Supreme Court Says Human Rights Panel Probe Not Mandatory for Rights Cases

The Supreme Court has ruled that an inquiry or recommendation from a human rights commission is not a mandatory prerequisite for initiating proceedings before a Human Rights Court. The judgment clarifies that a person alleging a violation of human rights can approach the appropriate court directly without first obtaining a report from the National Human Rights Commission or a State Human Rights Commission.

A bench of the Supreme Court considered the issue while examining the validity of Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules, 2006. The dispute arose from proceedings concerning allegations against police officials in Karnataka. The Karnataka High Court had earlier struck down the rule and quashed the proceedings, leading the matter to reach the Supreme Court.

The apex court disagreed with the High Court's interpretation and upheld the validity of the provision. It said the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, does not require a complainant to first approach a human rights commission before invoking the jurisdiction of a Human Rights Court.

The court explained that human rights commissions and Human Rights Courts have different functions under the law. Commissions can investigate complaints concerning alleged violations and make recommendations to the authorities, while Human Rights Courts are intended to deal with offences arising from human rights violations through judicial proceedings. The existence of the commission's investigative powers, the court held, does not make its intervention a compulsory first step.

The Supreme Court also rejected the argument that a commission inquiry should be treated as an exclusive gateway to criminal proceedings in human rights cases. According to the court's interpretation, imposing such a requirement would add a procedural condition that Parliament did not expressly provide for in the Protection of Human Rights Act. The ruling is significant for cases involving allegations such as custodial violence, abuse of authority and misconduct by public servants. Victims who otherwise satisfy the requirements for approaching a Human Rights Court will not have to wait for a prior commission inquiry merely to initiate judicial proceedings.

At the same time, the judgment does not establish that every complaint filed before a Human Rights Court will automatically lead to prosecution. The allegations must still be examined according to the applicable law, and the accused will have the opportunity to contest the claims through the judicial process. The Supreme Court's decision therefore reinforces the distinction between the two mechanisms available under India's human rights framework. A human rights commission can continue to conduct inquiries and issue recommendations, while a Human Rights Court can independently exercise its judicial jurisdiction where the law permits. By clarifying that a prior panel investigation is not an essential prerequisite, the Supreme Court has removed an additional procedural hurdle for complainants seeking judicial remedies in alleged human rights violation cases.

Disclaimer: This image is taken from Hindustan Times.