Dismissed

Human Rights Organization v. Director General of Police

Madras HC17 Sept 2019WP/12762/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hospital Trust filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a prohibition on state police officials from intervening in its affairs regarding the use of the name 'Human Rights'. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that amendments to the Societies Registration Act and Protection of Human Rights Act prevented third parties from using the words 'Human Rights'.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to restrain respondents from intervening in affairs relating to the name 'Human Rights' was rejected and the writ petition dismissed.

Human Rights Organization Vs Director… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 17.09.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

W.P.No.12762 of 2010

¶6

Human Rights Organization Trust, (An international Organization) a Registered Trust having its office at No.14/41, Goods Shed street, Madurai 625 001. rep. by its Secretary G. Jeyabalan ... Petitioner /vs/

¶7

1. Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Chennai. 3. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai. 4. The Superintendent of POlice, Madurai District, Madurai. 5. The Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore. 6. The Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore. 7. The commissioner of Police, Salem. 8. The Superintendent of POlice, Salem District , Salem.

¶8

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶9

The Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli. 10. The Superintendent of Police, Tiruchirapalli District, Tiruchirapalli. 11. The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli. 12. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 13. The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 14. The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore. 15. The Superintendent of POlice, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur. 16. The Superintendent of Police, Theni District, Theni. 17. The Superintendent of POlice, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri ... Respondents

¶10

(R2 to R17 are impleaded vide order of this Court dated 22/07/2010)

¶11

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondent, his subordinates in the state of Tamil Nadu, his men, or other officers or any one acting in their name from in any way intervening with the affairs of the petitioner trust mostly relating to carrying of the name "Human Rights"in any manner.

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. S.Subbiah

¶14

For Respondents : Mr. I. Sathish, Addl. Gov. Pleader, O R D E R

¶15

This writ petition has been filed restraining the respondents from intervening with the affairs of the petitionerTrust relating to carrying on the activities in the name of " Human Rights" .

¶16

According to the petitioner, the petitioner-Trust is providing funds for HIV affected Indian Citizens Children's education, short stay homes, hospitals, Institutions, etc., and helping them. Now, the respondents are preventing the petitioner from carrying the name "Human Rights Organization Trusts". Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶17

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that earlier, State Human Rights Commission passed a detailed order on 17.04.2009 preventing any person from using "Human Rights". Thereafter, the Protection of Human Rights Act also suitably amended. The Government also passed necessary amendment in the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act directing to change the name of the society by deleting the word "Human Rights", by special resolution and hence nobody can use and display the word "Human Rights" except the National Human Rights and State Human Rights Commission.

¶18

Considering the fact that now already the Societies Registration Act has been suitably amended, no third person can use the word "Human Rights". Hence, the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶19

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶20

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶21

//True Copy//

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

mrp To
1.	The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.
2.	The Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Chennai.
3.	The Commissioner of Police, Madurai.
4.	The Superintendent of POlice, Madurai District, Madurai.
5.	The Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore.
6.	The Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.
7.	The commissioner of Police, Salem.
8.	The Superintendent of POlice, Salem District , Salem.
9.	The Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli.
10.	The Superintendent of Police, Tiruchirapalli District, Tiruchirapalli.
11.	The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli.
12.	The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
13.	The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶26

The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore. 15. The Superintendent of POlice, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur. 16. The Superintendent of Police, Theni District, Theni. 17. The Superintendent of POlice, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri +1cc to Mr.Elizabeth, Advocate Sr.80449 W.P.No.12762 of 2010

¶27

nr[co] srg 07/11/2019

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Human Rights Organization v. Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Human Rights Organization v. Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Ponniah Vs the Executive Engineer and

Graphite Publicities Vs the Metropolitan

M/S. R.v.N.Agencies Vs Union of India

M/S. Hadimba International Vs the Registrar, the

M/S.B.N.T.Connnections. Vs the Chairman

Sri Graha Agencies Vs the Deputy General Manager