The Court Had Ordered An Enquiry. The Commission Decided The Case Anyway.

What the Commission did

The Commission concluded that the death was on account of an encounter by the police, basing that on an enquiry report of the Revenue Divisional Officer which this Court had criticised, and on the non-conduct of a magisterial enquiry under Section 176(1A) of the Code.

It implicated the police officers without properly appreciating depositions that were at variance, and notwithstanding that a criminal court was already seized of the matter on this Court's directions.

It then awarded compensation, directed its recovery, and ordered disciplinary action against the officers.

The contradiction on the face of the record

The Commission laid great emphasis on the investigating agency's inaction in taking up the investigation ordered by a Single Judge, and on its awaiting the outcome of an appeal.

Yet it passed its order awarding compensation and directing action even though this Court had ordered the enquiry, and a negative final report had been filed before the jurisdictional court and remained unchallenged by the complainants.

The Commission therefore blew hot and cold: faulting the agency for not proceeding on the Single Judge's orders, while itself passing orders directly contrary to those very directions.

Why the order could not stand

The Commission adverted to no conclusive material for its finding that the death was an encounter. Its recommendation of a magisterial enquiry under Section 176(1A) was grossly erroneous when this Court, in the earlier round, had not ordered one on identical facts.

Once this Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction and an investigation followed leading to a negative final report, not only does that report merge with the Court's order, but so do the complaints that led to the impugned order.

Without conclusive proof, the Commission cannot transgress beyond its jurisdiction to pass an order that would undermine the majesty of an order passed by a constitutional court issuing a prerogative writ. The directions were beyond its competence, and the order of 18 July 2019 was set aside.

Who argued it

Frequently asked

Can a Human Rights Commission award compensation against police officers?

Not where doing so cuts across a constitutional court's own orders on the same facts and rests on no conclusive material.

What is the effect of a negative final report?

Where the investigation was ordered by the writ court, the report and the underlying complaints merge with that court's order.

Challenging a Human Rights Commission's directions

1. Map the Commission's findings against any prior writ court orders on the same facts; contradiction is the strongest ground.
2. Ask what conclusive material supports each finding, rather than disputing the conclusion.
3. Raise merger where an investigation was ordered by the writ court and a final report has been filed.
4. Distinguish recommendation from adjudication; a Commission cannot decide what a constitutional court has already governed.

Source. High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench, W.P.(MD) Nos. 17976, 17977 and 17978 of 2019, decided 31 August 2026 by Justice HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI, Justice HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.DILIP KUMAR. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.

Claw tracks High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in