Human Rights panel cannot act like court, issue directions: Punjab and Haryana HC

Significant ruling on whether human rights commission recommendations are binding and quasi-judicial

Jagdeep Singh

Chandigarh, May 21

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) is a “mere recommendatory body” under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, with no authority to issue binding directions, orders, judgments or writs akin to a court. Setting aside NHRC directions in a Faridabad-linked matter, a Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry ruled that the Commission had acted beyond jurisdic-tion by ordering transfer of criminal investigation, directing departmental action against public ser-vants and seeking their transfer from present post-ings. The judgment is signif-icant as it addresses a larger and recurring legal question — whether recommenda-tions made by human rights commissions carry binding force or whether it can exer-cise adjudicatory powers resembling those of consti-tutional courts. The court asserted the answer lay in the plain language of the 1993 Act itself. “We are con-cerned about the fact that National Human Rights Commission passed the impugned directions with-out any authority of law,” the Bench observed. Referring to the statutory scheme, the High Court held that the Commission “can merely recommend” action to the government, including compensation for victims or disciplinary pro-ceedings against officials found involved in human rights violations. Tracing the legislative backdrop, the Bench noted that the 1993 Act — enacted for “better protection of human rights and for matters con-nected therewith or inci-dental thereto” — was root-ed in the United Nations General Assembly resolu-tion of December 16, 1966. But neither the object of the law nor its text contemplat-ed the Commission assum-ing judicial powers. “On a bare perusal of the object underlying the 1993 Act and the clear and plain language of its text, it is obvious that the commis-sion is a recommendatory body and has never been envisaged to assume the role of a court,” the Bench asserted. The court added that the statute repeatedly used the expression “rec-ommendation” — both for interim and final relief — revealing clear legislative intent. Resolving differing views on the issue, the Bench invoked the principle of plain statutory interpre-tation, holding that where the statutory text was unambiguous, resort to pur-posive or other interpretive tools is unnecessary. “Where the text of a statute (1993 Act) is plain and unambiguous to reveal that the Commission is a recom-mendatory body, then resort to other principles of statutory interpretation, purposive or otherwise, would be an exercise in futility and redundancy,” the court held.