You Can Go Straight to the Human Rights Court: Supreme Court Upholds Karnataka Rule Allowing Direct Complaints Against Police

Case at a Glance

The Supreme Court has held that Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules, 2006, which lets an aggrieved person approach a Human Rights Court directly, is valid and consistent with the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. It set aside a Karnataka High Court ruling that had struck the rule down and quashed a case against police officers accused of violating an accused person’s rights in custody.

The appellant, an accused in a 2023 case, filed a private complaint in January 2024 before the Human Rights Court at Vijayapura alleging violation of his human rights by police officials in connection with his custody. The court referred it under Section 156(3) CrPC, and a crime was registered against the officials.

The officials challenged Rule 6 before the Karnataka High Court, which on 17 July 2025 held it unconstitutional and ultra vires Section 41 of the 1993 Act, reasoning that the Commission route under Sections 13 to 18 was exclusive, and quashed the case. The Supreme Court had stayed that judgment in October 2025.

The Key Question Before the Court

Must a person alleging human rights violations by police go first to the Human Rights Commission, or can they approach a Human Rights Court directly?

Two Distinct Mechanisms

The Court held that the Commission, which is inquisitorial and recommendatory, and the Human Rights Court, which exercises judicial power over offences under Section 30, are two distinct mechanisms. A Commission recommendation is not “an indispensable condition precedent to the initiation of criminal proceedings”, and Section 30 does not make the court’s jurisdiction depend on prior Commission proceedings.

Rule 6 creates no new offence and does not enlarge ‘human rights’; it only regulates how complaints are received and investigated. Section 41(2) is illustrative, and rules may supply procedural machinery, as recognised in St. Johns Teachers Training Institute v. NCTE, (2003) 02 SC CK 0086. The Court drew support from Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, (2020) 12 SC CK 0004. It rejected the double jeopardy argument, holding a Commission inquiry is not a prior prosecution, and said questions of sanction are for individual cases.

What the Court Actually Held

• Rule 6 of the 2006 Rules is not inconsistent with the 1993 Act and is intra vires.
• The High Court erred in treating the Commission route as exclusive and ignoring Section 30.
• The quashing of the crime against the police officials was set aside; proceedings continue from their present stage.
• No opinion was expressed on merits, and all defences remain open.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It keeps open a direct judicial remedy for victims of alleged custodial and police excesses.
• It clarifies the relationship between Human Rights Commissions and Human Rights Courts.
• It confirms that state procedural rules can operationalise Section 30.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Complainants

• A complaint can be filed directly before the designated Human Rights Court in Karnataka.
• Prior approach to the Commission is not mandatory.

For Accused Officials

• Sanction and other defences can still be raised in the individual case.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

The ruling concerns Karnataka’s Rule 6, but its reading of Section 30 of the 1993 Act is of general relevance.

No. The Court expressed no view on merits; the proceedings simply continue.

No. The Court held it is not a prior prosecution, so double jeopardy does not arise.

Conclusion