Amend Protection Of Human Rights Act To Provide Internal Mechanism Qua Commission For Enforcing Its Own Recommendation: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has suggested amendment/s in the Protection of Human Rights Act to provide an internal/self-contained mechanism qua Human Rights Commission for enforcing its recommendations.

We earnestly trust and hope that the Parliament in its collective wisdom would bring necessary amendments in the Act to provide wherewithal to the Commission for direct execution of the recommendation, the bench comprising Justices S. Vaidyanathan, V. Parthiban and M. Sundar observed in the judgment in which it held that the recommendation of State Human Rights Commission under Section 18 of the Act is binding on the Government or Authority.

The court observed that the Act should be made a complete code in itself instead of invoking the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court for execution of the recommendation. 

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, Section 18 empowers the Commission to 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. Invoking Section 18 (b) it can approach the Supreme Court or the High Court concerned for such directions, orders or writs as that Court may deem necessary.

The bench observed that the Act does not contain any specific chapter or provisions for enforcing its own recommendations unlike in certain other enactments referred like Arbitration and Conciliation Act and Consumer Protection Act, etc. It noted that, 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, it said.

Referring to debates in Parliament, the bench noted that, at the time of enactment of the Act, an assurance given on behalf of the Treasury Bench by the Minister concerned that recommendation of the H.R.Commission would be accorded due respect as in the case of recommendation of the Finance Commission and the Government in the past had never declined to accept the recommendation of the Finance Commission as matter of healthy convention. In this regard, the bench observed:

"The history of politics and governance has been witnessing constant change through evolution of different policies and as a consequence of such change any convention observed in the past has its breaking point in tune with the time. Therefore, the Act which was introduced providing a public law remedy, cannot be operated on the basis of the assurance of the Hon'ble Minister concerned, unless the assurance is transformed into a letter of law for all the time to be followed. . The avowed intention of the policy frames at that point of time was clear but at the same time, following any convention after all is a only a matter of choice at the end of the day. If in this context, we are of the considered opinion that the intention of the framers may be given a statutory sanction within the Act itself to make the Act a complete code in itself instead of invoking the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court for execution of the recommendation."

While concluding the judgment, the court further suggested:

We earnestly trust and hope that the Parliament in its collective wisdom would bring necessary amendments in the Act to provide wherewithal to the Commission for direct execution of the recommendation. By such initiation, the learned Parliament would be according befitting status to the Commission steered by the high constitutional dignitaries of the highest legal order. . In the said circumstances, we hereby suggest to the policy makers to make suitable amendment/s in the Act providing for an internal/self-contained mechanism qua Human Rights Commission for enforcing its recommendations under Section 18 of the Act. By such amendment/s, the Act would become complete in all fours, leaving no room for procrastination in offering remedial action promptly.

"In the said circumstances, we hereby suggest to the policy makers to make suitable amendment/s in the Act providing for an internal/self-contained mechanism qua Human Rights Commission for enforcing its recommendations under Section 18 of the Act. By such amendment/s, the Act would become complete in all fours, leaving no room for procrastination in offering remedial action promptly.. Now we part this case with trust and hope that our suggestion finds codified Statutory expression in the realm of Human Rights Laws in the days to come", 

Case: Abdul Sathar vs. The Principal Secretary to Government [W.P.Nos.41791/2006 and connected cases]

Click Here To Download the Order

Read Order