Delhi High Court
Asian Centre For Human Rights vs National Human Rights Commission on 26 July, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 26th July, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 8212/2009
ASIAN CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
Versus
NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. B.S. Gautham, Adv.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may Yes
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The challenge in this petition is to the letter dated 18 th/19th February, 2009 of the respondent NHRC intimating to the petitioner that NHRC had on 17th February, 2009, upon failure of the petitioner to comment on the report of Superintendent of Police, Golaghat, assumed that the petitioner has nothing further to urge in the matter and closed the case. W.P.(C) No.8212/2009 Page 1 of 6
2. Though this petition was listed on several occasions but was neither admitted nor notice thereof issued. On 9th July, 2010, the petition was taken up along with several other petitions also preferred by the petitioner against other orders of NHRC and records of NHRC requisitioned. On 9th September, 2010, the counsel for respondent NHRC informed that the records were not available. Accordingly, the records were directed to be re- constructed.
3. The counsel for the respondent NHRC today states that no records are available with NHRC. The counsels have been heard.
4. The petitioner had complained to the NHRC of arbitrary shooting at Ms. Aiti Bora aged 40 years of Bheleuguri under Merapani Police Station in Golaghat District by personnel of the Naga Armed Police.
5. The respondent NHRC on receipt of the aforesaid complaint called for a report from the Chief Secretary of the Government of Assam. In response thereto the Superintendent of Police, Golaghat submitted a report stating that the husband of the said Ms. Aiti Bora had on 23 rd March, 2005 reported that W.P.(C) No.8212/2009 Page 2 of 6 the said Smt. Aiti Bora, while she was washing clothes in the river, had received injury on her foot by a gun shot fired by Naga Armed Police; that enquires had revealed that the Jawans / personnel of Naga Armed Police were hunting birds in the area and in the process a pellet had hit the right foot of Ms. Aiti Bora; that she was taken to the hospital and given the necessary treatment.
6. The aforesaid report was forwarded on 1st October, 2008 by NHRC to the petitioner complainant.
7. The petitioner complainant contends that though the petitioner had duly delivered their comments thereto to the respondent NHRC in November, 2008 itself but respondent NHRC in proceedings on 17 th February, 2009 wrongly proceeded on the premise that no comments had been submitted by the petitioner and closed the complaint.
8. I have examined the comments stated to have been submitted by the petitioner to the report aforesaid. All that the petitioner stated in the same was that the report confirmed that Ms. Aiti Bora had been shot at by W.P.(C) No.8212/2009 Page 3 of 6 personnel of the Naga Armed Police and thus the State Government should be directed to pay compensation to Ms. Aiti Bora. The comments of the petitioner no where controvert the manner and circumstances in which the said Ms. Aiti Bora suffered the injury, as reported by the Superintendent of Police, Golaghat.
9. I have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner whether injury caused in the facts and circumstances can be said to be a violation of human rights, for the respondent NHRC to have jurisdiction. To be fair to the counsel for the petitioner, he has been unable to urge so.
10. The function of the respondent NHRC under Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 is to inter alia enquire into, intervene in violations of human rights. Every injury caused, cannot be said to be violation of human rights. NHRC was/is not intended to provide remedy or redressal for all injuries. The House of Lords in Chief Adjudication Officer Vs. Faulds [2000] 1 WLR 1035 and Fenton Vs. J. Thorley & Co. Ltd. [1903] AC 443 held that an "accident" and "injury" must be treated as W.P.(C) No.8212/2009 Page 4 of 6 conceptually distinct, so that injury caused by accident cannot be treated as meaning the same as accidental injury. An accident is an event which was not intended by the person who suffers the misfortune and although intended by the person who caused to occur resulted in a misfortune which he did not intend. The distinction was recently discussed in detail by the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in Secretary of State for Work & Pensions Vs. James Scullion 2010 WL 889483. The word "violation" connotes "infringement, breach of right or duty, an act of breaking, infringing or transgressing, attack and assault" and which all elements are definitely missing in an accident. The petitioner has been unable to refute that the injury to the aggrieved was not intended by the personnel / jawan of the Naga Armed Police. Even if the injury so caused accidently to the aggrieved is actionable in law, such action would still not fall within the domain of respondent NHRC.
11. I am therefore of the opinion that even if the reply / comments of the petitioner were considered by the respondent NHRC, still no case of violation of human rights was made out on the complaint and thus no error is W.P.(C) No.8212/2009 Page 5 of 6 found with the order of the respondent NHRC.
The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) JULY 26, 2011 „gsr‟ (corrected and released on 23rd August, 2011) W.P.(C) No.8212/2009 Page 6 of 6