Purpose Of Human Rights Act Would Be Nullified If Commissions Are Rendered Powerless & Held To Be Mere Recommendatory Bodies: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court remarked that Human Rights Commissions are not to be ‘toothless tigers’ but must be ‘fierce defenders’ safeguarding the right to live without fear and to live with dignity.
The Delhi High Court remarked that the purpose of the Human Rights Act, 1993 and the reasons for its enactment would be nullified if the Commissions are rendered powerless and are held to be mere recommendatory bodies.
The Court remarked thus in a Writ Petition relating to a case of alleged fake encounter by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police that took place on May 5, 2006 where five members of the Ayub/Aslam gang died and the sixth member allegedly escaped into the darkness.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma observed, “The purpose of the Human Rights Act and the reasons for its enactment would be nullified if the Commissions are rendered powerless and are held to be mere recommendatory bodies. The recommendations are binding in nature. The concerned authority/government, however, is not without remedy and can always seek judicial review of the recommendations. Any view to the contrary, that the Human Rights Commissions can only make recommendations, which are not binding, would render the said Commissions completely toothless and nullify the object of India ratifying the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”
The Bench emphasised that human rights are not ordinary rights and these rights are integral to Article 21 of the Constitution which recognizes the Right to Life.
Advocate Saurabh Prakash appeared on behalf of the Petitioner while Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
The case was related to an alleged fake encounter by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police that took place on the night of May 5, 2006, where five members of the Ayub/Aslam gang died and the 6th member was stated to have escaped into the darkness. The said gang was involved in more than 70 cases of murder, attempt to murder, dacoity, robbery, rape, etc. The Petition was filed by the father of the member of the said gang who lost his life in the alleged fake encounter.
As per the Petition, the deceased used to run a provision store and it was submitted that he did not have prior criminal antecedents. He was made an accused in two FIRs under Sections 397, 395, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) but was acquitted in both the cases. The deceased had a wife and two daughters. The Petitioner sought directions to the Respondents to give concurrence for an impartial CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) inquiry into the alleged killings and to give compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to the legal heirs of the deceased gang members including the one who was missing.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “The Court does not agree with the stand of the Delhi Police that in each and every case, the NHRC ought to be forced to approach the Court for implementation of its own decisions. The NHRC is not meant to become a litigant before Courts.”
The Court further noted that the Commissions under the Human Rights Act are meant to look into any infractions and exercise powers under the Act and the Reports and Recommendations of Human Rights Commissions (HRCs) need to be treated with seriousness and not rendered edentulous or pointless.
“If Governments are aggrieved, they are free to challenge the orders of State Commissions and NHRC. But such inquiries and reports cannot be simply ignored. Human Rights Commissions are not to be ‘toothless tigers’ but have to be ‘fierce defenders’ safeguarding the most basic right of humans i.e., the right to live without fear and to live with dignity”, it added.
Having held that the recommendations of the HRC would be binding in nature, the Court was of the opinion that the compensation, as awarded, deserves to be paid.
“The deceased has two daughters, both of whom are studying. They have been brought up by their paternal grand-parents i.e., dada and dadi. … Since there was no challenge to the direction given by the NHRC, which in the opinion of this Court, is binding on the government, it is directed that the compensation shall be released by the MHA for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs along with simple interest @ 18% within a period of three months”, it directed.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title- Kiran Singh v. National Human Rights Commission & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:456-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Saurabh Prakash, Utsav Jain, and Anant Aditya Patro.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan and SPP Rajesh Mahajan.
