Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Gujarat Single Bench of Justice Niral R. Mehta quashed the Gujarat State Human Rights Commission’s proceedings arising from a family property dispute, holding that a demand for a share in property cannot be treated as a human-rights violation. The petition was allowed and the Commission’s proceedings, including its notices and related process against private parties, were set aside. The complaint before the Commission was filed by one family member alleging denial of her property share, despite the dispute being the subject of pending civil litigation. The Court held that proceedings under the Protection of Human Rights Act are not meant for settlement of private civil disputes and issued detailed directions to regulate the Commission’s jurisdiction and procedure in such matters.

The petitioners invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging proceedings initiated before the Gujarat State Human Rights Commission in a complaint alleging violation of human rights in relation to a private property dispute. The dispute concerned several parcels of land at village Zundal, District Gandhinagar, which had devolved through succession and were subject to revenue entries and registered relinquishment deeds. Respondent No.4 had executed a registered relinquishment deed in 2015 in favour of the petitioners and others.

Also Read: Regularisation Cannot Be Denied To Casual Workers Once Similarly Situated Daily Wagers Have Been Regularised: Supreme Court

Subsequently, she instituted a civil suit seeking cancellation of the deed, declaration, injunction, and partition, which was pending before the competent Civil Court. During the pendency of the suit, she approached the Commission alleging violation of her human rights for not being given a share in the property.

The Commission issued notices and summons, including bailable and non-bailable warrants. The petitioners contended that the dispute was purely civil, barred by limitation under Section 36 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and beyond the jurisdiction conferred under Sections 12 and 29 read with Regulation 9 of the 1994 Regulations.

The Court stated, "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."

On what constitutes “human rights” for the Act’s purposes, the Court recorded, "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." It observed, "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.”

 It stated, "A dispute between private individuals regarding private property cannot be said to be a right guaranteed by the Constitution." It recorded, "Rights relating to private property are required to be adjudicated and resolved by a competent Civil Court." It stated, "The essential requirement for any right to qualify as a “human right” under the Act is that it must be guaranteed by the Constitution."

Turning to the maintainability of the complaint before the Commission, the Court observed, "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 misconceived." It stated, "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." It recorded, "Therefore, the proceedings initiated by the Commission were legally untenable, not maintainable, and amount to an abuse of the process of law." It stated, "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 recorded, "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." It stated, "The present case, therefore, is a clear example of abuse of legal process." It recorded, "Unfortunately, the Human Rights Commission committed a serious error in entertaining such a complaint and in initiating proceedings, including issuance of summons and warrants." It stated, "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, 29, and 36(2) of the Act read with Regulation 9 of the Regulations, 1994."

On the manner of exercise of jurisdiction, the Court stated, "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." It recorded, "Proceedings under the Act are not meant for settlement of private property disputes." It stated, "Before initiating any proceedings, the Commission must form at least a prima facie opinion regarding the existence of a human rights violation." It recorded, "Entertaining such a complaint, issuing summons, and taking cognizance can have serious consequences." It stated, "A grievance relating to share in property cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be treated as a violation of human rights."

The Court directed that “Before taking suo motu cognizance and / or upon any 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.”

“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.”

“The Human Rights Commission shall not entertain any 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. 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.”

“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. 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 shall be neutral and judicial in character.”

Also Read: Father’s Failure To Protect Married Daughter Returning Home Alleging Abuse By Husband May Be A Factor Leading Her To Commit Suicide: Gujarat High Court

“Unnecessary impleadment of public officials in purely private matters is to be strictly avoided. Public Officials shall not be arraigned as party in any private dispute. 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.”

“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.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Tattvam K. Patel, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Kanva Antani, A.G.P.; Mr. G. H. Virk, Government Pleader with Ms. Dharitri Pancholi, A.G.P.; Mr. R. P. Patel, Advocate

Case Title: Mahendra Shanabhai Patel & Ors. v. The District Magistrate & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026: GUJHC:2718
Case Number: R/Special Civil Application No. 8914 of 2025
Bench: Justice Niral R. Mehta