V. Nehru v. The Chairman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 31.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA V.Nehru .. Petitioner Vs.
1.The Chairman Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission, Pratap Singh Maaligai, Royapettah Chennai 600 014.
2.The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Secretary Department of Public Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
3.The Superintendent of Police 4.M.John Basha S/o.Madasa Sayeb Sub Inspector of Police
5.A.Alexander Sub Inspector of Police Dharmapuri Town PS Dharmapuri District.
6.Semmannan Head Constable Adhiyaman Kottai PS Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.
.. Respondents Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records in Case No.7095 of 2003 dated 26.07.2004 on the file of the 1st respondent which was served on the petitioner on 17.12.2004 and quash the same, as illegal and direct the 1st respondent to hold public enquiry into the complaint of petitioner in accordance with the principles of natural justice. For Petitioner :
Mr.R.Sankarasubbu For RR1, 4 to 6 :
No appearance For R2 :
Mr.A.Selvendran Special Government Pleader
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.,] (1) This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the 1st respondent / State Human Rights Commission dated 26.07.2004 dismissing the complaint of the petitioner.
(2) The petitioner has preferred a complaint before the 1st respondent about the human rights violations specifically making a few allegations which would attract the provisions under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. However, the said complaint was disposed of by the 1st respondent vide impugned order in the following lines :- ''Report received. Considering the complaint and report the complaint is dismissed as it is outside the purview of the Commission.''
(3) No counter affidavits are filed by the other respondents excepting respondents 4 and 5.
(4) The provisions under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, envisages the manner in which the complaint which is preferred before the Commission should be investigated. The Act is brought with an object to protect the human rights. The Constitution of National Human Rights Commission and the State Commissions for speedy trial for offences arising out of violation of human rights are pursuant to the International Covenant of civil and political rights and the International Covenant of economic,, social and cultural
rights adopted by General Assembly of United Nations to which India is a party.
(5) When a complaint is preferred before the State Human Rights Commission, the complainant should be given adequate opportunity even if there are adverse material received against him. Whenever a decision which is likely to affect the complainant is passed, the complainant should be put on notice. In the present case, the petitioner as a complainant is entitled to such notice before dismissing the petition. Therefore, the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice.
(6) In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 26.07.2004 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner and dispose of the same after holding an enquiry giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner as well as the other persons who ae also shown as respondents before the 1st respondent in the complaint of the petitioner. The 1st respondent shall pass final orders within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
[SSSRJ] [NMJ] 31.10.2022 AP Internet : Yes To 1.The Chairman Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission, Pratap Singh Maaligai, Royapettah Chennai 600 014.
2.The Secretary State of Tamil Nadu Department of Public Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
3.The Superintendent of Police
S.S.SUNDAR, J., AND N.MALA, J., AP 31.10.2022