Jammu & Kashmir High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Compensation and Employment Based on State Human Rights Commission Recommendations

Court’s Decision:

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the communication dated 7th August 2014, issued by the State Government, rejecting the recommendations made by the Jammu & Kashmir State Human Rights Commission (SHRC). The court held that the SHRC’s recommendations are only advisory in nature and do not carry binding effect on the government.

Facts:

The petitioner filed a complaint before the Jammu & Kashmir State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) in 2008, alleging that his son, Irshad Ahmad Khan, was summoned by the 15 Corps of the Army at its headquarters in Srinagar in 2004 and had since disappeared. Following this complaint, the SHRC recommended in 2008 that the State Government should pay an ex-gratia relief of Rs. 1 lakh to the next of kin (NOK) of Irshad Ahmad Khan and provide employment to one family member under SRO 43 of 1994. However, the State Government, through its communication on 7th August 2014, rejected these recommendations. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner filed the present writ petition, seeking quashing of the communication and demanding compensation and employment as recommended by the SHRC.

Issues:

1. Whether the recommendations made by the SHRC are binding on the State Government.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and employment based on SHRC’s recommendations.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioner argued that the SHRC’s recommendations should be considered binding and that the government’s rejection of these recommendations without proper justification violated the petitioner’s rights. It was contended that the SHRC’s recommendations aimed at providing relief and redressal in cases of human rights violations should be implemented in letter and spirit.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The respondents, representing the State Government, contended that the SHRC is only an advisory body and its recommendations do not have the force of law. They argued that under the Jammu & Kashmir Protection of Human Rights Act, 1997, the Commission’s findings are not equivalent to judicial or quasi-judicial orders. As such, the State Government is not obligated to accept or implement these recommendations and has the discretion to reject them.

Analysis of the Law:

The court analyzed the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Protection of Human Rights Act, 1997, specifically Sections 13, 15, 18, and 19, which outline the powers and functions of the SHRC. The court highlighted that Section 19, in particular, clarifies that the SHRC’s role is limited to making recommendations to the State Government and that the Commission lacks the authority to enforce its decisions or initiate further proceedings once its inquiry report has been submitted.

Precedent Analysis:

The court referred to a previous Division Bench judgment in State of J&K v. J&K State Human Rights Commission and others (OWP no.1756/2018), where it was held that the SHRC’s recommendations are only advisory and cannot be enforced as executable orders. The Division Bench emphasized that the SHRC is neither a judicial authority nor a quasi-judicial body with the power to adjudicate disputed facts, making its recommendations non-binding on the parties involved.

Court’s Reasoning:

The court reasoned that the petitioner’s claim, based on the SHRC’s recommendations, could not be sustained, as the Commission’s recommendations are not binding on the government. The court noted that the SHRC, by law, is only empowered to make recommendations and forward its reports to the concerned authorities, but it cannot compel the government to take action based on these recommendations.

Conclusion:

The writ petition was dismissed, with the court affirming that the SHRC’s recommendations cannot be equated with enforceable orders. The court observed that the SHRC’s findings do not have the force of law and that the government retains discretion in deciding whether to act upon such recommendations.

Implications:

The judgment reaffirms the legal position that human rights commissions, while serving a vital role in protecting human rights, are limited in their enforcement capabilities. Their recommendations, although persuasive, do not carry a mandatory obligation for the State Government to act. This ruling sets a precedent that recommendations made by human rights commissions must be treated as advisory, leaving it to the discretion of the concerned government authorities to implement them or not.

Also Read – Delhi High Court: Contempt Petitions Dismissed as Breach of MOU Was Complete in 2016; Delay in Filing and Subsequent Adjournments Do Not Constitute a “Continuing Wrong”