Back
: SHRC Cannot Inquire Into Police Complaint Handling Without Human Rights Proof
In a significant ruling that reins in the powers of the (SHRC), the has quashed an SHRC order directing two police officers to pay ₹1,00,000 each in compensation to a complainant. The court held that the SHRC cannot inquire into allegations regarding how a police officer handled complaints or registered cases unless there is .
The bench of Justice M. Dhandapani and Justice N. Dilip Kumar was hearing filed by Inspector T. Parthiban and Sub-Inspector U. Perumal, who sought to challenge the SHRC’s , order. The Commission had found the officers guilty of human rights violations based on a complaint by a woman, Tmt. Anthoniammal, and directed compensation, while exonerating another officer. The High Court’s decision, uploaded on , clarifies the limits of the SHRC’s jurisdiction and underscores that the remedy for police misconduct lies elsewhere.
The Allegations That Sparked the SHRC Inquiry
The case began when Anthoniammal, living separately from her husband, alleged that her neighbours were harassing her. A criminal case was registered, but while it was pending trial, the neighbours threatened her not to testify. Anthoniammal claimed that when she went to the in Thoothukudi District to complain, Sub-Inspector Perumal threatened her with a false FIR unless she withdrew her complaint.
She further alleged that when Inspector Parthiban took up her representation, he behaved inappropriately—asking her to sit beside him and placing his hand on her lap. In a separate incident, Anthoniammal alleged that after her four-year-old child was attacked by the neighbours, the sub-inspector on duty (Sabitha) did not register her complaint; instead, a counter-case was filed against her and her husband. After representations to higher authorities, the SHRC took cognizance of the matter in .
Petitioners Argue SHRC Overstepped Its Bounds
Counsel for the police officers, , argued that the SHRC had exceeded its powers and conducted proceedings not in accordance with law. He submitted that if the complainant had any grievance, the appropriate remedy lay before a Magistrate’s court, as established by the ’s decision in . The SHRC, he contended, had no jurisdiction to conduct such an inquiry into police complaint handling.
The SHRC, represented by , defended the order, asserting that the materials on record had been properly considered and the compensation was justified.
Court’s Scrutiny: No Sufficient Material for Human Rights Finding
After examining the and the records, the High Court found that the SHRC had failed to provide substantiated reasons for its conclusion. The Commission had examined two witnesses on the complainant’s side and three on the police side, yet the court noted that the reasoning did not establish how the allegations amounted to a human rights violation.
The bench observed: “The reasonings given by the to arrive at the conclusion against the petitioners, have to be examined in the light of the materials available on record. The , while passing an order for compensation, should substantiate the reasons for arriving at a finding of violation of human rights and for fixing the liability upon the concerned police officials.”
The court emphasized that the SHRC should have indicated how the materials supported the conclusion against the officers. In the absence of such analysis, the order could not stand.
Key Observation: , Not Before SHRC
The crux of the judgment lies in the court’s analysis of the SHRC’s jurisdictional limits. The bench categorically held that allegations about the manner in which police officials dealt with complaints or registered criminal cases do not, without more, constitute a human rights violation that the Commission can remedy.
“There is no substance to intervene in a action against an Inspector of Police and the Sub-Inspector of Police for the alleged manner in which the complaints and representations of the fourth respondent were dealt with, without there being sufficient material to establish violation of human rights. If there is any excess committed by the police officers, the , particularly when the allegations relate to the manner in which the police officials dealt with the complaints and the registration of criminal cases. There is no power available to the to conduct such an enquiry in the manner in which it has proceeded in the present case.”
This observation, the court noted, flows from the limited scope of the SHRC’s powers—it can only intervene where there is a clear violation of human rights, not as a general appellate body for police inaction or misconduct.
Final Decision: SHRC Order Set Aside
The High Court concluded that the SHRC had “travelled ” and set aside the , order. The were allowed, with no order as to costs. The court made clear that the complainant, if aggrieved, could pursue other legal remedies available under law.
The ruling, reported as , serves as a important guide for the SHRC and similar bodies, reiterating that human rights commissions must not stray into areas reserved for criminal or civil courts. It also underscores the need for clear evidence of human rights violations before compensation can be ordered against public officials.
