J&K High Court Refuses To Implement Human Rights Commission's Recommendation To Compensate Father Of Youth Killed By Security Agencies

The Jammu and Kashmir & Ladakh High Court has refused to implement the recommendation made by State Human Rights Commission to compensate the father of a youth killed by Indian Securities Agencies.

State claimed the youth was a militant and he was killed in an encounter with the Army. The father denied this allegation and asserted that his son was picked up by the Security Agencies and was later found dead near his residence.

The SHRC had recommended that an amount of Rs.1 lakh be given as compensation to the family. However, following State's inaction the petitioner approached the Court.

The High Court asked the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anantnag to conduct an enquiry in this matter. The Magistrate returned an inconclusive report, without considering the material and the documents produced before him by the State Agencies.

"CJM has simply relied upon the testimony of father of the deceased and his neighbourers without even subjecting them to any cross-examination. So, the report of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anantnag, cannot be relied upon for any purpose whatsoever. In fact, the said report is not even worth the paper on which it has been written", a single bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar said.

The bench also noted that a Division Bench of the High Court in "State of J&K vs. State Human Rights and others" had considered SHRC's recommendation made in the case of petitioner’s son and held that recommendations made by the Commission cannot be termed as a verdict on resolving the disputed facts and that the same are not binding on the parties before the Commission.

"The Division Bench has refused to implement the said recommendation in its aforesaid judgment. Since judgment of the Division Bench is binding on this Court, as such, it would not be open to this Court to issue a Mandamus to the respondents to implement the recommendation of the Commission made in the case relating to death of the petitioner’s son," Justice Dhar said.

The Court finally held that the matter involves disputed questions of fact and the petitioner may approach competent forum in this regard.