Allowed¶33

Anil Kumar Tiwari v. the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Human Rights Commissions – Award of compensation – Section 18, Protection of the Human Rights Act, 1993

Jharkhand HC1 Apr 2026WPC/389/2023

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 03.11.2022 in JSHRC Case No. 527 of 2021 set aside. ¶33

Anil Kumar Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand… — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 03.11.2022 in JSHRC Case No. 527 of 2021 set aside.

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the Acting Chairperson of the Jharkhand State Human Rights Commission had jurisdiction to pass an order directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation to respondent no. 6, to be deducted from his salary, when Section 18 of the Protection of the Human Rights Act, 1993 empowers the Commission only to make recommendations.

¶18

Court's answer

Under Section 18(a) of the Protection of the Human Rights Act, 1993, where an enquiry discloses commission of violation of human rights, the Commission may recommend to the concerned Government or Authority to make payment of compensation or damages to the victim or the victim's family; the Commission has the power only to recommend.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

No recommendation was made in this case; rather an order was passed which is in the nature of a mandamus, which can only be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution, and such an order is beyond the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Commission.

¶31

Key takeaways

On the face of it, the direction contained in the impugned order is bad; accordingly the impugned order dated 03.11.2022 passed in JSHRC Case No. 527 of 2021 is set aside.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Human Rights Commissions — Award of compensation — Section 18, Protection of the Human Rights Act, 1993 — Acting Chairperson, Jharkhand State Human Rights Commission, ordered a police officer (petitioner) to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation to a complainant (respondent no. 6) alleging illegal arrest, and directed the Superintendent of Police, ATS, Ranchi to deduct the amount from the officer's salary — Held: under Section 18(a), where an enquiry discloses violation of human rights, the Commission may only recommend to the concerned Government or Authority payment of compensation or damages; the Commission has the power only to recommend — the order passed was in the nature of a mandamus, which can only be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution, and was beyond the Commission's jurisdiction — impugned order dated 03.11.2022 in JSHRC Case No. 527 of 2021 set aside — writ petition allowed. (Paras 8-11; Ananda Sen, J.)

¶1

2026:JHHC:9144

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

WP(C) No.389 of 2023

¶4

----Anil Kumar Tiwari, Former O/C Kuru Police Station, aged about41 years, S/o Late Birendra Tiwari, R/o Village-Baulia Ranka, P.O.-Garhwa, P.S. Garhwa, Dist-Ranchi at present posted as Police Inspector of ATS, Dhurwa, Ranchi. … Petitioner(s). Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, office at Project Building, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi.

¶6

The Acting Chair Person, Jharkhand State Human Rights Commission, Ranchi at Town Administrative Building, H.E.C., Sector-III, Dhurwa, Gol Chakkar, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi.

¶7

The Director General of Police of Jharkhand, at Police Head Quarter near Project Building, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi.

¶8

The Superintendent of Police, ATS, Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O.Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagarnathpur, Dist-Ranchi.

¶9

The Under Secretary, Jharkhand State Human Rights Commission, Ranchi at Town Administrative Building, H.E.C., Sector-III, Dhurwa, Gol Chakkar, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi.

¶10

Uday Kumar Gupta, Son of Ram Kishore Prasad Gupta, Resident of Village-Badki Chapi, P.O. and P.S.-Kudu, DistrictLohardaga. … Respondent(s).

¶11

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶12

-----For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Kr. Pathak, Advocate For the State : Mr. Zaid Imam, AC to SC-VII For the Resp. No. 6 : Mr. Debopriyo Pal, Advocate Mr. Navneet Kr. Dhan, Advocate Mr. Vivek Singh, Advocate …......

¶13

08 / 01.04.2026 : Heard the learned counsel representing the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the respondents.

¶14

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 03.11.2022 in JSHRC Case No. 527 of 2021 passed by the Acting Chairperson of Jharkhand State Human Rights Commission, Ranchi whereby an order was passed directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation to the victim respondent no. 6-Uday Kumar Gupta. Further it was directed that the Superintendent of Police, ATS,

¶15

¶16

2026:JHHC:9144

¶17

Ranchi shall ensure that the amount of compensation is paid and deducted from the salary of this petitioner who at that point of time posted as Police Inspector, ATS, Dhurwa.

¶18

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order giving a direction to make payment of compensation to the alleged victim and directing the Superintendent of Police, ATS to ensure that the amount of compensation is deducted from the salary of the petitioner and paid to the victim is beyond the jurisdiction of the Chairperson of the Jharkhand State Human Rights Commission. He submits that the order beyond the jurisdiction needs to be set-aside.

¶19

4. Learned counsel for the State admits that the nature of the direction given by the Chairperson, Jharkhand State Human Rights Commission is beyond the provisions of Section 18 of the Protection of the Human Rights Act, 1993.

¶20

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 6 submits that the respondent no. 6 was arrested illegally and thus, an amount of compensation was directed to pay. 6. For deciding this application it is not necessary to go into the details of the factual aspects of this case. It is an admitted case that the respondent no. 6 was arrested. He lodged a complaint before the Jharkhand State Human Rights Commission alleging his illegal arrest. Whether the arrest was illegal or not, I am not entering into that aspect but the fact remains that the Chairperson, Jharkhand State Human Rights Commission vide impugned order dated 03.11.2022 held that the action of the petitioner is illegal and the victim needs to be compensated by paying Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation. Further it was directed that the Superintendent of Police, ATS will ensure deducting the aforesaid amount from the salary of the petitioner and paid to the victim.

¶21

7. Section 18 of the Protection of the Human Rights Act, 1993 provides for the steps which needs to be taken during and after enquiry. It is necessary to quote section 18(a) of the Protection of

¶22

¶23

2026:JHHC:9144

¶24

the Human Rights Act, 1993, which are as follows:

¶25

18. Steps during and after inquiry .—The Commission may take any of the following steps during or upon the completion of an inquiry held under this Act, namely:—

¶26

(a) where the inquiry discloses the commission of violation of human rights or negligence in the prevention of violation of human rights or abetment thereof by a public servant, it may recommend to the concerned Government or authority—

¶27

(i) to make payment of compensation or damages to the complainant or to the victim or the members of his family as the Commission may consider necessary;

¶28

(ii) to initiate proceedings for prosecution or such other suitable action as the Commission may deem fit against the concerned person or persons;

¶29

(iii) to take such further action as it may think fit;

¶30

8. As per Section 18(a) it is clear that if the enquiry discloses commission of violation of the human rights, the Commission may recommend to the concerned Government or Authority, to make payment of compensation or damages to the victim or the family of the victim. Thus, the Commission has the power only to recommend.

¶31

9. In this case no recommendation was made rather an order was passed which is in the nature of a mandamus, which can only be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the said Human Rights Commission.

¶32

10. Considering the aforesaid facts, on the face of it, I find that the direction in the impugned order is bad. Thus, the impugned order dated 03.11.2022 passed in JSHRC Case No. 527 of 2021 is set-aside.

¶33

11. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed .

¶34

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶35

Uploaded on 02.04.2026

¶36

01.04.2026 Tanuj/CP-2

¶37

Anil Kumar Tiwari v. the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Tiwari v. the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Tudu Vs State of Jharkhand

MD Firoj Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rup Sagar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Runka Kherwar Vs the National Highway Authorities of India, through Its Project Officer (Director)

Akhilesh Yadav Alias Buttan Manjhi Alias Gautam Jee Vs the State of Jharkhand

Najish Ahmad Vs Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through Its Secretary