Sri. G.N. Srikanth vs State of Karnataka, Department of Home, The Inspector General of Police, Karnataka State Human Rights Commission, Suprintendent of Police and Sri. Puttaramaiah

D.H. Waghela, C.J.—The petitioner has called into question the order dated 23.5.2012 of the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission, whereby, in the penultimate paragraph-9 of the impugned order, three directions are issued to the Superintendent of Police, Secretary to Government, Home Department, and to send action taken report pursuant to the above impugned directions. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently assailed the legality of the impugned order as also the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Commission to issue orders in the aforesaid terms.

Learned counsel Sri Pradeep Naik has appeared for the original complainant, who is joined herein as Respondent No. 4, learned A.G.A. has appeared for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3, and learned counsel Sri Nitin Prasad has appeared for the Inspector General of Police, Respondent No. 2.

After the arguments being addressed at some length by learned counsel appearing on either side, there was limited consensus to the extent that the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission ought not to have issued directions by the impugned order in view of the express provisions of Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, which authorizes the Commission to make recommendation to the Government concerned and not issue directions. Therefore, it was agreed and jointly submitted that the impugned order may be modified, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, to the extent that the directions issued in paragraph-9 of the impugned order may be treated as recommendations issued by the Commission in terms of the provisions of Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

Accordingly, by consent, it is directed that the directions issued in paragraph-9 of the impugned order shall be treated as recommendations of the Human Rights Commission and acted upon accordingly in accordance with law. It is clarified that the rights and obligations of the State Government will not be affected by the recommendations of the Commission which were issued in the form of directions by the impugned order and similarly, the rights and contentions of the petitioner to take legally available defences in the matter of any punitive order that may be made against him shall also not be affected by the impugned order as modified by this order. It is to be further clarified that direction No. (iii) contained in paragraph-9 of the impugned order is in consonance with the provisions of Section 18(e) and may have to be even otherwise complied by the State Government in accordance with law. The petition is disposed with the above order by consent of learned counsel for the parties concerned.