PIL In Jharkhand High Court Challenges NHRC Circular Withdrawing Mandatory Judicial Inquiry Into Custodial Deaths, Rapes

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Jharkhand High Court challenging a National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) circular which withdrew its earlier direction mandating judicial inquiries in every case of custodial death, disappearance and rape.

The PIL seeks quashing of the NHRC's Circular dated May 14, 2024, which declared that the Commission's earlier circular dated September 4, 2020 had become “nugatory” and stood “withdrawn and annulled” following the coming into force of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The petitioner has also sought a direction to the NHRC to issue fresh guidelines in light of the Jharkhand High Court's recent judgment in Md. Mumtaz Ansari v. State of Jharkhand (2026 SCC OnLine Jhar 617), wherein the Court held that an inquiry under Section 196(2) of the BNSS must be conducted by a Judicial Magistrate and that an inquiry by an Executive Magistrate cannot substitute such judicial inquiry.

The petitioner, Md. Mumtaz Ansari, an advocate practising before the Dhanbad Civil Court, contends that the impugned circular is based on a misreading of Sections 194(4) and 196(2) of the BNSS.

According to the plea, Section 194(4) merely empowers an Executive Magistrate to conduct an inquest, which is a preliminary fact-finding exercise to ascertain the apparent cause of death. On the other hand, it is submitted that Section 196(2) mandates a judicial inquiry by a Judicial Magistrate into cases of custodial death, disappearance or rape.

The petitioner alleges that the NHRC erroneously conflated the two provisions and wrongly concluded that the statutory requirement of judicial inquiry had become redundant because Executive Magistrates are empowered to conduct inquests under Section 194(4). The plea contends that the two provisions operate in distinct fields and serve different purposes, with an inquest under Section 194(4) being fundamentally different from the detailed quasi-judicial inquiry contemplated under Section 196(2).

It is further argued that by withdrawing its 2020 circular, the NHRC has acted contrary to its statutory mandate of protecting human rights. According to the petitioner, the Commission ought to have strengthened and reaffirmed safeguards requiring judicial inquiries into custodial deaths and rapes instead of withdrawing them on what is described as an erroneous interpretation of the BNSS.

The PIL further submits that the impugned circular creates a “dangerous legal vacuum” in the procedural safeguards governing inquiries into custodial deaths, disappearances and rapes, thereby weakening accountability in cases involving alleged human rights violations.

The matter is titled Md. Mumtaz Ansari v. NHRC and Ors.