Delhi High Court
Ramesh Chander Sharma vs National Human Rights Commission ... on 8 March, 2016
Author: Manmohan
#66
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1944/2016
RAMESH CHANDER SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Manu Nayar with Ms. Meenakshi
Chopra, Advocates
versus
NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
& ANR ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, Advocate for
R-2/MCD.
% Date of Decision: 08th March, 2016
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 4 th
July, 2015 passed by respondent no. 1-NHRC wherein it was held that
petitioner's complaint is a service matter and therefore, it cannot be
entertained as per Regulation 9(viii) of the N.H.R.C. (Procedure)
Regulations, 1997.
2. It has been averred in the present writ petition that a false FIR was
registered against the petitioner by respondent no. 2-MCD for outraging the
modesty of an indoor female patient and the petitioner was suspended from
his post as Ayurvedic Compounder vide order dated 3 rd April, 1973.
Learned counsel for petitioner states that not only the petitioner was
acquitted by the criminal Court, but the Labour Court also found in favour of
the petitioner on the basis of appraisal of evidence and not on any technical
ground.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the Supreme
Court dismissed the petitioner's Civil Appeal without giving any reasons and
the same constitutes violation of petitioner's human rights. In support of his
submission, he relies upon judgment of the Apex Court in Ramdeo Chauhan
@ Rajnath Chauhan Vs. Bani Kant Das & Ors., Review Petition (C) No.
1378/2009 in W.P.(C) 457/2005 wherein it has been held as under:-
"52. Keeping those broad principles in our mind if we look at
Section 12(j) of the 1993 Act, we find that it confers on NHRC
"such other functions as it may consider necessary for the
promotion of human rights." It is not necessary that each and
every case relating to the violation of human rights will fit
squarely within the four corners of section 12 of the 1993 Act,
for invoking the jurisdiction of the NHRC. One must accept that
human rights are not like edicts inscribed on a rock. They are
made and unmade on the crucible of experience and through
irreversible process of human struggle for freedom. They admit
of a certain degree of fluidity. Categories of human rights, being
of infinite variety, are never really closed. That is why the
residuary clause in sub-section (j) has been so widely worded to
take care of situations not covered by sub-sections (a) to (i) of
Section 12 of the 1993 Act. The jurisdiction of NHRC thus
stands enlarged by section 12(j) of the 1993 Act, to take
necessary action for the protection of human rights. Such action
would include inquiring into cases where a party has been
denied the protection of any law to which he is entitled, whether
by a private party, a public institution, the government or even
the Courts of law. We are of the opinion that if a person is
entitled to benefit under a particular law, and benefits under
that law have been denied to him, it will amount to a violation of
his human rights.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
57. The assumption in the judgment under review that there
can be no violation of a person's human right by a judgment of
this Court is possibly not correct. This Court in exercise
of its appellate jurisdiction has to deal with many judgments
of High Courts and Tribunals in which the High Courts or the
Tribunals, on an erroneous perception of facts and law,
have rendered decisions in breach of human rights of the parties
and this Court corrects such errors in those judgments."
4. Learned counsel for respondent no.2-MCD points out that acquittal by
the criminal court was primarily on the ground that complainant had expired
before her evidence had been recorded. She further states that in view of the
Labour Court's award having been set aside by learned Single Judge and
affirmed by the Division Bench and the Supreme Court, the petitioner could
not have approached the respondent-NHRC.
5. Having heard the parties and having perused the paper book this Court
is of the view that grounds in the present writ petition primarily challenge the
orders of learned Single Judge, the Division Bench and the Supreme Court.
This Court is of the opinion that petitioner's intent in approaching NHRC
was to go behind the binding judgments of learned Single Judge, the
Division Bench and the Supreme Court and that too after the Supreme Court
had dismissed the petitioner's Civil Appeal, Review Petition and Curative
Petition.
6. This Court is also of the view that the judgment in Ramdeo Chauhan
@ Rajnath Chauhan (supra) relied upon by the petitioner is inapplicable to
the facts of the present case as the accused in the said case was held entitled
for commutation of death sentence since he was a minor and entitled to
protection under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2000.
7. In the opinion of this Court, the present petition before the NHRC was
not maintainable. In fact, present writ petition amounts to re-litigation and is
an attempt to reopen the judgment of this Court as well as the Apex Court -
which have attained finality. Since the present writ petition constitutes abuse
of process of law, the same is dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid
to respondent no. 2 within one week.
MANMOHAN, J
MARCH 08, 2016
rn
