Human Rights Commission A Quasi-Judicial Body, Must Pass Reasoned Orders: Kerala High Court

Justice Syam Kumar V.M set aside an order issued by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) on finding that an unreasoned order was passed mechanically without application of mind and without hearing the parties on their respective pleadings.

“Human Rights Commission being a quasi judicial body is duty bound to comply with the principles of natural justice while disposing of complaints/ petitions filed before it and must afford an effective opportunity of being heard to the interested parties before proceeding to finally dispose of such a complaint/petition. It is also incumbent on the Commission to ensure that all Orders passed by it disposing of complaint/ petition, either in limine or after due appreciation on merits in detail, shall disclose a proper application of mind to the issue at hand and also state sufficient reasons for the decision arrived at.”

In this case, the petitioner has approached the High Court to set aside an order passed by the SHRC and a direction to consider his complaint afresh.

The petitioner filed a complaint before the Commission alleging that his right to exercise freedom of religions guaranteed by the Constitution is denied. His specific grievance was that the Vicar of St Mary's Church, Tirur of Thamarasserry Diocese denied issuing certain parish certificates stating that he and his family were parishioners of that church. The petitioner needs the letter to be eligible as godparents for their brother-in-law's child during the baptism ceremony. Additionally, the petitioner needs the letter to secure admission for his son at an engineering college managed by Catholic managements. It is also alleged that he and his family were facing exclusion from their church community since he filed certain complaints before Courts and Commissions alleging financial misappropriation of money by the Vicar and Bishop of Thamarasserry Diocese.

The complaint was closed by the SHRC based on the submissions of the Vicar that there was no refusal or denial of letter. It was stated that petitioner will have to approach the Bishop directly to obtain an approval for issuance of letter since he filed complaints raising allegations of funds.

The SHRC dismissed the petitioner's complaint stating that no further action was warranted. It also stated that several cases were pending before different Courts.

The petitioner challenged the Order of the issued by SHRC for being cryptic, unreasonable and devoid of any reasoning. It was stated that the SHRC issued the order without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner also argued that his complaint before the SHRC was maintainable, as it involved violation of human rights and violation of right to freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution which is considered a fundamental aspect of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court stated that SHRC is a quasi-judicial body empowered to look into issues of human rights violations. The Court referred to Regulation 17 of the Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 2001 which provides power to the Commission to dismiss complaints at its outset itself if the complaint is vague, trivial frivolous, illegible, no involvement of public servant, matter sub judice before Courts/Tribunals etc.

The Court held that complaints may not be dismissed mechanically without hearing the parties and without application of mind. It said that SHCR cannot dismiss In limine complaints without giving reasons under Regulation 17.

It said, “Further, the term 'may dismiss in limine' as used in Regulation 17(h) cannot be stretched to an extent to justify three line cryptic Orders. The term 'dismiss In limine' as used generally in legislative parlance presupposes a dismissal at the very threshold when the court or forum does not consider the case or complaint worth examining for a reason, which may be other than the merit of such case/complaint. A perfunctory three line Order rendered after the completion of filing of pleadings and without hearing the parties can only be termed as unreasonable, mechanically arrived at, without proper application of mind to the issues at hand. It cannot be passed off as a dismissal in limine. Dismissal of the complaint simply pointing out one among the twelve enumerated vices in Regulation 17(h) of the Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 2001 without any reasoning as to how allegation regarding the said vice was found viable or sustainable to the case at hand, cannot be termed as a dismissal in limine.”

The Court stated that SHRC, being a quasi-judicial body must issue a reasoned order since an unreasoned order would amount to arbitrariness and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Court went on to state that the order issued by the SHRC did not mention if the parties were heard or not. It stated that reasonableness should have prompted the SHRC to hear the parties and to enquire into the various cases pending between the parties to ensure whether the pending cases pertain to the same subject matter or not before dismissing the complaint at its outset. 

The Court further found that the complaint was not dismissed by referring to any reasons referred to in Regulation 17.

The Court thus set aside the order of the SHRC since it was issued mechanically without giving reasons and without hearing the parties. The Court also permitted the petitioner to approach the SHRC with a fresh complaint if his grievance still subsists.

As such, the writ petition was disposed of.

Counsel for Petitioner: Senior Advocate George Cherian, Advocates Latha Susan Cherian, K S Santhi

Counsel for Respondents: Government Pleader E G Gorden, Government Pleader Susmitha Ramachandran

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 464

Case Title: T J Varghese v Kerala State Human Rights Commissioner

Case Number: WP(C) NO.15486 OF 2016

Click here to Read/Download Judgment