UPHRC has full power to direct DM, SP to compensate victims: HC

The Allahabad High Court has held that the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission (UPHRC) has full power and authority to direct the District Magistrate (DM) and Superintendent of Police (SP) to pay compensation to victims of human rights violation.

Dismissing a writ petition filed by the Uttar Pradesh government and two others, a division bench of justices Bala Krishna Narayana and Prakash Padia declined to interfere in a November 7, 2016 UPHRC order, wherein it directed the DM and the SP of Fatehpur to pay a compensation of Rs 1 lakh to the opposite party -- Ansarul Haq -- and inform the panel about the same.

Delivering the verdict, the court said the commission was entitled to do so wherever it found either a violation of human rights or negligence to prevent such violation.

Haq sustained injuries on his head and in the right eye in the January 14, 2016 riots during a procession taken out on the occasion of Makar Sankranti in Fatehpur district's Jahanabad.

Subsequently, he moved an application to the chief minister, seeking compensation.

A certificate was also issued in his favour by the chief medical officer, Fatehpur, stating that his right eye was 100 per cent blind and the left eye was normal and as such the opinion was recorded to the effect that the disability suffered by him was 30 per cent.

Haq had also moved an application to the UPHRC in this regard.

The commission, by an order dated November 7, 2016, directed the DM and the SP of Fatehpur to pay Rs 1 lakh as compensation to the complainant and inform it about the same.

Aggrieved by the commission's order, the state government filed the current writ petition, challenging it.

The stand taken by the government was that the UPHRC order was perverse and passed without jurisdiction and application of judicial mind, and as such the same was liable to be quashed.

It was further argued that no finding whatsoever was recorded in the impugned order that there was any violation of human rights or negligence to prevent such violation or abetment thereof by a public servant.

It was also contended that the commission might recommend to the government or the authority concerned to pay compensation or damages to the complainant, but by the impugned order, it had directed to pay compensation.