Court rules commission's actions as overreach and quashes its order for compensation and disciplinary actions against police officers.
In a significant judgment, the Madras High Court has quashed an order by the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission concerning the arrest of Lois Sofia, who was apprehended for raising slogans against a political figure at an airport. The court found that the commission overstepped its jurisdiction by assessing the merits of the complaint and conducting what amounted to a parallel trial.
The case originated from an incident on September 3, 2018, when Lois Sofia, a young woman, shouted slogans against Dr. Tamizhisai Soundararajan, then State President of the BJP, at the Tuticorin Airport. This led to a complaint and her subsequent arrest on charges including Section 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to statements conducing to public mischief.
The Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission, upon reviewing the complaint filed by Sofia's father, had earlier pointed out discrepancies in the arrest process and recommended a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 to Sofia, along with disciplinary actions against the police officers involved.
However, the High Court bench, comprising Dr. G. Jayachandran and Shamim Ahmed, ruled that the commission had exceeded its authority. The court observed that the commission's inference of mala fide intent on the part of the police, particularly regarding the inclusion of Section 505(1)(b) in the FIR, was speculative and beyond its jurisdiction. The judges emphasized that such determinations are within the purview of a trial court and not a human rights commission.
The court further noted that minor discrepancies in police documentation do not necessarily imply human rights violations and should be addressed during the trial process. Consequently, the High Court quashed the commission's order, stating that its actions were "per se illegal."
This ruling underscores the limitations on the powers of human rights commissions in India, particularly concerning their role in criminal investigations and trials. The decision is likely to impact how similar cases are handled in the future, ensuring that human rights bodies do not overreach their mandates.
Bottom Line:
Human Rights Commission's overreach in assessing merits of complaints and conducting parallel trials without jurisdiction is deemed illegal.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 290, 75(1)(c), and 505(1)(b) of the IPC
