- 1 -

NC: 2023:KHC:25482-DB

WP No. 18208 of 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 21

ST

DAY OF JULY, 2023

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

AND

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

WRIT PETITION NO. 18208 OF 2012 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI B S MANJUNATH, B.ED.,M.S.W

AGED 38 YEARS

S/O LATE SHIVALINGE GOWDA,

INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

OFFICE OF THE STATE INTELLIGENCE,

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,

BANGALORE-560002.

2. SRI. ARUN KUMAR, P.C., 152

AGED 46 YEARS

S/O D. PANDU

THALAGHATTAPURA

POLICE STATION

KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,

BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK

BANGALORE-560062

3. SRI. ANNAIAH, P.C., 98

AGED 4 YEARS

S/O SANNAPPA

RAMANAGARA TRAFFIC

POLICE STATION

RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. P.S.RAJAGOPAL, SR . ADV. FOR

SRI. K C SHANTAKUMAR., ADVOCATE)

R

- 2 -

NC: 2023:KHC:25482-DB

WP No. 18208 of 2012

AND:

1. SRI C MUNIKRISHNA,

MAJOR,

PRADHANA SANCHALAK,

KARNATAKA DALITHA

SANGHARSHA SAMITHI,

NO.1, 148 H & S BUILDING,

9

TH

CROSS ROAD,

LALBAGH FORT ROAD,

DODDAMAVALLI,

BANGALORE-560004.

2. SRI. MUJIB PASHA,

MAJOR,

S/O SRI. ABDUL SHUKURSAB,

KAGGALIPURA,

KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,

BANGALORE-560082

3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,

INFANTRY ROAD,

BANGALORE – 560001.

4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS

SECRETARY,

HOME DEPARTMENT,

M.S. BUILDING,

VIDHANA VEEDHI,

BANGALORE-560001.

5. THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE

GOVT. OF KARNATAKA,

VIDHANA SOUDHA,

BANGALORE-560001.

6. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,

CENTRAL RANGE,

MILLERS ROAD,

BANGALORE-560001.

- 3 -

NC: 2023:KHC:25482-DB

WP No. 18208 of 2012

7. THE KARNATAKA STATE

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

4

TH

FLOOR, 5

TH

PHASE,

M.S.BUILDING,

DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI,

BENGALURU-560001,

BY ITS REGISTRAR.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SHILPA S.GOGI, AGA FOR R3 TO R6,

SRI. SURESH DESAI, ADV. FOR R2,

SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA SOODHI, ADV. FOR R7.)

R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE

RECORDS RELATING TO CONCERNING & CONNECTED WITH

THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.HRC/R.P NO.1/08 & ALS O

HRC.NO.856/08 FROM THE KARNATAKA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS

COMMISSION, BANGALORE, PERUSE THE SAME & DECLARE &

QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DT.8.5.12, VIDE ANN-A & T HE

ORDER DT.3.7.08, VIDE ANN-F, BEARING NO.HRC.856/08 AS

UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J.,

MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Heard the learned senior counsel Sri P.S. Rajg opal

along with learned counsel Sri K.C. Shanta Kumar an d

learned Additional Government Advocate for responde nts

No.3 to 6 and learned counsel Sri Gopal Krishna Soodhi for

respondent No.7. No representation for respondents No.1

and 2.

R7 Amended vide court

order dated: 24/06/2019.

- 4 -

NC: 2023:KHC:25482-DB

WP No. 18208 of 2012

2. The instant writ petition is traceable to

proceedings of the year 2008 more specifically date d

08.05.2012 whereby, the Karnataka State Human Right s

Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘Commission’ )

acting upon the complaint of respondents No.1 and 2 has

proceeded to pass the following order:-

“10. In the result and for the foregoing

reasons and in exercise of the powers conferred

U/S 18(i)(a) and (e) of the Protection of

Human Rights Act, 1993, I direct the

Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City:

(i) to initiate Departmental Enquiry against the

Review Petitioners under the relevant Service

Rules;

(ii) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten

Thousand only) to the complainant Sri

Mujibpasha as compensation for violation of

his human rights by the Review Petitioners,

within a month from the date of receipt of this

order.

(iii) The money so paid as compensation may be

recovered from the salary of the Review

Petitioners.

(iv) The Action Taken Report in pursuance of these

directions be submitted to the Commission

within two months from the date of receipt of

this order.

- 5 -

NC: 2023:KHC:25482-DB

WP No. 18208 of 2012

HRC/R.P.NO.1/08 in HRC.NO.856/08 is

disposed of in the above terms.”

3. The relevant background facts are that

pursuant to a complaint dated 17.3.2008, the sevent h

Respondent - Commission took up the same for enquir y

and passed the order dated 3.8.2008, whereunder the

Inspector General of Police (for short 'IGP'), Cent ral

Range, Millers Road, Bangalore, was directed to ini tiate

immediate disciplinary action against the Sub Inspe ctor

and police constables and the Chief Secretary, Karnataka

State Government was directed to pay a compensation of

Rs.25,000/- which was to be recovered from the Sub

Inspector and the police constables.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order dated

3.7.2008, the Petitioners preferred WP.No.11051/200 8

and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court headed by Hon 'ble

the Chief Justice, vide its order dated 19.8.2008 permitted

the Petitioners to file a Review Petition, consequent to

which, the Petitioners filed a Review Petition. Subsequent

- 6 -

NC: 2023:KHC:25482-DB

WP No. 18208 of 2012

to the order of this Court, the Commission ordered a fresh

enquiry to be conducted by the IGP of the Commission and

a report dated 22.11.2008 was submitted and in that

regard it is noticed that the allegations made in t he

complaint have not been established. Subsequently, the

Commission passed the order dated 8.5.2012, which i s

impugned in the present Writ Petition. The

orders/directions as contained in paragraph 10 of t he

impugned order are extracted at paragraph 2 hereinabove.

5. The learned senior counsel would take the

Court through Sections 17 and 18 of the Protection of

Human Rights Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’), which read

as under:-

“17. Inquiry into complaints .-The

Commission while inquiring into the complaints of

violations of human rights may-

(i) call for information or report from the

Central Government or any State

Government or any other authority or

organization subordinate thereto within

such time as may be specified by it:

- 7 -

NC: 2023:KHC:25482-DB

WP No. 18208 of 2012

Provided that-

(a) if the information or report is not

received within the time stipulated by

the Commission, it may proceed to

inquire into the complaint on its own;

(b) if, on receipt of information or report,

the Commission is satisfied either that

no further inquiry is required or that the

required action has been initiated or

taken by the concerned Government or

authority, it may not proceed with the

complaint and inform the complainant

accordingly;

(ii) without prejudice to anything contained

in clause (i), if it considers necessary,

having regard to the nature of the

complaint, initiate an inquiry.

[18. Steps during and after inquiry. -The

Commission may take any of the following steps

during or upon the completion of an inquiry held

under this Act, namely:-

(a) where the inquiry discloses the

commission of violation of human rights

or negligence in the prevention of

violation of human rights or abetment

thereof by a public servant, it may

recommend to the concerned

Government or authority-

- 8 -

NC: 2023:KHC:25482-DB

WP No. 18208 of 2012

(i) to make payment of

compensation or damages to

the complainant or to the victim

or the members of his family as

the Commission may consider

necessary;

(ii) to initiate proceedings for

prosecution or such other

suitable action as the

Commission may deem fit

against the concerned person or

persons;

(iii) to take such further action as it

may think fit;

(b) approach the Supreme Court or the High

Court concerned for such directions,

orders or writs as that Court may deem

necessary;

(c) recommend to the concerned

Government or authority at any stage of

the inquiry for the grant of such

immediate interim relief to the victim or

the members of his family as the

Commission may consider necessary;

(d) subject to the provisions of clause (e),

provide a copy of the inquiry report to

the petitioner or his representative;

(e) the Commission shall send a copy of its

inquiry report together with its

recommendations to the concerned

- 9 -

NC: 2023:KHC:25482-DB

WP No. 18208 of 2012

Government or authority and the

concerned Government or authority

shall, within a period of one month, or

such further time as the Commission

may allow, forward its comments on the

report, including the action taken or

proposed to be taken thereon, to the

Commission;

(f) the Commission shall publish its inquiry

report together with the comments of

the concerned Government or authority,

if any, and the action taken or proposed

to be taken by the concerned

Government or authority on the

recommendations of the Commission.]”

6. The learned senior counsel would contend that

the action impugned is clearly without jurisdiction and is

ultra-vires the power conferred on the Commission. He

would submit that the proceedings of the Commission

being in the nature of direction, which jurisdiction is not

vested with the Commission, the same mandates an

interference by the Court. The learned senior coun sel

would elaborate further and would submit that pursuant to

the directions issued by the Commission, the same c ould

- 10 -

NC: 2023:KHC:25482-DB

WP No. 18208 of 2012

result in action against the petitioners resulting in civil

liabilities and even disciplinary proceedings.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for 7

th

respondent would submit that the writ petition is

premature and that this Court has consistently held that

the results of an inquiry under Sections 17 and 18 of the

Act are merely recommendatory in nature. Whether t he

report is actionable or not is a decision that the State is

required to take and that the State, not having taken any

action, the instant writ petition is misconceived.

8. The learned Additional Government Advocate

would also reiterate the position that the proceedings of

the Commission are merely recommendatory. In fact,

learned counsel for the 7

th

respondent and the learned

Additional Government Advocate placed reliance on t he

orders of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of C. Gopal v.

Karnataka State Human Rights Commission

1

and the

1

2015 SCC OnLine Kar 5674

- 11 -

NC: 2023:KHC:25482-DB

WP No. 18208 of 2012

orders of another Co-ordinate Bench rendered in W.P .

No.1404/2021. In the first noted ruling, the Co-ordinate

Bench has been pleased to observe in para 6 as under:-

“6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the

parties, we are of the view that the order passed by

the Human Rights Commission is more in the nature

of recommendation, since he found prima facie that

persons were arrested without entering in the police

register about the time of their arrest and when the

Human Rights Commission inspected the Jayanagar

Police Station, the arrest was not shown in the

register. According to us, it is only the Commission

found that there is prima facie case to hold an

enquiry by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, at

this length of time, it would be inappropriate to

interfere with the recommendation made by the

Human Rights Commission, as it is the domain of the

disciplinary authority to conduct an enquiry and pass

suitable orders by giving reasonable opportunity to

the petitioners. It is also seen that it is for the

Government to accept the recommendation or not

by examining the legality and correctness of the

same.”

- 12 -

NC: 2023:KHC:25482-DB

WP No. 18208 of 2012

9. In the second noted writ petition also the writ

petition directed against the proceedings of the

Commission came to be rejected as being premature.

10. The learned senior counsel would contend that

on an earlier occasion aggrieved by the orders of t he

Commission, the petitioners had approached this Cou rt in

W.P. No.11051/2008 and the Co-ordinate Bench headed

by the then Chief Justice and companion judge permi tted

the petitioners herein to approach the Commission by way

of a review petition, consequent to which, petition ers

approached the Commission-7

th

respondent by way of a

review petition resulting in the impugned order dat ed

08.05.2012.

11. In the above circumstances and background,

the instant writ petition is required to be adjudicated. At

the very outset, we would have rejected the writ petition

at the threshold on the ground of maintainability but for

- 13 -

NC: 2023:KHC:25482-DB

WP No. 18208 of 2012

the fact of the direction issued in the W.P. No.11051/2008

wherein, concluding portion reads as under:-

“Under these circumstances, we are of the

considered opinion that it is appropriate to direct the

petitioner-delinquent to approach the Karnataka

State Human Rights Commission within 30 days

from the date of receipt of the order to review the

order dated 3.7.2008 and bring to the notice of the

Commission all the grievances stated above by the

petitioner and seek appropriate relief. Until then,

the order dated 3.7.2008 is kept in abeyance.

Ordered accordingly.”

12. On a reading of the scheme of the Act, the

scope and extent of powers enjoyed by the Commissio n,

more particularly, in terms of Section 18 of the Act is quite

apparent. Section 17 of the Act empowers the

Commission to inquire into complaints of violation of

Human Rights. Section 17(i) of the Act empowers t he

Commission to call for any information with regard to the

inquiry initiated by it and Clause-(a), (b) of Section 17 of

the Act stipulate what are the consequences of non receipt

of information summoned and consequences pursuant t o

- 14 -

NC: 2023:KHC:25482-DB

WP No. 18208 of 2012

receipt of report. Clause (ii) of Section 17 of the Act in a

sense vests suo-moto powers in the Commission to initiate

an inquiry with or without report under Clause (i).

13. The consequences of holding an inquiry are

enumerated in Section 18 of the Act i.e., the steps that

may be taken by the Commission after the inquiry.

Section 18(a) of the Act enables the Commission to adopt

a particular course of action. The course of action is that

the Commission is entitled to make a recommendation to

the concerned Government or authority. We need not

search far for support of our conclusion. The words

”it may recommend” used in Section 18(a) of the Act

leaves no scope for imagination. It also obviates a

detailed discussion as to whether the Commission is

empowered to pass any executable orders or direction that

can be implemented by or under its own authority.

Section 18(b) of the Act provides for the course of action

or remedy which the Commission may adopt in the eve nt

of it being dissatisfied by the response to its

- 15 -

NC: 2023:KHC:25482-DB

WP No. 18208 of 2012

recommendation. That Section 18(b) of the Act only

enables the Commission to approach the Hon’ble Supr eme

Court or this Court for such directions or orders it may

deem necessary.

14. A reading of Section 18(a) & (b) does not leav e

much for imagination and conclusively demonstrate t he

scope of its authority under the statute. The opti on

available for the Commission under Section 18(b) of the

Act is, if it was dissatisfied with the Report submitted by

the State Government vide Annexure-J, it could not have

taken upon itself and adjudicated the correctness of the

Report.

15. If the impugned order is examined in the

backdrop of the discussion above, the only inescapa ble

conclusion this Court can arrive at is that the ord er

impugned is one passed without jurisdiction. We wo uld

have certainly followed the path led by our Co-ordi nate

Benches and could have held the writ petition is premature

- 16 -

NC: 2023:KHC:25482-DB

WP No. 18208 of 2012

or would have read down the orders as mere

recommendation, but for the fact that the presence of the

petitioners before the Commission is as a consequence of

a direction issued by this Court in W.P. No.11051/2008.

16. In our considered opinion, the direction to

prefer a review by this Court ought not to have bee n

construed as conferment of jurisdiction to perform an act

which otherwise, the statute did not confer upon it. In our

considered opinion, the Commission could not have

exercised the powers under Section 30 of the Act, which is

not vested in the Human Rights Commission.

17. In that view, we are of the considered opinion

that the order impugned has no legs to stand on and being

one without jurisdiction, warrants interference at the

hands of this Court.

- 17 -

NC: 2023:KHC:25482-DB

WP No. 18208 of 2012

18. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The orders

impugned dated 08.05.2012 at Annexure-A and

03.07.2008 at Annexure-F are set-aside.

In view of disposal of the petition, interlocutory

applications if any, do not survive for consideration and is

accordingly disposed off.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

CHS/DN

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3