P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.

This batch of Writ Petitions assail the orders of the State Human Rights Commission directing recovery of the compensation amount directed to be paid by the State to the complainants (who are victims of violation of human rights) from the petitioners (who are Officers of the State and have been held responsible for the violation of those human rights of the victims).

2. S. Nagamuthu, J in Rajesh Das, I.P.S., vs. Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission (order dated 27.08.2010 in W.P.Nos.21604 and 21607 of 2000), wherein similar relief had been sought, considered the question 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 proprio vigore and after analyzing the scheme of that enactment, was of the view that its provisions were pari materia with that of the Commissions of Enquiry Act, 1952, and came to the conclusion that such a Writ Petition filed by an Officer of the State was not maintainable as being pre-mature at that stage and succinctly set out the legal position as follows:-

“(i) What is made under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act by the State Human Rights Commission is only a recommendation and it is neither an order nor an adjudication.

(ii) Such a recommendation made by the State Human Rights Commission is not binding on the parties to the proceeding, including the Government.

(iii) But, the Government has an obligation to consider the recommendation of the Commission and to act upon the same to take forward the objects of the Human Rights Act, the International Covenants and Conventions in the back drop of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution within a reasonable time.

(iv) In the event of the Government tentatively deciding to accept the recommendation of the State Human Rights Commission holding any public servant guilty of human rights violation, the Government shall furnish a copy of the report of the Commission to the public servant concerned calling upon him to make his explanation, if any, and then pass an appropriate order either accepting or rejecting the recommendation of the Commission.

(v) Until the final order is passed by the Government on the recommendation of the Commission, neither the complainants nor the respondents in the human rights cases can challenge the recommendation of the commission as it would be premature except in exceptional circumstances.

(vi) On the recommendation of the Human Rights Commission, if the Government decides to launch prosecution, the Government have to order for investigation by police which will culminate in a final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(vii) On the recommendation of the Human Rights Commission, if the Government decides to pay compensation to the victims of human rights violation, the Government may do so. But, if the Government proposes to recover the said amount from the public servant concerned, it can do so only by initiating appropriate disciplinary proceeding against him under the relevant service rules, if it so empowers the Government.”

3. Subsequently, in T. Vijayakumar vs. Madhavi (order dated 29.09.2010 in W.P. (MD) No. 12316 of 2010), which was also a Writ Petition filed by an Officer of the State for similar relief, K. Chandru, J dissented with the views of S. Nagamuthu, J in the aforesaid case and held as follows:-

“16. This court is not inclined to agree with the said observation since the said judgment did not refer to the previous decisions of the Supreme Court or of this Court on the very same issue. In the present case, there is no necessity to hear the delinquent officer concerned before accepting the SHRC's report as the Government is bound to give effect to the SHRC's recommendations. In case of any difficulty, the SHRC itself can move this court for enforcement of its order under Section 18(2) for the grant of appropriat