• PIL filed against state govt on August 17
• Gauhati HC to hear case after 4 weeks
Morung Express news
Kohima | August 20
After a public interest litigation (PIL) was filed against the Nagaland government for failing to appoint an ombudsman as per the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention and Control) Act 2017 and the Nagaland HIV and AIDS (Ombudsman and Legal Proceeding) Rule 2019, the Gauhati High Court has listed the matter for hearing after four weeks.
Appointment of an ombudsman for grievance redressal of people living with HIV/AIDS was one of the main objectives of the Human Immuno Deficiency Virus and Acquired Immuno Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017 and Rule-3 of the Nagaland Human Immuno Deficiency Virus and Acquired Immuno Deficiency Syndrome (Ombudsman and Legal Proceeding) Rules, 2019.
Almost three years, from the date the Act commenced on September 10, 2018, Nagaland government is yet to appoint an ombudsman. Taking cue of the delay and deprivation, Network of Nagaland Drugs and AIDS Organization (NNAGA DAO) and Network of Naga People Living with HIV (NNPLH) filed the PIL interest litigation (PIL) against the government on August 17 for failing to make the necessary appointment even after the stipulated time.
The matter was first heard by a division bench of the Gauhati High Court Kohima bench headed by Justices Songkhupchung Serto and Hukato Swu on August 18.
Under the said Act, State government was supposed to appoint one or more ombudsman to ensure strict compliance of the provisions of the Act by all stake holders and empowered the state government to make rules for appointment of ombudsman.
Accordingly, the state government also made a rule, “The Nagaland Human Immuno Deficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Ombudsman and Legal Proceeding) Rules, 2019,” wherein Nagaland government was supposed to appoint one ombudsman for State within 180 days from the commencement of the Act.
However even after two years and 10 months, the government failed to make the appointment.
The petitioners had approached the court seeking an appropriate writ or order to the government to make necessary appointment as per the provision of the Act and rules.
