HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR …
Reserved on: 02 .07.2024 Pronounced on: 27.09.2024 Mohammad Amin Khan age 68 years F/o Irshad Ahmad Khan R/o Housing Colony Bagi Mehtab Srinagar …….Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr Mir Manzoor, Advocate Versus
1. State of J&K through Chief Secy to Govt, Civil Sectt. Sgr/Jmu
2. Commr/Secy to Govt. J&K Home Deptt. Civil Sectt Sgr/Jmu
3. Director General of Police, J&K, Sgr
4. Dy. Commr. Sgr
5. Sr. Supdt. of Police, Sgr
6. G.O.C. 15 Corps C/o 56 APO ……Respondent(s)
Through: Mr Mohsin Qadiri, Sr.AAG with Ms. Mahaja Majeed, assisting counsel Mr T.M.Shamsi, DSGI with Ms Rehana Qayoom, Advocate CORAM:
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL,
Key Points: - The Commission’s recommendations are not binding and are merely recommendatory in nature (!) (!) (!) . - The Commission lacks jurisdiction to enforce its recommendations and cannot treat them as executable orders (!) (!) (!) . - The Commission can inquire into complaints of human rights violations and may recommend compensation and employment measures, but such recommendations are not enforceable (!) (!) . - Under Section 19, the Commission may only make recommendations and cannot initiate further proceedings against the government after receiving comments (!) (!) (!) . - Matters pending before other commissions or outside the Commission’s jurisdiction cannot be inquired into by the Commission (!) (!) . - The court dismissed the petition, holding that the Commission’s recommendations are not adjudicative or enforceable (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
1. Petitioner prays to quash communication no.Home/SHRC-73/2012/4242 dated 7th August 2014 issued by respondent no.2. A direction is also sought to be passed in favour of petitioner against respondents by directing them to pay reasonable compensation to petitioner with a further direction to provide employment to one family member of petitioner under SRO 43 of 1994 in respondent department.
2. Objections have been filed by respondents.
3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the case set up by petitioner.
4. Perusal of fie reveals that petitioner herein, filed a complaint before the J&K State Human Rights Commission (for short “Commission”) in the year 2008 alleging therein that his son, namely, Irshad Ahmad Khan was called by PARA Punjab, PA to GOC, 15 Corps at Army Headquarters Srinagar in the year 2004 and was kept under custody and that his son was not released nor heard of since then. On the complaint of petitioner, the Commission made a recommendation to the State Government to sanction/pay an ex-gratia relief of Rs.1.00 Lac in favour of NOKs of the subject, Irshad Amin Khan, besides employment under SRO 43 of 1994 read with Government Order no.893-GAD of 2008 dated 4th July 2008 be provided to one of the eligible family members of disappeared person. In terms of impugned communication dated 7th August 2014, respondents rejected recommendations of the Commission.
5. J&K Protection of Human Rights Act, 1997 (for short “Act of 1997”) was enacted aiming at providing for constitution of a State Human Rights Commission and Human Rights Courts for better protection of human rights and for matter connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 3 of the Act provides that the government shall constitute a body to be known as the State Human Rights Commission to exercise the powers conferred upon and to perform the functions assigned to it under the Act of 1997. Subsection (2) of Section 3 provides that the Commission shall consist of a Chairperson who has been a Judge of the High Court, one member who is, or has been a District Judge, three members to be appointed from amongst persons having knowledge of or practical experience in the matters relating to human rights. Section 13 of the Act provides as under:
“13. Functions of the Commission. ––
The Commission shall perform all or any of the following functions, namely :––
(a) inquire, suo moto or on a petition presented to it by a victim or any person on his behalf, into complaint of––
(i) violation of human rights or abetment thereof; or
(ii) negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant;
(b) intervene in any proceeding involving any allegation or violation of human rights pending before a court with the approval of such court;
(c) visit, under intimation to the Government, any jail or any other institution under the control of the Government, where persons are detained or lodged for purposes of treatment, reformation or protection to study the living conditions of the inmates and make recommendations thereof;
(d) review the safeguards provided by or under the constitution or any law for the time being in force for the protection of human rights and recommended measures for their effective implementation;
(e) review the factors, including acts of terrorism, that inhibit the enjoyment of human rights and recommend appropriate remedial measures;
(f) undertake and promote research in the field of human rights;
(g) spread human rights literacy among various sections of society and promote awareness of the safeguards available for the protection of these rights through publications, the media, seminars and other available means;
(h) encourage the efforts of non-governmental organizations and institutions working in the field of human rights;
(i) such other functions as it may consider necessary for the promotion of human rights.”
6. Section 15 of the Act reads as under:
“15. Investigation. ––
(1
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 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 ....
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....
Provisions of Section 21 and 22 of the Act of 1993, the present incumbent need not be disturbed as he has not been issued notice.
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....
The main legal point established is that the Kerala State Human Rights Commission lacks jurisdiction in service matters as per its regulations and statutory provisions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.