मानवाधिकार आयोग की मंजूरी नहीं ज़रूरी, सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने मानवाधिकार न्यायालय के अधिकार को स्वतंत्र घोषित किया

<p>New Delhi: The <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/supreme-court">Supreme Court</a> has held that a recommendation from the National or State Human Rights Commission is not a mandatory precondition for filing a complaint before a Human Rights Court, clarifying that the two bodies operate as distinct and complementary mechanisms under the law.</p><p>A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta ruled that the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, envisages separate institutional roles. </p><p>The National and State Human Rights Commissions are empowered to inquire, investigate and recommend action under Sections 12 to 18, while Section 30 specifically provides for Human Rights Courts to ensure the speedy trial of offences arising from human rights violations, the court said.</p><p>“The Commission primarily performs an inquisitorial and recommendatory role, whereas the Human Rights Court exercises judicial power in relation to offences arising out of violations of human rights,” the bench observed. </p><p>The court emphasised that nothing in the statute requires every prosecution linked to a human rights violation to originate from a Commission recommendation, nor does Section 30 make the court’s jurisdiction dependent on prior proceedings before the Commission.</p><p>Reading such a limitation into the Act, Justice Nath wrote in a recent judgment, would amount to adding a condition that Parliament itself never enacted.</p><p>The ruling came in an appeal filed by Sayad Asifullah challenging a July 17, 2025, judgment of the Karnataka High Court. The High Court had struck down Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules, 2006, as unconstitutional and ultra vires the 1993 Act. </p>.Supreme Court refuses to hear ex-Delhi mayor’s plea against Ghaziabad police ‘raid’.<p>It had also quashed criminal proceedings against police officers at Jalanagar police station in Vijayapura, initiated over alleged human rights violations during the appellant’s custody in another case, and set aside a January 20, 2024, order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge directing investigation.</p><p>Setting aside the High Court order, the Supreme Court held that Rule 6 does not create any new offence or enlarge the definition of human rights.</p><p>It merely lays down the procedural framework for invoking the jurisdiction already conferred on Human Rights Courts under Section 30. The offences tried by such courts remain those punishable under the applicable penal laws.</p><p>The bench rejected the High Court’s view that the rule-making power under Section 41 of the Act is limited only to the matters listed in sub-section (2). Section 41(1) empowers the state government to make rules “to carry out the provisions of this Act”, and the language of sub-section (2) is inclusive rather than restrictive.</p><p>Relying on its earlier 2003 decision in Paramvir Singh Saini vs Baljit Singh, the court reiterated that access to a Human Rights Court is independent of any prior inquiry or recommendation by the Commission. The two remedies are distinct and complementary; the Commission is not a mandatory gateway to the court.</p><p>The court also rejected concerns about double jeopardy arising from simultaneous recourse to both forums. </p><p>An inquiry or recommendation by the Commission does not constitute a prior prosecution or punishment, the bench clarified.</p><p>Upholding the validity of Rule 6, the Supreme Court revived the proceedings against the police officers before the Human Rights Court at Vijayapura. </p><p>It made clear, however, that it was expressing no opinion on the merits of the allegations, leaving all contentions and defences open for consideration by the competent court.</p>

<p>New Delhi: The <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/supreme-court">Supreme Court</a> has held that a recommendation from the National or State Human Rights Commission is not a mandatory precondition for filing a complaint before a Human Rights Court, clarifying that the two bodies operate as distinct and complementary mechanisms under the law.</p><p>A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta ruled that the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, envisages separate institutional roles. </p><p>The National and State Human Rights Commissions are empowered to inquire, investigate and recommend action under Sections 12 to 18, while Section 30 specifically provides for Human Rights Courts to ensure the speedy trial of offences arising from human rights violations, the court said.</p><p>“The Commission primarily performs an inquisitorial and recommendatory role, whereas the Human Rights Court exercises judicial power in relation to offences arising out of violations of human rights,” the bench observed. </p><p>The court emphasised that nothing in the statute requires every prosecution linked to a human rights violation to originate from a Commission recommendation, nor does Section 30 make the court’s jurisdiction dependent on prior proceedings before the Commission.</p><p>Reading such a limitation into the Act, Justice Nath wrote in a recent judgment, would amount to adding a condition that Parliament itself never enacted.</p><p>The ruling came in an appeal filed by Sayad Asifullah challenging a July 17, 2025, judgment of the Karnataka High Court. The High Court had struck down Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules, 2006, as unconstitutional and ultra vires the 1993 Act. </p>.Supreme Court refuses to hear ex-Delhi mayor’s plea against Ghaziabad police ‘raid’.<p>It had also quashed criminal proceedings against police officers at Jalanagar police station in Vijayapura, initiated over alleged human rights violations during the appellant’s custody in another case, and set aside a January 20, 2024, order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge directing investigation.</p><p>Setting aside the High Court order, the Supreme Court held that Rule 6 does not create any new offence or enlarge the definition of human rights.</p><p>It merely lays down the procedural framework for invoking the jurisdiction already conferred on Human Rights Courts under Section 30. The offences tried by such courts remain those punishable under the applicable penal laws.</p><p>The bench rejected the High Court’s view that the rule-making power under Section 41 of the Act is limited only to the matters listed in sub-section (2). Section 41(1) empowers the state government to make rules “to carry out the provisions of this Act”, and the language of sub-section (2) is inclusive rather than restrictive.</p><p>Relying on its earlier 2003 decision in Paramvir Singh Saini vs Baljit Singh, the court reiterated that access to a Human Rights Court is independent of any prior inquiry or recommendation by the Commission. The two remedies are distinct and complementary; the Commission is not a mandatory gateway to the court.</p><p>The court also rejected concerns about double jeopardy arising from simultaneous recourse to both forums. </p><p>An inquiry or recommendation by the Commission does not constitute a prior prosecution or punishment, the bench clarified.</p><p>Upholding the validity of Rule 6, the Supreme Court revived the proceedings against the police officers before the Human Rights Court at Vijayapura. </p><p>It made clear, however, that it was expressing no opinion on the merits of the allegations, leaving all contentions and defences open for consideration by the competent court.</p>

Powered by Nyaya 247 News