The National Human Rights Commission is a recommendatory body under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and lacks the adjudicatory power to issue binding directions, orders, or writs to government authorities.

SHEEL NAGU, C.J.

1. The writ as well as supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked seeking quashing of order dated 10.01.2019 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.2-National Human Rights Commission, along with Enquiry Report in case No.1179/7/3/2018 (Annexure P-6), on the ground that under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (for brevity ‘The 1993 Act’), respondent No.2-Commission is not an adjudicatory authority, but a mere recommendatory body and therefore, the impugned order, to the extent that it issues directions to the Police Commissioner, Faridabad and the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, is vitiated in law.

2. The factual matrix in the instant case disclose that respondent No.3/complainant preferred a complaint dated 06.06.2018 alleging that the complainant and his father were subjected to assault leading to sustenance of serious injuries. The further allegation is that despite reporting the matter to the police, no action was taken. The complaint further alleged that instead of registering offences against the accused persons, FIR No.9 of 2018, u/ss 323, 341, 354 (1) (i), 354 (i) (ii), 354 B, 354 D (i), 506, 506 IPC was registered against the complainant. Thus, the complainant sought intervention of the Commission by way of this petition.

2.1. The National Human Rights Commission, vide impugned order dated 10.01.2019 (Annexure P-5) passed the following directions:-

xx xx xx

“The Commission carefully considered the materials on record and took note of the facts and circumstances of the case. At the outset, it could be seen that the allegations made by the complainant were prima facie clearly established against the erring Police officials. No impartial investigation by the concerned officials could be expected. In the circumstances, the Commissioner of Police, Faridabad be directed to transfer the investigation of Case No.425, u/s 323, 325, 34/506 IPC, P.S. Saran and Women Police Station, NIT, Faridabad, Case No.9/18, u/s 323, 341, 354 (1) (i)/354 (i) (ii), 354 B, 354 D (i), 506, 509 IPC on 06.06.2018 to a Senior Police Officer of another district and ensure completion of investigation within a reasonable time.

The Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana be directed to initiate departmental action against the DCP, NIT Ms. Nikita Gehlot, Asst. Commissioner of Police, NIT Shri Jai Prakash, Shri Ramesh Chand, SI., P.S. Dabua, W/HC Ms. Renu and Medical Officer Dr. Sadan Prasad of B.K. Hospital, Faridabad for the omission and commission committed by them in the aforesaid matters. They may also be transferred out of Faridabad so that further investigation in the matter could be free from their influence. A copy of the enquiry report of the N.H.R.C. team be transmitted to the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, DGP, Haryana and Commissioner of Police, Faridabad for taking necessary action.

As seen from the materials on record the conduct of the aforesaid Police Officials amounted to a gross violation of human rights of the victims. In the circumstances, the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Haryana be directed to show cause u/s 18 (a) (i) of PHR Act, 1993 as to why a compensation of Rs.50,000/- each should not be recommended to be paid to the complainant and his father within six weeks positively.

Let a copy of the enquiry report be also transmitted to the complainant for his information and necessary action.”

3. We do not wish to enter into the merits of the allegations and their veracity since action in terms of the impugned order of the National Human Rights Commission of