The Aryavarth Express
Agency(Karnataka): In a significant ruling, the High Court of Karnataka has clarified that the recommendations put forth by the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission in its reports should be construed as advisory in nature rather than mandatory directions. The court emphasized that the Commission, while performing a crucial role in safeguarding human rights, operates within the confines of its statutory jurisdiction and cannot issue orders that are binding on government authorities.
The judgment came in response to a writ petition filed by the petitioners, who sought to quash specific points, namely direction (a) and (c), in a report dated March 12, 2020, submitted by the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission (the fourth respondent). The petitioners contended that the recommendations outlined in paragraph 18 of the report overstepped the Commission’s authority under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
The Division Bench, comprising Honorable Justice Poonacha, delved into the relevant provisions of the Act, particularly Sections 18 and 29. Section 18 delineates the steps the Commission may take during or upon completing an inquiry. Notably, Section 18(a) states that when an inquiry reveals a violation of human rights, the Commission “may recommend” certain measures to the concerned government or authority. These measures include compensating the complainant or victim, initiating prosecution proceedings, or taking other appropriate actions.
Referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in N.C. Dhoundial v. Union of India and others, the High Court underscored that the Commission, despite being a “unique expert body,” does not possess unlimited jurisdiction or plenary powers that override statutory limitations. The court emphasized that the Commission must operate within the parameters set by the Act that established it and the jurisdiction conferred upon it.
The High Court also cited two previous Division Bench rulings, C. Gopal v. Karnataka State Human Rights Commission and S.H. Vasantha v. State of Karnataka & Ors., which affirmed the recommendatory nature of the Commission’s reports. In light of these precedents and the statutory provisions, the court disposed of the writ petition by clarifying that the report dated March 12, 2020, issued by the fourth respondent, should be treated as a recommendation rather than a binding direction.
The court granted the official respondents the liberty to take appropriate action based on the Commission’s report and recommendations, in accordance with the law. This judgment serves as a reminder that while the Human Rights Commission plays a vital role in addressing human rights violations, its findings and suggestions are not enforceable orders but rather guidance for the concerned authorities to consider and act upon as they deem fit.
This judgment is expected to provide clarity on the nature and extent of the Human Rights Commission’s powers and the weight accorded to its recommendations. It reinforces the principle that while the Commission’s findings and suggestions are valuable and must be given due consideration, they do not have the force of binding legal directives.