Allahabad High Court Directs National Human Rights Commission to Investigate Alleged Police Brutality at AMU During CAA Protests

Introduction

The case of Mohd. Aman Khan v. Union Of India And Others was heard by the Allahabad High Court on January 7, 2020. The petitioner, Mohd. Aman Khan, a practicing advocate and a resident of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), filed a writ petition seeking multiple remedies against alleged acts of violence and arbitrary detentions by the State Police and Paramilitary Forces during student protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019.

The petitioner alleged police brutality during peaceful demonstrations at AMU, leading to injuries, detentions, property damage, and violations of human rights. The respondents, including the State authorities and Union of India, contended that the actions taken were lawful measures to prevent unlawful assembly and maintain public order.

Summary of the Judgment

The Allahabad High Court meticulously reviewed the petitioner’s claims and the respondents' counterarguments. The petitioner sought various writs of mandamus directed at establishing a court-monitored committee, releasing detained individuals, providing medical aid, ensuring safety on campus, and initiating criminal proceedings against responsible officials.

After considering the legal arguments, the court observed that the petitioner’s allegations indicated potential violations of human rights and possible negligence in preventing such violations. However, instead of constituting a Special Investigating Team (SIT), the court directed that the matter be referred to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) for a comprehensive inquiry. The court also emphasized the procedural mechanisms under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and the role of NHRC in addressing such grievances.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment referenced the Supreme Court case Bimal Gurung v. Union of India (2018) 15 SCC 480, which clarified the scope of Article 19(1)(a) to (c) of the Constitution of India. The court utilized this precedent to support the contention that peaceful assembly rights do not extend to violent protests that threaten the rights of others. This precedent was pivotal in the court’s assessment of the legality of the State's actions during the protests.

Legal Reasoning

The court examined the petitioner's claims of police brutality and arbitrary detentions within the framework of constitutional protections and human rights obligations. It acknowledged the constitutional right to peaceful assembly under Article 19 but balanced it against the state's duty to maintain public order and prevent violence.

Referencing the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the court analyzed the procedural avenues available for redressal, emphasizing that the NHRC is empowered to inquire into such violations. The decision was influenced by the need for an impartial and specialized body to investigate the allegations comprehensively, rather than forming an SIT, which could be perceived as biased or insufficiently independent.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the role of statutory bodies like the NHRC in addressing human rights violations, especially in cases involving state agencies. It underscores the judiciary's reliance on established mechanisms for human rights protection and ensures that allegations of police brutality are subject to thorough and independent investigation.

Future cases involving similar allegations may follow this precedent, advocating for the involvement of human rights commissions over judiciary-constituted investigative teams. This could lead to a more standardized approach in handling human rights violations, promoting transparency and accountability within state mechanisms.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Writ of Mandamus

A judicial remedy in the form of an order from a superior court to a lower court or authority to perform a public or statutory duty. In this case, the petitioner sought mandamus to compel the respondents to take specific actions to address alleged human rights violations.

Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993

An act that provides for the establishment of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and State Human Rights Commissions to protect and promote human rights in India. Sections 12, 13, 14, and 18 were particularly relevant in this judgment, outlining the commissions' powers and procedures for inquiries and investigations.

Section 144 of CrPC

A provision empowering authorities to issue orders to prevent the assembly of four or more people in an area, typically to maintain public order. The respondents invoked this section to justify restrictions on the students’ assembly and subsequent actions.

Conclusion

The Allahabad High Court's decision in Mohd. Aman Khan v. Union Of India And Others highlights the judiciary’s approach to balancing constitutional rights with state responsibilities in maintaining public order. By referring the matter to the National Human Rights Commission, the court ensured that the allegations of human rights violations would be investigated by an independent and specialized body, thereby upholding the principles of justice and accountability.

This judgment sets a significant precedent for handling similar disputes, emphasizing the importance of statutory mechanisms in safeguarding human rights and ensuring that state actions are subject to appropriate scrutiny. It serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in facilitating institutional checks and balances to protect individual liberties against potential state overreach.