Tensions between family disputes and human rights law took center stage in Gujarat this week, as the High Court clarified the limits of the Human Rights Commission’s powers. The ruling comes after a decade-long property dispute between relatives drew the HRC into matters traditionally reserved for civil courts.
Quashing proceedings initiated by the Gujarat State Human Rights Commission in the case, the Gujarat High Court issued strict guidelines to prevent misuse of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
According to a report, Justice NR Mehta criticised the Commission for overstepping its authority and warned that powers granted under the Act “must not be abused and the process of law not misused.”
“The Commission cannot conduct inquiries or proceedings in a casual manner that defeats the object and intent of the legislature. It is expected to exercise its powers with due caution and circumspection. Before initiating any proceedings, the Commission must form at least a prima facie opinion regarding the existence of a human rights violation…,” the court said in its judgment reported by the media.
The court also instructed the Commission to first form a prima facie opinion of a human rights violation and rely on trustworthy material. Before taking suo motu cognizance, the HRC must conduct a primary scrutiny to confirm the legitimacy of the claim.
The High Court also said the HRC should avoid cases involving private civil disputes like property ownership, succession, partition, or contracts unless State action clearly violates human rights. The commission was advised to check if ongoing civil proceedings exist and not interfere in a way that could obstruct judicial processes.
The case arose from a property dispute involving Mahendra Patel, Rakesh Patel, and Bharat Patel and their relative Sharda Naran Patel, who had given up her one-fourth share in 2015 through a registered sale deed. Despite a civil suit already pending, Sharda Patel approached the HRC in 2025 claiming a human rights violation regarding the same property.
The court, the report outlined, noted that the HRC acted in haste, issuing notices and summons that led to a settlement without judicial adjudication.
The judgment conveyed that the HRC was expected to carefully evaluate whether a complaint genuinely involved human rights before proceeding. The proceedings against the petitioners were ultimately quashed. The court described the HRC intervention as vexatious and done with mala fide intent.
Also Read: Justice On hold: Gujarat’s Decline In Judicial Performance Raises Concerns Over Institutional Efficiency https://www.vibesofindia.com/justice-on-hold-gujarats-decline-in-judicial-performance-raises-concerns-over-institutional-efficiency/
