The Jharkhand High Court is presently hearing a Public Interest Litigation instituted by advocate Md. Mumtaz Ansari, who practices before the Dhanbad Civil Court, challenging a circular issued by the National Human Rights Commission on 14 May 2024. The petition seeks to have the said circular quashed and to obtain a direction to the Commission to issue fresh guidelines in accordance with the Court’s recent judgment in Md. Mumtaz Ansari v. State of Jharkhand (2026 SCC OnLine Jhar 617).
The impugned circular declared that the Commission’s earlier circular dated 4 September 2020, which had mandated a judicial inquiry in every instance of custodial death, disappearance and rape, had become nugatory and stood withdrawn and annulled following the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner contends that this withdrawal rests on a misreading of Sections 194(4) and 196(2) of the Sanhita.
According to the plea, Section 194(4) merely empowers an Executive Magistrate to conduct an inquest, which is a preliminary fact‑finding exercise intended to ascertain the apparent cause of death. In contrast, Section 196(2) expressly mandates a judicial inquiry by a Judicial Magistrate into cases of custodial death, disappearance or rape. The petitioner argues that the two provisions operate in distinct fields and serve different purposes; an inquest under Section 194(4) is fundamentally different from the detailed quasi‑judicial inquiry contemplated under Section 196(2).
The petition further alleges that the National Human Rights Commission erroneously conflated the two provisions and wrongly concluded that the statutory requirement of a judicial inquiry had become redundant because Executive Magistrates are authorised to conduct inquests under Section 194(4). By withdrawing the 2020 circular, the Commission is said to have acted contrary to its statutory mandate of protecting human rights, as it ought to have strengthened and reaffirmed safeguards requiring judicial inquiries into custodial deaths and rapes instead of annulling them on what is described as an erroneous interpretation of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
The PIL submits that the impugned circular creates a dangerous legal vacuum in the procedural safeguards governing inquiries into custodial deaths, disappearances and rapes, thereby weakening accountability in cases involving alleged human rights violations. The matter is titled Md. Mumtaz Ansari v. NHRC and Ors.
The petitioner has also prayed that the Court direct the National Human Rights Commission to issue fresh guidelines in light of the Jharkhand High Court’s recent judgment in Md. Mumtaz Ansari v. State of Jharkhand (2026 SCC OnLine Jhar 617), wherein the Court held that an inquiry under Section 196(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita must be conducted by a Judicial Magistrate and that an inquiry by an Executive Magistrate cannot substitute such judicial inquiry.
At the hearing, the bench has noted the petitioner’s contention that the two statutory provisions are not interchangeable and that the Commission’s interpretation undermines the protective framework intended for victims of custodial violence. The Court has issued notice to the National Human Rights Commission and the respondents, directing them to file their counter‑affidavits within the stipulated time.
The proceedings continue, with the Court expected to examine the interplay between Sections 194(4) and 196(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the extent to which the National Human Rights Commission may alter its earlier directions without compromising the statutory safeguards for custodial deaths, disappearances and rapes.