Gujarat HC draws line for Human Rights Commission: ‘Private property disputes cannot be treated as human rights violation’

Issuing directions and guidelines regarding the jurisdiction and exercise of powers by the Human Rights Commission under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the High Court directed the HRC to conduct a primary scrutiny to ascertain any violation of human rights in the allegations, prima facie, before taking suo motu cognizance. The HC directed the HRC to be “more vigilant” and not to exercise powers “on casual information” but on “prima facie trustworthy material”.

The court directed the HRC not to entertain complaints which “predominantly involve private civil dispute including the disputes relating to title, possession, succession, partition, release deed, contracts or other matters squarely falling within the domain of the civil court unless there is a demonstrable involvement of the State action resulting in a recognizable human rights violation”.

Stating that the HRC must seek declaration from the complainant about any ongoing proceeding before any court of law for the same complaint, the HC directed the commission to “refrain from proceeding further usurping the powers of the competent civil court” to ensure that its inquiry does not “obstruct judicial proceedings”.

The HC also directed the HRC to hold preliminary inquiry into complaints and “exercise due diligence” before issuing summons, notices and warrants to ensure that such measures are taken only “after proper application of mind” and “strictly avoid unnecessary impleadment of public officials in purely private matters”.

The judgement was delivered on a Special Civil Application filed by Mahendra Patel, Rakesh Patel and Bharat Patel in the case of a property dispute with a relative, Sharda Naran Patel– who had relinquished her one-fourth share and interest in the lands under contention in favour of the three petitioners by a registered sale deed in 2015.

The HC judgment noted that the HRC took cognisance of a complaint by Sharda Patel in 2025, after a lapse of 10 years and even though she had already filed a regular civil suit in April 2025 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar, seeking cancellation of the relinquishment deed, declaration, injunction, and partition.

Even as the civil suit is pending, Sharda Patel initiated proceedings before the HRC in respect of the same land, claiming a share in the property by alleging violation of human rights.

The HC order noted the submissions of the advocates appearing for the petitioners contending that the HRC “ought not to have issued notices” for settlement of a private property dispute as such intervention “not only exceeds the scope of (powers under the Act), but also amounts to usurpation of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, which is impermissible in law.”

Noting that Section 2(d) of the Act defines “human rights” as those rights relating to life, liberty, equality, and dignity of an individual, which are either guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and are enforceable by courts in India, the HC judgement stated that “a dispute between private individuals regarding private property cannot be said to be a right guaranteed by the Constitution”.

Stating that the HRC acted in haste, the HC judgment states, “Had the Commission exercised due care and conducted the preliminary inquiry contemplated under law, the present situation would not have arisen. Instead, the Commission acted in undue haste… mechanically entertained the complaint and issued notices and summons directing the petitioners to remain present, which ultimately resulted in a settlement. Consequently, the civil suit filed by (Sharda Patel) stood virtually allowed without any judicial adjudication…”

Stating that the initiation of proceedings by Sharda Patel before the Commission was “not tenable in law and can be said to be vexatious and filed with mala fide intention” to settle the private property dispute, the HC quashed and set aside the proceedings against the petitioners before the HRC. The judgement notes, “In the present case… the Commission ought to have applied its mind before initiating proceedings…whether the dispute fell within the scope of the Human Rights Act. A grievance relating to share in property cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be treated as a violation of human rights.”