Back
G. NARENDAR, C. M. POONACHA
B. S. Manjunath S/o Late Shivalinge Gowda – Appellant
Versus
C. Munikrishna – Respondent
The writ petition challenges orders passed by the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission (Commission) dated 03.07.2008 and 08.05.2012, directing initiation of departmental enquiry against the petitioners (Sub Inspector and police constables), payment of compensation of Rs.25,000/- (later Rs.10,000/-) to the complainant, recovery from petitioners' salaries, and submission of action taken report. [3000507540001][3000507540002] (!) (!) (!) (!) [3000507540003]
Background: Complaint dated 17.03.2008 led to Commission's order on 03.07.2008 directing IGP to initiate disciplinary action and Chief Secretary to pay compensation recoverable from petitioners. Petitioners filed WP No.11051/2008; court directed them to seek review before Commission, leading to fresh enquiry by IGP (report dated 22.11.2008 finding allegations not established), but Commission still passed impugned order on 08.05.2012 under Sections 18(i)(a) and (e). [3000507540002][3000507540003][3000507540010]
Section 17 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 empowers Commission to inquire into human rights violation complaints by calling for information/reports from government/authorities or initiating inquiry suo motu if necessary. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [3000507540011]
Section 18 outlines steps post-inquiry: Under 18(a), Commission may recommend to concerned government/authority payment of compensation (18(a)(i)), initiation of prosecution/other action (18(a)(ii)), or further action (18(a)(iii)); under 18(b), if dissatisfied, it may approach Supreme Court/High Court for directions/orders/writs. Recommendations are not executable orders; Commission lacks authority to issue directly enforceable directions for disciplinary action or compensation recovery. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [3000507540004][3000507540012][3000507540013]
Commission's impugned orders exceed statutory powers under Sections 17-18, as they are phrased as binding directions (e.g., "direct" to initiate enquiry, pay compensation, recover from salary) rather than recommendations; this
ORDER :
1. Heard the learned senior counsel Sri P.S. Rajgopal along with learned counsel Sri K.C. Shanta Kumar and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No. 3 to 6 and learned counsel Sri Gopal Krishna Soodhi for respondent No. 7. No representation for respondents No. 1 and 2.
2. The instant writ petition is traceable to proceedings of the year 2008 more specifically dated 08.05.2012 whereby, the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘Commission’) acting upon the complaint of respondents No. 1 and 2 has proceeded to pass the following order:
(i) to initiate Departmental Enquiry against the Review Petitioners under the relevant Service Rules.
(ii) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant Sri Mujibpasha as compensation for violation of his human rights by the Review Petitioners, within a month from the date of receipt of this order.
(iii) The money so paid as compensation may be recovered from the salary of
Point of Law : Order impugned has no legs to stand on and being one without jurisdiction, warrants interference at hands of this Court.
The National Human Rights Commission is a recommendatory body under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and lacks the adjudicatory power to issue binding directions, orders, or writs to governm....
The main legal point established is that the report issued by the commission should be treated as a recommendation in accordance with the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
The Human Rights Commission’s role is purely recommendatory; it cannot issue binding directions, such as prohibiting medical practice.
The Human Rights Commission has the power to recommend compensation but not to direct its payment.
The recommendations of the State Human Rights Commission are not binding and do not constitute executable orders, as the Commission lacks jurisdiction to enforce its recommendations.
The NHRC lacked jurisdiction to act on the complaint due to the one-year limitation under Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and failed to provide due process to the petitione....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
