While it is m ~ s desirable t that State-level Commissions be established rapidly, 8.6 certain State Governments have informed this Commission of their difficulty in proceeding because of financial constraints or because of the non-availability of retired Chief Justice or Justices of the High Court whose presence is essential to the proper composition of the 5-Member Commissions envisaged under the provisions of Section 21(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. As these difficulties cannot be willed away, the Commission is reflecting on whether the Act itself needs to be amended to provide some flexibility in regard to the size and composition of State Commissions. In respect.of the States in the North-~astemregion, for instance, there is a single High Court, based in Guwahati. A formula may need to be specialjy devised for these States in respect of Humar: Rights Commissions. This Commission will, accordingty, be making recommendations to theACentralGovernment on this matter ai?er further consultations and .consideration. 8.7 - Section 30 of the Protection of Human Rights Act,.l993 envisaged the notification of Human Rights Courts "for the purpose 3f providing speedy trial of offences arising out of human rights violations." Such courts were thereafter notified in Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh, but ambiguity remained as to the precise n h r e of the offences that should be tried in such courts and other details regarding the conduct of their business. 8.8 On 3 January 1997, the Secretary General of the Commission received a c;ommunication from the Additional Registrar(Law1 of the High Court of Madras stating that, on 22 November 1996, the Chief Justice of that-High Court had received a memorandum from the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) regarding the jurisdiction and the procedures to be followed by Human Rights Courts constituted under Section 30 of the Act. The letter of the Additional Registrar requested the National Human Rights Commission to place its views before the High Court on the varrous aspects as to the scope, sweep, amplitude, powers, jurisdiction and functioning of the Human Rights Courts, which matter was to come up for consjderation in the Criminal Revision Case No.868196 before the Division Bench of .the High Court. The Commission decided to accede to this request and to render all assistance 8.9 to the High Court by placing its views before it. Fu~her,having regard to the implications and ramifications of the issues raised, the Commission also expressed the view that it would be appropriate to notify the Union of lndia and the Attorney General of lndia to assist the Court: The matter is now pending before the Court. The decisions taken by ,it will be of great assistance to the proper functioning of Human Rights Courts not only in Tamil Nadu but in other States as well.