Gujarat High Court Clarifies Human Rights Commission's Jurisdiction in Land Dispute
The Gujarat High Court delivered a significant judgment on Thursday, quashing proceedings initiated by the Gujarat State Human Rights Commission in a family property dispute. The court firmly stated that private property disputes cannot be treated as human rights violations.
Court Criticizes Commission's Hasty Actions
Justice NR Mehta, in a detailed 40-page judgment, observed that the Human Rights Commission acted with undue haste. The court noted that the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction and effectively usurped the powers of the civil court.
"The Commission cannot conduct inquiries or proceedings in a casual manner that defeats the object and intent of the legislature," the judgment stated. "It is expected to exercise its powers with due caution and circumspection."
Specific Guidelines Issued for Future Proceedings
The High Court issued clear directions to ensure the Human Rights Commission does not misuse its powers under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. These guidelines include:
- Conducting primary scrutiny to ascertain any violation of human rights before taking suo motu cognizance
- Refraining from entertaining complaints predominantly involving private civil disputes
- Seeking declarations from complainants about any ongoing court proceedings
- Exercising due diligence before issuing summons, notices, and warrants
- Avoiding unnecessary impleadment of public officials in purely private matters
The court specifically directed the Commission to be "more vigilant" and not to exercise powers "on casual information" but only on "prima facie trustworthy material."
Background of the Property Dispute
The case originated from a Special Civil Application filed by Mahendra Patel, Rakesh Patel, and Bharat Patel. They were involved in a property dispute with their relative, Sharda Naran Patel.
Records show that Sharda Patel had relinquished her one-fourth share in the contested lands through a registered sale deed in 2015. However, in April 2025, she filed a civil suit seeking cancellation of the relinquishment deed, declaration, injunction, and partition.
While this civil suit remained pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge in Gandhinagar, Sharda Patel simultaneously initiated proceedings before the Human Rights Commission in 2025. She claimed a share in the property by alleging human rights violations.
Court's Strong Observations on Jurisdiction
The High Court made several critical observations about the Commission's jurisdiction:
- Private property disputes between individuals do not constitute human rights violations under the Constitution
- The Commission should have applied its mind before initiating proceedings
- A grievance relating to property share cannot be treated as a human rights violation
- The Commission's actions resulted in settlement without proper judicial adjudication
"A dispute between private individuals regarding private property cannot be said to be a right guaranteed by the Constitution," the judgment emphasized.
Consequences of the Commission's Actions
The court noted that the Commission took cognizance of the complaint after a lapse of ten years. By issuing notices and summons, the Commission effectively allowed the civil suit to be settled without proper judicial process.
"Had the Commission exercised due care and conducted the preliminary inquiry contemplated under law, the present situation would not have arisen," the judgment stated. "Instead, the Commission acted in undue haste."
The High Court ultimately quashed and set aside all proceedings against the petitioners before the Human Rights Commission. The court described Sharda Patel's initiation of proceedings before the Commission as "not tenable in law" and potentially "vexatious and filed with mala fide intention."
This judgment establishes important boundaries for human rights commissions across India, clarifying that their powers should not extend to private civil disputes unless there is demonstrable state action resulting in recognizable human rights violations.
