MUMBAI, Jan. 28 -- The Bombay High Court on Tuesday directed the principal secretary of Maharashtra's home department to deposit Rs.3.5 crore with the court registry within seven days, citing the state's continuous failure to act on recommendations of the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission (MSHRC). Expressing its disappointment with the state government, a division bench of chief justice Shree Chandrashekhar and justice Gautam Ankhad said, "Why, for the last 10 years, no steps have been taken?" The order came in a public interest litigation filed by advocate Satyam Surana, who had challenged the non-implementation of MSHRC recommendations in cases involving human rights violations. These recommendations include directions to provide monetary compensation and other relief to victims. Surana told the court that he had sought information under the Right to Information Act from the MSHRC in March last year on the status of its recommendations since 2013. "Being void of any justification for their non-implementation, the total amount of monetary compensation that is the subject matter of these 136 uncompiled recommendations, and still waiting to be realised by the victims of these violations, amounts to a huge sum of Rs.3.39 crore," the petition said. "Such inaction and neglect of the recommendations is not only illegal, but a mockery of the system developed by the law of the land. This reflects administrative apathy and deliberate disregard for the enforcement of human rights," the petition added. During the hearing on Tuesday, Surana referred to a January 2025 Delhi High Court judgment, which held that reports and recommendations of human rights commissions "need to be treated with seriousness". The state, represented by additional government pleader Bhupesh Samant, told the court that out of the 136 recommendations, only 86 pertain to the home department, some of which, he said, are under review. Samant also sought time to verify whether the recommendations had been received and acted upon. He said that while complaints may have been made, they may not have been reported to the department. The high court directed the authorities to appoint a nodal officer to address the pending recommendations and to issue notices to the affected victims and concerned officials. The matter has been posted for further hearing on February 17....