Petitioner challenges the proceedings initiated by the Kerala Human Rights Commission on the basis of a complaint given by the 2nd respondent herein. According to the petitioner, he is the printer and publisher of a news paper and the averments in the complaint does not disclose a matter coming within the purview of a complaint which could be adjudicated by the Human Rights Commission. Reference is made to Rule 17(e) of the Human Rights commission (Procedure) Regulations 2001. Regulation No.17(e) provides that the commission may dismiss in limine the complaints which inter alia include allegations do not disclose involvement of any public servant. 2. The Regulations have been framed under Section 10 of the Protection of Human rights Act 1993, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. In fact, the functions of the commission is prescribed under W.P.(C) No.15680/2014 2 Section 12(a) of the Act which inter alia reads as follows: “12. Functions of the Commission:-
(a) inquire, suo motu or on a petition presented to it by a victim or any person on his behalf [or on a direction or order of any court], into complaint of
i) violation of human rights or abetment thereof; or
ii) negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant.”
Section 12(a) (i) and (ii) of the Act states that the Commission has the right to inquire suo motu or on a petition presented by a victim or any other person regarding violation of human rights or abetment thereof. The averments in the complaint herein also clearly indicates that the second respondent's reputation had been defamed by an act of the petitioner which may also lead to violation of human rights of an individual. The Clause (ii) of Section 12(a) relates to the complaint regarding negligence in prevention of such violation, by a public servant. Both Clause (i) and (ii) are independent provisions and if it is found that the violation of human right is committed by W.P.(C) No.15680/2014 3 any other person other than a public servant, it shall also be open for the authority to take necessary action. Apparently, the Regulations had been framed regarding involvement of public servant in such violation of human rights. The Regulations at any rate cannot restrict the powers of the Commission as provided under the Act.
Under such circumstances, the contention urged by the petitioner is not sustainable and, accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE vdv