NT Reporter
Margao
Former bureaucrat Elvis Gomes has stated that the Goa Human Rights Commission’s (GHRC) finding that the rollout of smart electricity meters does not violate human rights cannot be construed as clearance for the continuation of the rollout, as separate legal a
nd policy questions remain unresolved.
Gomes stated that the Commission’s jurisdiction was limited to determining whether the manner in which smart meters were being installed violated human rights. He said the Commission had taken suo motu cognisance of the matter based on
media reports.
“The Commission appears to have travelled beyond the issue that was before it. Its jurisdiction was to determine whether the manner in which smart meters were being rolled out involved a violation of human rights. Having answered that question in the negative, the Commission ought to have stopped there. It was not called upon to grant an administrative or executive clearance for continuation of the rollout,” Gomes said.
He also stated that the government’s suspension
of the rollout was unrelated to the proceedings before the GHRC.
“The issue was not that the government had stopped the rollout merely because the matter was before the GHRC. The suspension followed the position expressed by the Union Power Minister in Parliament regarding the legal position governing such installations. That distinction is fundamental,” Gomes said.
He said that the Commission’s ruling could not override or settle the separate legal and policy questions surrounding the rollout. He also expressed disappointment that those who had raised concerns about the implementation were not given an opportunity to intervene directly before the Commission.
“Having taken suo motu cognisance, the Commission was expected to examine the issue objectively and hear all sides. Unfortunately, those of us who had raised serious concerns regarding the manner of implementation were not given an opportunity to intervene directly before the Commission. We were instead directed to place our submissions before the amicus curiae appointed in the matter,” Gomes said.
He stated that decisions on whether and how the rollout should proceed must remain subject to applicable law, government policy and the directions of competent authorities and courts.
“A Human Rights Commission cannot become a substitute for the government, or a competent court on questions that fall outside the specific human rights issue before it. The Commission may express its finding on whether human rights have been violated, but the decision as to whether and how the rollout should proceed must remain subject to applicable law, government policy and the directions of competent authorities and courts,” he said.
