Ability To Provide Redress To Victims Of State & Police Excesses Makes Role Of Human Rights Bodies Significant: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court last week observed that the ability to provide redress to victims of state and police excesses is what makes the role of the OHRC (Orissa Human Rights Commission), and other human rights bodies in general, significant.

This assertion came from the bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice A. K. Mohapatra who upheld the order of the OHRC recommending payment of compensation in connection with an alleged case of illegal detention in police custody.

The case in brief

Essentially, the OHRC had recommended that a regular case should be registered on the complainant's report regarding unlawful detention and that, for violation of the human rights of Jihit @ Abhijit Mohuria, a  compensation of Rs.30,000/- should be paid by the State Government.

It was further ordered that if the compensation amount was paid by the State Government, proceedings should be initiated to recover the said amount from the 2 police officials (appellant in the instant case) involved in the case, in equal proportion.

Challenging the recommendations of OHRC, the appellants had moved to the High Court, wherein Single Judge had dismissed their writ petition. Again, challenging the single judge order, they moved the instant appeal before the Divison Bench of the High Court.

It was argued on behalf of the appellants that since  in that regard

Court's observations

The Court, in its order, observed that the order of the OHRC notes that when the Superintendent of Police, Koraput failed to indicate anything about the incident in his report, the OHRC had to ask its own investigation wing to conduct an inquiry in the matter.

Further, the Court that in OHRC's inquiry, it had come on record that Abhijit Mohuria was in fact illegally detained between 29th October and 2nd November 2016.

Regarding the argument of the appellants that there were no materials to substantiate the allegation of unlawful detention of Abhijit Mohuria, therefore, there was no factual or legal basis for the OHRC's findings and recommendations, the Court observed thus:

"As regards the absence of proof or documents being submitted by the complainant, given the nature of allegations and the fact that the persons against whom the complaint was given were policemen who were in complete control of the records and possible witnesses, it is a herculean and well-nigh an impossible task for any ordinary person, who is a victim of police excesses, and with little means or access to resources, to be able to gather evidence."

Further, the Court also opined that it is only a statutory body like the OHRC which has an exclusive investigating wing, which incidentally is itself comprised of police officers of the State who come over on deputation, which can possibly unearth the truth.

Lastly, noting that the impugned order of the OHRC was in the nature of recommendations and should not be construed as a final opinion, the Court found no error having been committed by the Single Judge in declining to interfere with the impugned order of the OHRC. The writ appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Case title - Tapan Narayan Rath and another v. State of Odisha and others

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order