Tribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

“The National Human Rights Commission is disturbed over the killing of more than 40 CRPF personnel in a terrorist attack on their convoy near Awantipora on the Srinagar-Jammu highway on the 14th February 2019 and condemns it. The scourge of terrorism is one of the major factors leading to violation of human rights in our society.

The Commission firmly believes that the acts of terrorism are an anti-thesis to the struggle for the protection of human rights. A loss of life of any innocent person, whether in force or a civilian, is a matter of violation of human rights.

Being an apex institution, committed to the promotion and protection of human rights of all, the NHRC, India appeals all to stand up in condemning such incidents that lead to death and destruction in place of brotherhood, development, peace, progress and prosperity. If we can question and make the security forces accountable for failing in their duties, we must also make those accountable who violate the human rights of the security forces committed towards nation building.

It is expected that the State will take note of the supreme sacrifice made by the personnel of CRPF in maintaining the rule of law and creating an environment of peace and security in the country, and the aggrieved families would be suitably compensated.”

[Press Release dt. 19-02-2019]


Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jammu and Kashmir High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Ali Mohammad Magrey, J., dismissed a petition filed by the petitioner seeking the benefit of SRO 43 of 1994 [Jammu & Kashmir (Compassionate Appointment) Rules, 1994].

The petitioner was an adopted son whose father was killed in an encounter between Army and militants. The petitioner sought compassionate appointment against the death of his father.

The Court, in this case, referred to various Rules of SRO 43 of 1994 including Rule-2 wherein applicability of the said rules has been laid down which includes adopted sons and daughters as well within its ambit. The Court then referred to SRO 177 which amended certain rules of SRO 43 of 1994 and observed that as per the amendment to clause (d) of Rule 2, the benefit of SRO 43 of 1994 shall be given to the adopted sons or daughters only if the personal law of the community to which the beneficiary/adoptee belongs, allows the process of adoption.

The Court concluded by holding that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of SRO 43 of 1994 since his community does not permit the process of adoption and hence the petition was dismissed. [Mohammad Rafiq Wagay v. State of J&K,2018 SCC OnLine J&K 470, order dated 26-07-2018]