IMPORTANT POINT
Human Rights Act deals with violation of Human Rights by a public servant and not others.

ORDER

T. Sudanthiram, J.—The petitioner who is the second accused in HRC No. 7 of 2005 on the file of the Human Rights Court-cum-Principal District and Sessions Court, Thanjavur, seeks to quash the proceedings pending against him.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent herein has filed the complaint against the petitioner and another accused who is the Sub-inspector of Police for the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC read with section 2 of Human Rights Act, 1993. Learned Counsel also submitted that petitioner is not a public servant as defined under Section 2(m) of Human Rights Act. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision reported in Santosh Hospital Private Limited Represented by Its Administrative Officer, Chennai v. State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Registrar, Chennai and Others.1

3. Learned counsel of the respondent was also heard.

4. This Court considered the submissions made by both parties.

5. In the decision reported in Santosh Hospital Private Limited Represented by Its Administrative Officer, Chennai v. State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Registrar, Chennai and Others (supra) the Division Bench of this Court had observed in paragraphs 21 to 25, which reads as follows:

“21. A perusal of Section 18 of the Human Rights Act shows that the Commission can take action in the matter where the inquiry discloses the commission of violation of Human Rights or negligence in the prevention of violation of Human Rights by a public servant. Thus, the ambiguity, if any, in Section 12(a) of the Human Rights Act gets removed by perusing section 18 of the Human Rights Act.

22. This position becomes further clear on a perusal of Form A of the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu (Procedure) Regulations 1997. Clause 9 of which states:

“Name, designation and address of public servant who violated human rights or by whose negligence the violation was not prevented [Enter here all the names and addresses if more than one is complained against]”

23. Similarly, in Form-I of the National Human Rights Commission [Procedure] Regulations, 1997, it is stated in Clause 8:

“Name, designation and address of the Public Servant by whom alleged violation of human right was committed/abetted or who was negligent in prevention of such violation

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(Note: If the complaint relates to Armed Forces, here specifically indicate the Ministry/Department of the Central Government under which such Armed Forces come).

24. Thus, a perusal of the provisions of the Act and the forms annexed to Regulations clearly indicate that the Human Rights Act deals with violation of Human Rights by a public servant and not others. The petitioner is surely not a public servant, and hence the Human Rights Act will not apply to him at all.

25. It may be mentioned that the expressions “Public servant” has been defined in Section 2(m) of the Human Rights Act as follows:

“Public Servant shall have the meaning to it in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code.”

6. Learned Counsel for the respondent also admits that only the first accused is the public servant and not the petitioner herein; but the petitioner had also acted along with the first accused. Anyhow, it is admitted fact that the petitioner/A-2 is not a public servant. Under these circumstances, the protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 has no application in respect of the petitioner/A-2 herein and as such, Human Rights Court could not have taken cognizance of the matter in respect of the petitioner/A-2.

7. Therefore, the proceedings in respect of the petitioner/A-2 alone is quashed. Accordingly, the criminal original petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Petition allowed.

********