State Human Rights Commission has power to order payment of compensation for human rights violation: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that the State Human Rights Commission has the right to order payment of compensation to persons for violation of human rights [Kottayam Municipality v The Chairperson & Ors.]. .A division bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Murali Purushothaman was considering a case where the Kerala State Human Rights Commission had ordered a municipality to pay ₹50,000 as compensation to a street vendor for summarily evicting him and taking away the articles he had kept for sale.The bench noted that Section 18(a)(i) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, provides that when an inquiry by the Commission discloses violation of human rights in some form by a public servant, it may recommend to the concerned government authority to pay compensation for damages to the victim.It further noted that another division bench had previously held that such a recommendation by the Commission is made with the intent to make the government auhtority pay the compensation amount.In light of this, the Court held,"The 3rd respondent's (street vendor's) right to livelihood has been deprived otherwise than in accordance with a just and fair procedure established by law. Consequently, it follows that the Municipality has infringed the fundamental rights of the 3rd respondent under Article 21 of the Constitution... Violation of rights relating to life and equality guaranteed by the Constitution amounts to violation of human rights... We hold that the Human Rights Commission has jurisdiction to direct payment of compensation to the 3rd respondent for violation of his human rights." .The street vendor in the present case had filed a complaint before the State Human Rights Commission alleging that in May 2015, a municipality worker approached him and asked him to move a waste bag that he had supposedly kept next to his vending space. He said he had not kept any such bag. According to his complaint, when he left the place for a short while, around 15 Municipality employees came in a garbage collection vehicle and took away all the clothing items that he had kept for sale. He said that his livelihood had been affected and, therefore, sought compensation of ₹2.34 lakh from the Municipality. The Commission investigated the premises of the municipality and recorded that only a few items could be seen and the details of the items seized were not recorded in the mahazar. In its order directing compensation of ₹50,000, the Commission noted that the municipality seemed to have singled out just one street vendor and had evicted him from the place where he had been doing business for over 25 years without giving him any notice. Subsequently, the municipality approached the High Court challenging this order by way of the present appeal. .The municipality submitted that its officers were only doing their duty and complying with a lawful order issued by the secretary.Pertinently, it was contended that the Commission cannot order payment of compensation but can only make recommendations to the authority under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act..However, the Court failed to find any merit in the municipality's contentions.It observed that as per the relevant provisions of the Municipality Act, the power of the secretary to summarily evict a street vendor has to be exercised only in cases of absolute urgency. The Court noted that in other cases, the secretary may, by notice, require removal of encroachment.Since no such notice was issued, the Court found that the municipality had infringed the fundamental right of the street vendor guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Upon going through relevant precedents and the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, the Court rejected the municipality's contention regarding the power of the Commission to order payment of compensation.The appeal was, therefore, dismissed..The municipality was represented by advocate Ajith Joy, the Commission by advocate Thushara James, the vendor by advocate Kaleeswaram Raj and the State government by Senior Government Pleader S Harish..[Read Judgment]