Chhattisgarh High Court: Sanjay K Agrawal, J., dismissed the petition and sets aside the impugned order.

The petitioner in the instant petition challenges the legality and validity of the order dated 26.10.2009 passed by respondent 3 who have directed the petitioner to make a payment of Rs. 10,000/on account of professional negligence alleged to be committed by him.

Counsel for the petitioner Mr J.A.Lohani submitted that the impugned order is unsustainable and bad in law as the Human Rights Commission has no right and authority to make an order directing payment of compensation and it could have only made a recommendation to the competent authority.

The Court relied on N.C. Dhoundial v. Union of India, (2004) 2 SCC 579 wherein it was held

The Commission which is an “unique expert body” is, no doubt, entrusted with a very important function of protecting the human rights, but, it is needless to point out that the Commission has no unlimited jurisdiction nor does it exercise plenary powers in derogation of the statutory limitations. The Commission, which is the creature of statute, is bound by its provisions. Its duties and functions are defined and circumscribed by the Act. Of course, as any other statutory functionary, it undoubtedly has incidental or ancillary powers to effectively exercise its jurisdiction in respect of the powers confided to it but the Commission should necessarily act within the parameters prescribed by the Act creating it and the confines of jurisdiction vested in it by the Act. The Commission is one of the fora which can redress the grievances arising out of the violations of human rights. Even if it is not in a position to take up the enquiry and to afford redressal on account of certain statutory fetters or handicaps, the aggrieved persons are not without other remedies. The assumption underlying the observation in the concluding passage extracted above proceeds on an incorrect premise that the person wronged by violation of human rights would be left without remedy if the Commission does not take up the matter.”

The Court relied on judgment Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Raipur v. Chhattisgarh Human Rights Commission, 2017 SCC OnLine Chh 1415 and observed that it is quite vivid that the Human Rights Commission is a recommendatory body and it only makes a recommendation to the concerned authority or Government for enforcement of its recommendation. It has no jurisdiction to pass an order directing payment of compensation. Therefore, the impugned order is vulnerable to the extent of directing payment of compensation.

The Court held “the impugned order dated 26.10.2009 passed by respondent No.3/Chhattisgarh Human Rights Commission to the extent of directing payment of compensation to the extent of ₹10,000/to respondent No.5 is hereby setaside and said order will be only treated as recommendation of the Chhattisgarh Human Rights Commission.”[Dr. Giridhar Lal Chandrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPS No.2970 of 2010, decided on 28-07-2021]

Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.


For Petitioner: Mr. J. A. Lohani

For Res.No.1, 2 and 4: Mr. Ravi Bhagat

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.