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.”

To ensure that the Commission does not repeat these mistakes, the Gujarat High Court laid down the following directions:

Primary Scrutiny: Before taking any action (including suo motu), the Commission must conduct a preliminary check to see if the complaint actually involves a "human rights violation." This satisfaction must be recorded in writing.
Civil Disputes are Out: The Commission must not entertain complaints involving property title, possession, partition, or contracts unless there is a clear "State action" involved.
Mandatory Declaration: Complainants must now declare if any case regarding the same matter is pending in any other court. If it is, the Commission must stay away.
Warrants as Last Resort: Summons and warrants should not be issued casually. They must only be used after proper "application of mind" and for recorded reasons.
No Private Parties as Sole Targets: Public officials should not be made parties in what is essentially a private dispute between two citizens.
Training and Sensitization: The Court ordered the Commission to periodically train its staff to understand the difference between "civil rights" and "human rights."

This ruling serves as a vital check on the "jurisdictional creep" of statutory bodies. In India, many people approach Commissions (Human Rights, Women’s, or SC/ST Commissions) seeking quick fixes for civil or criminal matters because these bodies are perceived as faster than regular courts.

However, as the Gujarat High Court has clarified, these Commissions are specialized bodies with a specific mandate. They cannot be used as "debt recovery agents" or "property mediators" to bypass the established legal system. By quashing the proceedings and the forced settlement, the Court has restored the rule of law and protected the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts.

The judgment is a reminder that while the protection of human rights is paramount, the definition of those rights cannot be stretched to include every personal grievance. A property dispute is a matter of "Interest" and "Title," not necessarily a violation of "Dignity" or "Liberty" in the sense the law intends.

The Gujarat High Court has effectively told the SHRC: "Stick to your mandate." For the common man, this means that if you have a property dispute, the Civil Court remains your only legal destination, and trying to "shortcut" the process through the Human Rights Commission might lead to the entire proceeding being thrown out by the High Court.

Case Details: Mahendra Shanabhai Patel & Ors. v/s The District Magistrate & Ors. Gujarat High Court | Justice Niral R. Mehta