CWP-36348-201 IN Jagdish Arora a The State of Ha Wh pro CORAM: HO HO Present: M for Mr Mr for for SHEEL NAGU 1. & '( &!"++,+ 2019 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUN AT CHANDIGA CW rora and others Versus of Haryana and others Re Pr Up Whether only operative part of the judgm pronounced or the full judgment is pron HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ ***** Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Addl. Advocate Mr. Satyam Arora, Advocate, for Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ***** AGU, C.J. ! ! "#$ ( ) (( * + -#$%/0* - 1- F PUNJAB & HARYANA DIGARH CWP-36348-2019 (O&M) ....Petitioners ...Respondents Reserved on : 27.04.2026 Pronounced on : 19.05.2026 Uploaded on : 19.05.2026 judgment is pronouned: operative part/full judgmen SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY vocate General, Haryana. %/10 2 &! . ) % gment !/ AJAY PRASHER 2026.05.19 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-36348-2019 (O&M) - 2- '( ) * "", # 2 3 "", 40* &!/ (( *2 ((( 2 *( *$ % (( * 5 2 6 * 7( ' * ! ! ( $ &!,+( ( ! ! - ( 2 ! ( * ! ( *5)&!" -*+ ,,* ,8* ,18 #0 #0* ,18 #0 #0* ,18 9* ,18 : #0* 1 * 1 % ( ! * ( (( 2 ! ! ! & '( ) (( * ( ! ! "#$%/10 ;/ $$ $$ $$ <(( ( ( ! * 2 ( 2( ( 2 % ! & ( 2 2 $ ! ( * (( %* 5 2 2 &!81* + ,,* ,1* ,8+1 %* %!6! 6 =( % 6 * &*5 2 * &!"+-*+ ,,*,8*,18#0#0+,18#0#0* ,189*,18:#0*1 *1 "% ! ! - 6% > ( AJAY PRASHER 2026.05.19 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-36348-2019 (O&M) - 3- 2(! 6 *7(' 2 ( :%*&? !& 7* ! (( %*&6@ % *6) ( * 6!*%!6!: 2 *=+'? !) ? >:!6 % 9!A! ' * 5 2 ( (( ((2( ( !( 2 5 2 ( 2(! &!'!)!! (2 (6 * 7( ' * :7%* ' (( %*5 2 ! (( %> ( ( ( ! ( * 6 * 7! ' 2 + -# 0#0%')*"", ( ) !1 * +/ 2 ((2 ( $ ! B 2 ( ( ( !C ,! = ( ( ( & '( ) (( 5) 2 ( ) !1 * +/ 2 ( ! ,! ! = 2 & '( ) (( ( ! ,!! (( ( (( 2* "",* !(( ( AJAY PRASHER 2026.05.19 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-36348-2019 (O&M) - 4- ((6 7( 2 *2 (( ( ( +( 2 (( 7( ( ! * 2 "",! ,!,! "", ( 2 ( ( !"", (2-! "! "",! 7 (2D& ! ! "! ,!8! "", * 5 % (( ! 6 (( * 6 '( ) (( * ;/ #0 * * ( 2 E #0 ( 2 E #0 F 6 7(* (*( * ( *( (( 7(E #0 ) 2 ( ((( AJAY PRASHER 2026.05.19 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-36348-2019 (O&M) - 5- ( ( E #0 ) * ( 2 (( ( (( E #0 6 ( ( ( (( ( ( E #0 D ( ( E #0 6 ( ( ( 2 ( E #$0 . & 7( > #&7> 0 ( E #$0 6 ( (( . ,!1! 6 , * 2 $ 2 (( !(( % * " - #%0! * (( $ ( ( * (( * ( 2 ( (( 7(! ( + 6 , "", * (( * (( * 2( ( AJAY PRASHER 2026.05.19 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-36348-2019 (O&M) - 6- ! ( ( (( ( * * * * ! ,!! 6 8 "", ( (( G 7(+6 7( ! ,!! *6 1 ( ( ( 2(( ! ,!-! 6 * 2 (( ** * 2 2 2 2 ( ! ,!"! * F 2 2 (( != ( ( *(( G ( ( +6 7( G 2 ! ( (( ( (*(( ( !(( * *( * ( * ( ( *(( ! ,! ! * ( 6 - (( (( * 2 2 ! 6 - AJAY PRASHER 2026.05.19 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-36348-2019 (O&M) - 7- 2 ( ( * ;/ # 0 = (( ( * ( (( 7( ; #0 ( ( ( (+( ! #0 2 2 ( ! #0 ( (! #20 6 ( +' * ! #0 )(( (( ( (! #0 (( (( 7(+ 7(+ * (* (( * 2 * (( ! #0 (( 2 (( 7(+ 2 2 7(+ (( (( ! 8! > 2 2 "", AJAY PRASHER 2026.05.19 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-36348-2019 (O&M) - 8- $* 2 (( (( 2 2 ( ! * ( * "", $ 3(( 4 B ! 1! B $ * 8! ! * ( &!- * 6B% #( 0&!,1 8* + ,#-0!%!!2 ( ? * 2 != * $ ! 1! ! '* * (( "", (( 2 G 2 7(!) $ ( 2;/ A. Commission as Recommendatory Body: 1. Jatt Ram VersusPunjab State Human Rights Commission and another, 2005(3) RCR(Criminal) 716, (Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court): “48. Thus the viewtaken by uswith regard to meaning of the word"recommendations" in Jai Singh's case (supra) stands fully fortified. We reiterate that the word "recommendation" used in Section 18of the Act necessarily means"to suggest". Such a AJAY PRASHER 2026.05.19 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-36348-2019 (O&M) - 9- suggestion cannot be treated to be a decisioncapable to execution or enforcement.” 2. Syndicate Bank Regional Office, Vazhuthacaud and othersVersusR. Rajan and another, WP (C) 18689 of 2017, (Division Bench of Kerala High Court): “4. A reading of this provision would show that all these functions are relatable to violation of human rights, which expression is defined in Section 2(d) of the Act as rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India. Insofar as the steps during and after the enquiry into the complaints are concerned;those are enumerated in Section 18 of the Act which show that the powers of the Human Right Commission are recommendatory in nature. Despite the fact that the functions to be discharged by the Commission are relatable to human rights violation and the recommendatory nature of the powers of the Commission, Ext.P10 order shows that the Commission has issued a positive direction to the DeputyGeneral Manager of the Bank to grant financial assistance to the 1st respondent for completing the construction, in case he produces collateral security for the same.” 3. SankarVersusThe Member, State Human Rights Commission Tamil Nadu No.143, P.S.KumaraswamyRaja Salai, (Greenways Road) Chennai 600028 and others, 2016 SCC Online Mad 42, (Division Bench of Madras High Court): AJAY PRASHER 2026.05.19 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-36348-2019 (O&M) - 10- "41. To sum up:- (i) What is made under section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act by the State Human Rights Commission is only a recommendation and it is neither an order nor an adjudication. (ii) Such a recommendation made by the State Human Rights Commission is not binding on the parties to the proceeding, including the Government.” 4. Sri. C Gopal v. Karnataka State Human Rights Commission, 2015 SCC Online 5674, (Division Bench of Karnataka High Court): “6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the order passed by the Human Rights Commission is more in the nature of recommendation, since he found prima facie that persons were arrested without entering in the police register about the time of their arrest and when the Human Rights Commission inspected the Jayanagar Police Station, the arrest was not shown in the register. According to us, it is only the Commission found that there is prima facie case to hold an enquiry by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, at this length of time, it would be inappropriate to interfere with the recommendation made by the Human Rights Commission, as it is the domain of the disciplinary authority to conduct an enquiry and pass suitable orders by giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioners. It is also seen that it is for the Government to accept the recommendation or not by examining the legality and correctness of the same.” AJAY PRASHER 2026.05.19 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-36348-2019 (O&M) - 11- 5. Sri. C. Girish Naik v. State of Karnataka, 2024 NCKHC 9181, (Division Bench of Karnataka High Court): “8. Having regard to the aforementioned, the present Writ Petition is disposed of by holding that the report dated 12.3.2020 passed in H.R.C. No.3720/10/31/2018 issued by the fourth respondent shall not be treated as a direction but as a recommendation. The official respondents shall be at liberty to take suitable action as they may deem fit, based on the said report/recommendation dated 12.3.2020, in accordance with law.” 6. Dr. Girdhari Lal Chandrakar Versus State of Chattisgarh and others, WPS No. 2970 of 2010 dated 28.07.2021,(Single Bench of ChattisgarhHigh Court): “10. In view of the aforesaid principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-stated judgments (supra), if the facts of the present are examined, it is quite vivid that the Human Rights Commission is a recommendatory body and it only makes a recommendation to the concerned authority or Government for enforcement of its recommendation. It has no jurisdiction to pass an order directing payment of compensation. Therefore, the impugned order is vulnerable to the extent of directing payment of compensation.” B. Commission as Adjudicatory Body: 1. Abdul SatharVersusPrincipalSecretary to Government and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 16611, (Full Bench of Madras High Court): AJAY PRASHER 2026.05.19 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-36348-2019 (O&M) - 12- “506. In the conspectus of the above discourse, the following is our summation to the terms of the Reference: (i) Whether the decision made by theCommission under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, is only a recommendation and not an adjudicated order capable of immediate enforcement, or otherwise? Ans: The recommendation of the Commission made under Section 18 of the Act, is binding on the Government or Authority.The Government is under a legalobligation to forward itscomments on the Report including the action taken or proposed to be taken to the Commission in terms of Sub Clause (e) of Section18. Therefore, the recommendation of the H.R. Commission under Section 18 is an adjudicatory order which is legally and immediately enforceable. ……” 2. State Of U.P. And Others versus N.H.R.C. And Others, WRIT- C No. - 15570 of 2016, (Division Bench of Allahabad High Court): “The basic question is whether the use of the expression"recommend" in Section 18 (a) can be treated by the State Government or by an authority as merely an opinion or a suggestion which can be ignored with impunity. In our view, to place such a construction on the expression "recommend" would dilute theefficacy of the Commission and defeat the statutory objectunderlying the constitution of such a body.….xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx….That the Commission is not merely a AJAY PRASHER 2026.05.19 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-36348-2019 (O&M) - 13- body which is to render opinions which will have no sanctity or efficacy in enforcement, cannot be accepted. …….” 3. Kiran Singh Versus National Human Rights Commission and Ors., 2025 NCDHC 456, (Division Bench of Delhi High Court): “59. After having considered the reasoning in both the Allahabad High Court and Madras High Court judgments, this Court fully agrees with the reasoning in the said two decisions - whether in the case of compensation or in the case of inquiry being directed. The purpose of the Human Rights Act and the reasons for its enactment would be nullified if the Commissions are rendered powerless and are held to be mere recommendatory bodies. The recommendations are binding in nature….xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx….Human Rights Commissions are not to be 'toothless tigers' but have to be 'fierce defenders' safeguarding the most basic right of humans i.e., the right to live without fear and to live with dignity.” 4. Vashista Nadhi Water Beneficiaries Society v. Government of Tamil Nadu, W.P.No.12779 of 2015 and WMP.No.36278 of 2018 and MP.No.1 of 2015 dated 01.03.2023, (Single Bench of Madras High Court): “7. In light of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Abdul Sathar v. Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600-009 and others (W.P.Nos.41791 of 2006 and batch dated 05.02.2021), the recommendations of the AJAY PRASHER 2026.05.19 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-36348-2019 (O&M) - 14- State Human Rights Commission would be binding upon the authorities. However, in a matter such as the present, where the main grievance of the members of the society is that there are no riverbed sluices that have been provided in the dam, it remains to be seen as to whether such recommendation can be implemented.” 1!! 5( * ! 5.3. However, this Court also cannot lose sight of the law laid down by the Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, which are substantially more or less similar or para materia in nature when compared with the power exercised by the Commission under the 1993 Act. In Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia Vs. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538, (5 Judge- Bench decision) the Supreme Court categorically observed that the Commission has no authority to enforce its recommendations and therefore, such inquiry cannot be equated with exercise of judicial power. Relevant extract is reproduced as thus:- ".....As has been stated by the High Court itself in the latter part of its judgment, the only power that the Commission has is to inquire and make a report and embody therein its recommendations. The Commission has no power of adjudication in the sense of passing an order which can be enforced proprio vigore. A clear distinction must, on the authorities, be drawn between a decision which, by itself, has no force and no penal effect and a decision which AJAY PRASHER 2026.05.19 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-36348-2019 (O&M) - 15- becomes enforceable immediately or which may become enforceable by some action being taken. Therefore, as the Commission we are concerned with is merely to investigate and record its findings and recommendations without having any power to enforce them, the inquiry or report cannot be looked upon as a judicial inquiry in the sense of its being an exercise of judicial function properly so called and consequently the question of usurpation by Parliament or the Government of the powers of the judicial organs of the Union of India cannot arise on the facts of this case..." 5.4 Similarly, in State of Karnataka Vs. Union of India, (1977) 4 SCC 608, the Constitutional Bench observed, as below: "186.........On receipt of the Commission's report, the Central Government may or may not take any action, depending upon the nature of the findings recorded by the Commission. If it decides to take any action, the validity thereof may have to be tested in the light of the-constitutional provisions. But until that stage arrives, it is difficult to hold that the Central Government is exercising any control or supervisory jurisdiction over the executive functions of the State Government. As observed by this Court in Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar& Others, (a) "the Commission has no power of adiudication in the sense of passing an order which can be enforced proprio vigore."" 5.5 It is pertinent to mention that Ramkrishan Dalmia (supra) case was followed by the Division Bench of the Apex Court in T.T. Anthony v. AJAY PRASHER 2026.05.19 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-36348-2019 (O&M) - 16- State of Kerala 2001 (6) SCC 181 where it was held thus:- “33. It is thus seen that the report and findings of the Commission of Inquiry are meant for information of the Government. Acceptance of the report of the Commission by the Government would only suggest that being bound by the Rule of law and having duty to act fairly, it has endorsed to act upon it....." 5.6 Since the Benches of Largest composition inRamkrishan Dalmia (supra) and State of Karnataka (supra) have hold the Commission as recommendatory body, consequently, this Court is bound to follow the said view. ! * * 2 2 2 2 * * $ #"", 0 (2 (( (( 2* * * 2 $ ! ! ! 2 F "", * $ 3(( 4 2 * (( (( 2 * *( * * ! !! ? * 2 6-#20"", * (( 2 (( 2* ( * 6 ( ' * * ( 2! * AJAY PRASHER 2026.05.19 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-36348-2019 (O&M) - 17- 2(( (( 2* ( 2 ( 6 (' * * ! ! *( ! ! "#$%/10 2 & '( ) (( $ ( "", * * ( * (( #&')0 &!81*+ ,,*,1*,8+1 %*%!6!6 =( %6 *&*5 2 * &!"+-*+ ,,*,8*,18#0#0+,18#0 #0*,189*,18:#0*1 *1 "% ! ! - 6%> E 2 * 2 ( ! 6 2 (( 2"",! -! * ( ;/ #0 ( ! ! "#$%/10 2& '( ) (( $ &!81*+ ,,*,1*,8+1 %* %!6! 6 =( % 6 * &* 5 2 &!"+-*+ ,,*,8*,18#0#0+,18#0#0*,189*,18: #0*1 *1 "%* 6%> ( 2 (* ! #0 5 ( :%* &? !& 7* !(( %*&6@ AJAY PRASHER 2026.05.19 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-36348-2019 (O&M) - 18- % *6) ( *6!*%!6!: 2 *=+'? !) ? >:!6 % 9!A!' *5 2 5 2 ! #0 ( ) !1 * +/ ( +( * 2 ( 2 * 2 2 ( +( ! #0 & '( ) (( ! ! "#$%/10 ! #0 '* & '( ) (( 2( (( 2 2 ( ! ! -* 7(* ! "! % # 0* * ! (SHEEL NAGU) CHIEF JUSTICE (SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE 19.05.2026 Ajay Prasher Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No AJAY PRASHER 2026.05.19 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

JAGDISH ARORA AND ORS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

Judgment text