Human Rights Commission compensation recommendations require sufficient evidence of inhumane treatment, not merely uncorroborated allegations.

K.A. Anthoni and Mathalaimuthu @ Mariyasundaram complained to the State Human Rights Commission alleging that forest officials and a police officer unlawfully detained them, subjected them to ill-treatment, and extorted ₹5,000 under threat of arrest.

The incident followed the alleged uprooting of 63 saplings planted by the Forest Department near the complainants’ house.

The State Human Rights Commission, by order dated 18 June 2010 in SHRC Case No.8776 of 2004, recommended payment of ₹50,000 to the complainants by the Government and recovery of ₹10,000 from the petitioner, then a Forest Range Officer, and ₹8,000 each from the other officials.

The petitioner challenged that recommendation under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that the Commission had relied principally on uncorroborated oral evidence and had failed to consider that the officials had acted in good faith concerning damage to public property.

1. Whether the State Human Rights Commission was justified in concluding, on the evidence available, that the petitioner and the other officials had violated the complainants’ human rights through illegal detention, inhumane treatment, and extortion.

2. Whether the alleged collection of ₹5,000, without accounting for or remitting it to the Treasury, by itself established a human-rights violation warranting compensation and recovery from the officials.

3. Whether the Commission’s recommendation of compensation and recovery was sustainable in the absence of independent evidence corroborating the allegations of inhumane treatment.

The Court exercised judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution over the recommendation of the State Human Rights Commission.

It considered the administrative requirements in the Tamil Nadu Forest Manual, Part VI(3), under which amounts collected as compounding fees were required to be reported to the competent authority and remitted into the nearest Taluk Treasury; however, non-compliance with that accounting procedure, without more, did not constitute a human-rights violation.

The Court also recognised that the Commission’s power to recommend compensation for human-rights violations must be based on evidence establishing unlawful detention or inhumane treatment, and that a plausible official explanation, coupled with the absence of independent corroboration, may render such a recommendation unsustainable.

The Court accepted that the forest officials had gone to the complainants’ house after discovering that 63 departmental saplings had been uprooted and that a complaint was thereafter lodged with the police.

It also noted that the complainants were taken to the police station for enquiry concerning CSR No.160 of 2004.

Although the complainants alleged illegal confinement, ill-treatment, inadequate food, and payment of ₹5,000 for release, the evidence supporting those allegations came from four family members, with no independent witness being examined.

The Court further found that the respondents had offered a plausible explanation that the money represented the cost of replanting the damaged saplings and that the matter had been compromised.

Even assuming that the amount had not been properly accounted for or remitted to the Treasury, that irregularity did not, standing alone, establish a violation of human rights.

In the absence of sufficiently corroborated evidence of inhumane treatment or unlawful detention, the Commission was not justified in recommending compensation and punitive recovery from the officials.

The mere failure to account for or remit ₹5,000, coupled with the complainants’ uncorroborated allegations, was insufficient to sustain the recommendation of compensation and recovery.

Accordingly, the impugned order in SHRC Case No.8776 of 2004 was set aside, the writ petition was allowed, and there was no order as to costs.