IMPORTANT POINT
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.

ORDER :

POONACHA, J.

The present Writ Petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs:

“a) Call for records pertaining to impugned report dated 12/03/2020 (Annexure-M);

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:

3.1 Section 18 of the Act reads as under:

"18. Steps during and after inquiry.-The Commission may taken any of the following steps during or upon the completion of an inquiry held under this Act, namely:-

(a) where the inquiry discloses the commission of violation of human rights or negligence in the prevention of violation of human rights or abetment thereof by a public servant, it may recommend to the concerned Government or authority -

(i) to make payment of compensation or damages to the complainant or to the victim or the members of his family as the Commission may consider necessary;

(ii) to initiate proceedings for prosecution or such other suitable action as the Commission may deem fit against the concerned person or persons;

(iii) to take such further action as it may think fit."

(emphasis supplied)

3.2 Section 29 of the Act reads as under:

"29. Application of certain provisions relating to National Human Rights Commission to State Commission.-The provisions of sections 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 16, 17 and 18 shall apply to a State Commission and shall have effect, subject to the following modifications."

4. It is clear from the aforementioned that by virtue of Section 29 of the Act, the inquiry conducted by the State Commission is regulated by Section 18 of the Act. Section 18(a) of the Act specifically stipulates that where the inquiry discloses the violation of human rights, the Commission may recommend to the concerned Government or authority one of the measures stipulated under sub sections (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section 18(a).

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N.C.Dhoundial Vs. Union of India and others, (2004) 2 SCC 579 while considering a report submitted by the National Human Rights Commission, Hereinafter referred to as ‘NHRC’ has held as follows:

"14. We cannot endorse the view of the Commission. The Commission which is a “unique expert body” is, no doubt, entrusted with a very important function of protecting human rights, but, it is needless to point out that the Commission has no unlimited jurisdiction nor does it exercise plenary powers in derogation of the statutory limitations. The Commission, which is the creature of statute, is bound by its provisions. Its duties and functions are defined and circumscribed by the Act. Of course, as any other statutory functionary, it undoubtedly has incidental or ancillary powers to effectively exercise its jurisdiction in respect of the powers confided to it but the Commission should necessarily act within the parameters prescribed by the Act creating it and the confines of jurisdiction vested in it by the Act. The Commission is one of the fora which can redress the grievances arising out of the violations of human rights. ….."

(emphasis supplied)

6. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of C.Gopal v. Karnataka State Human Rig