Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
T.J.Varghese, S/O.Late John Joseph – Petitioner
Versus
Kerala State Human Rights Commissioner And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) NO.15486 OF 2016
Decided On : 22-07-2024
HUMAN RIGHTS - RIGHT TO RELIGION - Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 - Sections 2(1)(d), 12, 29; Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 2001 - Regulation 17 - The court discussed the definition of 'Human Rights' under Section 2(1)(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, emphasizing the rights relating to life, liberty, equality, and dignity. It highlighted the Commission's powers under Sections 12 and 29 to inquire into complaints of human rights violations. The court also examined Regulation 17, which allows the Commission to dismiss complaints in limine under certain conditions. The court found that the Commission's order was arbitrary and lacked reasoning, violating principles of natural justice, thus influencing its decision to set aside the order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a letter and certificate from the Vicar of St. Mary’s Church to confirm his family's parish membership for religious and educational purposes. The Vicar refused, citing the petitioner's prior complaints against him and the church, leading to social ostracism. The petitioner filed a complaint with the Kerala State Human Rights Commission, which was dismissed without a hearing, prompting the petitioner to challenge the order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Commission's order was cryptic, unreasonable, and issued without a hearing, violating the principles of natural justice. The court emphasized the need for a quasi-judicial body to provide reasoned decisions and to hear both parties before making a determination.
Issues: Whether the Kerala State Human Rights Commission's order dismissing the petitioner's complaint was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a quasi-judicial authority must provide a reasoned order and afford a hearing to the parties involved. The lack of reasoning in the Commission's order rendered it arbitrary and unsustainable in law.
Final Decision: The court set aside the Commission's order and allowed the petitioner to file a fresh complaint, leaving questions of maintainability and merits open for consideration.
JUDGMENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
Petitioner is aggrieved by the Order dated 21.12.2015 in HRMP No.6402/14/MPM rendered by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission whereby the complaint preferred by him seeking directions against the 3rd respondent was closed. He seeks to set aside the said Order and prays for a direction to the Commission to consider his complaint afresh.
Brief facts:
2. Petitioner had requested the 3rd respondent Vicar of the St. Mary’s Church, Thazhepalam, Tirur, to issue him a letter stating that he and his wife are parishners of the said church and are residing within its territorial limits. The said letter, petitioner states, was needed to enable him and his wife to act as Godfather and Godmother respectively during the baptism ceremony of the child of his brother in law. Petitioner had also requested the 3rd respondent to issue a certificate to the effect that his son is a resident member within the parish limits, so as to enable his son to produce the same along with the application for admission to engineering degree courses in colleges run by catholic managements. The said request for a letter and certificate, petitioner alleges, was refused by the 3rd respondent Vicar for the purported reason that petitioner had preferred petitions and complaints before various courts and commissions against the Vicar and the Bishop of Thamarasserry Diocese which governs the church of the 3rd respondent, inter alia alleging financial misappropriation in the construction of a church. Petitioner also alleges that for the same reason, he and his family have been socially ostracized by the 3rd respondent by declining to sacrament and also refusing the annual blessing of the house ceremony which is extended to all other parishioners. He had been told that unless he withdraws the civil suit filed against the church, the certificates will not be issued to him and his family.
Complaint and proceedings before the Commission:
3. Aggrieved by the above said refusal of the 3rd respondent, petitioner preferred Ext. P1 complaint before the Commission inter alia alleging that his right to exercise religion which he terms to be part of his fundamental right to life guaranteed under the Constitution of India as well as a part of his composite rights as a human being stands violated. The said complaint was numbered as HRMP No. 6402/14/MPM and pursuant to the notice issued by the Commission, the 3rd respondent entered in appearance and filed a detailed written statement (Ext.P2). In Ext.P2, the 3rd respondent inter alia denied the allegations raised by the petitioner and stated that there was no denial or refusal to issue letter/ certificates. It was pointed out therein that since the petitioner had moved the Courts and Commissions raising allegations regarding the functioning of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner has to now approach the Bishop of Thamarasserry and obtain an approval for issuance of the certificates requested. The 3rd respondent further averred that though this requirement was informed to the petitioner, he had not chosen to approach the Bishop nor has he filed any application before the Bishop for issuance of any certificate.
Order of the Commission:
4. Commission on 21.12.2015 closed the complaint of the petitioner vide Ext. P4 Order which reads as follows:
The petitioner alleges that respondent is denying his right to obtain parish certificates. The District Collector in his report has stated that several cases are pending in different courts.
Hence there is no further action is warranted. Closed.”
Challenge against the Order:
5. Petitioner alleges that the above Order of the Commission is cryptic, unreasonable and devoid of any reasoning. He further alleges that he was not afforded any hearing by the Commission before issuing such an Order. Petitioner has thus filed this W.P.(C) seeking to set aside the Order of the Commission produced as Ext.P4 and to issue a direction to the Commission to reconsid
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.
It is trite law that when evidence is required to be produced to adjudicate rights of the rival contentions, moreso in the nature of a civil dispute, the same cannot be entertained by the Commission,....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to reopen a case for further evidence, the assessment of the bona fides of such applications, and the interpretation of prov....
State Human Rights Commissions lack jurisdiction over civil property disputes absent specific human rights violations; such complaints are non-entertainable under regulations and must be pursued in c....
The Human Rights Commission lacks jurisdiction in private property disputes and must not interfere in cases already pending in civil courts.
The Human Rights Commission’s role is purely recommendatory; it cannot issue binding directions, such as prohibiting medical practice.
The court emphasized that human rights commission findings should not interfere with ongoing criminal prosecution, highlighting the need for clear evidence when linking law enforcement officers to al....
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
