Karnataka HC Strikes Down Rule 6 Of Human Rights Courts Rules | Says Direct Complaints To Sessions Court May Cause Double Jeopardy
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice S Rachaiah declared Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules, 2006 as unconstitutional and inconsistent with the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. The Court issued directions striking down Rule 6, quashing the registration of FIR in Crime No.15/2024, and nullifying the investigation order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Vijayapura. The judgment holds that the said Rule impermissibly expands the statutory mechanism under the Central Act and thus stands in violation of the legislative intent, rendering it ultra vires the powers conferred under Section 41 of the 1993 Act.
The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules, 2006. The petitioners sought to strike down the said rule as being contrary to the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. They also sought to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.15/2024 and the related proceedings pending before the Principal Sessions Judge and Special Court, Vijayapura, in PCR No.1/2024.
The second respondent in the case had been apprehended on 12.05.2023 in Crime No.30/2023 registered at Jalanagar Police Station, Vijayapura, under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 114, 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. Subsequently, on 19.01.2024, the second respondent filed a private complaint before the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for Human Rights Court, Vijayapura, alleging violation of his human rights by the petitioners.
Upon reviewing the private complaint, the Trial Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Vijayapura, to investigate and submit a report. Aggrieved by this action, the petitioners approached the High Court, contending that such investigation and adjudication fall outside the scope of the statutory procedure under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
The petitioners argued that the Act is a Central legislation governing human rights violations and provides for the establishment of Human Rights Commissions at both the Central and State levels. They contended that complaints relating to violations of human rights must first be lodged before the respective Human Rights Commissions, which alone have the power to inquire, investigate, and recommend action under the Act.
According to the petitioners, Section 41 of the Protection of Human Rights Act empowers State Governments to frame rules only concerning administrative matters such as salaries, allowances, and conditions of service. It does not authorize the States to create adjudicatory mechanisms or procedural routes inconsistent with the central enactment. Consequently, Rule 6, which permits the filing of complaints directly before Courts constituted under Section 30 of the Act, bypasses the statutory framework and is thus ultra vires.
On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the second respondent defended the constitutional validity of Rule 6, arguing that the State Government has the power under Section 41 to enact necessary procedural rules. It was submitted that the Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules, 2006, comprising seven rules, were duly published in the Official Gazette on 25.01.2006. The Rules, it was argued, are in consonance with the objective of protecting human rights.
The second respondent further contended that having suffered alleged violations at the hands of the petitioners, he had the legal right to approach the competent Court by filing a private complaint. The Trial Court’s reference of the matter to the Superintendent of Police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC was described as lawful and appropriate.
The Additional Advocate General for the State adopted the arguments advanced by the counsel for the second respondent and sought dismissal of the petition.
The Court referred to Section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and stated in "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."
The Court then addressed the core question—whether a victim can directly lodge a complaint before a Court under Rule 6 of the Karnataka Rules or must first approach the Human Rights Commission. It recorded that "when the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity...are violated, the aggrieved party...is empowered to lodge a complaint before the Commission."
The Court elaborated on the procedural framework of the Act, quoting extensively from Sections 13, 14, 17, and 18. Regarding the Commission’s power to inquire and investigate, it stated "The Commission shall...have all the powers of a civil court...and may, for the purpose of conducting any investigation...utilise the services of any officer or investigation agency..."
The judgment stated that "the inquiry has to be conducted by the Commission as if it is a preliminary inquiry... and if it opines that there is a violation... it has to submit the report to the Government."
It further stated that "enacting Rule 6...appears to be contrary to the provisions of the Act" and that permitting a direct complaint to a Court "would lead to not only disrupting the legislative intent and scheme but also invading the Central Act."
Discussing the doctrine of ultra vires and the extent of delegated rule-making power under Section 41, the Court observed "The delegation of power to the State...is only to make necessary rules as envisaged under Section 41...If any Rules are made contrary...it becomes not only contrary to the main Act but also, the principle of the doctrine of eclipse would be applicable."
The Court issued the following directions:
The Writ Petition was allowed. Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules, 2006 was declared "unconstitutional and inconsistent with the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993" and was ordered to be struck down. Consequently, the registration of FIR in Crime No.15/2024 was quashed.
The Court further nullified the order dated 20.01.2024 issued by the Principal Sessions Judge, Vijayapura, in PCR No.1/2024 directing investigation, stating that such order "does not survive for consideration." The judgment was declared to operate prospectively. All pending applications were deemed disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Sri V.M. Sheelavant and Sri Sanjay Kulkarni, Advocates
For the Respondents: Sri Malhara Rao K., Additional Advocate General, and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, High Court Government Pleader ; Sri Ashok Haranahalli, Senior Counsel for Sri S.S. Mamadapur, Advocate
Case Title: Vijay Mahantesh Mathapati & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC-K:4116
Case Number: WP No. 200873 of 2024
Bench: Justice S Rachaiah
