Functions of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka

The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka was established by the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka Act No. 21 of 1996.

The Commission has power to inquire into, and investigate, complaints regarding procedures, with a view to ensuring compliance with the provisions of the Constitution elating to fundamental rights and to promoting respect for, and observance of, fundamental rights as conferred by the section 10 of the Act.
 

The Head office of the commission received 5054 cases throughout the year 2007 (from 1st January to 31st of August). Nevertheless only 3031 cases have been investigated as the rest do not fall within the mandate of the HRC.

The commission has power to intervene a matter only where fundamental rights are infringed by executive or administrative action. Complaints of the alleged infringement or imminent infringement of a fundamental right should be made within 3 months from the date of the infringement.

The Commission in one of its recent recommendations dated 05th June 2007 recommended some issues against one of the two main government institutions namely, Ministry of Justice and Law Reforms of Sri Lanka and Prison Headquarters. Petitioners who were employed in the Prison Department applied for the Posts of Grade II Jailors.

The petitioners argued that they were not selected despite the fact that both had scored the highest marks at the interview. It was evident that the petitioners were deprived of their rights due to undue political intervention.

After the inquiry of the Commission it was revealed that the respondents followed illegal and detrimental procedures in selecting the candidates for the above posts and thus, infringed the fundamental rights of the petitioners stated in Article 12(1) of the Constitution. It was said that the petitioners were denied the equal protection of the law.

Two cases namely, Perera v. Secretary, Defence and others (1993 1 SLR 39) and Palihawadana v A.G. (1978-80 1 SLR 65) were emphasised in the Recommendation. In the case of Perera v Secretary, Defence and others it was said that all the criteria relevant to promotions should be publicized in advance so that all candidates have equal opportunities of advancing their claims.

The commission emphasised the judgement delivered by Wanasunera J. in Palihawadana v A.G. It was stated that the ad hoc procedures that cause unnecessary interference from the Members of the Parliament should be avoided and Supremacy of Law should be protected.

Finally, The Commission decided that article 12(1) of the Constitution had been violated and recommended that due and transparent procedure to be followed in selecting the candidates for the impugned promotions.

Moreover, the Commission made some Recommendations against the Department of Health Services recently. In this case the Petitioner had applied for the post of student nurse and he was not selected at the interview.

The respondents argued that the petitioner is a differently abled person and thus, he cannot perform the duties of a nurse.

It was said that according to the Constitution of Nursing Candidates cannot be recruited for the post of a nurse unless he is in sound physical and mental condition. Nevertheless the petitioner argued that still he should be selected according to the Public Administration Circular No. 27/88.

The Circular states when vacancies in the public service and corporation are being filled three per cent of such vacancies should be filled by disabled persons possessing the requisite qualifications and whose disability would not be a hindrance to the performance of their duties.

There are many laws that should be taken into consideration in this regard. Article 12(4) of the Constitution allows legislature to enact laws for the advancement of women, children, or disabled persons.

Further, according to section 23 (1) of Protection of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, No. 28 of 1996 no person with a disability shall be discriminated against on the ground of such disability in recruitment for any employment or office or admission to any educational institution.

Section 24 of the Act states that where there has been a contravention of the provisions of section 23, any person affected by such contravention may apply to the High Court established under Article 154P of the Constitution for relief or redress. Further, the commission drew attention to two judgements given by Indian Supreme Court and the High Court in this regard.

It was revealed that eventhough the respondents considered that petitioner’s defects in the neck is a disability they did not use any criteria or accepted standard to measure it. Further it was revealed that the respondents did not form a committee to look into that matter.

It was further said that in such a situation opinions of a legal officers of the respective institution or opinions of the Attorney General should be obtained. Thus, the commission recommended the respondents to see the possibility of giving the petitioner an opportunity to be employed as a student nurse.

It further stated if the respondents are unable to provide him with that particular employment they should facilitate him any other employment or compensation in lieu of the employment.

Human Rights Day Celebration in the Matara region

The Matara Regional Office of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka organised an art competition for 150 students of Keerthi Abeywickrema National School to celebrate the International Human Rights Day which fell on December 12, 2007.
 

Officers of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) explained the aim of this programme, history of Human Rights day to the invitees, students and parents.

The winners of the arts competition received their prizes and certificates at the end of the programme.

The Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights invited the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) to put up a HRCSL stall for the International Human Rights Day celebration at the Sri Lanka Foundation institute (SLFI).