In a significant judgment that clarifies the boundaries of statutory bodies, the Gujarat High Court has ruled that the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) has no authority to entertain or adjudicate disputes related to private property. The Court observed that a family or civil dispute over property shares cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be classified as a "violation of human rights."
Justice Niral R. Mehta, while quashing proceedings initiated by the Gujarat State Human Rights Commission, noted that such actions amount to a "usurpation of the jurisdiction of the civil court." To prevent such instances of "jurisdictional overreach" in the future, the High Court has issued a set of mandatory directions and guidelines for the Commission to follow before taking cognizance of any complaint.
The case, titled Mahendra Shanabhai Patel & Ors. v. The District Magistrate & Ors., originated from a land dispute in the village of Zundal, Gandhinagar. The dispute involved agricultural lands and a family disagreement.
The Respondent (a female family member) had originally executed a "relinquishment deed" in 2015, giving up her rights in the property in favor of the petitioners. However, she later changed her mind and filed a civil suit in a regular court to cancel that deed and claim her share.
While the civil suit was still pending—meaning the matter was sub judice (under judicial consideration)—she approached the State Human Rights Commission. She alleged that her human rights were being violated because she wasn't being given her share of the ancestral property.
Surprisingly, the State Human Rights Commission took up the matter. It didn't just stop at listening; it actively directed the parties to settle the matter through mediation and issued summons. When the petitioners did not comply as expected, the Commission went a step further and issued bailable and even non-bailable warrants against them.
Under this pressure, a settlement was eventually reached. The petitioners then moved the High Court, arguing that the Commission had acted as a "super-civil court" without having any legal power to do so.
What the High Court Said: Human Rights vs. Civil Rights
The High Court's analysis focused on the definition of "Human Rights" under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. Under Section 2(d) of the Act, human rights are defined as rights relating to life, liberty, equality, and dignity of the individual, guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India.
Justice Mehta pointed out several fatal flaws in the Commission's approach:
- Private Individuals vs. State Action: Human rights violations are typically recognized when there is an abuse of power by the State or a public servant. In this case, the fight was between private family members.
- Civil Nature of the Dispute: Title, possession, and partition of property are matters for a Civil Court. The Commission is not a substitute for a judge in a property suit.
- Sub Judice Matters: The Commission is legally barred from entertaining matters that are already being heard by a court.
- Coercion: The Court found it "unfortunate" that the Commission used warrants to force a settlement in a private dispute, calling it an "abuse of the process of law."
The Court stated: “The complaint was filed with mala fide intent to resolve a private property dispute under the guise of human rights violations and to overreach the civil proceedings.”