5 year old mental health act case tagged with "In Court on its own motion Regarding matter relates to the Inspection Report", a Suo Motu PIL

In Court on its own motion Regarding matter relates to the Inspection Report (2026), a Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation was initiated by the Patna High Court's Division Bench pursuant to the report dated February 17, 2026 submitted by the Member Secretary, Bihar State Legal Services Authority (BSLSA). BALSA's inspection report with respect to the shortcomings of mental health facilities in the State of Bihar as well as in Bihar State Institute of Mental Health and Allied Sciences (BIMHAS), Koelwar, Bhojpur is an independent report. The case was listed for hearing on April 20, 2026 by the High Court's Division of Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar by its 54-page long order dated March 16, 2026.

The PIL was filed and registered on February 17, 2026 and tagged with a 5-year-old case  filed by Vishal Kumar Singh, Akash Keshav, Deepak Kumar Singh and Shashwat with Advocate Akanksha Malviya as petitioner in person. 

By its order dated February 25, 2019, the High Court had issued notice to the (i) Principal Secretary, Health Department; (ii) Secretary, State Mental Health Authority, Bihar; (iii) Director, Bihar Institute of Mental Health and Allied Sciences (BIMHAS); (iv) DG of Police, Bihar; (v) I.G. of Prisons; and (vi) Union of India and asked the concerned authorities to submit their responses on the following aspects:-
“i) Whether any Mental Health Review Board has been constituted in accordance with Section 73 of the
2017 Act?
ii) If so, what are the functions being discharged by such Board under section 82 of the 2017 Act?
iii) How Bihar Institute of Mental Health and Allied Sciences (BIMHAS) is performing its duties and carrying out its responsibilities relating to the admission and treatment of persons with mental illness? What provisions have been made by the Hospital Authorities for supplying free food to the patients and attendants, medicines and to maintain the cleanliness and hygiene of the hospital and to create a positive environment?
iv) DG of Police shall submit a report regarding the duties performed by police officers of different police stations of the State in respect of persons with mental illness and their protection as envisaged under section 100 of 2017 Act, and also, I.G. of Prisons in respect of the prisoners with mental illness as per section 103 of 2017 Act;
v) The Member Secretary, Bihar State Legal Service Authority (BSLSA) shall submit a report regarding the legal aid facilities provided to the persons with mental illness and particularly to those who are coming
for treatment to BIMHAS;
vi) The Principal Secretary, Health Department shall submit a report regarding the steps taken by the government for rehabilitation of the persons with mental illness after their recovery and discharge from the Hospital;
vii) Report shall also be submitted by the State through a Responsible Officer regarding the steps taken to address the issues highlighted in the report of the Member Secretary, BSLSA.

The notice was issued pursuant to relevant sections of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, NALSA (Legal Service to persons with Mental Illness and Persons with Intellectual Disabilities) Scheme, 2024, and the decision of the Supreme Court in Sukdeb Saha vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in A.I.R. 2025 S.C. 3458 and in Gaurav Kumar Bansal vs. Mr. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. (CONMT. PET. (C) No. 1653 of 2018 in W.P.(C) No. 412 of 2016) vide order dated February 25, 2019. 

By its earlier 26-page long order dated February 18, 2026, the Division Bench had 9. The concerned authorities are to submit their responses on the following aspect: i) Whether any Mental Health Review Board has been constituted in accordance with Section 73 of the 2017 Act?
ii) If so, what are the functions being discharged by such Board under section 82 of the 2017 Act?
iii) How Bihar Institute of Mental Health and Allied Sciences (BIMHAS) is performing its duties and carrying out its responsibilities relating to the admission and treatment of persons with mental illness? What provisions have been made by the Hospital Authorities for supplying free food to the patients and attendants, medicines and to maintain the cleanliness and hygiene of the hospital and to create a positive environment?
iv) DG of Police shall submit a report regarding the duties performed by police officers of different police stations of the State in respect of persons with mental illness and their protection as envisaged under section 100 of 2017 Act, and also, I.G. of Prisons in respect of the prisoners with mental illness as per section 103 of 2017 Act;
v) The Member Secretary, Bihar State Legal Service Authority (BSLSA) shall submit a report regarding the legal aid facilities provided to the persons with mental illness and particularly to those who are coming for treatment to BIMHAS;
vi) The Principal Secretary, Health Department shall submit a report regarding the steps taken by the government for rehabilitation of the persons with mental illness after their recovery and discharge from the Hospital; 
vii) Report shall also be submitted by the State through a Responsible Officer regarding the steps taken to address the issues highlighted in the report of the Member Secretary, BSLSA. 

The High Court referred to Supreme Court's decision in Sukdeb Saha vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in A.I.R. 2025 S.C. 3458, wherein it held:- “31. Mental health is an integral component of the right to life Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This Court has, in a consistent line of precedents, affirmed that the right to life does not mean mere animal existence, but a life of dignity, autonomy, and well-being. Mental health is central to this vision. In Shatrughan Chauhan vs. Union of India MANU/SC/0043/2014 : 2014:INSC:46: (2014) 3 SCC 1 and Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India MANU/SC/0947/2018 2018:INSC:790 : (2018) 10 SCC 1, this Court recognised mental integrity, psychological autonomy, and freedom from degrading treatment as essential facets of human dignity Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, a rights- based legislation, reinforces this constitutional mandate by recognising every person's right to access mental healthcare and protection from inhuman or degrading treatment in mental health settings. Section 18 of the MH Act guarantees mental health services to all, and Section 115 of the MH Act explicitly decriminalises attempted suicide, acknowledging the need for care and support rather than punishment. These provisions read with judicial precedents reflect a broader constitutional vision that mandates a responsive legal framework to prevent self-harm and promote well-being, particularly among vulnerable populations such as students and youth.”

In Gaurav Kumar Bansal vs. Mr. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. (CONMT. PET. (C) No. 1653/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 412/2016), the Supreme Court, by order dated February 25, 2019, held:- “7. For ensuring availability of rehabilitation halfway homes in the districts: (i) State Governments must either expand their existing homes or construct new homes at their own cost and provide facilities as per the ‘Rehabilitation Homes’ Guidelines approved by the Supreme Court. (ii) Another way out is for the States/UTs to encourage NGOs in their States to set up rehabilitation homes or even expand the existing homes run by NGOs. The State Government may provide financial assistance to the NGOs towards this objective or seek the assistance of the Central Government for the same. The Central Government already has a scheme to fund such NGOs on the recommendation of State Government (Project Halfway Homes). The State Governments may give wide publicity to this Central scheme. 8. In certain States, some NGOs/community-based organizations have been providing remarkable services in the area of rehabilitation of mentally ill persons. The State Governments may involve them to supplement their own efforts. 9. Assistance is required to be elicited from police departments of various States, in order to register FIRs and make efforts to trace the families of de-institutionalized persons, and to include the details of such persons in national missing persons databases.

Prior to this, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice S. Kumar had passed 2-page long order dated January 6, 2022 in Akanksha Malviya vs. The Union of India & Ors., a case of 2021 wherein, notice was issued considering pryer for issuance of a writ in the nature of a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s) or order(s) or direction(s) commanding the Respondents to establish a legitimate and functional State Mental Health Authority in adherence with Section 45 and Section 55 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.

The same bench passed a 4-page long order dated February 10, 2022, wherein it noted that Mental Health Care Act, 2017 was notified on April 7, 2017. The object and purpose of the Act was to provide for mental healthcare and services for persons with mental illness. Also to protect, promote and fulfil the rights of such persons during delivery of mental healthcare. The Act is divided into XVI Chapters. Chapter-VIII specifically deals with the establishment and composition of the State Authority, to be termed as the “State Mental Health Authority”. The composition of such authority in terms of Section-46 has to be of certain persons specified therein. The functions of the authority, as specified under Section-55 of the Act, are, inter alia, to- (a) develop quality and service provision norms for different types of mental health establishments in the State; (b) supervise all mental health establishments in the State and receive complaints about deficiencies in provision of services; (c) register clinical psychologists, mental health nurses and psychiatric social workers in the State to work as mental health professionals, and publish the list of such registered mental health professionals in such manner as may be specified by regulations by the State Authority; (d) train all relevant persons including law enforcement officials, mental health professionals and other health professionals about the provisions and implementation of this Act; (e) discharge such other functions with respect to matters relating to mental health as the State Government may decide. 

The order reads: "Shockingly, as is now evident from the affidavit filed by the State, the said authority has yet not been constituted. Also as to whether there was one under the repealed Mental Health Act, 1987 is not clear from the response....The purpose behind the enactment, as we have already noticed, is to provide mental healthcare and services to persons in need whose mental condition stands determined in terms of Chapter-II of the Act. We notice that such step for establishing the authority commenced only in the year 2020, that too, with the publication of an advertisement in the Newspaper and since then nothing has been done to expedite the process. Even the affidavit filed does not disclose the time-limit within which such process would be completed. We refer to para 8 of affidavit dated 22.01.2022 filed by Additional Director, Health, Bihar, Patna. The averments are as vague as they can be....It is in this backdrop, we are constrained to direct the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, to forthwith take all steps ensuring establishment of the authority as stipulated under Section-45 of the Act. Let an affidavit of compliance indicating the latest status, be filed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, before the next date. We also expect the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar to indicate the steps taken for complying with the other provisions of the Statute; the deficiencies pointed out by the petitioner in the writ petition; and the suggestion given for proper and effective implementation on expeditious basis."
 
The same bench passed a 9-page long order dated April 1, 2022. It reiterated the importance and significancethe the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. The Act is divided into XVI Chapters containing 126 Sections. Chapter III deals with advance directive; Chapter V deals with rights of persons with mental illness; Chapter VI deals with duties of appropriate Government; Chapter VII deals with constitution of Central Mental Health Authority; Chapter IX deals with Finance, Accounts and Audit; Chapter X deals with establishment of Mental Health; Chapter XI deals with Mental Health Review Board; Chapter XII deals with admission, treatment and discharge; Chapter XIII deals with responsibilities of other agencies. In terms of Section 5 of Chapter III, every person, who is not a minor, shall have a right to make an advance directive in writing, specifying the manner in which he wishes to be cared for and not to be cared for and treated for a mental illness. 

The order wondered as to "Whether there is any mechanism in place dealing with mandatory requirement of the statute or directives whereby and whereunder the person has a right to specify in advance the manner in which he wishes to be cared for and not to be cared for and treated for a mental illness and whether an Online Register as mandated by Section 7 has been set up and is being duly maintained? What are the steps undertaken to be made or already stand taken with respect to the right of community living for persons with mental illness under Section 19 where they have rights to not remain in Mental Health Establishments etc.? The Act under Section 20 grants a right of protection from cruel inhuman and degrading treatment and Section 21 provides for a right to equality and non-discrimination. Whether the staffs of already existing mental health institutions have been trained in accordance with these provisions to ensure the realization of these important basic rights? What are the steps taken in fulfillment of the duties imposed on the appropriate Government in this case, the Government of Bihar, vide Chapter VI, in particular Sections 29 and 31 which deal with promotion of mental health and preventive programme and human resource development and training respectively? The State to furnish detailed reasons as to why the time line provided under Section 45 of the Act for the establishment of the Mental Health Authority (nine months) has not been complied with, as noted in our order dated 10.02.2022. As also we note that the order dated 25.02.2022 directed the process to be expedited. What are the steps that have been taken in furtherance thereof. Section 66 of the Act provides the procedure for inspection and enquiry of mental health establishments. Details of inspection and enquiry as also under Section 67, carried out be furnished by the relevant authority before the next date. Section 100 of the Act details duties of Police Officers in respect of persons with mental illness. Whether any training, awareness or sensitization programme has been undertaken to ensure that police officers are able to carry out their duties towards this vulnerable group of people? Section 103 is titled as ‘prisoners with mental illness’. The authorities to furnish particulars of such prisoners as also the steps taken to ensure preparedness of prisons for accepting such
inmates? Section 123 grants power to State Authority to make regulations with respect to minimum standard of quality etc. Whether the State has framed such Rules? If in the affirmative, a copy of the said Rules be supplied to the Court." 

The order reads: "We may also note that the importance of this Act is reflected also in Section 125 where the Central Government has been bestowed with the power to remove any difficulty arising in giving effect to the provisions of the Act. Although there was a limitation to this section of two years from the date of commencement of the Act, the legislative intent is clearly that of furthering and improving the mental health institutions and their regulations. It is saddening to see that the State of Bihar even after the passing of more than four and half years has not taken adequate steps in line with the intention of the Parliament. Even more so, in the light of the fact that the National Mental Health Programme (NMHP) was launched by the Central Government as far as back in 1982 with the following objectives:-
1. To ensure the availability and accessibility of minimum mental healthcare for all in the foreseeable future, particularly to the most vulnerable and underprivileged sections of the population;
2. To encourage the application of mental health knowledge in general healthcare and in social development; and
3. To promote community participation in the mental health service development and to stimulate efforts towards self-help in the community;
And yet the entire State of Bihar since after its bifurcation has only one functioning unit and even for that sufficient particulars have not been furnished. It is only after a public spirited person approaches this Court that action is initiated albeit with continued lethargy." 

The State did not address any one of the issues in its affidavit dated March 23, 2022 filed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar. From the supplementary counter affidavit dated March 23, 2022, filed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, it was not clear as to whether the provisions of Rule 6 of the Mental Healthcare (State Mental Health Authority) Rules, 2018 has been complied with. It was not clear as to whether the provisions of Section 62 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 stands complied with. The Court noted that there is only one mental health establishment registered within the State of Bihar although almost 1/10th people of India live within the State of Bihar. 

The Court directed Respondent No. 1, namely, the Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to file an affidavit dealing with each one of the averments made in the petition, also specifying as to whether each one of the statutory provisions and the rules framed thereunder were complied with. 

The 2-page long order dated April 7, 2022 noted that Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar filed his supplementary counter affidavit dated April 7, 2022 vide notification dated April 6, 2022 constituting State Mental Health Authority, as envisaged under the provisions of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017. This exercise was undertaken only pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court vide order dated April 1, 2022. The counter affidavit stated that a 272 bedded new hospital at BIMHANS, Koilwar at the cost of Rs. 128.96 Crores was being set up.

Notably, the High Court had passed orders dated February 13, 2014 and January 5, 2015 In the matter of News Reports published in The Hindustan Times, Patna Dated 24/10/2013 vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. in CWJC No. 21462 of 2013. 

In its order dated June 27, 2022, the Court noted that Additional Solicitor General "placed on record a chart indicating the budgetary allocation with respect to the National Mental Health Programme (NMHP) under Flexible Pool for Non Communicable Diseases (NCDs) under NHM during the period from 2018-19 to 2020-21. Evidently, there is reduction in the budgetary allocation with each succeeding year. We are informed that only on account of non-utilization of funds, the Central Government has taken such a measure."

In its order dated September 27, 2022, it was recorded that the State Mental Health Review Board and State Mental Health Fund was constituted. In its order dated November 16, 2022, it recorded that Review
Board as envisaged under Section 73 of the Mental Health Act, 2017 was not constituted. There were more than 11.2 million persons, moreso below the age of 35 years, who are suffering from several psychiatric disorders as defined under the Act.  

In its 2-page long order dated December 8, 2023, High Court's Division Bench of Justices K. Vinod Chandran and Rajiv Roy recorded the affidavit dated October 12, 2023 by the respondent pointed out that the State Mental Health Authority and the State Mental Health Review Board have been constituted. The Mental Health Review Board have been constituted in 9 divisional headquarters of the State, i.e. Patna, Chapra, Gaya, Muzzaffarpur, Bhagalpur, Purnea, Saharsa and Munger under the Chairmanship of District and Sessions Judges, the Districts which is the divisional headquarters. The order reads: "The District Judges of the divisional headquarters afore-mentioned shall file a report on the intimation of such constitution having been received by them and the steps taken to convene the Review Board, within a period of four weeks from today. The Registry shall issue a certified copy of this order to the above said District Judges at the divisional headquarters, who shall file a report through the Registrar General."

The High Court' Division Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy, passed a 2-page long order dated November 22, 2024 recorded that out of the nine Divisional Commissionerates, in eight Commissionerates Mental Health Review Boards have been constituted, however, in Saran, no Board has been constituted for reason of the district having no medical colleges and no psychiatrist. The Court observed: "2. We do not think that this is a reason to not constitute a Board for the said Divisional Commissionerate also. 3. The learned AAG submits that steps will be taken to constitute a Board in the said district also within a period of two weeks." 

In its 3-page long order dated March 7, 2025, High Court's of Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Partha Sarthy recorded that mere setting up of Review Boards in different Commissionerates would not be of any avail to the people suffering from mental health, unless funds were allocated for the purpose. There was no allocation of funds towards making the Mental Health Review Boards functional, thus, rendering the Boards in nine Commissionerates to be in existence only on paper. For effective implementation of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, the State must take pro-active steps with respect to prisoners who are suffering from mental health issues. There is no updated report on behalf of the State with respect to the number of half-way homes, shelter accommodation; supported accommodation and other places where persons suffering from mental health issues could be sent. The need for steps for the outreach of the Act to jail inmates remained unaddressed.

The same bench passed a 3-page long order dated May 16, 2025, wherein, it noted that for smooth functioning of the State Mental Health Tribunal, a fund of Rs. 40 lacs was allocated by the Health Department for 2025-26. The order reads: "The allocation of funds to Mental Health Review Boards shall be done after collating all information with respect to such Boards and the proposal of work which can be handed over or entrusted to them. Such allocation also shall be made without wastage of any further time. 4. With respect to the query of the Court regarding outreach of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 to jail inmates and the infrastructure in the shape of half-way homes and accommodation shelters, it appears that only information is being sought from the relevant quarters." It recorded that the allocated fund would be meaningless unless it comes to the Board along with the proposal of work programme which was mandated under Section 53(1)(c) of the Act of 2017. 6. Similarly, even with Review Boards, such allocation of fund and proposal for work programme has to be supplied by the State. The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 and Mental Healthcare (Rights of Persons with Mental Illness) Rules, 2018 command for setting up of a mental health establishment in at-least one prison in the State. It concluded: "8. It has rightly been pointed out that there is no information in the affidavit regarding compliance of such requirement under the Act and the Rules."

Significantly, it was after 38 order have been passed by the High Court that in the case filed on November 20, 2021 and registered on November 25, 2021, that a PIL entitled "In Court on its own motion Regarding matter relates to the Inspection Report" was filed in mid-February 2026.
  

Recommendations of Human Rights Commission under Protection of Human Rights Act are binding: High Courts of Patna, Allahabad, Madras, Bombay, Delhi

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. (CDJ 2021 MHC 1193) 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)/Kiran Singh vs. NHRC (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. The judgement has 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.  Delhi High records petitioner's submission:"Reliance is placed upon the paragraphs 12 & 13 and the writ petition’s prayers 1 and 2. He further submits that the Madras High Court in its decision in Abdul Sathar v. The Principal Secretary to Government & Ors., [W.P.Nos.4179/2006 & connected, decided on 05th February, 2021] has held that the recommendations of the NHRC are binding upon the Central Government. In fact, the Madras High Court has answered various questions relating to powers to NHRC." Justice Singh agreed with the submission. 

Earlier, 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 binoding. 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.

Chairperson of the Bihar Human Rights Commission had held that the electricity was an absolute requirement of life and therefore right relating to life which is the asset of the human rights and accordingly held Respondent No. 2 to be entitled for compensation and directed the Board to pay a sum of Rs. One lakh to the applicant within a period of one month. It is against this order of the State Human Rights Commission that the present writ application has been filed by the Bihar State Electricity Board.

In its judgement dated Jun 29, 2012, Patna High Court concluded:"The inaction on the part of the Board and its authorities in not restoring electric connection before Respondent No. 2 approached the State Human Rights Commission is without lawful excuse. Such inaction on the face of it appears to be deliberate and in disregard to rights of respondent No. 2. The inaction is unreasonable and without any probable cause. The conduct of the Board and its authorities amounts to conscious violation of law and depraved inclination on the part of the authority to disregard the rights of Respondent No. 2. I am constrained to hold that such conduct/inaction on the part of the Board and its authorities constitute malice in law. The impugned order dated 13.2.2012 passed by the learned Chairperson, State Human Rights Commission is just and proper and I do not find any error, jurisdictional or otherwise in the same. 26. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. 27. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the conduct of the Board and its authorities right from the very beginning when the dispute arose till institution of the present writ application, I impose exemplary cost of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) to be deposited by the Board in the account of Bihar State Legal Authority, Patna within a period of three months from the date of this order." The judgement was authored by Justice Chakradhari Singh. 

In Bihar State Power Holding Co. ( North) vs National Human Rights Commission & Ors (2016), in his judgement dated  November 25, 2016, of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah of Patna High concluded:'The Court is constrained to take judicial notice of the fact that despite the direction of the Commission in its communication dated 24.10.2013 requiring payment of additional relief of Rs. Two Lakhs to be made within four weeks, the writ application having been field after almost four months and there being no statement as to whether payment has been made or whether extension has been prayed for and granted by the Commission. If the order has not been complied with even if more than three years, the petitioner has to own up responsibility since a direction by the Commission which has the authority in law has to be complied with unless recalled, modified or set aside by any higher and Competent Court or authority. Thus, if the order of the Commission as communicated in the impugned letter has not been complied with, the Court deems it fit that the same be paid within two weeks from today, failing which the same shall carry 18% compound interest."

It is evident from the judgements of High Courts of Patna, 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 

Patna High Court endorses judgement of Special Land Acquisition Judge on enhanced compensation of the acquired land

In the State of Bihar Vs. Parmanand Rai (2024), Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey's judgement endorsed the judgement and order of Special Land Acquisition Judge-II on enhanced compensation of the acquired land on June 20, 2024. The appeal was filed and registered on March 9, 1989. The appellant, the State of Bihar, preferred the appeal (First Appeal No.102 of 1989) being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 31.08.1988, passed by the Special Land Acquisition Judge-III, Patna in L.A.Case No. 7 of 1985, whereby the court below enhanced the compensation of the land acquired, after the case was referred by the Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Sheela Sharma was the counsel for the respondent. There were four respondents. The case was listed over 30 times since February 2011 till February 2024 before different judges.  

In its order the Court recorded that State of Bihar withdrew the appeal as the valuation of the first appeal is less than Rs.3,00,000. The permission of withdrawal was accorded by the High Court. vide order dated February 13, 2015 and the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, but as the respondents had already filed cross-objection and it was admitted, the cross-objection was registered for hearing at the prayer of both the parties.

Notably, Supreme Court has held in Hari Shankar Rastogi Vs. Sham Manohar (2005) that cross objection is in the nature of an Appeal", the cross-objection survives even when the Appeal is withdrawn. The cross objections have all the trappings of a regular appeal. 

Cross-objection is nothing but an appeal, a cross-appeal at that. It may be that the respondent wanted to give quietus to whole litigation by his accepting the judgment and decree or order even if it was partly against his interest. When, however, the other party challenged the same by filing an appeal statute gave the respondent a second chance to file an appeal by way of cross-objection if he/she is still feel aggrieved by the judgment and decree or order.

The fact of the case is that the raiyati land of a number of raiyats of village Garhochak and Samaspur, P.S. Fatwah, District Patna, were acquired vide notification dated August 16, 1980 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. A notification of declaration as per Section 6 of the Act was issued on July 16, 1982 on determining the compensation of the land at the rate of Rs. 26,666/- per acre for Grade-1 land and Rs. 15,484/- for Grade-2 land. The awardees were not satisfied with the awarded amount of compensation and they made objection before the Collector. The Collector referred the matter for adjudication of adequate compensation to the court below under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The claim of the awardees was that the immediate market value of the land, at the time of acquisition, was Rs. 20,000/- per katha as the acquired land was suitable for residential as well as commercial purpose due to its location at Patna-Ranchi Road. The Land Acquisition Officer in his report had opined that the lands of Garhochak and Samaspur are similar in nature in respect of the site and situation and, as such, determined the compensation of land, under acquisition, of Garhochak and Samaspur at the rate of Rs.26,666/- per acre for Grade-1 land and Rs. 15,484/- for Grad-2 land. The land Acquisition Officer had based his assessment on Ext.A, which is the sale statement obtained from the Registry Office on the basis of the sale deed dated March 31, 1980 with respect to plot no. 286, area 3.75 decimals sold for Rs.1000/- as mentioned in Schedule-II of the sale statement. 

The main contention raised on behalf of the cross objectors is that the Collector committed illegality in assessing the quantum of compensation on the basis of sale statement obtained from the Registry Office. As per the submission of the counsel for the cross-objector, the sale statement cannot be relied upon, as per the observation of the Supreme court in the case of The Collector, Raigarh Vs. Dr. Hrisingh Thakur and another, reported in AIR 1979 SC, page 472. It was also submitted that a number of exemplar sale deeds were given in evidence by the awardees to show that the value of the land, at the time of acquisition, was much higher than the awarded amount. It was argued that, although the court below did not agree with the rate of the amount awarded by the Collector and the court below enhanced the compensation on the basis of Ext.1/C, which is also an exemplar sale deed, the court below should have taken into the account Ext.1/D which is also an exemplar sale deed dated May 1, 1981 executed by Ghamandi Paswan in favour of Awadh Prasad in respect of plot no. 20, area 0.6 decimals for Rs. 20,000/-. The counsel submitted further that as per the decision of the Supreme Court reported in the case of Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa and another (2010 13 SCC 710), the exemplar sale deed of the highest value should be taken into consideration, as such, the compensation should have been determined on the basis of Ext.1/D, as it was for the highest consideration money. 

The counsel for the State of Bihar submitted that the awarded amount was exorbitant and it is liable to be decreased, but this appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on technical ground. 

The High Court's judgement records: "12 reference cases under Section 18 of the (Land Acquisition) Act were disposed of by the impugned judgment and award."

So far as the submission of the counsel for the cross-objectors that the exemplar sale deed Ext. 1/D should have been taken into account for ascertaining the compensation amount, as the amount mentioned in Ext. 1/D was the highest, but the learned court below found that the land appertaining to Ext. 1/D was situated in better location and due to this reason he declined to take into account the Ext. 1/D for determining the quantum of compensation. The High Court's judgement reads: "In my view also, Ext. 1/D should not be taken into consideration for determination of the compensation as it was subsequent to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 16.08.1980, whereas the sale deed (Ext.1/D) is of 05.01.1981." It noted that the court below determined the compensation of the land on the basis of exemplar sale deed Ext. 1/C filed on behalf of the awardees. The High Court concluded that the court below "has rightly determined the compensation of the acquired land on the basis of exemplar sale deed Ext.1/C given by the awardees in evidence, as the location of the acquired land was similar to the land appertaining to Ext.1/C. I do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment and order of the learned court below dated 31.08.1988, passed by the Special Land Acquisition Judge-III, Patna in L.A.Case No. 7 of 1985. The cross-objection is accordingly dismissed."