The Gujarat High Court has held that the National Human Rights Commission and State Human Rights Commissions do not have jurisdiction to entertain complaints that are essentially private property disputes, emphasising that such bodies are not forums for resolution of civil disputes between private parties over property matters. The ruling was delivered while hearing a petition challenging an order of the State Human Rights Commission which had entertained a complaint alleging violation of human rights arising out of a dispute between neighbours concerning ownership and possession of private property.
The complaint before the Human Rights Commission had been filed by one party in a long-running property dispute, asserting that the opposite party’s actions — including demolition of boundary walls and alleged harassment — constituted violations of fundamental human rights under the Protection of Human Rights Act. The petitioner before the High Court argued that the Human Rights Commission was not the correct forum to adjudicate a private civil dispute over ownership and possession, and that by entertaining the complaint the Commission had exceeded its jurisdiction and misconstrued the scope of its powers.
The respondents had contended before the Commission that their actions caused serious harm, distress and deprivation of access to their property, and that such conduct amounted to human rights violations warranting intervention by the Commission. They relied on provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act to frame their grievance as one implicating violation of rights to life, dignity and peaceful enjoyment of property. The Commission, on receiving the complaint, had issued notices and commenced proceedings against the opposing party.
Upon considering the petition, the Gujarat High Court analysed the scheme and statutory mandate of the Protection of Human Rights Act, noting that Human Rights Commissions are statutory bodies established to inquire into violations of fundamental and legal rights by public servants or in situations where there is failure on the part of the State to prevent violation of human rights. The Court observed that the legislative intent behind setting up such bodies was to provide a remedy where there is abuse of power, neglect of duty by authorities, or violation of rights attributable to State action or inaction.
The High Court further noted that property disputes between private individuals are ordinarily civil matters falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of civil courts or revenue tribunals, and that taking them within the ambit of human rights violations would inappropriately expand the jurisdiction of the Commission. The bench emphasised that the Protection of Human Rights Act does not empower the Commission to adjudicate private disputes over property that do not involve actionable human rights violations by State actors or failure of public authorities to protect rights in a manner contemplated by the statute.
In its analysis, the Court underscored that although disturbance of possession or wrongful interference with property may cause hardship or affect personal dignity, such matters do not automatically constitute human rights violations within the statutory meaning unless there is demonstrable involvement of public officials or failure of the State to discharge its protective obligations. The bench explained that without clear connection to State action or omission amounting to breach of human rights, a private dispute remains outside the statutory jurisdiction of human rights bodies.
Consequently, the Gujarat High Court allowed the petition, quashed the proceedings initiated by the State Human Rights Commission, and directed that the complaint be treated as non-maintainable on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The Court emphasised that the parties must seek relief for their property dispute through appropriate civil remedies, such as filing suit for declaration, injunction or possession in the civil court of competent jurisdiction, rather than invoking human rights mechanisms. By quashing the Commission’s order, the High Court reinforced the principle that human rights institutions are not substitutes for civil courts in resolving private disputes between individuals, particularly those involving property rights.
The judgment clarifies the limits of the mandate of Human Rights Commissions under the Protection of Human Rights Act, and underscores that such bodies must confine themselves to inquiries into violations of rights arising from acts or omissions of public authorities or situations involving failure of the State to protect citizens’ rights. Civil disputes, including those involving ownership, title or possession of property, remain within the exclusive domain of civil adjudication forums.
The High Court’s ruling thus delineates the appropriate scope of complaints that Human Rights Commissions can entertain, and prevents expansion of their jurisdiction into private legal disputes. By directing the aggrieved party to pursue civil remedies, the Court directed the judicial focus back to established civil adjudication mechanisms, preserving the specialised function of human rights institutions in the constitutional and statutory framework for protection of fundamental rights.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.