The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) is a “mere recommendatory body” under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, with no authority to issue binding directions, orders, judgments or writs akin to a court.
Setting aside NHRC directions in a Faridabad-linked matter, a Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry ruled that the Commission had acted beyond jurisdiction by ordering transfer of criminal investigation, directing departmental action against public servants and seeking their transfer from present postings.
The judgment is significant as it addresses a larger and recurring legal question –– whether recommendations made by human rights commissions carry binding force or whether it can exercise adjudicatory powers resembling those of constitutional courts.
The court asserted the answer lay in the plain language of the 1993 Act itself. “We are concerned about the fact that National Human Rights Commission passed the impugned directions without any authority of law,” the Bench observed.
Referring to the statutory scheme, the High Court held that the Commission “can merely recommend” action to the government, including compensation for victims or disciplinary proceedings against officials found involved in human rights violations.
Tracing the legislative backdrop, the Bench noted that the 1993 Act — enacted for “better protection of human rights and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto” — was rooted in the United Nations General Assembly resolution of December 16, 1966. But neither the object of the law nor its text contemplated the Commission assuming judicial powers.
“On a bare perusal of the object underlying the 1993 Act and the clear and plain language of its text, it is obvious that the commission is a recommendatory body and has never been envisaged to assume the role of a court,” the Bench asserted.
The court added that the statute repeatedly used the expression “recommendation” — both for interim and final relief — revealing clear legislative intent. Resolving differing views on the issue, the Bench invoked the principle of plain statutory interpretation, holding that where the statutory text was unambiguous, resort to purposive or other interpretive tools is unnecessary.
“Where the text of a statute (1993 Act) is plain and unambiguous to reveal that the Commission is a recommendatory body, then resort to other principles of statutory interpretation, purposive or otherwise, would be an exercise in futility and redundancy,” the court held.
The Bench added Chapters III and IV of the Act repeatedly employed the term “recommendation”, demonstrating that the Commission lacked power “to issue directions, orders, judgments, or writs, which power is unique to a court.”
At the same time, the High Court clarified that treating NHRC as recommendatory did not render it toothless. Referring to Section 18(b) of the 1993 Act, the Bench pointed out that the Commission has statutory recourse to approach constitutional courts.
“Even if the Commission is held to be a recommendatory body, it is not remediless,” the court said, noting that NHRC could seek “directions, orders or writs” from the Supreme Court or High Courts where necessary.
“This little disadvantage faced by the Commission owing to its inherent nature as a recommendatory body, is compensated by the remedy of approaching the Supreme Court or the High Court,” the Bench added.
