Private property disputes cannot be treated as human rights violation: HC, Pg15

Key Highlights:

• The Gujarat High Court quashed proceedings by the Gujarat State Human Rights Commission (HRC) in a family property dispute case.
• The Court stated that the HRC exceeded its jurisdiction and usurped the powers of a civil court.
• The HC issued guidelines to the HRC regarding the exercise of its powers under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
• The Court directed the HRC to conduct primary scrutiny to ascertain human rights violations before taking suo motu cognizance.
• The HC stated that private property disputes cannot be treated as human rights violations unless there is demonstrable state action.

Detailed Insights:

• The Gujarat High Court emphasized that the HRC should exercise its powers with caution and form a prima facie opinion regarding human rights violations before initiating proceedings.
• The Court directed the HRC to be more vigilant and act on trustworthy material, avoiding the use of powers based on casual information.
• The HRC should not entertain complaints predominantly involving private civil disputes like property titles, possession, or contracts, unless state action is involved.
• The HC directed the HRC to seek declarations from complainants about ongoing court proceedings to avoid obstructing judicial processes.
• Preliminary inquiries and due diligence are necessary before issuing summons or notices, avoiding unnecessary impleadment of public officials in private matters.
• The judgment was based on a case involving a property dispute where a relative had relinquished her share via a registered sale deed in 2015.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Human Rights Violation: An infringement of the basic rights and freedoms to which all human beings are entitled.
• Suo Motu Cognizance: The power of a court or commission to take action on its own, without any prompting from an external party.
• Prima Facie: Based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise.