1. Quashment is sought herein of Annexure P-1 issued by the M.P. Human Rights Commission (“Commission” for brevity) dated 23.7.2011 directing the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of M.P. (Department of Home) to implement the recommendations of the Commission constituted under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (“1993 Act” for brevity) recommending recovery of compensation amount from petitioner and institution of disciplinary proceedings against petitioner after recording a finding that while discharging investigative duties as SHO, P.S. Mau, District Bhind, MP qua an incident dated 25 and 26.10.2018, petitioner indulged in violation of human rights.

2. After hearing learned counsel for the rival parties and perusing both the returns filed by the State, it is clear that the State and its functionaries have treated the recommendations of the respondent/Commission to be binding upon them, which is evident from paragraph 1 of the return of respondents No.1 and 2 filed 17.5.2012, which is reproduced below for ready reference :

“1. That, the contents of Para 1 of this petition are not denied. So far with regard to order dated 23.7.2011 Annexure P-1 passed by the Human Right Commission. The order Annexure P-1 is detailed and reasoned order whereby recommendation has been given to infringe the Human Rights by the petitioner. From the bare perusal of entire recommendation/order it reveal that the ample and adequate opportunity of hearing was given by issuing various notices, but petitioner did not appeared before the Human Right Commission and always avoided the hearing. Therefore he has no right to challenge the recommendations issued by the Human Right Commission against him. Answering respondents are bound to follow the recommendations of the Human Right Commission. Accordingly in compliance of the aforesaid recommendations a chargesheet has been issued to the petitioner and in preliminary conducted the S.D.O. (P) Mehgaon the petitioner was found in guilty, hence decision has been taken to establish the Departmental Enquiry. Copies of letters and chargesheet in this regard are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-1.”

Nowhere in either of the returns, there is any averment that the State or any of it’s functionaries had independently applied their minds to the recommendations of the Commission before coming to a conclusion that the same deserve to be implemented.

3. The impugned order passed by the Commission directing the functionaries of the State to implement its recommendations appears to be dehors the nature of power available to the Commission under the 1993 Act.

4. Considering the relevant legal provision, it is seen that the 1993 Act was enacted to provide for constitution of National and State Human Rights Commission and Human Rights Courts for better protection of human rights and the matter connected therewith. Chapter IV of 1993 Act prescribes procedure to be followed by the Commission while conducting enquiry into allegation of human rights violation.

5. Relevant section 18 of the 1993 Act which was substituted w.e.f. 23.11.2006 is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:

“18. Steps during and after inquiry.—The Commission may take any of the following steps during or upon the completion of an inquiry held under this Act, namely:—

(a) where the inquiry discloses the commission of violation of human rights or negligence in the prevention of violation of human rights or abetment thereof by a public servant, it may recommend to the concerned Government or authority—

(i) to make payment of compensation or damages to the complainant or to the victim or the members of his family as the Commission may consider necessary;

(ii) to initiate proceedings for prosecution or such other suitable action as the Commission may deem fit against the concerned person or persons;

(iii) to take such further action as it may think fit.”;

(b) approach the Supreme Court or the High Court c