Karnataka High Court Upholds Limitations on State Human Rights Commission’s Authority

Last Updated on March 10, 2024 by News Desk

Introduction:

In a recent ruling, the Karnataka High Court has clarified the scope of authority of the State Human Rights Commission, emphasizing that it can only recommend actions to the government, not pass directives. The court’s decision came in response to a petition filed by C Girish Naik, an Inspector of Police, challenging certain recommendations issued by the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission in its report dated March 12, 2020. The court’s analysis, framed within the legal framework of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, sheds light on the delineation between recommendations and directions, reinforcing the boundaries of the Commission’s powers.

Issue:

The central issue addressed by the court pertains to the nature of the recommendations made by the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission in its report dated March 12, 2020, and whether they exceed the Commission’s authority as defined under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

Rule:

The court references Section 18(a) of the Act, which stipulates that the Commission may recommend measures to the concerned government or authority upon the disclosure of human rights violations. Additionally, the court relies on judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court’s ruling in NC Dhoundial v. Union of India & Ors. (2004) and a previous Karnataka High Court decision in C. Gopal v. Karnataka State Human Rights Commission (2015), to interpret the statutory provisions.

Analysis:

The Karnataka High Court, through a division bench comprising Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice CM Poonacha, carefully examines the language of Section 18(a) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. It underscores that the Commission’s role is limited to making recommendations, rather than issuing binding directives. By referencing relevant legal precedents, the court elucidates the distinction between recommendations and directions, ensuring adherence to the legislative intent.

Conclusion:

In its partial allowance of the petition filed by C Girish Naik, the Karnataka High Court reaffirms the statutory framework governing the authority of the State Human Rights Commission. The court clarifies that the report issued by the Commission, while containing recommendations, does not amount to directives. It grants the concerned authorities the discretion to take appropriate action based on the Commission’s recommendations, in accordance with the law. This ruling serves to uphold the principles of legal interpretation and delineate the respective roles of governmental bodies in safeguarding human rights.

Written by — Athi Venkatesh