Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. NAGAMUTHU
Rajesh Das, I.P.S., S/o. Pranabandhu Das, Chennai
Versus
Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission, Chennai & Others
W.P. Nos. 21604 to 21607 of 2000
Decided on: 27-08-2010
(B)Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993(10 of 1994)-Sec.12- Human rights-Violation-Redressal-Human Rights Commission-Proceeding-Order-Nature-Recommendation-Enforceability-The orders passed by the Human Rights Commission in its proceedings are only recommendatory and are not executable by itself- The Human Rights Commission is neither a judicial authority nor a quasi judicial authority to adjudicate upon the disputed facts between the parties.
A deep understanding of Section 18 of the Act together with Sections 12, 13 and 17 of the Act would go to show that the commission has got no power either to order for payment of compensation or to issue any other order. The power, in simple terms, is only to make appropriate recommendation to the Government. The said recommendation cannot be equated to an executable order at all. The commission is neither a judicial authority nor a quasi judicial authority to adjudicate upon the disputed facts. Para 14
(C)Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993(10 of 1994)-Sec.12- Human rights-Violation-Redressal-Human Rights Commission-Proceeding-Order-Nature- Recommendation-Enforceability-The recommendations of the Human Rights Commission are not binding on the parties before the Commission.
Thus, there can be no doubt that the commission is only a fact-finding body and not an adjudicatory authority. If, it is an adjudicatory authority, there can be no doubt that on adjudicating upon the issues involved, the commission can pass an order which will be binding on the parties to the issues. But, as per the Scheme of the Act, the commission is not an adjudicatory authority at all. Therefore, the recommendations made by the commission under Section 18 of the Act cannot be termed as a verdict on resolving the disputed facts and thus the same is not binding on the parties before the commission. Para 15
(D)Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993(10 of 1994)-Sec.12- Human rights-Violation-Redressal-Human Rights Commission-Proceeding-Order-Compensation-Recovery-Service rules-Amount of compensation paid by the Government in pursuance of the recommendation of the Human Rights Commission can be recovered from the delinquent officer only as per the service rules and not otherwise.
In the instant cases, the commission, in its recommendation, has not only recommended for payment of compensation to the victims , but has further gone to the extent of recommending to the Government to recover such amount from the petitioner. In this context I may state that the Government itself has got no power to order for recovery of the said amount from the public servant concerned, except in accordance with the service rules. If the service rules provide for recovery of such amount paid as compensation, which is a loss to the Government, after following the procedure contemplated in such service rules / regulations, the Government may recover such amount from the public servant concerned. In the cases on hand, the recommendation of the commission to recover the compensation amount straightway from the petitioner herein cannot be countenanced. Therefore, the Government is only obliged to consider such recommendation of the commission in the light of the relevant service rules applicable to the petitioner. Para 37
(E)Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993(10 of 1994)-Sec.12- Human rights-Violation-Redressal-Human Rights Commission-Proceeding-Order-Prosecution-Private complaint-Civil suit-Bar-Res judicata-Delinquent officer can be prosecuted for their act of human rights violation only by a regular police investigation and not directly on the recommendation of the Human Rights Commission- Pendency of any enquiry before the Human Rights Commission or even any order passed by the Government on the human rights violation committed by the public servant shall not prevent the victims of human rights violation from filing a prosecution before the jurisdictional Magistrate by way of private complaint or to approach civil court for compensation.
Here again, on the recommendation of the Commission, the Government cannot straightway prosecute the matter before the jurisdictional Magistrate. On the basis of the Commission’s report the matter has to be further investigated by the Police on the directions of the Government and thereafter a final report is to be submitted before the jurisdictional Magistrate. There upon the learned Magistrate will have to commit the case to the Human Rights Court for trial. It has also been well settled that pendency of the enquiry before the Human Rights Commission or even any order passed by the Government shall not prevent the victims of Human Rights Violation from filing a prosecution before the jurisdictional Magistrate by way of private complaint or to approach civil court for compensation. Para 38
(F)Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993(10 of 1994)-Sec.12-Constitution of India-Art.226-Human rights-Violation-Redressal-Human Rights Commission-Proceeding-Order-Recommendation-Enforceability-Challenge-Writ- Maintainability-Writ petition is not maintainable to challenge the recommendation of the Human Rights Commission when it did not adversely affect the rights of the public servant.
In view of the above conclusions, I hold that these writ petitions, at this stage, are highly premature and they are not maintainable. Since I am inclined to dismiss these writ petitions as premature I do not deal with the other grounds raised in the writ petitions in respect of the merits of the recommendations of the human rights commission. It is for the petitioner to raise all these grounds by way of explanation to the Government, if he is called upon to do so by the Government. Para 43
1. "Whether the Human Rights Commissions constituted under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 have power of adjudication in the sense of passing an order which can be enforced propri vigore?" These writ petitions are all about this important question.
2. The occurrence which has given rise to these litigations happened on 15.03.2000 in the Police Battalion Ground at Trichy. During the relevant time, the petitioner in these writ petitions, an I.P.S. Officer, was working as Commandant, TSP Battalion No.1, Trichy. His wife, Dr.Beela Rajesh, an I.A.S. Officer, during the relevant period, was working as Sub Collector at Chengalpattu. On date of occurrence, his wife along with two other women police constables was waiting near the Shuttlecock Court in the Battalion Ground to play. At that time, two police constable by name Prabhu and Anbarasan attached to Armed Reserve came near them and eve teased the women. The Police Constables by name Nagarathinam, Krishnamurthy, Shankar and Dinesh, who intervened, were manhandled and attacked by Prabhu and Anbarasan. On a complaint preferred in respect of the same, a criminal case was registered against Prabhu and Anbarasan in Cr.No.55 of 2000 at K.K.Nagar Police Station for offences under Section 341, 323 and 509 of IPC.
3. The respondent Ariasamy is the father of Anbarasan and the respondents A.Lakshmanan, Tmt.A.Francina and Tmt.Lakshmi are the father, mother and wife respectively of Prabhu. According to them, the petitioner's wife and other police personnel were actually playing shuttlecock. At that time, Prabhu came to the spot and on seeing Havildar -Mr.Krishnamuthy [the 4th respondent in the complaints], he made fun of him. The wife of the petitioner mistook it and questioned the same. On hearing the call from his wife, the petitioner rushed to the spot along with the other police personnel. It is alleged that Prabhu was attacked by the petitioner and his subordinates. His father, mother and wife came to the place of occurrence and questioned. They were also attacked. Then, Anbarasan came and questioned. He was also attacked. Anbarasan and Prabhu were kicked by the petitioner and forced to make somersaults. For sometime, they were illegally detained by the petitioner. They were latter on arrested by registering a false case against them. They underwent treatment for the injuries sustained in the occurrence for few days. On the complaint of Mrs.Lakshmi, a case was registered against the assailants on the file of K.K.Nagar Police Station, Trichy.
4. In respect of the above occurrence, alleging human rights violations, there were four complaints made by M.Ariasamy, A.Lakshmanan, Tmt.Francina and Tmt.Lakshmi and the same were entertained by the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission in SHRC Nos.850 to 853 of 2000/RSS respectively on the file of the 1st respondent. The petitioner was the 1ST respondent in all the four cases and the other police personnel by name Kandasami [Sub Inspector of Police], Manickam [Sub Inspector of Police] and Krishnamurthy [Havildar] were respondents 2 to 4. The petitioner and the other respondents in the SHRC cases denied the allegations made against them.
5. On service of notice, the petitioner herein and three other respondents in SHRC cases appeared before the Commission and filed their counters denying all these allegations. Before the Commission, besides the victims, few other witnesses were examined on the side of the complainants and some documents were exhibited. They were allowed to be cross examined by the petitioner herein and the other respondents in the SHRC cases. On side of the petitioner, he was examined besides few more witnesses. Some documents were also exhibited on his side. Having considered all the above, the Commission by its proceedings dated 08.12.2000 made the following recommendations:-
(1) Prabhu and Anbarasan be paid a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs) each by the Government.
(2) Lakshmanan and Tmt.Laksh
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
