An unprecedented order by the Meghalaya Human Rights Commission has directed the Social Welfare Department to issue guidelines to the One Stop Centre (OSC) Shillong to ensure that their unprofessional procedures to implement the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005 do not end up being misused to harass people.
The MHRC has directed that the guidelines of procedures should be prepared and submitted before it on October 30.
The order which was issued on September 27 was a vindication for a retired couple, Mariza Jabong Sooting and her husband Lewis Sooting, who, after facing the brunt of OSC mismanagement had sought the MHRC protection alleging “unprofessional and biased treatment meted out to her and her husband while addressing the dispute between her and her mother Jhadsina Janong and her son Craig Janong.”
In this case, Jhadsina Janong who is in her 80s had filed a verbal complaint at the OSC alleging that her son-in-law Lewis Sooting had been harassing her and that she did not feel safe.
Based on this verbal complaint alone the OSC went ahead to file a Domestic Incident Report (DIR) under the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act against Lewis Sooting who in fact did not live in the same residence as her, but only shared the building premises..
Sitting over the matter, the MHRC had directed the Social Welfare Department to conduct an inquiry into this.
The inquiry came up with its findings which exposed the OSC as having taken up the Jhadsina case without any written complaints and could not provide any written letters as to the nature of “harassment” she faced. The OSC also could not provide any complaint letter to the accused.
Despite having the opportunity, neither the OSC protection officer cum manager Colleen Lyngdoh, cared to speak to the Sooting couple to get a clearer understanding of the matter.
Not only that, the OSC had gone to the extent of visiting the residence of the Sooting couple on the verbal complaints, without giving written notice as to the agenda.
Over and above that the OSC case officer, Lyngdoh had verbally called the Officer in Charge of Laitumkhrah Police Station to visit the house to protect Jhadsina who was allegedly in danger from her son-in-law. The police in turn sent cops in plainclothes to warn the son-in-law, Lewis, who was totally in the dark as to what he was supposed to have done.
This was seen as being patently a misuse of the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act which was intentionally or inadvertently perpetrated by the OSC managers.
Not surprisingly, therefore, the MHRC order directed the Director of Social Welfare to issue fresh guidelines to the personnel of the OSC and other agencies under its control dealing with complaints presented to it “to ensure that there is no scope for allegations of this nature to be levelled against the department in future.”
It also directed the department to review and monitor the services provided and to be open to feedback from its users.
It may be mentioned that Mariza Janong Sooting had mentioned in her petition that the genesis of these fake allegations was that earlier, “her own sons were harassing their father for which he had filed the parental maintenance case against them”.
The MHRC made the order under Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 that mandates the commission to inquire suo moto or on a petition by a victim into complaints of violation of human rights by a public servant.
