Karnataka High Court Strikes Down State Rule Enabling Direct Private Complaints To Sessions Court, Says It May Lead To Double Jeopardy
The Karnataka High Court has struck down Rule 6 of Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules 2006, wherein a victim can directly approach a sessions court in a private complaint instead of Commission conducting an inquiry, holding it to be unconstitutional and inconsistent with the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.For context, Rule 6 states that a victim of an offence arising out of...
The Karnataka High Court has struck down Rule 6 of Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules 2006, wherein a victim can directly approach a sessions court in a private complaint instead of Commission conducting an inquiry, holding it to be unconstitutional and inconsistent with the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
For context, Rule 6 states that a victim of an offence arising out of violation of human rights, his legal representative, or a registered NGO or a public person may file a complaint against a public servant who has committed or abetted the commission of such an offence. The Court on receipt of such complaint, shall either order an investigation into the offence or it may proceed to conduct its own inquiry into the complaint in accordance with the procedure for dealing with private complaints in CrPC.
A court has been defined in the rules to mean a Court of Sessions designated as Human Rights Court by the State Government with the concurrence of Chief Justice of the High Court to try an offence of violation of human rights.
Justice S Rachaiah in his order said:
“The striking down of Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules, 2006 is justified in law and principle for the reason that, the Rule impermissibly expands the scope of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 by enabling the private party or victim to file a complaint directly by invoking the jurisdiction of the Court established under Section 30 of the Act, by bypassing the provisions of the Act. This would lead to not only disrupting the legislative intent and scheme, but also invading the Central Act.”
The court clarified that this judgment would not have any retrospective effect but would be prospective.
Background
The respondent had been apprehended on 12.05.2023 for the offences including rioting, murder and for being member of unlawful assembly of IPC as well as provisions of the Indian Arms Act.
On 19.01.2024, he filed a private complaint before the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for Human Rights Court, Vijayapura, stating that his human rights had been violated by the nine petitioners who are police officials.
The Trial Court, after considering the said private complaint, directed the Superintendent of Police, Vijayapura, to conduct the investigation and submit the report. Following which the petitioners approached the court seeking to quash the entire proceedings and also challenging the validity of Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules, 2006.
The petitioners argued that Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 is a Central legislation dealing with the offences of violation of human rights. The Central Government has formed the Human Rights Commission at the Central level.
It was argued that State Government had also formed a similar Commission at the State level as well and if any such grievance in respect of violation of human rights is there, the parties have to approach the Human Rights Commission at first instance and such complaints have to be dealt with by the Commission. Thereafter, those complaints would be forwarded to the Court for adjudication.
Further, the powers vested under the Act to the respective States have been envisaged under Section 41 of the Act, which deals with 'Power of State Government to make Rules'. Under such Rules, the Government without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, it has to deal with only the salaries and allowances, administrative conditions, annual statement of accounts etc. The power of the Government to make laws inconsistent with the Central Act cannot be permitted.
The counsel for respondent accused argued that when the Act itself provided certain benefits to the State to make Rules in order to secure the protection of human rights to the citizens, enacting Rules cannot be said to be ultra vires or contrary to the Act or Central enactment.
Findings
The bench referred to provisions of Protection of Human Rights Act which are Sections 13(Powers of Human Rights Commission relating to inquiries), 14(Investigation), 17(Inquiry into complaints of human rights violation) and 18(a)(ii) (where inquiry discloses the commission of violation of human rights commission may recommend initiation of proceedings for prosecution or such other suitable action as the Commission may deem fit against the concerned person or persons).
It thereafter said that the provisions make it clear that inquiry has to be conducted by the Commission as if it is a preliminary inquiry and it has to arrive at a conclusion and make a report in that regard to the Government or the Authority.
If the Commission feels that it is necessary to refer the report to the concerned authority and also opined that there is a violation of human rights, it "has to refer the matter to the Government or authority to initiate proceedings for prosecution or such other suitable action, as the Commission may deem fit, against the concerned person or persons".
Then it said “When the Commission is empowered to recommend initiating proceedings for prosecution, it amounts to double jeopardy if the victim approaches the Court directly by filing a private complaint.”
Emphasising that unlike other statutes namely, the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act, the Protection of Human Rights Act had no stand-alone offences to deal with directly by the Courts.
The court said, “The delegation of power to the State by the Central Government is only to make necessary rules as envisaged under Section 41 of the Act. If any Rules are made contrary to Section 41 of the Act or any of the provisions of the main Act, obviously, it becomes not only contrary to the main Act, but also, the principle of the doctrine of eclipse would be applicable. Therefore, the extent to which such a rule is made which is contrary to the main act has to be vitiated.”
Thus the court held that Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules, 2006 is unconstitutional and inconsistent with the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and also ultra vires the rule making power conferred under Section 41 of the Act.
"This judgment would not have any retrospective effect but would be prospective," the court added.
Accordingly the court quashed the FIR.
Case Title: Vijay Mahantesh Mathapati & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Appearance: Advocate V.M. Sheelavant and Sanjay Kulkarni, for Petitioners.
Additional Advocate General Malhara Rao K and HCGP Jamadar Shahbuddin for R1
Senior Advocate Ashok Haranahalli, for Advocate S.S.Mamadapur, for R2.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 261
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 200873 OF 2024