The individual words in a language name objects—sentences are combinations of such names. In this picture of language, we find the roots of the following idea: Every word has a meaning. This meaning is correlated with the word. It is the object for which the word stands.
- Saint Augustine in Confessions (397-400 AD)
For a large class of cases—though not for all—in which we employ the word 'meaning,' it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language.
- Ludwig Wittgenstein's in Section 43 of Philosophical Investigations (1953) criticizing Saint Augustine's views
It is often said that interpretation is a journey of discovery, which is not akin to a regular journey of discussion and dispositive reasoning which predominantly turns on 'construction'. Interpretation (unlike construction) is more in the nature of determining the idea of legal meaning of a Statute. Interpretation is a jurisprudential journey as it is the process of sifting a statute and/or its provisions to seek the intention of the Legislature.
-Justice M. Sundar in Abdul Sathar vs. The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (2021) as part of a 3-Judge Bench of Madras High Court
"Human Rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India.
-Section 2(1)(d), The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
In State (NCT of Delhi) vs. National Human Rights Commission (2025), Delhi High Court's Division Bench comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Amit Sharma has held that recommendations of the National Human Rights Commission are legally binding. Similar judgement was delivered by the same Court in Kiran Singh vs. NHRC (2025), wherein it was held that its recommendations are legally binding obligations lest the Commission’s existence is rendered otiose. The human rights commissions are creatures of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising Justices Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud and Yashwant Varma, had an opportunity to adjudicate upon the same in State of U.P. vs. NHRC (2016). The basic question remained whether the expression “recommend” in Section 18(a) of the Act could be regarded by the authorities as a mere opinion than can be ignored with impunity. The Court observed that: 16. … to place such a construction on the expression “recommend” would dilute the efficacy of the Commission and defeat the statutory object underlying the constitution of such a body. Continuing, the Court emphasised that: 16. An authority or a Government which is aggrieved by the order of the Commission is entitled to challenge the order. Since no appeal is provided by the Act against an order of the Commission, the power of judicial review is available when an order of the Commission is questioned.
A later Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court reached similar conclusion in State of U.P. vs. U.P. Human Rights Commission (2019).
A Single Judge Bench of the Bombay High Court in Chandrakant Dashrath Vadgule vs. State of Maharashtra (2024) came to the same conclusion. The judgment relied on the Full Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in Abdul Sathar vs. State (2021). The Full Bench was given the task to resolve conflict of views between two Single Bench judgments of the Madras High Court in Rajesh Das, I.P.S vs. Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission, Chennai reported in (2010(5) CTC 589) and T. Vijayakumar vs. Madhavi (2021). The latter had held that the recommendations of the Human Rights Commission are binding. The Full Bench overruled the decision made in the former and concluded that the recommendations of the Human Rights Commissions amounts to an adjudicatory order. The government are legally obliged to comply with recommendations under Section 18 (e) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
Section
18 of the Act reads: "Steps during and after inquiry.—The Commission may take any
of the following steps during or upon the completion of an inquiry held
under this Act, namely:—
(a) where the inquiry discloses the
commission of violation of human rights or negligence in the prevention
of violation of human rights or abetment thereof by a public servant, it
may recommend to the concerned Government or authority—
(i) to make
payment of compensation or damages to the complainant or to the victim
or the members of his family as the Commission may consider necessary;
(ii)
to initiate proceedings for prosecution or such other suitable action
as the Commission may deem fit against the concerned person or persons;
(iii) to take such further action as it may think fit;
(b)
approach the Supreme Court or the High Court concerned for such
directions, orders or writs as that Court may deem necessary;
(c)
recommend to the concerned Government or authority at any stage of the
inquiry for the grant of such immediate interim relief to the victim or
the members of his family as the Commission may consider necessary;
(d) subject to the provisions of clause (e), provide a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner or his representative;
(e)
the Commission shall send a copy of its inquiry report together with
its recommendations to the concerned Government or authority and the
concerned Government or authority shall, within a period of one month,
or such further time as the Commission may allow, forward its comments
on the report, including the action taken or proposed to be taken
thereon, to the Commission;
(f) the Commission shall publish its
inquiry report together with the comments of the concerned Government or
authority, if any, and the action taken or proposed to be taken by the
concerned Government or authority on the recommendations of the
Commission." The revised Section 18 provisions were included by an
amendment of 2006, which came into effect on November 23, 2006.
In Abdul Sathar vs. The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (2021), a 3-Judge Bench of Justices S. Vaidyanathan, V. Pratibhan and M. Sundar from Madras High Court delivered 517-pages long judgment dated February 5, 2021 wherein it adjudicated over the five questions: (i) Whether the State Human Rights Commission, while exercising powers under sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) of clause (a) of Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, could straight away issue orders for recovery of the compensation amount directed to be paid by the State to the victims of violation of human rights under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of Section 18 of that enactment, from the Officers of the State who have been found to be responsible for causing such violation?" The Bench answered:"Yes, as we have held that the recommendation of the Commission under Section 18 is binding and enforceable, the Commission can order recovery of the compensation from the State and payable to the victims of the violation of human rights under Sub Clause (a)(i) of Section 18 of the Act and the State in turn could recover the compensation paid, from the Officers of the State who have been found to be responsible for causing human rights violation. However, we clarify that before effecting recovery from the Officer of the State, the Officer concerned shall be issued with a show cause notice seeking his explanation only on the aspect of quantum of compensation recoverable from him and not on the aspect whether he was responsible for causing human rights violation." The judgement was authored by Justice Sundar.
The bench observed:"Section 18 is a self- contained Section and any recommendation made under that is not open to be ignored or an option is with the concerned Government to reject its recommendation unlike Sub Clause (2) of Sections 20 and 28 which deal with the recommendation made under the relevant Sub Clauses of Section." It has underlined that "the word 'recommendation' as found in Sections 12 and 18 cannot be considered to have the same connotation."
The Court examined (ii) Whether the State has any discretion to avoid implementation of the decision made by the State Human Rights Commission and if so, under what circumstances?
It answered saying, "As our answer is in the affirmative in respect of the first point of Reference, the same holds good for this point of Reference as well. We having held that the recommendation is binding, the State has no discretion to avoid implementation of the recommendation and in case the State is aggrieved, it can only resort to legal remedy seeking judicial review of the recommendation of the Commission."
The Court examined (iii) Whether the State Human Rights Commission, while exercising powers under sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) of clause (a) of Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, could straight away issue orders for recovery of the compensation amount directed to be paid by the State to the victims of violation of human rights under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of Section 18 of that enactment, from the Officers of the State who have been found to be responsible for causing such violation?
It answered:"Yes, as we have held that the recommendation of the Commission under Section 18 is binding and enforceable, the Commission can order https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ recovery of the compensation from the State and payable to the victims of the violation of human rights under Sub Clause (a)(i) of Section 18 of the Act and the State in turn could recover the compensation paid, from the Officers of the State who have been found to be responsible for causing human rights violation. However, we clarify that before effecting recovery from the Officer of the State, the Officer concerned shall be issued with a show cause notice seeking his explanation only on the aspect of quantum of compensation recoverable from him and not on the aspect whether he was responsible for causing human rights violation."
The Court examined (iv) Whether initiation of appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the Officers of the State under the relevant service rules, if it is so empowered, is the only permissible mode for recovery of the compensation amount directed to be paid by the State to the victims of violation of human rights under sub-clause(i) of clause(a) of Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, from the Officers of the State who have been found to be responsible for causing such violation?'
Its answered: "As far as the initiation of disciplinary proceedings under the relevant Service Rules is concerned, for recovery of compensation, mere show cause https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ notice is sufficient in regard to the quantum of compensation recommended and to be recovered from the Officers/employees of the concerned Government. However, in regard to imposition of penalty as a consequence of a delinquent official being found guilty of the violation, a limited departmental enquiry may be conducted only to ascertain the extent of culpability of the Official concerned in causing violation in order to formulate an opinion of the punishing Authority as to the proportionality of the punishment to be imposed on the official concerned. This procedure may be followed only in cases where the disciplinary authority/punishing authority comes to the conclusion on the basis of the inquiry proceedings and the recommendations of the Commission that the delinquent official is required to be visited with any of the major penalties enumerated in the relevant Service Regulations. As far as imposition of minor penalty is concerned, a mere show cause notice is fair enough, as the existing Service Rules of all services specifically contemplate only show cause notice in any minor penalty proceedings."
The Court examined (v) Whether Officers of the State who have been found to be responsible by the State Human Rights Commission for causing violation of human rights under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, are entitled to impeach such orders passed by the Commission in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution and if so, at what stage and to which extent?
It answered:"As we have held that the recommendation of the Commission under Section 18 of the Act is binding and enforceable, the Officers/employees of the State who have been found responsible for causing violation of human rights by the Commission, are entitled to assail such orders passed by the Commission by taking recourse to remedies of judicial review provided under the Constitution of India. It is open to the aggrieved officers/employees to approach the competent Court to challenge the findings as well as recommendations of the Commission."
Justice Sundar observed: "491. As a corollary to the above conclusion, since the recommendation of the H.R.Commission is held to be binding, an officer/employee concerned can resort to appropriate legal remedy at any stage qua complaint or inquiry by the Commission but only on substantial legal grounds. Before we part with this Reference, we are constrained to express our considered opinion that despite all the provisions in the Act, covering wide spectrum of human rights concerns in consonance with the Rule of Law governing our polity, in the absence of an inbuilt and integral provision within the explicit frame work of the Statute, a perception has been gaining ground in the corridors of the implementing authorities that the recommendation of the H.R.Commission lacks legal sanctity and hence can be trifled with. Such perception and point of view on the part of the implementing authority may not augur well towards addressing the complaints of human rights violation in the country where the written Constitution reigns supreme and is placed at the altar of our governance."
Notably, a Bill entitled the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Bill, 2022 was introduced in the Lok Sabha to amend the 1993 Act in the light of the decision of the Madras High Court on July 1, 2022. Its statement of objects and reasons reads:"The full bench of the Madras High Court in Abdul Sathar vs. the Principal Secretary (Tamil Nadu State Government) on 5th February 2021 ruled that the recommendations made by the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) under section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 are binding on the Government or Government authority. The bench observed that the recommendations of SHRC are adjudicatory orders that are legally and immediately enforceable. The bench also recommended the Parliament to make necessary amendments to the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, so as to empower the Commissions to directly execute their recommendations. Section 13 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 confers upon the National and State level Human Rights Commissions the powers of a civil court during inquiry into human rights violations. As such, all proceedings before the Human Rights Commissions are deemed to be judicial proceedings under section 13 of the Act. But after the Commission completes its investigation and human rights violations are brought to light, the Commission does not have the penal powers to prosecute human rights violations. Section 18 of the Act only provides for the Human Rights Commission to recommend to the concerned Government or the authority to take suitable action against such human rights violators. As a result, the Commission is unable to hold such people and organisations accountable for their acts of human rights violations. Over the years in various judgments, the Supreme Court and High Courts have lamented that the National and the State Human Rights Commissions have become toothless tigers. The Indian Judiciary has observed that the original intent of the framers of this legislation was to protect and promote human rights, so as, such the recommendations of the Commission are enforceable, binding and ought to be implemented. It held that constructing the word ‘recommend’ to be treated as opinion or suggestion by the Commission, would defeat the very statutory object of this Human Rights Act. Recognising this lacunae in the legislation and the need to protect the citizens’ fundamental rights, this Bill amends recommendation to mean order or directions which will be binding on the authority or Government receiving it. The Act is silent on the standards to be followed while determining the reparations to be given to the victims of human rights violations. Thus there is no clarity on how the compensation and damages will be quantified. In addition, Section 18(a) of the Act provides only for compensation to be recommended to the concerned Government or authority. The need is to address this gap by providing principles for determining reparation and measuring damages caused. It is also required to provide for compulsory relief to victims of human rights violations by holding the Central and State Governments responsible and liable for any human rights violations happening under their jurisdictions. When the Protection of Human Rights Act was brought in 1993, the intent of the legislation was to bring greater accountability and transparency in the system of administration of justice and devise efficient and effective methods of dealing with issues relating to human rights. But by failing to hold people and authorities accountable for their actions of committing or abetting human rights violations, the Act in its current form has failed to achieve this objective."
A concise reflection on scope and ambit of Section 12(1), and Section 18 of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 was aptly formulated by Patna High Court in the case of Re- Bihar State Electricity Board, AIR 2013 PATNA 11. It was held that Section 18 of Human Rights Act empowers the Human Rights Commission to take appropriate action, where the inquiry discloses to commission of violation of human rights or negligence in prevention of violation of human rights by public servant. Thus, the ambiguity if any, in Section 12(a) of the Human Rights Act gets removed by perusing Section 18 of the Human Rights Act.
It is evident from the judgements of High Courts of Madras, Delhi, Bombay and Allahabad that their unambiguous judicial pronouncements have filled the apparent legislative ambiguity in the 1993 Act.
In National Legal Services Authority vs. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438, it has been held that human rights are rights that belong to every person and they are not dependent on specifics of the individual. Human Rights are moral, pre-legal rights and cannot be granted by people or taken away by them. Human Rights have been recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and adopted as Fundamental Rights in Part III of the Constitution of India.
Besides these judicial pronouncements, the non-implementation of Section 30, Chapter VI of the Act which makes a provision for specification of Human Rights Courts creates legal compulsion for the Human Rights Commissions to fill the gap "for the purpose of providing speedy trial of offences arising out of violation of human rights". Under Section 30 the State Government with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, is required, by notification, to specify for each district a Court of Session to be a Human Rights Court to try the said offences.
Dr. Gopal Krishna
No comments:
Post a Comment