Safiya Malik

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh set aside an order issued by the now-defunct State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) on grounds of procedural impropriety and violation of natural justice. The SHRC had recommended a compensation of ₹1 lakh to an individual alleging custodial torture, along with directions to conclude an FIR related to the matter. The court found the SHRC's decision unsustainable as it was passed ex parte without providing the accused an opportunity to present their defense.

The petitioners, led by Mohammad Farooq Khan, challenged the SHRC's order dated January 10, 2008, which held them liable for custodial torture of the individual who had lodged the complaint. The order recommended a compensation of ₹1 lakh, to be borne jointly by the petitioners, and directed the continuation of investigations under FIR No. 89/2006 registered at Police Station Darhal, under Section 330 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC).

The allegations stemmed from an incident on November 5, 2006, when an individual was brought to District Hospital, Rajouri, in an injured state. The person accompanying him accused personnel from Police Station Darhal, including the Station House Officer (SHO) and a Sub-Inspector, of subjecting the individual to custodial torture. He had been arrested under FIR No. 71/2006, which charged him under Section 364 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) for suspected links to militant activities.

Subsequently, an inquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP), Rajouri, found insufficient evidence of torture and recommended closing the case. The closure report relied on witness statements recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and medical opinions obtained during the investigation. Dissatisfied with the findings of the police inquiry, the individual approached the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC), which ruled in his favor without summoning or providing the petitioners an opportunity to be heard.

The petitioners argued that the SHRC had violated principles of natural justice by passing its order without notifying them or providing an opportunity to present their defense. They also contended that the SHRC failed to consider the police investigation's findings, which concluded that the allegations were unsubstantiated.

The respondents, including the state, largely supported the petitioners' claims. Counsel for the state explained the steps taken to investigate the allegations and stated that the police inquiry found no evidence to support claims of custodial torture. The alleged victims did not appear before the court to rebut these claims.

The court examined the procedural lapses in the SHRC’s handling of the case and the findings of the police inquiry. The court noted: “From the order of the commission impugned, it transpires that the commission, without summoning the petitioners and without affording them an opportunity to defend themselves, passed the impugned order holding them guilty of subjecting the individual to torture.”

The bench, comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Puneet Gupta, observed that the SHRC was not bound by the findings of the police investigation but stated that the commission was required to adhere to basic principles of natural justice. The court recorded: “Before condemning the petitioners and imposing penalty upon them, it was incumbent upon the Commission to summon all the petitioners and provide them adequate opportunity of being heard.”

The bench further noted that the SHRC did not give due consideration to the police investigation, which concluded that the allegations of torture were unsubstantiated. The court observed that the alleged victim, had the option to file a protest petition if dissatisfied with the closure report, yet this option had not been exercised.

The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the SHRC’s order, stating: “The impugned order of the Commission is, therefore, in violation of the principle of natural justice and cannot sustain.”

The court chose not to remit the matter back to the SHRC for reconsideration, as the commission is no longer operational. Instead, it directed that if the closure report under FIR No. 89/2006 had not already been submitted, it should be filed before the competent court.

Case Title: Mohammad Farooq Khan & Ors. v. State Human Rights Commission & Ors.
Case Number: OWP No. 120/2008, IA No. 153/2008
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Puneet Gupta

[Read/Download order]