Asian Centre For Human Rights vs National Human Rights Commission
2011 Latest Caselaw 3557 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                Date of decision: 26th July, 2011

+                           W.P.(C) 8212/2009

       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                  Yes
       be allowed to see the judgment?

2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?                 Yes

3.     Whether the judgment should be reported                Yes
       in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The challenge in this petition is to the letter dated 18 th/19th February,

2009 of the respondent NHRC intimating to the petitioner that NHRC had

on 17th February, 2009, upon failure of the petitioner to comment on the

report of Superintendent of Police, Golaghat, assumed that the petitioner has

nothing further to urge in the matter and closed the case.

2. Though this petition was listed on several occasions but was neither

admitted nor notice thereof issued. On 9th July, 2010, the petition was taken

up along with several other petitions also preferred by the petitioner against

other orders of NHRC and records of NHRC requisitioned. On 9th

September, 2010, the counsel for respondent NHRC informed that the

records were not available. Accordingly, the records were directed to be re-

constructed.

3. The counsel for the respondent NHRC today states that no records are

available with NHRC. The counsels have been heard.

4. The petitioner had complained to the NHRC of arbitrary shooting at

Ms. Aiti Bora aged 40 years of Bheleuguri under Merapani Police Station in

Golaghat District by personnel of the Naga Armed Police.

5. The respondent NHRC on receipt of the aforesaid complaint called for

a report from the Chief Secretary of the Government of Assam. In response

thereto the Superintendent of Police, Golaghat submitted a report stating that

the husband of the said Ms. Aiti Bora had on 23 rd March, 2005 reported that

the said Smt. Aiti Bora, while she was washing clothes in the river, had

received injury on her foot by a gun shot fired by Naga Armed Police; that

enquires had revealed that the Jawans / personnel of Naga Armed Police

were hunting birds in the area and in the process a pellet had hit the right

foot of Ms. Aiti Bora; that she was taken to the hospital and given the

necessary treatment.

6. The aforesaid report was forwarded on 1st October, 2008 by NHRC to

the petitioner complainant.

7. The petitioner complainant contends that though the petitioner had

duly delivered their comments thereto to the respondent NHRC in

November, 2008 itself but respondent NHRC in proceedings on 17 th

February, 2009 wrongly proceeded on the premise that no comments had

been submitted by the petitioner and closed the complaint.

8. I have examined the comments stated to have been submitted by the

petitioner to the report aforesaid. All that the petitioner stated in the same

was that the report confirmed that Ms. Aiti Bora had been shot at by

personnel of the Naga Armed Police and thus the State Government should

be directed to pay compensation to Ms. Aiti Bora. The comments of the

petitioner no where controvert the manner and circumstances in which the

said Ms. Aiti Bora suffered the injury, as reported by the Superintendent of

Police, Golaghat.

9. I have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner whether injury

caused in the facts and circumstances can be said to be a violation of human

rights, for the respondent NHRC to have jurisdiction. To be fair to the

counsel for the petitioner, he has been unable to urge so.

10. The function of the respondent NHRC under Section 12 of the

Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 is to inter alia enquire into, intervene

in violations of human rights. Every injury caused, cannot be said to be

violation of human rights. NHRC was/is not intended to provide remedy or

redressal for all injuries. The House of Lords in Chief Adjudication Officer

Vs. Faulds [2000] 1 WLR 1035 and Fenton Vs. J. Thorley & Co. Ltd.

[1903] AC 443 held that an "accident" and "injury" must be treated as

conceptually distinct, so that injury caused by accident cannot be treated as

meaning the same as accidental injury. An accident is an event which was

not intended by the person who suffers the misfortune and although intended

by the person who caused to occur resulted in a misfortune which he did not

intend. The distinction was recently discussed in detail by the Court of

Appeal (Civil Division) in Secretary of State for Work & Pensions Vs.

James Scullion 2010 WL 889483. The word "violation" connotes

"infringement, breach of right or duty, an act of breaking, infringing or

transgressing, attack and assault" and which all elements are definitely

missing in an accident. The petitioner has been unable to refute that the

injury to the aggrieved was not intended by the personnel / jawan of the

Naga Armed Police. Even if the injury so caused accidently to the aggrieved

is actionable in law, such action would still not fall within the domain of

respondent NHRC.

11. I am therefore of the opinion that even if the reply / comments of the

petitioner were considered by the respondent NHRC, still no case of

violation of human rights was made out on the complaint and thus no error is

found with the order of the respondent NHRC.

The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) JULY 26, 2011 „gsr‟ (corrected and released on 23rd August, 2011)