Delhi High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner-the deceased’s father, who lost his life in the alleged fake encounter, seeking impartial CBI inquiry and give compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to the legal heirs of all the deceased gang members, the Division Bench of Prathiba M. Singh* and Amit Sharma, JJ., did not agree with the stand of the Delhi Police that in each and every case, the NHRC ought to be forced to approach the Court for implementation of its own decisions, as the National Human Rights Commission (‘NHRC’) was not meant to become a litigant before Courts. The Court stated that the Human Rights Commissions were not to be ‘toothless tigers’ but must be ‘fierce defenders’ safeguarding the most basic right of humans i.e., the right to live without fear and to live with dignity.
The Court stated that the final direction of NHRC was for payment of Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation, which decision was not challenged by the Ministry of Home Affairs (‘MHA’) for all these years. Since, the recommendations of the Human Rights Commission would be binding in nature, the Court stated that the compensation, as awarded, was deserved to be paid. Thus, the Court directed that the compensation should be released by the MHA for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs along with simple interest at the rate of 18% within a period of three months.
Background
In the present case, the thirty-one years old deceased was a resident of Meerut, survived by his wife and two daughters as also his parents. It was stated that his wife had abandoned the family sometime in 2008, and his two daughters were brought up by their paternal grandparents. The petitioner and his wife who were also the deceased’s parents, were more than 75 years of age.
It was stated that in sometime around May or June 2006, the complaints were filed before the NHRC, by the family members of some of the deceased, claiming that they were taken away from their respective houses by the police and subsequently killed in the alleged fake encounter.
Several complaints were filed before the NHRC, which led to multiple authorities looking into the matter. On 27-01-2010, the NHRC directed the clubbing of the cases relating to the persons, who died in the alleged encounter. On 01-04-2010, the NHRC directed the Investigation Division to consider the post-mortem report, ballistic reports and statements recorded by the police and submit a report. Pursuant to the said order, the documents concerned were submitted by the Delhi Police, which revealed to the NHRC that no Magisterial inquiry was held on the instructions of the Lt. Governor and no forensic evidence was filed.
The Lieutenant Governor considered the reference of the National Human Rights Commission for a magisterial inquiry, where the family members of the deceased as also the doctor who conducted the autopsy were examined. The District Magistrate initially found various lacunae in the investigation conducted by the police, and recommended a CBI inquiry, which was then accepted by NHRC.
However, the DM’s report which was conducted, was put up before the Lt. Governor. The Lt. Governor, in its decision looked into the assessment in the report by the Delhi Police and the DM’s Inquiry. The Lt. Governor did not accept the report of the Magisterial Inquiry based upon the evidence including the contradictions in the statements of the family members, forensic evidence, ballistic reports etc. Subsequently, the Lt. Governor did not recommend a CBI inquiry.
Thus, though NHRC initially directed a CBI inquiry into the matter, however, thereafter, vide order dated 05-02-2024, directed payment of compensation of Rs.5 lakhs each to the next of kin of the deceased.
The petitioner in the present case sought directions to Respondents 2 and 3 to give concurrence for an impartial CBI inquiry into the alleged killings and give compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to the legal heirs of all the deceased gang members including the legal heirs of ‘P’, who was stated to be missing. The petitioner stated that no CBI inquiry had been conducted till date and neither compensation was given to the legal heirs of the deceased person, as directed by the NHRC.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that there could be no doubt that the NHRC was duly empowered under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (‘the Act’) to direct the proper inquiry into the matter whenever it found that there was severe abrogation of human rights. Specifically, certain guidelines were also issued by the NHRC to be followed in the police encounter as set out in the communication written by the then Chairman Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah on 29-03-1997 along with revised guidelines of 02-12-2003.
The Court stated that the purpose of the Act and the reasons for its enactment would be nullified if the Commissions were rendered powerless and were held to be mere recommendatory bodies. The recommendations were binding in nature. However, the authority/government concerned, was not without remedy and could always seek judicial review of the recommendations. Any view to the contrary, that the Human Rights Commissions could only make recommendations, which were not binding, would render the said Commissions completely toothless and nullify the object of India ratifying the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Court did not agree with the stand of the Delhi Police that in each case, the NHRC ought to be forced to approach the Court for implementation of its own decisions, as the NHRC was not meant to become a litigant before Courts.
The Court opined that the human rights were not ordinary rights. These rights were integral to Article 21, which recognized the right to life. The Court stated that the reports and recommendations of Human Rights Commissions were needed to be treated with seriousness and not rendered edentulous or pointless. If Governments were aggrieved, they were free to challenge the orders of State Commissions and NHRC. However, such inquiries and reports could not be simply ignored. The Court stated that the Human Rights Commissions were not to be ‘toothless tigers’ but must be ‘fierce defenders’ safeguarding the most basic right of humans i.e., the right to live without fear and to live with dignity.
The Court stated that in the present case, though initially the NHRC had directed a CBI inquiry into the matter, but vide the final order, the NHRC did not reiterate the said direction and accepted the decision of the Lt. Governor. The Court after analysing the report of the Magisterial Inquiry and consideration accorded to the same by the Lt. Governor, was of the opinion that an inquiry by CBI was not warranted in the present case.
The Court stated that the Lt. Governor arrived at the conclusion that the clear intention of the police was to strike and apprehend the persons who were together and had criminal antecedents. Thus, the Court did not substitute its own opinion on this issue. The Court stated that the final direction of NHRC was for payment of Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation, which decision was not challenged by the MHA for all these years.
Since, the recommendations of the Human Rights Commission would be binding in nature, the Court stated that the compensation, as awarded, was deserved to be paid. The Court directed that the compensation should be released by the MHA for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs along with simple interest at the rate of 18% within a period of three months.
The Court observed that despite recommendations of the NHRC more than a decade ago, the amount had not been paid. Accordingly, litigation costs of Rs.1 lakh were also awarded to the petitioners. The amount awarded by the NHRC along with costs be deposited by the MHA with the Registrar General of this Court by 30-04-2025.
The matter would next be listed before the Registrar General on 14-02-2025 and for compliance on 09-05-2025.
[Kiran Singh v. NHRC, W.P.(CRL) 2475 of 2015, decided on 28-01-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Prathiba M. Singh
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Saurabh Prakash, Utsav Jain and Anant Aditya Patro Advocates.
For the Respondents: Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate with Rajesh Mahajan, SPP with Insp. Chandan, Anil Soni.
