Back
KRISHNA S DIXIT, C. M. POONACHA
C. Girish Naik S/O Late Chandra Naik – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka Rep By Its Additional Chief Secretary Department Of Home – Respondent
ORDER :
POONACHA, J.
The present Writ Petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs:
b) ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER quashing the impugned report dated 12/03/2020 bearing No.H.R.C. No.3720/10/31/2018 (Ann-M) submitted by the Respondent No.4 in so far as direction (a) and (c) in so far as the Petitioners are concerned, in the interest of justice and equity.
c) PASS any such Order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, including the cost of the instant Writ Petition, in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. It is the contention of the petitioners that in the report dated 12.3.2020, the fourth respondent – Commission, at para 18, has issued certain recommendations. That, a reading of the said recommendations disclose that they are in the nature of directions and the same is beyond the scope of Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’].
3. The fourth respondent is constituted by virtue of Section 21 of the Act. The relevant provisions of the Act i.e., Section 18 and Section 29 are extracted hereinbelow for ready reference:
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.
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 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 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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the State Human Rights Commission has the authority to direct compensation to the next of kin of a deceased in compliance with the provisions ....
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
