Case Title: State of Odisha & Ors. v. Radhakanta Tripathy & Anr.
The Orissa High Court held that Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 provides for steps during and after inquiry. The Court noted that there was omission by the Commission to conduct inquiry and as such section 18 could not be invoked by it for any of the steps to be taken thereunder. Having said that, the provision only empowers the Commission to make recommendation.
The case, in brief, was that a section of people in a village were adversely affected by dirty and unhygienic water supply. The examination of water samples revealed the presence of a modified virulent strain of vibrio cholerae. Consequently, four villagers died after contracting diarrhea. The Human Rights Commission had directed the Chief Secretary to the Government of Odisha to pay compensation of Rs.1 lakh each to four deceased persons.
The Government pleader had vehemently opposed this direction and stated that the Commission has exceeded its powers. He relied on sections 13 to 18 in the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to submit, apart from anything else, the Chief Secretary ought to have been given an opportunity of hearing. Mere issuance of show cause notice and rejection of the reply resulted in improper communication. He further submitted that under section 18 of the Act, the Commission can only recommend but there has been a direction to pay.
The Court thereby observed that “From documents disclosed in the writ petition and perusal of impugned communication, it does not appear the Commission itself launched an inquiry. There not having been inquiry, section 16 did not stand attracted as there was no question of the Commission considering it necessary to inquire into conduct of any person or form opinion that reputation of any person is likely to be prejudicially affected. Simply the Commission issued show cause notice by order dated 8th July 2019 in the proceeding, commenced by it on complaint lodged by opposite party no.1.”
The Court quashed the impugned order but also observed, the fact remains that four people had died due to consumption of dirty water. It directed the State to consider their existing policies on compensation, and such compensation whether thereunder or ex-gratia has to be paid to the next of kin.