Report Of State Human Rights Commission Is Only Recommendatory In Nature: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court recently held that the report submitted by the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission (KSHRC) is recommendatory and not directory in nature.
Present Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash a report of KSHRC issued on March 12, 2020 where it made certain recommendations.
As per the Counsel for the Petitioner, Advocate Satish k., they were in the nature of directions hence, exceeded the scope of section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision of N.C.Dhoundial Vs. Union of India and others where SC observed that, “The Commission, which is the creature of statute, is bound by its provisions. Its duties and functions are defined and circumscribed by the Act.”
The Court further emphasised from the above judgment that, “the Commission should necessarily act within the parameters prescribed by the Act creating it and the confines of jurisdiction vested in it by the Act.”
The Court held that the report issued by the Karnataka State Humans Rights Commission should not be treated as a direction but as a recommendation. It granted liberty to the official respondents to take suitable action based on recommendations.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the present Writ Petition.
Cause Title: C. Girish Naik v. The State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:9181-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Adv. Satish k.
Respondent: AGA Savithramma, Adv. Gopal Krishna Soodi
