Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a Police Inspector, challenged an inquiry report dated 24.09.2015 of the Goa Human Rights Commission which found him guilty of violating the human rights of Respondent No. 4 by allegedly slapping and punching him and illegally detaining him. The incident occurred on 01.01.2013 when Respondent No. 4 complained about loud music from a bar. The petitioner contended that the inquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice as he was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant or other witnesses, and the report was based on no evidence. The High Court examined the record and found that the Commission had relied on statements of witnesses without providing the petitioner an opportunity to cross-examine them. The Court held that this violated the principles of natural justice. Additionally, the Court found that the evidence on record did not support the findings of assault and illegal detention; the medical report did not corroborate the alleged slapping, and the detention was not proved. The Court quashed the inquiry report and directed that no further action be taken on the basis of the report.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Certiorari - The High Court can quash an order of a quasi-judicial body if it violates principles of natural justice or is based on no evidence. (Paras 1, 30)
B) Human Rights - Inquiry by Human Rights Commission - Goa Human Rights Commission - The Commission's inquiry report must be based on evidence and must afford a fair opportunity to the person against whom allegations are made. (Paras 10-15)
C) Natural Justice - Right to Cross-Examine - The denial of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses whose statements are relied upon violates principles of natural justice. (Paras 16-20)
D) Evidence - No Evidence Rule - A finding based on no evidence or on a view which no reasonable person could take is perverse and liable to be set aside. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the inquiry report dated 24.09.2015 of the Goa Human Rights Commission, which found the petitioner guilty of violating human rights of Respondent No. 4, is liable to be quashed on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice and being based on no evidence.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the inquiry report dated 24.09.2015 of the Goa Human Rights Commission, and directed that no further action be taken on the basis of the said report.
Law Points
- Natural Justice
- Right to be Heard
- No Evidence Rule
- Judicial Review of Quasi-Judicial Orders
- Human Rights Commission Inquiry
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (05) 51
Writ Petition No.111 of 2016
M.S. Sonak, Valmiki Sa Menezes
Mr Gaurish Agni for the Petitioner, Ms Akshata Bhat, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondents-State
State of Goa, Home Secretary, Superintendent of Police, Mr. Cirilo De Souza
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of an inquiry report of the Goa Human Rights Commission.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the inquiry report dated 24.09.2015 made by the Goa Human Rights Commission in Proceeding No. 06/2013.
Filing Reason
The petitioner, a Police Inspector, was aggrieved by the inquiry report which found him guilty of violating human rights of Respondent No. 4 by allegedly assaulting and illegally detaining him.
Previous Decisions
The Goa Human Rights Commission had conducted an inquiry and submitted a report dated 24.09.2015 finding the petitioner guilty of human rights violations.
Issues
Whether the inquiry report of the Goa Human Rights Commission violated principles of natural justice by not allowing the petitioner to cross-examine witnesses.
Whether the findings in the inquiry report were based on no evidence and thus perverse.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Commission did not give him an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant or other witnesses, violating natural justice.
The petitioner argued that the medical evidence did not support the allegations of slapping and punching, and there was no evidence of illegal detention.
The respondents argued that the Commission followed due procedure and the findings were based on evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
A quasi-judicial body must afford a fair hearing, including the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses whose statements are relied upon. A finding based on no evidence is perverse and liable to be quashed under Article 226.
Judgment Excerpts
By this Petition, invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns the inquiry report dated 24.09.2015 made by the Goa Human Rights Commission (the Commission) in Proceeding No. 06/2013.
The Commission's inquiry report must be based on evidence and must afford a fair opportunity to the person against whom allegations are made.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.111 of 2016 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging the inquiry report dated 24.09.2015 of the Goa Human Rights Commission. The petition was reserved on 25.04.2023 and pronounced on 12.05.2023.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
