Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR TATTVAM K PATEL
For the Respondents: MR KANVA ANTANI AGP, MR GH VIRK GOVERNMENT PLEADER WITH MS DHARITRI PANCHOLI AGP, MR R P PATEL

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• The Human Rights Commission lacks jurisdiction over private property disputes and must not interfere in cases already pending before civil courts (!) (!) .
• The definition of "human rights" under the Act pertains to rights related to life, liberty, equality, and dignity guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in international Covenants, enforceable by courts. Disputes solely concerning private property rights do not fall within this scope (!) (!) .
• The powers of the Human Rights Commission are limited to investigating violations of human rights, which involve public rights and state action, not private civil disputes (!) (!) .
• The Commission must respect ongoing civil court proceedings and refrain from intervening without prior permission from the court, especially when the dispute is pending before a competent civil court (!) (!) .
• The jurisdiction of the Commission is confined to complaints made within one year of the alleged violation, and it cannot entertain stale or delayed complaints (!) (!) .
• The Commission is required to conduct a preliminary inquiry before taking cognizance of a complaint to verify whether it discloses a violation of human rights and falls within its jurisdiction (!) (!) .
• Complaints involving purely private civil disputes, such as property rights, are explicitly excluded from the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction under the Act and related regulations (!) (!) .
• The proceedings initiated by the Commission in this case were beyond its statutory authority, amounted to an abuse of process, and interfered with civil judicial proceedings (!) (!) .
• The issuance of notices, summons, and warrants without proper preliminary inquiry or jurisdiction was unlawful and amounted to overreach (!) (!) .
• The Commission must exercise its powers with due caution, ensuring that allegations genuinely involve human rights violations linked to state action, and avoid involvement in private disputes that are the exclusive domain of civil courts (!) (!) .
• The Court has issued guidelines to prevent future misuse of jurisdiction by the Human Rights Commission, emphasizing the need for primary scrutiny, respecting ongoing civil proceedings, and exercising powers within legal limits (!) (!) .

In summary, the Court reaffirmed that the Human Rights Commission's authority does not extend to private property disputes between individuals, especially when such disputes are already under civil court adjudication. The proceedings in this case were therefore quashed to uphold the proper scope of the Commission's jurisdiction.