The High Court held that the report under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act is recommendatory and not a mandatory direction. Consequently, the Writ Petition seeking to quash the Commission's recommendation was disposed of.
The writ petition was dismissed without any costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 6271 OF 2020 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SATISH K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2023:KHC:21187 WP No. 6271 of 2020
M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE 560 001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3 SRI GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED RECOMMENDATION DTD.27.2.2020 MADE BY THE R-4 COMMISSION IN HRC NO.3176/10/31/2019 C/W 3178/10/31/2019 ANNEXURE-J AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THEREON AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri Satish K, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the
learned HCGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Gopalakrishna Soodi, learned Counsel for Respondent No.4.
following reliefs:
"a) Call for records from the Respondents pertaining to the impugned recommendation dated 27/02/2020 (Annexure-J);
b) Issue WRIT OR ORDER quashing the impugned recommendation dated 27/02/2020 made by the 4th Respondent -Commission in H.R.C. No.3176/10/31/2019 c/w 3178/10/31/2019 (Annexure-J) and all further proceedings thereon, in the interest of justice and equity;
c) PASS any other Order including the cost of this Writ Petition in the interest of justice and equity; "
working at Mahalakshmipuram Police Station as a Inspector of Police, a complaint was lodged on 13.8.2019 by one Smt Meghana alleging that one Narayanaswamy and his wife - Anitha assaulted her brother's wife. Based on the said complaint, Crime No.198/2019 was registered and the accused Narayanaswamy and Gopi were arrested. Smt Anitha, the wife of Narayanaswamy and Smt Manjula, the wife of Gopi, lodged a complaint with Respondent No.4 - Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission'), consequent to which, the Petitioner was notified to appear before the Commission on 17.8.2019. On 27.2.2020, the Commission furnished its opinion, report and recommendation. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
Petitioner contends:
i) That under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") the Commission does not have power to issue any direction;
NC: 2023:KHC:21187 WP No. 6271 of 2020
ii) At para 14(a) of the report dated 27.2.2020 that
the Commission has issued positive direction to the State to suspend or transfer the Petitioner which is required to be interfered with.
Hence, he seeks for allowing the Writ Petition and granting the reliefs sought for.
relied on the following judgments:
i) N.R.Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka & Ors.,1 ;
ii) Ms.H.S.Aruna Prabha v. Smt.Gowramma2 ;
iii) Rajesh Das, I.P.S. v. Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission and ors.,3
iv) N.C.Dhoundial Vs. Union of India and others4
to 3 submits that they will abide by the report of the Commission dated 27.2.2020.
1 WP No.55766/2016, DD 13.3.2018
2 WP No.42657/2014, DD 19.3.2019
3 2010(S) CTC 589
4 (2004) 2 SCC 579
NC: 2023:KHC:21187 WP No. 6271 of 2020
has merely issued a report and the wording of the same is clear. Hence, the relief sought for in the Writ Petition cannot be granted.
i) The Chief Commissioner v. Karnataka State Human Rights Commission & ors.;5
ii) S.H.Vasantha v. State of Karnataka & Ors.,6 ;
iii) C.Gopal v. Karnataka State Human Rights Commission7 .
the submissions made on behalf of Respondent No.4 - Commission that the Writ Petition is premature submits that the positive direction issued by the Commission at para 14(a) of the report is detrimental to the Petitioner. He further
5 WP No.2244/2022, DD 10.4.2023
6 WP No.1404/2021, DD 21.3.2023
7 2015 SCC Online Kar 5674
submits that the complainants have withdrawn the case and there was no material furnished by the complainants on the basis of which the directions issued by the Commission could have been given.
'Whether the relief sought for in the Writ Petition is liable to be granted?'
Act. Section 29 of the Act states as follows:
"29. Application of certain provisions relating to National Human Rights Commission to State Commission. - The provisions of sections 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 16, 17 and 18 shall apply to a State Commission and shall have effect, subject to the following modifications."
NC: 2023:KHC:21187 WP No. 6271 of 2020
12.1. Section 18 of the Act reads as under:
"18. Steps during and after inquiry .- The Commission may taken any of the following steps during or upon the completion of an inquiry held under this Act, namely:-
(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 -
(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;
(ii) to initiate proceedings for prosecution or such other suitable action as the Commission may deem fit against the concerned person or persons;
(iii) to take such further action as it may think fit."
NC: 2023:KHC:21187 WP No. 6271 of 2020
Division Bench of this Court noticed the judgment in the case of C.Gopal7 and having regard to the said ruling, upon the Petitioner filing a memo to withdraw the Writ Petition disposed of the Writ Petition in terms of the memo.
17. In the case of N.R.Venkatesh1 noticing that there
is a clear finding of deficiency of service and imposition of penalty, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the order passed by the Commission.
NC: 2023:KHC:21187 WP No. 6271 of 2020
Court while considering a report submitted by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) held as follows:
"14. We cannot endorse the view of the Commission. The Commission which is a “unique expert body” is, no doubt, entrusted with a very important function of protecting human rights, but, it is needless to point out that the Commission has no unlimited jurisdiction nor does it exercise plenary powers in derogation of the statutory limitations. The Commission, which is the creature of statute, is bound by its provisions. Its duties and functions are defined and circumscribed by the Act. Of course, as any other statutory functionary, it undoubtedly has incidental or ancillary powers to effectively exercise its jurisdiction in respect of the powers confided to it but the Commission should necessarily act within the parameters prescribed by the Act creating it and the confines of jurisdiction vested in it by the Act. The Commission is one of the fora which can redress the grievances arising out of the violations of human rights. ….."
(emphasis supplied)
20. A Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court of Madras in
the case of Rajesh Das, I.P.S., noticing Section 18 of the Act, has held as follows:
"14. A deep understanding of Section 18 of the Act together with Sections 12, 13 and 17 of the Act would go to show that the commission has got no power either to order for payment of compensation or to issue any other order. The power, in simple terms, is only to make appropriate recommendation to the Government. The said recommendation cannot be equated to an executable order at all. The
commission is neither a judicial authority nor a quasi judicial authority to adjudicate upon the disputed facts. This is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the Act, wherein while describing the salient features of the Act, it has been stated by the Parliament as follows:-
" (3) The commission will be a fact-finding body with powers to conduct inquiry into the complaints of violation of human rights;"
(emphasis supplied)
noticed above that the order passed by the Commission under Section 18 of the Act, is recommendatory in nature.
" 14. Therefore, the Commission is constrained to recommend to the State Government in its Department of Home, that:
(a) Shri Prashanth, Police Inspector of Mahalakshmipuram Police Station should be suspended pending departmental enquiry or should be transferred to another district with instructions to the higher officers to keep a watch on due discharge of his duties and hold a departmental enquiry after framing proper charges for dereliction of duty,
- 11 - NC: 2023:KHC:21187 WP No. 6271 of 2020
violation of human rights, legal provisions and other misconducts emerging from this order, so as to impose appropriate major punishment in accordance with law."
24. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
No costs.
SD/JUDGE
ND
List No.: 3 Sl No.: 28
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the report of the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission issued under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 is a mandatory direction or merely a recommendation.
Whether the High Court can quash the recommendatory report of the Human Rights Commission directly.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
N.R.Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka & Ors.Referred¶90
N.R.Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Ms.H.S.Aruna Prabha v. Smt.GowrammaReferred¶92
Ms.H.S.Aruna Prabha v. Smt.Gowramma
Rajesh Das, I.P.S. v. Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission and ors.Referred¶100
Rajesh Das, I.P.S. v. Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission and ors.
N.C.Dhoundial Vs. Union of India and othersReferred¶95
N.C.Dhoundial Vs. Union of India and others
The Chief Commissioner v. Karnataka State Human Rights Commission & ors.Referred¶88
The Chief Commissioner v. Karnataka State Human Rights Commission & ors.
S.H.Vasantha v. State of Karnataka & Ors.Referred¶87
S.H.Vasantha v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
C.Gopal v. Karnataka State Human Rights CommissionRelied on¶84
C.Gopal v. Karnataka State Human Rights Commission
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri Prashanth M
The State of Karnataka
The Director General and Inspector General of Police
The Commissioner of Police Bengaluru City
Karnataka State Human Rights Commission
C.M. Poonacha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
