### State Human Rights Commission cannot award compensation without establishing negligence through specific inquiry findings.

On April 6, 2015, Respondent No. 1 and his wife were riding a motorcycle near Mahim Junction when the vehicle allegedly skidded due to a pothole, causing his wife to suffer a serious head injury resulting in a coma.

Respondent No. 1 approached the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission (MSHRC), alleging gross negligence by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) in maintaining public roads.

The MCGM contested this, stating that the accident occurred 500 meters away from their active work site, no potholes existed at the site, and proper safety measures were in place.

The MSHRC, relying on a police station diary entry and previous PIL directions regarding road maintenance, found MCGM negligent and ordered it to pay ₹10,00,000/- as compensation for the violation of human rights.

The MCGM challenged this order via a Writ Petition, arguing the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction and awarded damages without established proof of negligence.

Whether the State Human Rights Commission has the jurisdiction to pass a mandatory order for payment of compensation versus making a recommendation.

Whether the Commission can record a finding of negligence and award damages in the absence of a trial or conclusive evidence when facts are contested.

The court examined Sections 12, 17, and 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, which empower the Commission to "recommend" compensation or prosecution upon the disclosure of a human rights violation.

It relied on *State of Uttar Pradesh v. NHRC* and *Abdul Sathar v. Principal Secretary to Government* to affirm that while the Commission’s "recommendations" are binding and require judicial review to be set aside, they must be based on an inquiry identifying negligence by a public servant.

The court further applied principles from *Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa* and *D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal* regarding public law remedies for fundamental rights violations.

The court applied *SPS Rathod v. State of Haryana*, which restricts the grant of compensation in writ jurisdiction when foundational facts are in dispute.

The Court observed that while the Commission's recommendations are generally binding unless challenged, the Commission cannot assume the role of a Civil Court or a Constitutional Court to award damages in cases involving disputed questions of fact.

In this case, the MSHRC concluded negligence based on general observations from a Suo Motu PIL regarding Mumbai's road conditions rather than specific evidence linking the MCGM's act to this particular accident.

The Court noted that the MCGM had expressly denied the existence of potholes at the site and asserted the accident occurred outside its work zone.

Since the police report and the engineer's report did not provide a "glaring and patent" established link of negligence, the Commission erred in summarily awarding ₹10 Lakhs without a proper trial or evidence-based finding.

The Court held that the Commission exceeded its statutory mandate under Section 18 by treating an unproved tortious claim as an established human rights violation.

The Court held that the Commission cannot award compensation where the negligence is not ex-facie glaring and facts are contested, as such matters require a civil trial.

While expressing sympathy for the victim, the Court granted Respondent No. 1 the liberty to approach a Civil Court to seek damages, clarifying that the observations in this judgment would not prejudice such a suit.

Rule was made absolute.