Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Tr. Hussain Ahamed, filed a complaint before the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission (SHRC Case No.14033 of 2022) and later approached the Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, by way of a writ petition (W.P.No.32561 of 2024). He sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents—the Chairman and Registrar of the Commission, the District Collector, the Director General of Police, and three other officials—to take appropriate action to dispose of his complaint on priority and to produce certain reports and consider his representation dated 05.03.2024. The complaint was pending before the Commission. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the matter required speedy disposal. The High Court, however, held that it could not, in exercise of its power of judicial review, issue a direction to the State Human Rights Commission to dispose of the case on a priority basis. It reasoned that such a direction would cause prejudice to other complainants waiting for disposal of their cases. The Court relied on a Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P., (2024) 6 SCC 267, which held that constitutional courts should ordinarily refrain from fixing time-bound schedules for disposal of cases pending before other courts and that directions for time-bound disposal should be issued only in exceptional circumstances, considering factors such as the nature of litigation, volume of documents, and evidence. The High Court observed that routine issuance of such directions would cause inconvenience to the concerned court or tribunal. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable, with no order as to costs. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the State Human Rights Commission directly and request speedy disposal.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Mandamus - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The High Court cannot, in exercise of its judicial review power, direct a State Human Rights Commission to dispose of a pending complaint on priority basis. Such direction would prejudice other complainants. Held that prioritising disposal should be left to the Commission itself. (Paras 3, 5)
B) Constitutional Law - Judicial Restraint - Time-bound Disposal Directions - Supreme Court Precedent in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P., (2024) 6 SCC 267 - Constitutional Courts should ordinarily refrain from fixing time-bound schedules for disposal of cases pending before other courts. Directions for time-bound disposal may be issued only in exceptional circumstances, considering nature of litigation, volume of documents, evidence, etc. Routine issuance of such directions would cause inconvenience. Held that the writ petition must be dismissed. (Paras 4, 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the State Human Rights Commission to dispose of a pending complaint on priority basis?
Final Decision
The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Petitioner may approach the State Human Rights Commission for speedy disposal.
Law Points
- High Court cannot direct priority disposal of cases
- prioritising disposal is for the concerned court
- time-bound directions only in exceptional circumstances
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (02) 144
S.M. Subramaniam, K. Rajasekar
Ms. Mishel Mary Edward (for petitioner), Mr. T. Chandrasekaran (Special Government Pleader for R3), Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran (Additional Public Prosecutor for R4 to R7)
The Chairman, Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission, The Registrar, Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission, The District Collector, Cuddalore, The Director General of Police, Sakthi Ganesan, S. Raja, Elumalai
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking a mandamus for disposal of a complaint pending before the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing respondents to take action to dispose SHRC Case No.14033 of 2022 and to direct respondents 4 to 7 to produce reports and consider the representation dated 05.03.2024.
Filing Reason
The petitioner’s complaint in SHRC Case No.14033 of 2022 was pending before the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission, and he sought expedited disposal.
Issues
Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the State Human Rights Commission to dispose of a pending complaint on priority basis?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel submitted that the complaint filed by the petitioner in SHRC Case No.14033 of 2022 was pending and sought a direction for its disposal.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court cannot, in exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226, direct a State Human Rights Commission to dispose of a complaint on a priority basis, as such a direction would prejudice the interests of other complainants. Constitutional Courts should ordinarily refrain from fixing time-bound schedules for disposal of cases pending before other courts; directions for time-bound disposal may be issued only in exceptional circumstances after considering the nature of litigation and other relevant factors. The issue of prioritising disposal should be left to the concerned court or tribunal.
Judgment Excerpts
This Court is of the considered opinion that it is for the State Human Rights Commission to regulate its works on its board. The High Court cannot issue a direction to dispose of the case on priority basis in exercise of the powers of judicial review. In the event of issuing any such direction, it will cause prejudice to the interests of the other complainants, who are all waiting for disposal of their respective cases before the State Human Rights Commission.
Constitutional Courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other Courts. Constitutional Courts may issue directions for the time-bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the concerned Courts where the cases are pending.
Therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed. It is for the petitioner to approach the State Human Rights Commission and request for speedy disposal of his case. No costs.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed SHRC Case No.14033 of 2022 before the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission. While the complaint remained pending, the petitioner instituted W.P.No.32561 of 2024 before the Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to dispose of the complaint and produce reports. After hearing the parties, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226
