The Human Rights Commission’s role is purely recommendatory; it cannot issue binding directions, such as prohibiting medical practice.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK KUMAR SINHA, J.

Heard the parties.

2. The present writ application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 25.07.2014 passed by the learned Member of the Bihar Human Rights Commission, Patna (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the ‘Commission’) in File No.BHRC/Comp.676/12 (Ram Narayan Singh vs. Dr. Ranjit Kumar).

3. For better appreciation of the case, the operative portion of the impugned order dated 25.07.2014 (Annexure-1) passed by the Commission is quoted herein below for needful.

“4. Commission in its order dated 02nd June, 2014 directed the Health Deptt. to send response to the Commission's proposal to award compensation to the victim. Health deptt. was told to send response by 02nd July, 2014 after which final orders will be passed. No response has come from the Health Deptt. Dr. Ranjeet Kumar was also asked to explain/summit his defence to the Commission. He has done so but he has miserably failed to rebut the charges levelled against him by the committee set up by Health Deptt..

5. Commission, therefore, directs following actions to be taken in the matter:-

(a) A compensation of Rs.1, 00,000 (One Lakh) be paid to the victim by the Health Deptt. within two months. The compensation be recovered from the Doctor in the manner deem fit by the government.

(b) Action taken by the Govt. regarding termination of the services Dr. Ranjeet Kumar (as recommended by the committee) to be communicated to the Commission within two months.

(c) A copy of the expert committee report is sent to the Chairman, Bihar Council of Medical Education for effecting ban on the Gynaecological practice and surgery by the Doctor. Action taken be communicated to the Commission within three months.

(d) A copy of the report from Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar be sent to SSP, Patna for needful in regard to Bakhtiyarpur PS Case No. 112/11.

(e) Commission is of the view that the above two cases of serious criminal medical negligence (Barh G.R No. 473/11 & 1416/11) are fit cases for SPEEDY TRIAL by the special court set up by Bihar Government (notification no.1607 dated 18.3.2011) designating the court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge-l as the Court of Session for speedy trial of offences u/s 30 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. Commission requests Hon'ble High Court, Patna to issue suitable directions in this regard.”

[Emphasis Supplied]

4. Despite the fact that in the writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 25.07.2014 (Annexure-1) but during the course of argument the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner confined his challenge only to the direction contained in paragraph-5(c) of the said impugned order on the following counts:

(a) The direction contained in paragraph-5(c) of the impugned order (Annexure-1) has been passed without considering the reply which was submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure-12 of the writ application before the Commission and,

(b) the direction given by the Commission as contained in paragraph-5(c) is illegal and without jurisdiction for the reason that while exercising power under Section 18 of The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the Commission could only have given a ‘recommendation’ and not a direction.

5. In support of the ground (a), the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the proceeding before the Commission, the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply (Annexure-12) in File No.676/2012, in which the petitioner had explained as to how the charges levelled by the Expert Committee in its recommendation dated 23.05.2014 (Annexure-10) were not correct. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that without proper consideration of the reply (Annexure-