Supreme Court upholds Karnataka rule allowing direct access to Human Rights Courts

The case concerns the validity of Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules, 2006, which allows victims to directly approach Human Rights Courts for complaints against public servants without first going to the State Human Rights Commission. The Supreme Court examined whether this rule is consistent with the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

Who it concerns: Appellant: Sayad Asifulla; Respondents: State of Karnataka & Ors.; Bench: Justice Vikram Nath.

What the court decided

• The Court held that Rule 6 of the 2006 Rules is not inconsistent with the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
• The Court ruled that the rule-making power under Section 41 of the 1993 Act is not limited to the specific matters listed in Section 41(2).
• The Court determined that prior recourse to the Human Rights Commission is not a mandatory condition precedent for approaching the Human Rights Court.
• The Court upheld the validity of Rule 6, which prescribes the procedure for filing complaints and directing investigations.

Also in the document

• The Court clarified that the functions of Human Rights Commissions (inquisitorial/recommendatory) and Human Rights Courts (judicial) are distinct.
• The Court noted that Rule 6 does not create new offences or punishments but merely provides procedural means to invoke the jurisdiction of Human Rights Courts.
• The Court stated that reading a requirement for prior Commission inquiry into the statute would amount to supplying a condition Parliament did not enact.