Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Deepak Shivaji Karande, a police officer, challenged an order of the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission dated 16th June 2010. The Commission had taken cognizance of a complaint by Nilesh Ojha regarding the custodial death of Shankar Ghume at Wardha District Prison while in illegal detention, allegedly due to negligence of three police officers including the petitioner. After hearing the Collector, Superintendent of Police, and Superintendent of District Prison, the Commission observed that the petitioner mechanically passed an order under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and illegally refused bail. However, without giving any finding that the petitioner was responsible for the custodial death, the Commission directed the disciplinary authority to hold a departmental enquiry against the petitioner and two others, to be completed within three months. The Commission itself recorded that the petitioner was not heard. The petitioner argued that the proceedings before the Commission are judicial in nature and he ought to have been heard before such a direction was issued. The High Court agreed, holding that the Commission's order was vitiated due to violation of principles of natural justice. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order, allowing the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Human Rights Law - Natural Justice - Audi Alteram Partem - Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 - The Commission directed a departmental enquiry against the petitioner without hearing him, despite recording that he was not heard. The Court held that the proceedings before the Commission are judicial in nature and the Commission must hear the person against whom an enquiry is recommended before passing such order. The impugned order was quashed and set aside. (Paras 1-4)
B) Criminal Procedure - Preventive Detention - Section 151 CrPC - Custodial Death - The Commission observed that the petitioner mechanically passed an order under Section 151 CrPC and illegally refused bail, but without giving any finding of responsibility, directed an enquiry. The Court found that the direction was vitiated due to violation of natural justice. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission could direct a departmental enquiry against the petitioner without affording him a hearing, and whether such proceedings are judicial in nature requiring compliance with principles of natural justice.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed and set aside the impugned order of the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission dated 16th June 2010.
Law Points
- Natural Justice
- Audi Alteram Partem
- Human Rights Commission Proceedings
- Section 151 CrPC
- Custodial Death
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (06) 151
Writ Petition No. 2697/2010
S. A. Bobde, A. B. Chaudhari
Mr. J. R. Kidilay for petitioner; Mr. T. A. Kankale, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 2 and 3
Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission, Mumbai; The State Government of Maharashtra; The Secretary, Ministry of Revenue Department; Shri Nilesh Chandrabhushan Ojha
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order of Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission directing departmental enquiry against petitioner without hearing him.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the Commission's order recommending departmental enquiry.
Filing Reason
The Commission directed disciplinary authority to hold departmental enquiry against petitioner and two others for custodial death, without affording hearing to petitioner.
Previous Decisions
The Commission passed the impugned order on 16th June 2010.
Issues
Whether the Commission could direct a departmental enquiry without hearing the petitioner?
Whether proceedings before the Commission are judicial in nature requiring compliance with natural justice?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the order was vitiated as he was not heard, and the Commission was bound to hear him since proceedings are judicial.
Respondents did not file any counter; the Court heard the petitioner's counsel and the AGP for respondent nos. 2 and 3.
Ratio Decidendi
The proceedings before the State Human Rights Commission are judicial in nature, and the Commission must hear the person against whom an enquiry is recommended before passing such order. Failure to do so violates principles of natural justice and vitiates the order.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the State Human Rights Commission is vitiated since admittedly, as recorded by the Commission itself, the petitioner was not heard.
The Commission has observed that it is reasonable to believe that the petitioner mechanically passed the order under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and illegally refused the bail.
Having heard the matter, there is no reason for us to hold that the order of the Commission directing the disciplinary authority to enquire into the conduct of the petitioner is sustainable in law.
Procedural History
The Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission took cognizance of a complaint regarding custodial death, heard the Collector, Superintendent of Police, and Superintendent of District Prison, and passed an order on 16th June 2010 directing departmental enquiry against the petitioner and two others. The petitioner challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No. 2697/2010 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Section 151
- Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993:
