Court : Chennai
1. "Whether the Human Rights Commissions constituted under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 have power of adjudication in the sense of passing an order which can be enforced propri vigore?" These writ petitions are all about this important question. 2. The occurrence which has given rise to these litigations happened on 15.03.2000 in the Police Battalion Ground at Trichy. During the relevant time, the petitioner in these writ petitions, an I.P.S. Officer, was working as Commandant, TSP Battalion No.1, Trichy. His wife, Dr.Beela Rajesh, an I.A.S. Officer, during the relevant period, was working as Sub Collector at Chengalpattu. On date of occurrence, his wife along with two other women police constables was waiting near the Shuttlecock Court in the Battalion Ground to play. At that time, two police constable by name Prabhu and Anbarasan attached to Armed Reserve came near them and eve teased the women. The Police Constables by name Nagarathinam, Krishnamurthy, Shankar and Dinesh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. "Whether the Human Rights Commissions constituted under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 have power of adjudication in the sense of passing an order which can be enforced propri vigore?" These writ petitions are all about this important question. 2. The occurrence which has given rise to these litigations happened on 15.03.2000 in the Police Battalion Ground at Trichy. During the relevant time, the petitioner in these writ petitions, an I.P.S. Officer, was working as Commandant, TSP Battalion No.1, Trichy. His wife, Dr.Beela Rajesh, an I.A.S. Officer, during the relevant period, was working as Sub Collector at Chengalpattu. On date of occurrence, his wife along with two other women police constables was waiting near the Shuttlecock Court in the Battalion Ground to play. At that time, two police constable by name Prabhu and Anbarasan attached to Armed Reserve came near them and eve teased the women. The Police Constables by name Nagarathinam, Krishnamurthy, Shankar and Dinesh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE Sr.KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HONOURABLE Sr.JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.22658 of 2011 30-01-2014 Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd., Tirupathi..Petitioner A.P.State Human Rights Commission, Hyderabad, represented by its Secretary and another..Respondents COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: Sr.P.Vinod Kumar COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.1: None appeared COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.2: M/s Indus Law Firm GIST HEAD NOTE: ?.CITATIONS: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE Sr.KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P.No.22658 of 2011 ORDER: (per Hon'ble the Chief Justice Sr.Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta ) Pursuant to our order dated 23.01.2014, original record relating to this case has been sent by the Andhra Pradesh State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission').We have minutely checked up the record and we wish to record our observations hereunder. Since no counter-affidavit has been filed by any of the party ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
- 1 - NC:2023. KHC:25482-DB WP No.18208 of 2012 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE21T DAY OF JULY, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.NARENDAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION No.18208 OF2012(GM-RES) BETWEEN:1. SRI B S MANJUNATH, B.ED.,M.S.W AGED38YEARS S/O LATE SHIVALINGE GOWDA, INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE STATE INTELLIGENCE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560002.2. SRI. ARUN KUMAR, P.C., 152 AGED46YEARS S/O D. PANDU THALAGHATTAPURA POLICE STATION KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-560062 3. SRI. ANNAIAH, P.C., 98 AGED4YEARS S/O SANNAPPA RAMANAGARA TRAFFIC POLICE STATION RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P.S.RAJAGOPAL, SR . ADV. FOR SRI. K C SHANTAKUMAR., ADVOCATE) - 2 - NC:2023. KHC:25482-DB WP No.18208 of 2012 AND:1. SRI C MUNIKRISHNA, MAJOR, PRADHANA SANCHALAK, KARNATAKA DALITHA SANGHARSHA SAMITHI, NO.1, 148 H & S BUILDING, 9TH CROSS ROAD, LALBAGH FORT ROAD, DODDAMAVALLI, BANGALORE-560004.2. SRI. MUJI...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2662(SC); JT2009(7)SC562; 2009(8)SCALE65:2009AIRSCW3608
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by Smt. Jayanti Das w/o Late Jay Ram Das and Shri Bani Kanta Das S/o Late Jay Ram Das. Challenge in the writ petition is to the legality of the order passed by the Governor of Assam, conveyed by the Secretary, Judicial Department, Government of Assam. By the said order the Governor of Assam had directed to commute the sentence of death awarded to one Rajnath Chauhan @ Ramdeo Chauhan (hereinafter referred to as the `accused') to that of life imprisonment. The death sentence awarded to the convict by the trial Court was confirmed by the Guwahati High Court and was upheld by this Court.2. It is basically submitted that no reason has been indicated to direct such commutation and apparently the order of commutation had its foundation on recommendations made by the National Human Rights Commission (in short the `NHRC).3. It is basically stated that no reason was indicated as to why the Gover...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. U .P. Chapter of People's Union for Civil Liberties has brought this Public Interest Litigation petition, seeking certain directions to be issued by this Court in relation to rehabilitation and payment of compensation to the victims of alleged violation of human rights, which according to the petitioner, was committed in an incident of mass attack and arson on muslim residents of village Asthan, police station Nawabgangj, District Pratapgarh on 23.06.2012. The petitioner prays that apart from issuing direction for rehabilitation of the alleged affected persons and for payment of compensation to the victims for alleged violation of human rights, this Court may also command the State Government to take disciplinary action against the erring police and other officials. The petitioner also prays that an appropriate direction may be issued to conduct the investigation into the incident of 23.07.2012 in regard to which an FIR (Case Crime No. 95 of 2012) has been registered at police stati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE Sr.KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR Writ Petition No.4709 of 2012 23-01-2014 The Chairman,Board of Trustees of Coal Mines Provident Fund Ltd.,New Delhi and another...Petitioners The Andhra Pradesh State Human Rights Commission, Ministry of Home AffaiRs.New Delhi and another...Respondents For the petitioneRs.Sr.P.A.V.V.S.Sarma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Sr.A.Samir Kumar Reddy Sr.Emani Srinivas : ?.CITATIONS: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE Sr.KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR Writ Petition No.4709 of 2012 Order: (per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Sr.Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This writ petition has been filed challenging the report dated 27.10.2011. Nay, it would be better to term it as judgment and order or direction. Of course, from the impugned document, we noticed that Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as ".the Commission".) has described it to be an order. Before consideri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to quash the order passed by the State Human Rights Commission in case No.2096/2000/KSJ, dated 29.03.2002.2. The petitioner is the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Social Welfare & Nutritious Meal Programme Department and the challenge is to an order passed by the State Human Rights Commission awarding a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- as compensation to the respondents 2 & 3 for the death of their minor son with a direction to the State Government to pay the compensation by stating that the State is vicariously liable for the act done by its employees. 3. The facts of the case are that; the third respondent is the wife of the second respondent and their son Velan aged about 2 years was under the care and custody of a Child Care Centre, in Sanipatti village, Dharmapuri District. The allegation is, on 10.01.2000 at about 12.00 noon, when their son Velan was at the Centre to have the nutritious meal provided by the State...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
T.N.K. Singh, J.1. Heard Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Bimol, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned CGSC for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as well as Mr. Th. Ibohal, learned GA for respondent nos. 1 and 2.2. The core question involved in the present writ petition is; whether the Human Rights Commission can file the present Writ Petition for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the State respondents to discharge their duties contemplated in Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.3. The short facts which will suffice for deciding the core question formulated above are that: 'The Manipur Human Rights Commission' was constituted by the State Government of Manipur in exercising the power conferred by Section 21 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. By virtue of Section 29 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, provisions of Sections 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 shall also be applicable to the State Hum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 6805 of 2022 Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Appellant Association versus Union of India & others Respondents And With Civil Appeal No 6806 of 2022 1 JUDGMENT Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI Table of Contents A. Background ....................................................................................................... 4 i. Factual background ...................................................................................... 4 ii. The impugned judgment ............................................................................ 10 B. Submissions ................................................................................................... 12 C. Issues ............................................................................................................... 17 D. Analysis ........................................................................................................... ...
Tag this Judgment!