. Such developments underscore India's ongoing commitment to safeguarding human dignity and upholding the rule of law, vital for the promotion of justice and equality across the nation.