Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Ignoring Court-Mandated PWD Safety Report Invalidates Municipal Order: J&K&L High Court
06 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Reserves Verdict in Raju Tampering Conviction Plea
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
S. MANIKUMAR, MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
Arun S. S/o Sivanandan – Appellant
Versus
Principal Secretary Department of Home Affairs, Thiruvananthapuram – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J.
1. Since common issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions, they are disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, unless otherwise expressly indicated, the status of the parties and the exhibits referred to hereinbelow shall be as obtaining in W.P. (C) No. 8110 of 2020.
2. W.P. (C) No. 8110 of 2020 is filed for direction to the Principal Secretary, Department of Home Affairs and the State Police Chief, respondents 1 and 2 respectively, to implement Ext.P2 order of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (‘Human Rights Commission’ for short) in H.R.M.P No. 10050/2017. W.P. (C) No. 9537 of 2020 is filed by the additional 3rd respondent and W.P. (C) No. 11599 of 2020 is filed by additional respondents 4 to 9, in W.P. (C) No. 8110 of 2020 (suo motu impleaded), challenging Ext.P2 order.
3. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petitions are that the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 8110 of
The Human Rights Commission has the power to recommend compensation but not to direct its payment.
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 Human Rights Commission’s role is purely recommendatory; it cannot issue binding directions, such as prohibiting medical practice.
The NHRC lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint beyond the limitation period specified in the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
A quasi-judicial body must comply with principles of natural justice by providing a reasoned order and an opportunity for both parties to be heard before making a decision.
The court held that recovery from a police officer's salary cannot occur after exoneration from negligence claims, ensuring adherence to procedural fairness.
Point of Law : Order impugned has no legs to stand on and being one without jurisdiction, warrants interference at hands of this Court.
The court confirmed that the Human Rights Commission does not possess the authority to grant recognition to NGOs under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and its actions were justified under e....
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
Listen Article