Bombay High Court Declines to Intervene in SHRC Ruling
The Bombay High Court has refused to entertain a petition challenging the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission's order that had dismissed a woman's complaint about her son being sexually assaulted at a drug rehabilitation centre in Thane district.
Justices Bharati Dangre and Shyam Chandak delivered the ruling on Wednesday while hearing the mother's petition filed in 2020, which challenged the SHRC's September 2018 order.
Background of the Disturbing Case
The case dates back to August 2013 when the woman's son, who was then 24 years old, was admitted to the rehabilitation centre in Thane district. According to the complaint, the alleged sexual assault occurred during his stay at the facility.
After spending a month at the centre and returning home, the young man exhibited severe psychological trauma. His mother stated that he felt frustrated, humiliated, and was full of anger, requiring immediate medical treatment and psychological care.
The family's ordeal with the justice system began when local police refused to accept the son's complaint and allegedly pressured him to settle the matter informally rather than pursuing legal action.
Long Battle for Justice
In February 2015, the determined mother lodged a formal written complaint, but authorities took no cognizance of it. This forced her to approach the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission in March 2015, seeking intervention and justice for her son.
The SHRC initiated an investigation by calling for a report from the sub-divisional police officer (SDPO). The investigation included statements from multiple witnesses, which presented conflicting accounts of what transpired.
One witness who met the son immediately after he left the rehabilitation centre claimed the young man had disclosed his intention to initiate proceedings to recover compensation from the centre's officials.
However, another witness described the son's behavior as typical of a drug addict and categorically stated that he was not physically assaulted, though he was mentally unstable at the time.
Adding complexity to the case, a psychiatrist involved in the matter stated that the patient was hallucinating and suffering from substance-induced psychosis due to excessive drinking habits.
Relying on these witness statements, the SDPO denied the accusations in the complaint and forwarded the report to SHRC, which ultimately formed the basis of the commission's decision to dismiss the case.
Legal Arguments and Court's Reasoning
During the High Court proceedings, the mother's advocate Amol Jagtap argued that the SHRC's order was unjustified because the investigative report primarily relied on statements from the rehabilitation centre's employees.
However, the bench emphasized that the High Court's scope of interference in such matters is limited. The judges noted that the SHRC, being a fact-finding body, had called for a proper report and, upon being satisfied that there was no substance in the complaint, closed the proceedings.
The court found no illegality in the SHRC order, stating it was based on factual reports, and therefore could not grant the mother any relief in the absence of contradictory evidence.
While dismissing the petition, the judges permitted the mother to file a private complaint before a magistrate, leaving open an alternative legal avenue for the family to pursue justice.
The case highlights the challenges families face in seeking justice in sensitive matters involving rehabilitation centres and the complex interplay between mental health issues and legal accountability.
