Asian Centre For Human Rights vs National Human Rights Commission
2011 Latest Caselaw 3553 Del

           *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                     Date of decision: 26th July, 2011

+                           W.P.(C) 8204/2009

        ASIAN CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS            ..... Petitioner
                     Through: Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Adv.

                                    versus

        NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION .....Respondent
                    Through: Mr. B.S. Gautham, Adv.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

     1. Whether reporters of Local papers may        Not necessary
        be allowed to see the judgment?

     2. To be referred to the reporter or not?              Not necessary

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported             Not necessary
        in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 10 th September,

2008 of the respondent NHRC closing the complaint dated 14 th

December, 2007 of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner had complained of brutal assault of a pregnant

woman identified as Shriti/Shirita Wanniang and four others by personnel

of CRPF at Mothphram in Shillong on 10 th December, 2007. It was the

case of the petitioner that the street vendors were protesting against an

alleged attempted eviction by Shillong Municipal Board; that a tussle

broke out between the police and the protestors; that in the meantime

CRPF personnel, who were patrolling the area interfered and resorted

to lathi charge without issuing any warning; that the said Mrs. Shriti

Wanniang was referred to hospital where she was declared having

suffered a miscarriage. It was the case of the petitioner that the

lathicharge was unwarranted and disproportionate force had been used

against innocent persons.

3. The NHRC issued notice to the DG, CRPF as well as the

Superintendent of Police, Shillong and called for the reports.

4. Since the complaint was against CRPF, i.e., against members of

armed forces, the procedure therefor provided in Section 19 of the

Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. I have today in judgment dated

26th July, 2011 in W.P.(C) No. 8102/2007 titled as Asian Centre for

Human Rights v. NHRC discussed the interpretation thereof. Thus, need

is not felt to reiterate the same here. Suffice it is to observe that it has

been held that it is mandatory for NHRC to follow the procedure under

Section 19, i.e. to seek report from the Central Government and thereafter

to take a decision either not to proceed with the complaint or to make a

recommendation to the Government.

5. In the present case, the NHRC though called for the report from the

Police and from the Director General, CRPF but did not call for any

report from the Central Government. The Superintendent of Police,

Khasi Hills, Shillong reported that after the eviction team left the scene,

the patrol party of the CRPF on routine patrol were mistaken for the

eviction team and abused verbally and physically by the hawkers/vendors

and two women hawkers encouraged by the protestors charged at the

CRPF personnel with bamboo sticks in hand and rebuked them and that is

when the CRPF personnel had to disperse the crowd. It was also reported

that one of the women who had complained to the police was sent for

medical examination but there was no mention in the medical records of

any injury on her person or of any miscarriage. The report of the

examination forwarded did not indicate of any miscarriage.

6. There is no record of any report having been made by the CRPF.

7. The respondent NHRC on the basis of the aforesaid report decided

that no action was called for.

8. The counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the medical

report forwarded by the East Khasi Hills District Police. It is contended

that even though the same does not show any miscarriage, it is indicative

of injuries having been inflicted. The medical record indicates that the

patient was having tenderness in both legs and calfs; was unable to move

right arm and forearm and was unable to move the upper arm and

shoulder joint.

9. The NHRC appears to have been of the view that the complaint

being of having violated human rights by causing miscarriage and the

same having not been borne out from the medical records, no case for

proceeding further was made out.

10. I find no reason to interfere with the matter. As aforesaid the

procedure prescribed in Section 19 does not even provide for calling for

the report from the police and provides for seeking report from the

Central Government only.

11. Dismissed. No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW,J JULY 26, 2011 anb