The Chhattisgarh High Court has observed that the Human Rights Commissions has no jurisdiction to pass an order directing payment of compensation, as it is a recommendatory body.
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agarwal passed this order on July 28, while hearing a petition filed by Girdhari Lal Chandrakar.
The petitioner called in question the legality and validity of the order dated October 26, 2009 passed by the respondents, by which the petitioner has been directed to make a payment of ₹10,000 on account of professional negligence, alleged to be committed by him.
J.A.Lohani, Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the order is unsustainable and bad in law as the Human Rights Commission has no right and authority to make an order directing payment of compensation and it could have only made recommendation to the competent authority.
The Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the verdict rendered by the Court in the matter of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Raipur vs Chhattisgarh Human Rights Commission and Ors.
The Court held that in the matter of Ram Krishna Dalmia vs Justice S.R. Tendolkar and others, the Supreme Court, while dealing with the function of the Enquiry Commission constituted under the provisions of the Commissions of Enquiry Act, 1952, have held that the function of the Commission is only recommendatory in nature.
“In view of the aforesaid principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-stated judgements (supra), if the facts of the present case are examined, it is quite vivid that the Human Rights Commission is a recommendatory body and it only makes a recommendation to the concerned authority or Government for enforcement of its recommendation. It has no jurisdiction to pass an order directing payment of compensation. Therefore, the order is vulnerable to the extent of directing payment of compensation,” the Court observed.
The Court noted that under Section 18 of the 1993 Act, the Human Rights Commission is only empowered to make a recommendation. It has no adjudicatory jurisdiction and the Government/its authority has an obligation to consider the recommendation of the Commission in accordance with law.
The Court said that in the matter of Chhattisgarh Human Rights Commission (supra), the court has clearly held that the Human Rights Commission has no jurisdiction to pass an order directing payment of compensation.
Also Read: CJI for mediation to solve Andhra Pradesh-Telangana water issue
Reverting to the facts of the case, the Court observed that the Human Rights Commission has directed for payment of compensation of ₹10,000 on account of alleged professional negligence committed by the petitioner to the respondents.
“Accordingly, the order dated October 26, 2009 passed by the respondent No.3/ Chhattisgarh Human Rights Commission to the extent of directing payment of compensation to the extent of ₹10,000 to the respondents is hereby set aside and said order will be only treated as recommendation of the Chhattisgarh Human Rights Commission,” the Court ordered.