G. NARENDAR, C. M. POONACHA
B. S. Manjunath S/o Late Shivalinge Gowda – Appellant
Versus
C. Munikrishna – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
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 Te
Point of Law : Order impugned has no legs to stand on and being one without jurisdiction, warrants interference at hands of this Court.
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....
The NHRC lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint beyond the limitation period specified in the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.