Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble D.K.Upadhyaya,J.) U.P. Chapter of People's Union for Civil Liberties has brought this Public Interest Litigation petition, seeking certain directions to be issued by this Court in relation to rehabilitation and payment of compensation to the victims of alleged violation of human rights, which according to the petitioner, was committed in an incident of mass attack and arson on muslim residents of village Asthan, police station Nawabgangj, District Pratapgarh on 23.06.2012. The petitioner prays that apart from issuing direction for rehabilitation of the alleged affected persons and for payment of compensation to the victims for alleged violation of human rights, this Court may also command the State Government to take disciplinary action against the erring police and other officials. The petitioner also prays that an appropriate direction may be issued to conduct the investigation into the incident of 23.07.2012 in regard to which an FIR (Case Crime No. 95 of 2012) has been registered at police station concerned.
In addition to the aforesaid prayers relating to framing of rehabilitation scheme, payment of compensation to the victims, taking disciplinary action against the police and other officials and investigation into the case crime no. 95 of 2012, the petitioner has also prayed that as an interim measure, the State Human Rights Commission may be requested for and entrusted with an inquiry into certain aspects relating to the incidents which took place on 23.6.2012 and thereafter on 23.07.2012 and further that based on the inquiry report which may be submitted by the State Human Rights Commission, further directions granting appropriate reliefs be issued by this Court depending upon the facts which may be found in the said inquiry.
We have heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Swetashwa Agarwal and Sri Nitin Kumar Mishra, Advocates appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for opposite parties and have also gone through the material available on record of the petition including the report of the Enquiry Committee appointed by the petitioner-organization.
It has been contended staunchly by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that from the report of Enquiry Committee which was constituted by the petitioner-organization, it is apparent that the incidents in village concerned which took place on 23.06.2012 and 23.07.2012 have resulted in violation of basic human rights of persons belonging to a particular community and further that on account of the acts of violence, arson and loot etc. in the village, the villagers belonging to a particular community have left the village having no option left to them but to flee their homes. It has further been stated that even after lapse of such a long period from the date of incidents, the villagers have not yet returned back to their homes on account of the fact that their belongings were looted and houses were torched.
Attention of the Court has also been drawn to various newspaper reports which have widely reported the incidents which occurred on 23.06.2012 and thereafter again on 23.07.2012. According to the petitioner, newspaper reports are enough indication of large scale violation of human rights of the persons belonging to a particular community which not only warrant rehabilitation of the victims and payment of adequate compensation to them but a thorough probe into the conduct of the police and other officials who acted negligently, otherwise incidents and thereby violation of human rights could have been prevented.
Relying on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is couched with amplest powers to appoint independent Enquiry Commissioner such as an independent journalist or a panel of two independent journalists in a case where violation of fundamental rights or human rights are alleged.
A reference has also been made by learned counsel for the petitioner to the judgement of this Court rendered in the case of Uttrakhand Sangharsh Samiti, Mussoorie vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (1996) 1 UPLBEC 461 to impress upon the Court that in the said matter by means of an interim order, an inquiry was ordered by this Court to be conducted by Central Bureau of Investigation and the said interim order requiring the CBI to conduct an inquiry into violation of human rights in the said case, was not touched by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Special Leave Petition filed by the State Government of the then existing undivided State of Uttar Pradesh.
In the background of these submissions, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner prays that as an interim measure, the State Human Rights Commission be requested to conduct an inquiry into certain aspects of the incidents in question and thereafter on submission of inquiry report by the State Human Rights Commission, further reliefs may be granted by this Court to the victims.
It has been submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that National Human Rights Commission or State Human Rights Commission, on their own, are handicapped to conduct an inquiry into a matter like the present one for the reason that under the statutory provisions these Commissions have not been equipped with such machinery and personnel who can effectively complete the task of inquiry. Referring to the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Paramjit Kaur vs State of Punjab and others reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 340, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that in the said case the matter relating to violation of human rights was ordered to be probed by the National Human Rights Commission under the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and on the clarification sought by the Union of India in the said case, it was clarified by the Hon'ble Apex court that since the National Human Rights Commission was probing the matter under the reference made to it by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as such it would not be bound by the statutory provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") and the Commission will rather act as a body sui generis. Sri Jain has, thus, submitted that in the instant case, a request/reference by this Court be made to the State Human Rights Commission to conduct the probe into the matter so as to enable the Commission to conduct the inquiry in an effective manner and to ensure that it does not feel constrained to function within the statutory bounds.
We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments made by Sri Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the scheme of the Act as also the functions and powers of National Human Rights Commission and State Human Rights Commission, which have been created under the Act.
The aforesaid Act was enacted by Parliament with a view to create and constitute National Human Rights Commission, State Human Rights Commissions in the States and Human Rights Courts for better protection of human rights and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The said enactment by the parliament is an expression of commitment of our country to various international human rights covenants. The Act provides for creation and constitution of National Human Rights Commission and State Human Rights Commissions entrusting certain functions to them with a view not only to protect violation of human rights but also to intervene effectively into the matters involving the allegations of violation of human rights. By virtue of Section 29 of the Act, provisions of Chapter III which concern Functions and Powers of the Commission have been made applicable to the State Commissions as well. Apart from Chapter III of Act, Sections 17 and 18 which concern inquiry, complaints and steps which may be taken by the Commission during and after inquiry have also been made applicable to State Commissions. Section 12 of the Act describes the functions and powers of the Commission, according to which, the Commission can inquire into the complaints of violation or abatement of violation of human rights or negligence in prevention of violation of human rights by a public servant. Section 12 (a) provides that such an inquiry can be held by the Commission suo-motu or it can also conduct inquiry on a petition to be presented either by a victim or any person on his behalf or on a direction or order of any court. Thus, the power of Commission to inquire into the allegations of violation of human rights is wide enough to encompass not only the complaints made by the victims but also the petitions presented to it by any person on behalf of the victim. Apart from the power of conducting an inquiry into the allegation of violation of human rights or into negligence by a public servant in prevention of such violation of human rights, the Commission has been vested with the authority to intervene in any proceeding involving any allegation of violation of human rights, to visit any jail or other institutions where persons are detained and lodged, to review the safeguards provided for protection of human rights under law and to recommend measures for their effective implementation. It has also been vested with the authority to review the factors inhibiting enjoyment of human rights and make recommendation for taking appropriate remedial steps. In fact, Section 12 gives power, authority and jurisdiction of very wide amplitude to the Commission so as to enable it to function as a body to protect human rights and further to prevent violation thereof.
Section 13 gives various powers to the Commission while inquiring into complaints. Section 14 empowers the Commission to utilise the services of officers or an investigating agency of the Central Government and State Government for the purposes of investigation. The officer or agency whose services are utilized by the Commission for the purpose of investigation have also been vested with the authority to summon and enforce the attendance and to examine a person, to require the discovery and production of any document and requisition of any public record from any office.
Under section 17, the Commission itself has been bestowed with very wide ranging authority to call for information or report from the Government or any other authority or organization. Section 18 equips the Commission to take steps upon completion of or during an inquiry which includes the recommendation for payment of compensation or damages to the complainant or the victim or the members of his family. The Commission can also recommend the concerned Government to initiate proceedings for prosecution or any other suitable action against the concerned erring persons. A very wide ranging power is vested in the Commission under Section 18 (a) (iii) which provides that it can take further action as may be thought fit by the Commission in the facts and circumstances of a particular matter. It can also approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court or the High Courts for appropriate directions and also make recommendation to the Government or any authority to grant immediate interim relief to a victim or members of his family.
As far the reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha (supra), we may observe that there is no dispute as regards the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case. In an appropriate case of violation of fundamental rights or human rights, this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may issue appropriate directions appointing a Commissioner for inquiry. However, whether or not such a jurisdiction for appointment of Commissioner is to be exercised, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
It is noticeable in this case that after conducting its own inquiry, the petitioner has not approached either the National Human Rights Commission or State Human Rights Commission under Section 12 (a) of the Act. Even if the State Human Rights Commission did not take suo-motu action of inquiring into the incidents as narrated in the writ petition, it was open to the petitioner to approach the State Commission and in fact, it could have presented a petition or lodged a complaint on behalf of alleged victims of the incidents of violence and arson etc. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that if the petitioner approaches the State Human Rights Commission under Section 12 (a) of the Act, it may not effectively engage itself in the task of inquiry for the reason that it is not appropriately equipped under the statutory powers vested in it under the Act to make effective inquiry, is unfounded.
As discussed above, the National Commission and the State Commission have been vested with ample authority and power to make an inquiry into the allegations of violation of human rights. The very purpose of creation of National Human Rights Commission and State Human Rights Commissions under the parliamentary enactment is to provide for an appropriate forum to get inquires conducted and probes made into allegations of violation of human rights.
At this juncture, reference may be made to the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Paramjit Kaur (supra), wherein it has been observed that the Commission is a unique expert body in itself. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 15 has observed as under:-
"15. The Commission is also a body sui juris created under an Act made by the Parliament for examining and investigating the questions and complaints relating to violation of human rights, as also the negligence on the part of any public servant in preventing such violations.
Reliance placed on the judgement of Paramjit Kaur (supra) by learned counsel for the petitioner to impress upon the Court that an interim direction be issued requesting/referring the matter to the State Human Rights Commission so as to conduct an inquiry in an unfettered manner, is of no avail to the petitioner. The facts of the aforesaid case of Paramjit Kaur (supra) were that on a writ petition presented under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in regard to violation of human rights wherein alleged disposal of large number of identified and unidentified dead bodies by the Punjab police was reported, Hon'ble Supreme Court requested the National Human Rights Commission to conduct an inquiry. On the said reference before the National Human Rights Commission, certain objections as regards continuance of the proceedings before it were raised primarily on the ground of Section 36 (2) of the Act, which imposes statutory prohibition on the commission to inquire into a matter after expiry of one year from the date the act constituting violation of human rights is alleged to have been committed. It is in this backdrop that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Paramjit Kaur (supra) observed that since the matter was being inquired into by the National Commission on the request/reference made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as such Commission would not be bound by the statutory provision contained in Section 36 (2) of the Act and thus, the Commission shall be a body sui generis. The said observations were made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on an application seeking clarification as to whether even after reference made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the National Commission is bound to act within the statutory limitations of the Act or it will act as a body sui generis. Answering the said question, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that since the matter in the said case was being inquired into by the Commission on the request/reference made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as such the Commission was not bound by the limitation imposed under section 36 (2) of the Act.
We feel that the aforesaid judgment must be read and understood in the context it was rendered. Even otherwise, in the case of Paramjit Kaur (supra) as observed above, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Commission is a specially constituted body under a parliamentary enactment for examining and investigating the questions and complaints concerning allegations of violation of human rights and negligence on the part of any public servant in prevention of such violation. In the instant case, the stage of prohibition on the State Commission set out in Section 36 (2) of the Act has yet not arrived.
So far as reliance placed by Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Counsel on the judgement of this Court in the case of Uttrakhand Sangharsh Samiti, Mussoorie (supra) is concerned, it would suffice to say that the final judgement in the said case rendered by this Court on 09.02.1996, wherein as many as nineteen directions were given, was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by means of its judgement dated 13.05.1999 rendered in the case of A. K. Singh and others vs. Uttarakhand Jan Morcha and others, (1999) 4 SCC 476. Moreover, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that interim order passed by this Court in the case of Uttrakhand Sangharsh Samiti, Mussoorie (supra) directing the matter to be inquired into by the C.B.I. was not touched by the Hon'ble Supreme Court also looses its impact for the reason that at the time of passing of the said interim order, the State Human Rights Commission was not constituted in the State of U.P.
On a closure scrutiny of the scheme of the Act, we feel that for redressal of various grievances raised by the petitioner in regard to rehabilitation, payment of compensation etc. to the victims of the alleged violation of Human Rights, the State Commission is fully equipped and vested with all statutory powers and authority to make an inquiry and adjudicate and make appropriate orders. Section 18 of the Act clearly stipulates that if Commission comes to a conclusion of commission of violation of Human Rights or negligence in prevention of violation of Human Rights by a public servant, it may pass appropriate orders making recommendation for payment of compensation or damages, to initiate proceedings for prosecution or other suitable action against the concerned persons and it may also take such further action as it may think fit.
In our view, in an appropriate case, under Section 18 (a) (iii) of the Act, the Commission can make recommendation even for preparing a rehabilitation scheme for the persons affected on account of violation of Human Rights. Section 18 (a) (iii) of the Act vests with the Commission authority and power to take such further action as is thought fit by it.
As a result of the foregoing discussions, we feel that it would be appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the observation that in case the petitioner-organization chooses to approach the State Human Rights Commission by way of presenting a petition under Section 12 (a) of the Act or the Commission decides to proceed suo-motu, the Commission shall look into the same and after conducting appropriate inquiry/investigation, it will make appropriate order based on the outcome of inquiry. It will also take such other action as is thought fit so as not only to compensate the victims of violation of human rights found, if any, but will also ensure that appropriate action is taken against erring officials, if any negligence in prevention of violation of human rights on their part is noticed in the incidents alleged to have occurred on 23.06.2012 and 23.07.2012.
With the above observations, writ petition is disposed of.
Let a certified copy of this judgement be transmitted to the State Human Rights Commission by the Registrar of this Court.
Order Date :- 19.10.2012 Renu/-