[Cites 21, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Mahendra Shanabhai Patel vs The District Magistrate on 15 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 14/10/2025
Pronounced On : 15/01/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8914 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
MAHENDRA SHANABHAI PATEL & ORS.
Versus
THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TATTVAM K PATEL(5455) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3
MR KANVA ANTANI AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR GH VIRK GOVERNMENT PLEADER WITH MS DHARITRI PANCHOLI
AGP for the Respondent No.3
MR R P PATEL(9621) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
CAV JUDGMENT
[1] By filing the present petition under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the
legality and validity of the proceedings bearing Case No.
HRC/2024/GND/83/LEGAL03 initiated by respondent No.3 before
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
the Gujarat State Human Rights Commission.
[1.1] At the outset, it is required to be observed that the
present case is a clear instance where the State Human Rights
Commission has exercised powers and assumed jurisdiction which
are not conferred upon it under law.
[2] The brief facts leading to the present case are as under:
[2.1] The lands bearing Survey No.42/2 admeasuring 3035
sq. mtrs., Survey No.42/3 admeasuring 2934 sq. mtrs., Survey
No.71/1+2-B admeasuring 7689 sq. mtrs., Survey No.222/1
admeasuring 1416 sq. mtrs., Revenue Block/Survey No.335/1
admeasuring 2934 sq. mtrs., Revenue Survey No.71/1+2A
admeasuring 7284 sq. mtrs., Survey No.51/2 admeasuring 3237 sq.
mtrs., Survey No.338/1 admeasuring 3237 sq. mtrs., Khata No.234
with Revenue Block/Survey No.334/4-A admeasuring 1922 sq.
mtrs., and Revenue Block/Survey No.334/4-B admeasuring 4249
sq. mtrs., situated at village Zundal, District Gandhinagar, were
originally owned by Jethabhai Lallubhai Patel. Upon his death
without heirs, the said lands devolved upon Naranbhai Lallubhai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
Patel. Accordingly, Revenue Entry Nos. 6750 and 6681 were made,
mutating the names of the heirs of Naranbhai Lallubhai Patel.
[2.2] Thereafter, Maniben Naranbhai expired on 29th
December 2014, and her name was deleted from the revenue
records vide Revenue Entry No.7568 dated 27th August 2014.
[2.3] Subsequently, pursuant to the order dated 28th May
2019 passed by the Mamlatdar, Gandhinagar, the name of
Shardaben Naranbhai was entered in the revenue records vide
Revenue Entry No.9236 dated 11th June 2019.
[2.4] Thereafter, Shardaben, daughter of Naranbhai,
relinquished her one-fourth share and interest in the lands in
question in favour of the petitioners and others by a registered
release deed. The said transaction was recorded in the revenue
records vide Revenue Entry No.9237 dated 13th June 2019 and
Revenue Entry No.9298 dated 19th July 2019 in respect of Survey
No.334/3-A.
[2.5] Thereafter, Manubhai Lalbhai expired on 8th October
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
2023. Consequently, the name of his heir, namely Ramilaben
Manubhai Patel, was mutated in the revenue records vide Revenue
Entry No.11295 dated 7th May 2024 for Survey Nos.42/2 and 42/3
and Revenue Entry No.11296.
[2.6] Subsequently, Lalitaben Lalabhai and Vimalaben
Lalbhai executed a relinquishment deed in favour of Vikrambhai
Lalbhai in respect of their undivided share, pursuant to which
Revenue Entry Nos.11407, 11408, and 11409 were mutated in the
revenue records.
[2.7] Insofar as Survey No.334/4-A is concerned, the same
was transferred by the petitioners and others in favour of Swaman
Developers by a registered sale deed dated 31st December 2018,
and Revenue Entry No.9085 dated 24th January 2019 was
accordingly mutated. Similarly, Survey No.334/4-B was transferred
in favour of Aditya Realty by a registered sale deed dated 11th
September 2018, and Revenue Entry No.8942 dated 18th
September 2018 was entered in the revenue records.
[2.8] Thereafter, respondent No.4 filed Regular Civil Suit
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
No.149 of 2025 against the petitioners seeking cancellation of the
relinquishment deed bearing No.16758 dated 15th December 2015
executed by her, along with a prayer for declaration. The said suit
is pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court.
[2.9] It appears that during the pendency of the aforesaid
civil suit, respondent No.3-Commission took cognizance of a
complaint filed by respondent No.4, alleging violation of her
human rights. Pursuant thereto, the Commission issued notices
dated 9 May 2025 and 12 June 2025, calling upon the petitioners
to remain present before it. It is pertinent to note that in the notice
dated 12 June 2025, the Commission specifically directed the
learned advocate and the parties to take necessary steps to give a
share to respondent No.4 as per prevailing custom through
mediation and to resolve the dispute. As stated hereinabove, the
dispute regarding the alleged share of respondent No.4 was already
pending before the competent Civil Court at her own instance in
Regular Civil Suit No.149 of 2025. It further appears that at the
time of taking cognizance, the complainant had not disclosed the
pendency of the civil proceedings. Nevertheless, the complaint
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
before the Commission was essentially based on the claim of
respondent No.4 for a share in the property, alleging violation of
her human rights for not being given such share.
[3] This Court heard the present petition on couple of
occasions prior to 11th July 2025. On 11th July 2025, learned
counsel for the petitioners submitted that after issuance of notice
by the Human Rights Commission, the parties had arrived at a
settlement and that the matter was listed before the Commission,
which was likely to be withdrawn by the complainant. However,
considering the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act,
1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and the facts of the
present case, this Court deemed it appropriate to call upon the
learned advocates appearing for the respective parties to address
the Court on merits, particularly with regard to the jurisdiction of
the Human Rights Commission and the scope of powers exercised
by it under the Act. This exercise has been undertaken as this Court
has noticed, in more than one matter, that the Human Rights
Commission has exceeded the jurisdiction vested in it under the
Act.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
[4] Learned advocate Mr. Tattvam Patel for the petitioners
has made elaborate submissions. Learned A.G.P. Mr. Kanva Antani
appeared for the respondents Nos.1 and 2; learned Government
Pleader Mr. G. H. Virk assisted by learned A.G.P. Ms. Dharitri
Pancholi appeared for the respondent No.3. Learned advocate Mr.
R. P. Patel, though appeared on behalf of the respondent No.4,
remained absent before this Court all throughout the proceedings.
[5] Learned advocate Mr. Tattvam Patel for the petitioners,
while assailing the proceedings, has made the following
submissions:
[5.1] It is submitted that the proceedings initiated by
respondent No.3 and the cognizance taken by it are wholly beyond
the scope of the powers vested in the Human Rights Commission.
The dispute between the parties is purely a private dispute relating
to share in immovable property. Learned advocate Mr. Patel
contended that such a dispute does not fall within the ambit of the
Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. It is submitted that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
parties ought not to have approached the Human Rights
Commission for resolution of a property dispute when an
efficacious remedy before the competent Civil Court is available,
particularly when Regular Civil Suit No.149 of 2025, filed by
respondent No.4 herself, is already pending adjudication.
[5.2] It is further submitted that since the dispute is purely a
private property dispute, the Human Rights Commission ought not
to have issued notices for settlement of the same. The action of
issuing notices, calling upon the parties to remain present, and
directing them to resolve the dispute is wholly without jurisdiction
and beyond the powers conferred upon the Commission under
Section 12 of the Act. Such intervention not only exceeds the scope
of Section 12, but also amounts to usurpation of the jurisdiction of
the Civil Court, which is impermissible in law. It is submitted that
the Human Rights Commission is constituted for the purpose of
addressing violations of human rights and for their protection, and
it cannot enlarge its jurisdiction by treating a private property
dispute between individuals as a human rights issue.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
[5.3] By referring to the notices dated 9th May 2025 and 12th
June 2025, it is submitted that the said notices were addressed not
only to the petitioners but also to the District Magistrate and
Collector, Gandhinagar, and the Mamlatdar, Gandhinagar. It is
contended that the manner in which the notices were issued
indicates an attempt to exert pressure upon the petitioners to settle
a purely private dispute. Issuance of notices to senior revenue
officers in a private property dispute, according to the petitioners,
was intended to indirectly coerce them into a compromise. It is
submitted that under such pressure, statements were extracted
from the petitioners expressing willingness to settle the dispute as
per prevailing social customs. According to Mr. Patel, the
Commission thereby misused its authority by expanding its
jurisdiction to facilitate settlement of a private property dispute
between individuals. It is submitted that the Commission effectively
converted a civil property dispute into an alleged human rights
violation in order to secure a settlement. Hence, the proceedings
initiated by issuance of notices and directions to resolve the dispute
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
amount to a colourable exercise of power for extraneous reasons
and deserve to be quashed.
[5.4] It is further submitted that respondent No.4, Smt.
Shardaben Narayanbhai Patel, had already invoked the jurisdiction
of the Civil Court by filing Regular Civil Suit No.149 of 2025 on 9
April 2025. When the dispute is already pending before the Civil
Court, the Human Rights Commission ought not to have interfered
under the guise of alleged human rights violations. Such action, it
is contended, renders the civil proceedings ineffective. It is further
submitted that the Commission ought not to have issued summons
and bailable or non-bailable warrants against the petitioners when
they were already contesting the matter before the Civil Court. It is
alleged that due to coercive and pressurised methods adopted by
the Commission, the petitioners were compelled to settle the
dispute on the terms dictated by respondent No.4. In this manner,
respondent No.4 attempted to secure relief without pursuing the
civil suit, by adopting an indirect route through the Human Rights
Commission. It is therefore submitted that when the Civil Court is
seized of the matter, the Commission ought to have respected the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
judicial process and refrained from initiating parallel proceedings.
[5.5] Without prejudice to the above submissions, it is further
contended that respondent No.4 had relinquished her rights by
executing the deed in the year 2015, whereas the Human Rights
Commission took cognizance of the complaint only in the year
2025, after a lapse of about ten years. It is submitted that under
Section 36 of the Act, the jurisdiction of the Human Rights
Commission is confined to complaints made within one year of the
alleged violation of human rights. It is further submitted that
without conducting any preliminary inquiry, the Commission, in
undue haste, issued summons and bailable as well as non-bailable
warrants against the petitioners, which is in clear violation of
Section 36(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the proceedings before the
Commission are stated to be without jurisdiction and an abuse of
the process of law.
[6] On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, learned
advocate Mr. Patel for the petitioners has prayed that the present
petition be allowed and that the impugned notices and the entire
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
proceedings initiated by respondent No.3 - Human Rights
Commission be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice.
[7] On the other hand, learned Government Pleader Mr. G.
H. Virk, appearing for respondent No.3, initially sought to justify
the impugned proceedings by referring to various statutory
provisions. Alternatively, he also placed certain submissions and
suggestions regarding the scope and limits of jurisdiction
exercisable by the Human Rights Commission, so as to assist this
Court in adjudicating the issue:
"1. The Commission should confine its role to genuine and
specific violations of human rights; and not matters that are
civil, contractual, service-related, or administrative in nature.
2. Matters already pending before courts or tribunals should
not be taken up simultaneously, unless a separate and direct
human rights aspect is demonstrably involved.
3. Suo motu cognizance based on media reports, anonymous
complaints, or social media posts should be exercised with great
caution. No action should be initiated unless facts are verified
from official sources or a preliminary fact-finding confirms
authenticity.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
4. Anonymous or unverifiable sources should not be used as
the sole basis for proceedings. In such cases, the Commission
should seek an administrative report from the concerned
department before issuing notice.
5. Officers should be summoned only when their personal
appearance is absolutely necessary and reasons for summoning
officers must be recorded in writing. Written replies and
documentary evidence should ordinarily suffice. Video
conferencing should be preferred wherever possible; physical
presence should remain exceptional. The Commission must, in
that regard, follow the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in Civil Appeal Nos. 23-24 of 2024 (The State of Uttar
Pradesh & Ors. v. Association of Retired Supreme Court
and High Court Judges at Allahabad & Ors.)."
[8] After hearing the learned advocates for the respective
parties and considering the facts stated hereinabove, the central
issue that arises for determination by this Court relates to the
jurisdiction and scope of powers of the Human Rights Commission
under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. The question to
be examined is whether, while exercising powers under the said
Act, the Human Rights Commission has the authority to entertain
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
and proceed with a private property dispute, particularly when
such dispute is already pending adjudication before a competent
Civil Court?
[9] So as to understand the powers and the jurisdiction of
the Human Rights Commission to be exercised under the Act,
relevant provisions under Sections 2(d), 12, 17, 18, 29 and 36 of
the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 are required to be
considered and the same are referred to as under:
"2. Definition.- (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires-
(d) "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty,
equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the
Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and
enforceable by courts in India;"
"12. Functions of the Commission.--The Commission shall
perform all or any of the following functions, namely:--
(a) inquire, suo motu or on a petition presented to it by a victim or
any person on his behalf [or on a direction or order of any court],
into complaint of--
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
(i) violation of human rights or abetment thereof; or
(ii) negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public
servant;
(b) intervene in any proceeding involving any allegation of
violation of human rights pending before a court with the approval
of such court;
[(c) visit, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for
the time being in force, any jail or other institution under the
control of the State Government, where persons are detained or
lodged for purposes of treatment, reformation or protection, for the
study of the living conditions of the inmates thereof and make
recommendations thereon to the Government;]
(d) review the safeguards provided by or under the Constitution or
any law for the time being in force for the protection of human
rights and recommend measures for their effective implementation;
(e) review the factors, including acts of terrorism, that inhibit the
enjoyment of human rights and recommend appropriate remedial
measures;
(f) study treaties and other international instruments on human
rights and make recommendations for their effective
implementation;
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
(g) undertake and promote research in the field of human rights;
(h) spread human rights literacy among various sections of society
and promote awareness of the safeguards available for the
protection of these rights through publications, the media,
seminars and other available means;
(i) encourage the efforts of non-governmental organisations and
institutions working in the field of human rights;
(j) such other functions as it may consider necessary for the
promotion of human rights."
"17. Inquiry into complaints.--The Commission while inquiring
into the complaints of violations of human rights may--
(i) call for information or report from the Central Government or
any State Government or any other authority or organisation
subordinate thereto within such time as may be specified by it:
Provided that--
(a) if the information or report is not received within the time
stipulated by the Commission, it may proceed to inquire into the
complaint on its own;
(b) if, on receipt of information or report, the Commission is
satisfied either that no further inquiry is required or that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
required action has been initiated or taken by the concerned
Government or authority, it may not proceed with the complaint
and inform the complainant accordingly;
(ii) without prejudice to anything contained in clause (i), if it
considers necessary, having regard to the nature of the complaint,
initiate an inquiry."
"18. Steps during and after inquiry.--The Commission may take
any of the following steps during or upon the completion of an
inquiry held under this Act, namely:--
(a) where the inquiry discloses the commission of violation of
human rights or negligence in the prevention of violation of human
rights or abetment thereof by a public servant, it may recommend
to the concerned Government or authority--
(i) to make payment of compensation or damages to the
complainant or to the victim or the members of his family as the
Commission may consider necessary;
(ii) to initiate proceedings for prosecution or such other suitable
action as the Commission may deem fit against the concerned
person or persons;
(iii) to take such further action as it may think fit;
(b) approach the Supreme Court or the High Court concerned for
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
such directions, orders or writs as that Court may deem necessary;
(c) recommend to the concerned Government or authority at any
stage of the inquiry for the grant of such immediate interim relief
to the victim or the members of his family as the Commission may
consider necessary;
(d) subject to the provisions of clause (e), provide a copy of the
inquiry report to the petitioner or his representative;
(e) the Commission shall send a copy of its inquiry report together
with its recommendations to the concerned Government or
authority and the concerned Government or authority shall, within
a period of one month, or such further time as the Commission may
allow, forward its comments on the report, including the action
taken or proposed to be taken thereon, to the Commission;
(f) the Commission shall publish its inquiry report together with
the comments of the concerned Government or authority, if any,
and the action taken or proposed to be taken by the concerned
Government or authority on the recommendations of the
Commission.]"
"29. Application of certain provisions relating to National
Human Rights Commission to State Commissions.--The
provisions of sections 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 shall
apply to a State Commission and shall have effect, subject to the
following modifications, namely:--
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
(a) references to "Commission" shall be construed as references to
"State Commission";
(b) in section 10, in sub-section (3), for the word "Secretary-
General", the word "Secretary" shall be substituted;
(c) in section 12, clause (f) shall be omitted;
(d) in section 17, in clause (i), the words "Central Government or
any" shall be omitted."
"36. Matters not subject to jurisdiction of the Commission.--(1)
The Commission shall not inquire into any matter which is pending
before a State Commission or any other Commission duly
constituted under any law for the time being in force.
(2) The Commission or the State Commission shall not inquire into
any matter after the expiry of one year from the date on which the
act constituting violation of human rights is alleged to have been
committed."
[10] At this stage, in my view, it is also apt to take into
consideration the provisions of Regulations 9, 11, 12, 14 and 21 of
the National Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations,
1994 (for short, "the Regulations, 1994"). The same are referred to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
as under:
"9. Complaints not ordinarily entertainable. - The
Commission may dismiss in limine complaints of the following
nature:
(i) illegible;
(ii) vague, anonymous or pseudonymous;
(iii) trivial or frivolous;
(iv) barred under Section 36 (1) of the Act;
(v) barred under Section 36 (2) of the Act;
(vi) allegation is not against any public servant;
(vii) the issue raised relates to civil dispute, such as property
rights, contractual obligations and the like;
(viii) the issue raised relates to Service matters;
(ix) the issue raised relates to labour / industrial disputes;
(x) allegations do not make out any specific violation of human
rights;
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
(xi) matter is sub judice before a court or tribunal;
(xii) matter is covered by a judicial verdict or decision of the
Commission;
(xiii) where it is only a copy of the complaint addressed to some
other authority;
(xiv) the matter is outside the purview of the Commission on
any other ground."
"11. Sorting of complaints etc. - (a) Immediately on receipt
of the Dak, the Section Officer in-charge of each section in the
Law Division shall sort out the fresh complaints and place them
forthwith for scrutiny before the respective Assistant
Registrar(s) who are put in-charge of the respective sections in
that Division in accordance with the special or general order of
allocation as may be made by the Registrar.
(b) Complaints and other communications requiring urgent
attention shall however, be placed forthwith before the Registrar
who shall give such directions as may be necessary.
(c) All other communications relating to his section shall be
processed and appropriately dealt with.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
(d) All complaints and other communications which are not in
English and which are required to be placed before the
Commission shall be got translated into English with utmost
expedition.
Provided that only the gist of the complaint shall be prepared in
English if the complaint is not entertainable or is of an urgent
nature, requiring immediate attention."
"12. Scrutiny or complaints.-(a) On completion of scrutiny of
each complaint, the Assistant Registrar shall fill up Form No. 1
in case of complaints which are prima facie entertainable and
fill up Form No. 2 if the complaint is prima facie not
entertainable for any of the reasons mentioned in regulation 9.
He shall then send the complaint with the scrutiny report
appended thereto, to the section concerned for registration.
(b) If, however, the petition/communication is found to be not a
complaint falling under section 12(a) of the Act but relates to
any other clause in Section 12, the same shall be placed
forthwith before the Registrar, who shall cause it to be
transmitted under acknowledgment to the Secretary General,
who shall place it with a brief note before the full Commission
as early as possible."
"14. Registration. (a) A common register shall be maintained
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
in the Law Division for entering in serial order the case number
with State Code and year of Registration, the corresponding
diary number and the State to which the incident relates in
respect of each complaint to be registered. Immediately on
completion of the scrutiny, entry shall be made in the common
register and the case number assigned to the complaint along
with State Code shall be entered at the top right-hand corner of
the complaint in red ink and also in the space provided in the
Scrutiny Report.
(b) File covers shall be got printed as in Form No. 3 Records
relating to each complaint shall be kept in a separate file cover
arranging them chronologically in the following order.
(iii) Scrutiny Report in Form No. 1/Form No. 2, as the case
may be
(iv) Complaint with annexures, if any
(v)...............
(vi) .............
(c) The case file shall then be transmitted forthwith to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
officer in-charge of the listing section for placing the matter
before the Commission."
"21. Preliminary consideration, Issue of Notice, etc.- (a) If
on consideration of the complaint the Commission dismisses the
complaint in limini, the said order shall be communicated to the
complainant in Form No. 6 and the case shall be treated as
closed.
(b) If on consideration of the complaint or suo motu the
Commission admits/take cognizance and directs issue of notice
to any authority calling upon it to furnish information/report,
a notice in Form No. 7 shall be issued, enclosing a copy of the
complaint thereto. Such notice shall be signed by the Assistance
Registrar.
(c) If no time is fixed by the Commission for the return of
notice/furnishing of information/report, the time shall be 30
days from the date of service of the notice.
(d) If, however, the Commission issues any other direction or
order, action shall forthwith be taken accordingly.
(e) If the reports information is not received from the concerned
authority within the given time, or received late or not complete
in all respects, the case shall be placed before the Commission or
further direction.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
(f) Intimation of the order referred to in Clauses (b) and (d)
shall be given to the complainant forthwith."
ANALYSIS OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT
AND THE REGULATIONS IN THE CONSPECTUS OF THE
FACTS OF THE CASE:
[11] A plain reading of Section 2(d) of the Act makes it clear
that the legislature has specifically defined what constitutes
"human rights" under the Act. As per legislative intent, "human
rights" are those rights relating to life, liberty, equality, and dignity
of an individual, which are either guaranteed by the Constitution or
embodied in the International Covenants and are enforceable by
courts in India. In other words, only those rights which have a
direct nexus with life, liberty, equality, and dignity, and which are
constitutionally guaranteed, fall within the definition of "human
rights." A dispute between private individuals regarding private
property cannot be said to be a right guaranteed by the
Constitution. Rights relating to private property are required to be
adjudicated and resolved by a competent Civil Court. Therefore,
such rights are not included within the scope and ambit of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. The essential requirement
for any right to qualify as a "human right" under the Act is that it
must be guaranteed by the Constitution.
[12] On examining Section 12 of the Act, it is evident that
the legislature has defined the powers and functions of the
Commission. For the present case, Sections 12(a) and 12(b) are
particularly relevant. Under Section 12(a), the Commission is
empowered to inquire, either suo motu or on a complaint, into
allegations of violation of human rights, abetment thereof, or
negligence in preventing such violation by a public servant. A
private property dispute between individuals does not amount to a
violation of human rights and, therefore, does not fall within the
scope of inquiry under Section 12(a) of the Act.
[12.1] Further, Section 12(b) provides that where
proceedings relating to an alleged human rights violation are
already pending before a court, the Commission cannot intervene
without obtaining permission from that court. The legislative intent
behind this provision is to ensure that the Commission does not
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
interfere with or parallelly proceed in matters already under
judicial consideration, thereby preserving the primacy and
authority of the courts. It is, therefore, a clear statutory mandate
that the Commission must respect pending court proceedings and
refrain from intervening without prior approval of the concerned
Court.
[13] A careful reading of Section 17 of the Act shows that
the legislature has prescribed a specific procedure to be followed by
the Commission while dealing with complaints of human rights
violations. The inquiry contemplated under Section 17 is of
significance, and during such inquiry, the Commission is required
to call for information or reports from the concerned Government,
authority, or organisation against whom the allegation of violation
of human rights is made.
[14] With regard to Section 36 of the Act, a plain reading
makes it clear that the State Commission is barred from inquiring
into any complaint after the expiry of one year from the date on
which the alleged violation of human rights is stated to have
occurred. The legislature has thus placed an express limitation on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
the jurisdiction of the Commission to entertain complaints beyond
the prescribed period of one year. The intention is to prevent
consideration of stale or delayed complaints.
[15] On a conjoint reading of the scheme of the Act along
with the Regulations, particularly Sections 12 and 29 of the Act
read with Regulation 9 of the Human Rights Regulations, 1994, it
is evident that the Commission is required to perform its statutory
functions only in matters falling within the scope of the Act.
Regulation 9, which is applicable to the State Human Rights
Commission, empowers the Commission to dismiss a complaint at
the threshold if it does not disclose a case of violation of human
rights or falls within the categories specified therein:
"9. Complaints not ordinarily entertainable. - The
Commission may dismiss in limine complaints of the following
nature:
(i) ........;
(ii) ........;
(iii)..........;
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
(iv).........;
(v) barred under Section 36 (2) of the Act;
(vi) allegation is not against any public servant;
(vii) the issue raised relates to civil dispute, such as property
rights, contractual obligations and the like;
(viii)............;
(ix)..........;
(x) ..........;
(xi) matter is sub judice before a court or tribunal;
(xii) ..............;
(xiii) ..............;
(xiv) the matter is outside the purview of the Commission on
any other ground."
[16] On a combined reading of the relevant provisions of
the Act and the Human Rights Regulations, 1994, it is clear that the
complaint filed by respondent No.4 before respondent No.3-
Commission regarding her alleged share in the property was wholly
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
misconceived. The dispute was already pending before the
competent Civil Court, and the allegations of so-called human
rights violations were made against private individuals who are not
public servants. Therefore, the proceedings initiated by the
Commission were legally untenable, not maintainable, and amount
to an abuse of the process of law. The complaint was filed with
mala fide intent to resolve a private property dispute under the
guise of human rights violations and to overreach the civil
proceedings already initiated by respondent No.4 herself. It appears
that after the complaint was filed, the Commission issued summons
as well as bailable and non-bailable warrants, which ultimately
resulted in a settlement being reached in favour of respondent No.4
by coercing the petitioners. The present case, therefore, is a clear
example of abuse of legal process. Unfortunately, the Human
Rights Commission committed a serious error in entertaining such a
complaint and in initiating proceedings, including issuance of
summons and warrants. For the reasons stated above, the
Commission could not have initiated proceedings on such a vague
complaint, especially when it lacked jurisdiction under Sections 12,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
29, and 36(2) of the Act read with Regulation 9 of the Regulations,
1994.
[17] It further appears that before issuing notices,
summons, and warrants, and before taking cognizance of the
complaint filed by respondent No.4, the Commission did not
conduct any preliminary inquiry as required under the Act. The
Commission ought to have first examined whether the complaint
was fit to be entertained, whether it had prima facie jurisdiction,
and whether the dispute fell within the scope of Section 36 of the
Act or Regulation 9 of the Regulations, 1994. Only after such
satisfaction could the complaint have been entertained. Had the
Commission exercised due care and conducted the preliminary
inquiry contemplated under law, the present situation would not
have arisen. Instead, the Commission acted in undue haste. This is
evident from the notice dated 12th June 2025, wherein it was
specifically directed that the parties should take necessary steps to
give a share to respondent No.4 as per prevailing custom through
mediation and settle the dispute. This clearly reflects the manner in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
which the proceedings were initiated and pursued.
[18] From the facts on record, it is evident that the
petitioners and respondent No.4 are related to each other.
Respondent No.4 had relinquished her rights in favour of the
petitioners by a registered deed dated 23 rd November 2015. She
thereafter filed Regular Civil Suit No.149 of 2025 on 9 th April 2025
before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar,
seeking cancellation of the relinquishment deed, declaration,
injunction, and partition, which is presently pending. Despite this,
respondent No.4 initiated proceedings before the Commission in
respect of the same land, claiming a share in the property by
alleging violation of human rights. The Commission mechanically
entertained the complaint and issued notices and summons
directing the petitioners to remain present, which ultimately
resulted in a settlement. Consequently, the civil suit filed by
respondent No.4 stood virtually allowed without any judicial
adjudication. The circumstances speak for themselves. Therefore,
with due respect to respondent No.3-Commission, being a
constitutional authority, this Court refrains from making any
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
further observations regarding the exercise of jurisdiction not
vested in it.
[19] In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court
is firmly of the opinion that the initiation of inquiry by respondent
No.3 in a private dispute between two private individuals not only
exceeded its jurisdiction but also amounted to usurpation of the
powers of the Civil Court. The Human Rights Commission is a
statutory body constituted under the Act and is expected to
function strictly within the limits of its statutory authority.
Proceedings under the Act are not meant for settlement of private
property disputes. The Commission cannot conduct inquiries or
proceedings in a casual manner that defeats the object and intent of
the legislature. It is expected to exercise its powers with due
caution and circumspection. Before initiating any proceedings, the
Commission must form at least a prima facie opinion regarding the
existence of a human rights violation. The Commission is also
required to be vigilant, particularly where the complaint itself
discloses that the dispute is predominantly civil in nature and
requires adjudication by a court of law. In the present case, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
dispute is admittedly a private property dispute between
individuals. Therefore, the Commission ought to have applied its
mind before initiating proceedings under the Act as to whether the
dispute fell within the scope of the Human Rights Act. Entertaining
such a complaint, issuing summons, and taking cognizance can
have serious consequences. In the present case, no such due
consideration was shown, and the proceedings were initiated in a
casual manner, which, in the opinion of this Court, amounts to
usurpation of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. A grievance
relating to share in property cannot, by any stretch of imagination,
be treated as a violation of human rights. Even assuming that the
Commission was of the view that there was a human rights
violation, it was still incumbent upon it to first ascertain whether
any civil proceedings were pending before a court of law and, if so,
to obtain prior permission from the concerned court before
proceeding further, as mandated by law.
[20] In view of the aforesaid, it is observed and held that the
initiation of proceedings by the respondent No.4 before the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
respondent No.3 - Commission was not tenable in law and can be
said to be vexatious and filed with mala fide intention to settle the
private property dispute and even exercise of jurisdiction by the
respondent No.3 in entertaining such complaint by taking
cognizance by issuing Notices, summons, bailable / non-bailable
warrants are also wholly without jurisdiction being beyond the
scope and ambit of the Commission.
[21] Before concluding the present proceedings, and while
exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
this Court considers it appropriate to issue certain directions and
guidelines regarding the jurisdiction and exercise of powers by the
Human Rights Commission under the Protection of Human Rights
Act, 1993. These directions are issued to ensure that, in future, the
powers under the Act are not abused and the process of law is not
misused. The Court deems it necessary to lay down such guidelines
to effectively achieve the object and purpose of the Protection of
Human Rights Act, 1993, as set out hereunder:
(i) Before taking suo motu cognizance and / or upon any
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
complaint of complainant, the Human Rights
Commission shall conduct a primary scrutiny to
ascertain whether allegation prima facie discloses any
violation of human rights, as defined under Section
2(1)(d) of the Act. For exercising suo motu powers, the
Commission shall have to be more vigilant and such
exercise of powers shall not be on a casual information,
but shall be based on prima facie trustworthy material
and disclosure thereof shall have to be recorded in the
order by which suo motu cognizance is taken;
(ii) While taking cognizance and / or entertaining
complaint(s) alleging violation of human rights, the
Commission shall take into consideration the
Regulation 9 of the National Human Rights Commission
(Procedure) Regulations, 1994 and consider whether
the allegation (s) / complaint(s) falls in any of the
provisions of Regulation 9 of the Regulations 1994;
(iii) The Human Rights Commission shall not entertain any
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
complaint which predominantly involve private civil
dispute including the disputes relating to title,
possession, succession, partition, Release Deed,
Contracts or other matters squarely falling within the
domain of the Civil Court unless there is a
demonstrable involvement of the State action resulting
in a recognizable human rights violation;
(iv) The Human Rights Commission shall have to seek
declaration from the complainant with regard to any
ongoing proceeding before any Court of law for the
same subject matter. If it appears that there is a
proceeding on going, the Commission shall refrain itself
from proceeding further usurping the powers of the
competent Civil Court. The Commission shall ensure
that its inquiry does not run parallel, overlap with or
does not obstruct the judicial proceedings or does not
result in conflicting with the determination of issues
pending adjudication before the Court;
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
(v) Any decision taking cognizance of a complaint must be
after holding preliminary inquiry and supported by a
brief written order recording the satisfaction of the
Commission that;
(a) The complainant discloses a prima facie case of
violation of human rights; and
(b) Inquiry by the Commission is legally maintainable
under the Act;
(vi) The Human Rights Commission shall exercise due
diligence before issuing summons, notices, warrants
ensuring that;
(a) Such measures are taken only after proper
application of mind, more particularly, issuance
of warrants shall not be in a casual manner. The
mode of issuance of warrants shall be the last
resort with a recording of brief reasons thereof;
(b) The tone and tenor of all the communications
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
shall be neutral and judicial in character;
(vii) Unnecessary impleadment of public officials in purely
private matters is to be strictly avoided. The public
officials, in any case, shall not have to be called upon
personally before the Commission in a casual manner
and if at all need be, considering the seriousness, the
officials shall have to be allowed to be remained
present by online proceeding;
(viii) Public Officials shall not be arraigned as party in any
private dispute;
(ix) The Human Rights Commission shall periodically
undertake training of its members and staffs on:
(a) Statutory limits of jurisdiction;
(b) Distinction between civil rights and human rights;
(c) Proper exercise of powers while undertaking
inquiry;
(x) The Human Rights Commission must be guided by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8914/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/01/2026
undefined
legislative intent and must ensure that the
Commission's function is as a protector of the genuine
human rights and not as an alternative forum for Civil
Dispute Resolution.
[22] For the foregoing reasons, present petition is allowed.
The impugned proceedings initiated by the respondent No.4 before
the respondent No.3 - Gujarat State Human Rights Commission, if
any pending, against the petitioners are hereby quashed and set
aside. No order as to costs.
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J)
CHANDRESH
