Human Rights Commission Can't Entertain Private Property Disputes: Gujarat High Court Issues Directions To Prevent Jurisdictional Overreach

Observing that a grievance relating to share in property “cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be treated as a violation of human rights,” the Gujarat High Court quashed proceedings initiated by the State Human Rights Commission in a family property dispute.In doing so the court also issued detailed directions to regulate the Commission's exercise of jurisdiction while considering cases of human rights violation. Justice Niral R. Mehta held that the present case was a “clear instance” where the State Human Rights Commission had exercised powers not conferred upon it under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. The Court emphasised that proceedings under the Act are not meant for settlement of private civil disputes and that entertaining such complaints amounts to usurpation of the jurisdiction of the civil court."On a combined reading of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Human Rights Regulations, 1994, it is clear that the complaint filed by respondent No.4 before respondent No.3– Commission regarding her alleged share in the property was wholly misconceived. The dispute was already pending before the competent Civil Court, and the allegations of so-called human rights violations were made against private individuals who are not public servants. Therefore, the proceedings initiated by the Commission were legally untenable, not maintainable, and amount to an abuse of the process of law. The complaint was filed with mala fide intent to resolve a private property dispute under the guise of human rights violations and to overreach the civil proceedings already initiated by respondent No.4 herself.It appears that after the complaint was filed, the Commission issued summons as well as bailable and non-bailable warrants, which ultimately resulted in a settlement being reached in favour of respondent No.4 by coercing the petitioners. The present case, therefore, is a clear example of abuse of legal process. Unfortunately, the Human Rights Commission committed a serious error in entertaining such a complaint and in initiating proceedings, including issuance of summons and warrants. For the reasons stated above, the Commission could not have initiated proceedings on such a vague complaint, especially when it lacked jurisdiction..."The court further laid down directions and guidelines "regarding the jurisdiction and exercise of powers" by the Human Rights Commission to ensure that, in future, the powers under the Act are not abused and the process of law is not misused:Before taking cognizance, including suo motu cognizance, the Commission must conduct a primary scrutiny to ascertain whether the complaint prima facie discloses a violation of human rights as defined under Section 2(d), and such satisfaction must be recorded in writing.Regulation 9 must be borne in mind at the threshold, particularly where the complaint relates to civil disputes such as title, possession, partition or contractual obligations.Commission shall not entertain complaints predominantly involving private civil disputes unless there is demonstrable State action resulting in a recognizable human rights violation.Where proceedings concerning the same subject matter are pending before a court, the Commission must seek a declaration regarding such pendency and refrain from running parallel proceedings or overlapping with judicial adjudication.Any decision taking cognizance of a complaint must be after holding preliminary inquiry and supported by a brief written order recording the satisfaction of the Commission that the complainant discloses a prima facie case of violation of human rights; and Inquiry by the Commission is legally maintainableThe Bench also cautioned that issuance of summons, bailable or non-bailable warrants must not be done casually, but only after proper application of mind, with recorded reasons, and as a measure of last resort.Public Officials shall not be arraigned as party in any private disputeThe case arose from a dispute over agricultural lands in village Zundal, Gandhinagar. Respondent No.4 had executed a relinquishment deed in 2015 in favour of the petitioners but later filed a suit seeking cancellation of that deed and claiming her share. During the pendency of the civil suit, she approached the State Human Rights Commission alleging violation of her human rights for not being given a share in the property. The Commission issued notices and directed the parties to take steps to give her share through mediation.The High Court noted that the complaint before the Commission was essentially based on a private property claim between private individuals and that no allegation of violation by a public servant was made. It further observed that the dispute was already sub judice before a competent civil court and that the Commission had nonetheless proceeded to issue notices, summons and even warrants, ultimately resulting in a settlement.After analysing Sections 2(d), 12, 17 and 36 of the Act ...

Human Rights Commission Can't Entertain Private Property Disputes: Gujarat High Court Issues Directions To Prevent Jurisdictional Overreach

Ananya Tangri

Tags