'Exercised powers not conferred': Gujarat HC rebukes state's rights panel for settling private property dispute

Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court on Thursday ruled that property disputes between two private parties cannot be classified as cases of human rights violations and criticised the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC), where the dispute was settled, for exercising power and jurisdiction not conferred upon it.

"...the present case is a clear instance where the State Human Rights Commission has exercised powers and assumed jurisdiction which are not conferred upon it under law," the justice Niral R Mehta wrote in his judgement while quashing the case of property dispute which was settled due to commission's intervention.

The court refrained from making adverse comments stating that the human rights commission was a constitutional body. "The Commission cannot conduct inquiries or proceedings in a casual manner that defeats the object and intent of the legislature. It is expected to exercise its powers with due caution and circumspection," the judgement reads.

The judgement came on a petition moved by three persons against their relative who had filed a civil suit claiming ownership over a piece of land at Zundal village in Gandhinagar district. She had already filed a civil suit and later moved an application before the SHRC on the ground that her human rights had been violated.

The SHRC, according to petitioners, not only entertained the petition but also issued bailable and non-bailable warrants. The petitioners claimed that the manner in which notices were issued to them and the senior revenue officers indicated "an attempt to exert pressure" to settle a purely private dispute. The petitioners submitted that under pressure they gave statements expressing willingness to settle the dispute.

Subsequently, the dispute was settled which the petitioners challenged in the high court. "The commission effectively converted a civil property dispute into an alleged human rights violation in order to secure a settlement," the petitioners submitted.

Stating that the case was "a clear example of abuse of legal process", the court held that the commission "committed a serious error in entertaining such a complaint and in initiating proceedings, including issuance of summons and warrants."

Directing the commission to follow guidelines listed in the judgement, before taking cognisance or issuing notices, the court held "only those rights which have a direct nexus with life, liberty, equality, and dignity, and which are constitutionally guaranteed, fall within the definition of “human rights.”

"This Court is firmly of the opinion that the initiation of inquiry by respondent No.3 (SHRC) in a private dispute between two private individuals not only exceeded its jurisdiction but also amounted to usurpation of the powers of the Civil Court," the court held.