"Blatant Overreach": Telangana High Court Sets Aside Series Of Orders Passed By State Human Rights Commission On Demolition, Service, Etc

The Telangana High Court has made it clear that Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act 1993, which enumerates functions and powers of the State Human Rights Commission, cannot be invoked to deal with disputes pertaining to title of property, demolition and service benefits.

Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and T.Vinod Kumar also set aside the notices issued by the Commission in a domestic violence complaint and a medical negligence complaint, citing pendency of parallel proceedings.

Whereas in orders relating to title, demolition and service benefits court has made it clear that SHRC has no jurisdiction, in the other two matters of domestic violence and medical negligence, the issue of jurisdiction was not addressed given the facts and circumstances of the case; the issue of jurisdiction in these two kind of cases is left open.

The Counsel on behalf of Telangana SHRC argued that all the above mentioned acts would amount to violation of human rights, and hence the Commission was well within its rights to pass orders.

The Court has held that these matters could not have been tried by the human rights commission. It also noted that the Commission had accepted complaints, even when proceedings had been initiated and were pending before competent authorities.

The Court in all these cases, heavily relied on G.Manikyamma v. Roudri Cooperative Housing Society Limited in which the Supreme Court referred to Section 12 of the Act to determine whether the Commission had power to adjudicate the subject matter dispute therein.

In a matter pertaining to cattle shed, the Commission had ordered demolition on the claim that the smell emitted from the shed was spreading diseases in the area, which was held to be a human rights violation. TSHRC counsel similarly claimed that there was violation of human rights in matters pertaining to restoration of water supply and domestic violence.

So far as demolition order is concerned, Court held, "Section 12 of the Act, 1993, does not confer any power on the Commission to direct demolition of property. The power to order demolition vests in the authorities under the statute and not covered by the Act, 1993."

On restoration of water supply, Court said, "the dispute pertains to title of the property as well as the right of respondent No.5 to claim electricity and water connection in respect of the subject building, which is pending adjudication in a Civil Suit, cannot be entertained by the Commission. In view of the preceding analysis, the order dated 11.03.2022 passed by the Commission is per se without jurisdiction."

In the domestic violence case the Court found, "In the instant case, admittedly, respondent No.2 has invoked the provisions of the Act, 2005 and thereafter for the same reliefs, she has approached the Commission. Even assuming that the Commission has jurisdiction to deal with the complaint, in such a case also, respondent No.2 cannot be permitted to prosecute two petitions before different forums."

In the case of medical negligence, the TSHRC had set up a committee and directed them to conduct enquiry, despite similar proceedings having been initiated before the competent authorities. "...since respondent No.5 had already approached the Council with regard to her grievance, it is not open for her to again file a complaint before the Commission. A party cannot invoke parallel proceedings and prosecute the same simultaneously. It is also pertinent to note that the matter is pending adjudication before an expert body, which deals with the issue of medical negligence." the Court held in that case.

Significantly, the Court also heard the case of maintenance for minor child who had lost both his parents. The TSHRC had ordered the uncle (father's brother) of the minor boy to pay maintenance of five thousand per month to the grandmother, who the boy was residing with towards his education. The uncle of the boy filed the Writ claiming that he was not in the financial position to support his family and the boy.

The Court addressed the grandmother, who had filed the complainant before the TSHRC and stated that it is the duty of the State to ensure fundamental rights such as right to education. To this, the Govt Pleader assured the Court that the State would provide for the education of the boy and provide a status update at the next date of hearing.

Case Title: Jagdeshwar vs State of Telangana & Ors | Counsel for petitioner: M Achuta Reddy | Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 40

Case Title: Dr. Ch. Shankar vs. Telangana State Human Rights Commission | Counsel for petitioner: P.Giri Krishna | Counsel for APHRC: A. Samir Kumar | Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 41

Case Title: Mangalpalli Karthikeya vs. Telangana State Human Rights Commission | Counsel for petitioner: S. Chalapathi Rao | Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 42

Case Title: Lakshmikanth C. & ors. Vs. Telangana State Human Rights Commission & Ors | Counsel for petitioner: Ch. Siddhartha Sharma | Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 43

Case Title: Telangana State Power Generation Corporation Limited vs. Telangana State Human Rights Commission & Ors. | Counsel for petitioner: V Uma Devi Sc for GENCO | Counsel for APHRC: A. Samir Kumar | Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 44

Case Title: M/s Anirudh Argo Farms Pvt. Ltd vs. Telangana State Human Rights Commission & Ors. | Counsel for petitioner: Vadeendra Joshi | Counsel for APHRC: A. Samir Kumar | Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 45

Click Here To Read/Download Order [WP No. 32847 of 2022]