Case Note & Summary
The petitioner filed a complaint before the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu, alleging human rights violations by police officers who allegedly threatened and abused her son at the Pattiveeranpatti Police Station. The complaint was registered as SHRC Case No.431/22/7 of 2022. After recording evidence, a Single Member of the Commission passed an order on 30 December 2024, finding that no human rights violation had been committed. The order was served on 31 December 2024. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madras High Court, seeking to quash the Commission's order and a direction to pass orders on merit. The petitioner primarily argued that the Single Member had no jurisdiction to decide the case under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and the Rules framed thereunder, and that the findings were perverse. The High Court examined the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, specifically Section 10 and Section 29, which extend the provisions relating to the National Human Rights Commission to State Commissions. It also considered Regulation 13 of the State Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 1997, which mandates that all complaints shall be dealt with by a Single Bench, unless the Single Bench decides to refer the case to a Division or Full Bench with the concurrence of the Chairperson. The Court held that the Single Member validly exercised jurisdiction and there was no legal infirmity. On the merits, the Court noted that the Commission had recorded the admitted fact that the complainant and her husband were not present at the police station during the incident, and that neither her son nor her daughter was examined as witnesses. The Court declined to re-appreciate the evidence, holding that under Article 226, it cannot substitute its own view for that of the Commission when findings are based on evidence. As no prima facie case was made out, the High Court dismissed the writ petition with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Human Rights - State Human Rights Commission - Jurisdiction of Single Member Bench - Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, Sections 10, 29; State Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 1997, Regulation 13 - The petitioner contended that the Single Member of the State Human Rights Commission lacked jurisdiction to decide the complaint. The Court held that under Regulation 13(a), all complaints shall be dealt with by a Single Bench, unless that Bench refers it to a Division or Full Bench, and the Chairperson concurs. Therefore, no jurisdictional infirmity existed. (Paras 3-8) B) Judicial Review - Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 - Reappreciation of Evidence - Constitution of India, Article 226; Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 - The petitioner challenged the Commission's findings on merits, alleging perversity. The High Court refused to re-appreciate the evidence, noting that the Commission's order was based on recorded evidence, including the admission that the complainant and her husband were not present at the police station, and that the alleged victim and eyewitness were not examined. Hence, no prima facie case was made out. (Paras 9-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Single Member of the State Human Rights Commission had jurisdiction to pass the final order under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and Regulations; Whether the findings of the Commission that no human rights violation occurred are perverse and warrant judicial review
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Single Member of State Human Rights Commission has jurisdiction to decide complaints under Regulation 13 of the State Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations
- 1997
- High Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot re-appreciate evidence recorded by the Commission
- all complaints shall be dealt with by a Single Bench unless referred to a larger bench by the Chairperson
