An unconditional apology, without conceding guilt, can resolve disputes arising from claims of human rights violations, superseding the need for adjudication on the merits of the case.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition has been filed by a retired Police official impugning the order of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission, a copy of which has been placed on record as Ext.P6, which has awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the 4th respondent herein, allegedly for having been illegally arrested by the petitioner and thereafter being incarcerated for several days.

2. I notice from Ext.P6 order that the allegation against the petitioner was that he had arrested the 4th respondent without proper cause, thus causing his judicial custody for about 15 days. The State Human Rights Commission appears to have acted upon a report that was obtained from the Additional Director General of Police, North Zone implicating the petitioner and it consequently awarded damages in the manner afore, for the mental agony inflicted upon the 4th respondent on account of the alleged wrongful action of the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner impugns Ext.P6 order on various grounds but primarily on the ground that the proceedings before the Human Rights Commission was, in fact, hopelessly barred by limitation. According to him, the Commission ought not to have entertained this complaint more than a year and a half after the incident, going by the specific provisions of Section 36 of the Protection of Human Rights Act , 1993. He also assails the order on facts by saying that the allegations that have been established against his client by the Commission were, in fact, not proved through a cogent or reliable process and he says, therefore, that the entire order is vitiated by non-application of mind. He further says that the innocence of his client has been subsequently proved conclusively by the fact that he was acquitted from the departmental enquiry, which was initiated against him on the same set of allegations.

4. On 07.11.2018, when this matter was considered by me, noticing that the litigative fight of the 4th respondent is not really for a pecuniary gain, but that he is doing so to regain his prestige and dignity by clearing his name, I asked the petitioner whether he would be willing to offer his apology to the 4th respondent, even without conceding his guilt, for any action that may have unwittingly caused the 4th respondent agony, so that they can now live without bitterness. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to consult his client and I, therefore, asked the learned counsel for the 4th respondent also whether his client would be amenable to the closure of these proceedings, if the petitioner offers an apology in the afore manner.

5. When this matter was taken up today, I must say with great amount of commendation for both sides, that the learned counsel for the parties were ad-idem that they have thought over the suggestion made by this Court and that the petitioner is willing to offer his apology, without conceding his guilt in any manner but for any action of his that may have unwittingly caused agony to the 4th respondent; and that the 4th respondent in turn is willing to accept the same in fairness and good conscience giving up his claim for the damages ordered by the Human Rights Commission.

6. On hearing the learned counsel as afore, it becomes obvious that the contest against Ext.P6 has now paled into insignificance and that it has lost its relevance, thereby not requiring this Court to look into its contents any further.

In the afore circumstances, I close this writ petition, setting aside Ext.P6; but recording that the petitioner has offered his unconditional apology to the 4th respondent; without in any manner conceding to his guilt but as measure of grace and good conscience and that the 4th respondent has accepted this apology and has thereby given up his claim to the damages ordered in Ext.P6.

I place on record my deepest appreciation for the parties as well as the counsel on both sides for having been able to obtain amiable resolution to the longstanding disputes