The court confirmed that the Human Rights Commission does not possess the authority to grant recognition to NGOs under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and its actions were justified under existing statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 29th day of January, 2020 S.Manikumar, CJ.

Instant writ petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs:

(a) “To issue a writ of certiorari calling for records leading to Exhibit-P12 and quash the same to the extent it cancels petitioner's recognition.

(b) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to restore the cancellation of petitioner's recognition with 1st respondent since there is no irregularities or complaint against the petitioner.

(c) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to function under

1st respondent as a NGO in the light of the Human Rights Act, 1993.

(d) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to extent all the encouragements to the petitioner's effort in the field of human rights.”

2. Kerala Pouravakasa Samrakshana Samithy, the petitioner herein, is a Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO), which was registered on 13.10.1993, in accordance with the provisions of the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Society Act, 1995. The activities of the Samithy include Protection of Human Rights, create awareness of human rights, conducting seminars and meetings etc., to educate the society. Human Rights Commission through Exhibit-P2 notification published in Mathrubhoomi daily dated 17.10.1999, invited applications from Non- Governmental Organisations (NGOs), for registration under the Kerala State Human Rights Commission. The Commission also issued Exhibit-P3 guidelines for the same. As per Chapter 3 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1933, Section 12 (i) gives power to the Commission to encourage the efforts of NGOs and institutions working in the field of human rights. Petitioner was given recognition vide decision taken by the Commission on 4.3.2006 and recognition with the State Human Rights Commission was granted after verification with the District Collector and enquiry by the Tahsildar through the Village Officer. The District Collector vide Exhibit-P4(a) report dated 23.12.2005 stated that the Samithy is actively working from 1993 onwards and that the same is rendering services for the promotion, protection and spreading of human rights without remuneration or monetary consideration.

3. Subsequently, by Exhibit-P5 newspaper report, the recognition granted to the petitioner was withdrawn by the Commission as per decision taken in the meeting held on 27.09.2007. Petitioner has applied under the RTI Act seeking for the information whether the Commission has received any complaint against them. The reply is in negative.

4. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)

No.12798 of 2008 and by judgment dated 2.6.2010 (Exhibit-P9), writ court disposed of the writ petition holding that petitioner continues to be an affiliated/recognized non-voluntary organisation for the purpose of human rights and directed the 1st respondent, Human Rights Commission, to continue to encourage the efforts of the petitioner's organization working in the field of human rights notwithstanding Exhibits-P5 and P6. Writ court further held that however, this will not stand in the way of the Commission taking a decision on the basis of a definite finding arrived at after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

5. In the light of abovesaid judgment, petitioner is engaged in human rights activities and there was no complaint from any quarters. The 1st respondent in its meeting No.63 reconsidered its decision and decided to cancel the recognition given to the petitioner on the ground that the Act does not contain any enabling provisions for recognition to any Non Governmental Organizations. Consequently, Exhibit-P12 communication dated 20.11.2019 was issued. Being aggrieved, this writ petition is filed on the following grounds:

“A. The course of action that would have been taken by the Commission in misrepresentation or foul play or cheating was to identify such cases and take appropriate action under the respective statute and filing criminal case