Back
2019 Supreme(All) 265
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Abhinava Upadhya, Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, JJ.
State of U.P. And Others - Appellants
Vs.
National Human Rights Commission - Respondent
Writ - C No. 7890 of 2014
Decided On : 01-02-2019
Piyush Shukla, Adv., Ramesh Upadhyaya, Adv.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Application for Communication of NHRC making a request to State Government that a report in light of its earlier directions issued be sent to Commission for its further consideration is sought to be challenged – Held, Object for enactment of Act, 1993 being for better protection of human rights and enforcing constitutional guarantee of life and liberty in consonance with international covenants adopted by UN General Assembly, this Court would adopt a construction which would advance object of Act – Petitioners has not been able to point out any other illegality in communication issued by NHRC calling for a report from State Government, and a prayer is made that liberty may be granted to petitioners to submit report to NHRC – Petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed leaving it open to petitioners to take appropriate steps in matter including submission of report to NHRC as per provisions contained under Act, 1993 – Petition dismissed. (Para 18 and 21)
Facts of the case:
Present writ petition has been filed seeking to challenge a communication whereby observations made and directions issued by National Human Rights Commission while considering a matter in exercise of powers under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 were forwarded with a request that a report in the light of the directions be sent to the Commission for further consideration
Findings of the case:
Object for enactment of Act, 1993 being for better protection of human rights and enforcing constitutional guarantee of life and liberty in consonance with international covenants adopted by UN General Assembly, this Court would adopt a construction which would advance object of Act – Petitioners has not been able to point out any other illegality in communication issued by NHRC calling for a report from State Government, and a prayer is made that liberty may be granted to petitioners to submit report to NHRC – Petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed leaving it open to petitioners to take appropriate steps in matter including submission of report to NHRC as per provisions contained under Act, 1993
Result: Petition dismissed
Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.
The present writ petition has been filed seeking to challenge a communication dated 24.05.2013 whereby the observations made and directions issued by the National Human Rights Commission (in short the 'NHRC') while considering a matter in exercise of powers under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (in short the 'Act, 1993'), on 16.05.2013, were forwarded with a request that a report in the light of the directions be sent to the Commission by 05.09.2013 for further consideration.
2. The facts of the case as disclosed from the petition before us are that upon an intimation dated 30.03.2010 received from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, UP regarding the death of one Shamim son of Mujiburrahman on 29.03.2010, the Commission on 09.04.2010 directed the Director General of Police, UP, District Magistrate, Ghaziabad and Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, UP to take appropriate action with regard to investigation of the case as per the guidelines laid down by the Commission in its letter dated 02.12.2003. The Commission on 15.04.2010 requested the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, UP that the action taken report be sent to the Commission.
3. Subsequently a show cause notice dated 05.10.2012 was issued to the Chief Secretary, Government of UP, under Section 18 of the Act, 1993 (Act No.10 of 1994) to show cause why suitable monetory relief be not recommended to be paid to the next of kin of the deceased.
4. Upon considering the reply dated 04.12.2012 submitted in response to the show cause notice, the Commission on 16.05.2013 held that grievous violation of human rights had been committed for which it would be appropriate for the State to make reparations and the Commission made a recommendation that a payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- as relief be made to the next of kin of the deceased.
5. In the light of the aforementioned directions the communication dated 24.05.2013 was sent in terms of which the Chief Secretary, Government of UP was requested that a report in the light of the directions issued by the Commission on 16.05.2013 be sent for further consideration.
6. It is at this stage that the petitioners have come up before this Court seeking to challenge the communication dated 24.05.2013 issued by the NHRC.
7. Heard Sri Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the petitioners, and perused the record.
8. The principal ground of challenge raised in the writ petition is that the powers of NHRC under Section 18 of the Act, 1993 are confined only to making a recommendation to the State Government, and that no directions could have been issued to call for a report on the action taken.
9. In order to appreciate the contentions raised in the present petition it would be appropriate to consider the relevant statutory provisions.
10. The Act, 1993 was enacted to provide for the constitution of National Human Rights Commission, State Human Rights Commission in States and Human Rights Courts for better protection of human rights and for matter connected therewith or incidental thereto.
11. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act makes reference to the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 16.12.1966 and also the fact that India is a party to the said covenants.
12. The ambit and scope of the functions of the NHRC constituted under the Act No.10 of 1994 has been considered in detail in State of UP and 2 Ors. Vs. NHRC & 3 Ors., (2016) 4 AllLJ 98, wherein it was observed as follows:-
"9. The National Human Rights Commission has been constituted, together with the State Human Rights Commissions, "for better protection of human rights" and for related ancillary matters. The Commission is a high powered body whose Chairperson is a person who has been the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Among its members is a person who i
