Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
G. NARENDAR, C.M. POONACHA, JJ.
B.S. Manjunath S/o Late Shivalinge Gowda – Petitioner
Versus
C. Munikrishna – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 18208 of 2012
Decided On : 02-07-2023
Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 –Section 18(i)(a) and (e) - Sub Inspector - Disciplinary action – Compensation - Seventh Respondent -Commission took up the same for enquiry and passed the order dated 3, whereunder Inspector General of Police (for short 'IGP'), Central Range, Millers Road, , was directed to initiate immediate disciplinary action against the Sub Inspector and police constables and \ Chief Secretary, Karnataka State Government was directed to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/-which was to be recovered from \ Sub Inspector and \ police constables - Whether Commission is empowered to pass any executable orders or direction that can be implemented by or under its own authority - Section 18(b) of Act only enables Commission to approach Hon’ble Supreme Court or this Court for such directions or orders it may deem necessary. [Para 13]
Finding of Court : Court would have certainly followed path led by Co-ordinate Benches and could have held writ petition is premature or would have read down orders as mere recommendation, but for fact that presence of the petitioners before Commission is as a consequence of a direction issued by this Court in W.P. No - Direction to prefer a review by this Court ought not to have been construed as conferment of jurisdiction to perform an act which otherwise, statute did not confer upon it - In Court considered opinion, Commission could not have exercised powers under Section 30 of Act, which is not vested in Human Rights Commission.
Result : Petition is allowed.
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 the Review Petitioners.
(iv) The Action Taken Report in pursuance of these directions be submitted to the Commission within two months from the date of receipt of this order.
HRC/R.P.NO. 1/08 in HRC.NO. 856/08 is disposed of in the above terms.”
3. The relevant background facts are that pursuant to a complaint dated 17.3.2008, the seventh Respondent -Commission took up the same for enquiry and passed the order dated 3.8.2008, whereunder the Inspector General of Police (for short 'IGP'), Central Range, Millers Road, Bangalore, was directed to initiate immediate disciplinary action against the Sub Inspector and police constables and the Chief Secretary, Karnataka State Government was directed to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/-which was to be recovered from the Sub Inspector and the police constables.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 3.7.2008, the Petitioners preferred WP.No. 11051/2008 and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court headed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, vide its order dated 19.8.2008 permitted the Petitioners to file a Review Petition, consequent to which, the Petitioners filed a Review Petition. Subsequent to the order of this Court, the Commission ordered a fresh enquiry to be conducted by the IGP of the Commission and a report dated 22.11.2008 was submitted and in that regard it is noticed that the allegations made in the complaint have not been established. Subsequently, the Commission passed the order dated 8.5.2012, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition. The orders/directions as contained in paragraph 10 of the impugned order are extracted at paragraph 2 hereinabove.
5. The learned senior counsel would take the Court through Sections 17 and 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’) which read as under:
(i) call for information or report from the Central Government or any State Government or any other authority or organization subordinate thereto within such time as may be specified by it:
Provided that:
(a) if the information or report is not received within the time stipulated by the Commission, it may proceed to inquire into the complaint on its own.
(b) if, on receipt of information or report, the Commission is satisfied either that no further inquiry is required or that the required action has been initiated or taken by the concerned Government or authority, it may not proceed with the complaint and inform the complainant accordingly.
(ii) without prejudice to anything contained in clause (i), if it considers necessary, having regard to the nature of the complaint, initiate an inquiry.
18. Steps during and after inquiry - The Commission may take any of the following steps during or upon
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
