Back
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
MOHAMMAD AMIN KHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF JK AND OTHERS. (HOME DEPTT) – Respondent
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
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.
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
