Private Property Disputes ≠ Human Rights Violation

Why in News ?

• High Court held that private property disputes between family members cannot be treated as human rights violations.
• Human Rights Commissions (HRCs) lack jurisdiction over purely private civil disputes.
• Reinforces the jurisdictional boundaries of quasi-judicial bodies vis-à-vis civil courts.

Relevance

GS II – Polity & Governance

• Role, powers and limits of Human Rights Commissions
• Quasi-judicial bodies vs civil courts
• Doctrine of limited jurisdiction
• Separation of powers & institutional accountability
• Judicial oversight over statutory authorities

GS II – Constitution

• Article 12: State-centric enforceability of rights
• Article 300A: Right to Property (constitutional, not fundamental)
• Enforcement of Fundamental Rights vs private wrongs

Core Holding of the Court

• Human Rights Commissions Act, 1993:
  • Empowers HRCs to address violations involving State action or negligence.
• Private disputes:
  • Do not fall within the definition of “human rights violation” unless State involvement is established.
• HRCs:
  • Cannot exercise civil court–like powers over inheritance, property, or family disputes.
  • Should not be used to bypass regular civil remedies.

Constitutional & Legal Analysis

Nature of Human Rights 

• Rooted in:
  • Part III of the Constitution (Fundamental Rights)
  • International Covenants incorporated through law
• Generally enforceable:
  • Against the State (Article 12 doctrine)
• Private wrongs → civil law domain, not human rights law.

Statutory Interpretation

• Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
  • “Human rights” relate to:
    • Life, liberty, equality, dignity
    • Violations by public servants or State agencies
• HC reaffirmed:
  • Jurisdictional restraint for statutory commissions.

Governance & Institutional Dimension

Problem Identified

• Increasing trend of:
  • Using HRCs to litigate private civil disputes
  • Overburdening commissions
  • Diluting focus on genuine rights violations

Institutional Risk

• Forum shopping
• Weakening:
  • Credibility of human rights institutions
  • Separation of powers between courts and commissions

Recent & Broader Relevance

1. Judicial Pushback Against Jurisdictional Overreach

• Courts increasingly:
  • Restrict quasi-judicial bodies (HRCs, consumer fora, tribunals) from exceeding statutory mandates.
• Aligns with:
  • Doctrine of limited jurisdiction
  • Rule of law and legal certainty

2. Property Rights Jurisprudence (Recent Trend)

• Post 44th Constitutional Amendment:
  • Right to Property → Article 300A (constitutional, not fundamental)
• Courts emphasize:
  • Property disputes → due process via civil courts
  • Not rights commissions or writ misuse

3. Human Rights Inflation Problem

• Expanding “human rights” to:
  • All forms of private disputes
• Risk:
  • Trivialisation of serious violations (custodial deaths, illegal detention, police excesses).

Comparative Perspective

• Globally:
  • Human rights law focuses on vertical violations (State vs individual).
• Horizontal application (private vs private):
  • Limited
  • Requires clear legislative backing.

Implications

Positive

• Clarifies legal pathways for citizens.
• Protects:
  • Autonomy of civil courts
  • Core mandate of HRCs
• Reduces administrative misuse.

Concerns

• Low awareness among citizens about:
  • Proper forum for grievance redressal
• Civil courts:
  • Slow disposal remains a structural issue.

Way Forward

Legal & Institutional

• Clear SOPs for HRCs on maintainability checks.
• Mandatory screening of complaints for State involvement.
• Training for commission staff on jurisdictional limits.

Governance

• Public legal awareness campaigns:
  • “Which forum for which grievance”
• Strengthen civil justice delivery:
  • Case management
  • Digitisation
  • ADR mechanisms

Prelims Pointers

• Human Rights Commissions Act, 1993:
  • Focus on State-related violations.
• Right to Property:
  • Article 300A (not a Fundamental Right).
• HRCs ≠ Civil Courts.

---