Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, July 31: High Court has rejected the pleas seeking implementation of recommendations of erstwhile State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) on killing of a youth as alleged by the activists of Ikhwani outfit and observed that the recommendations made by the Commission cannot be termed as a verdict and are not binding on Government.
According to the petitioner-Ghulam Rasool Sofi, his son Farooq Ahmad Sofi, was killed in 1998 by the persons of Ikhwani outfit in their custody.
It is contended that he approached the erstwhile J&K SHRC for justice and an enquiry was conducted thereafter the Commission found that his son was apprehended and subsequently his dead body was thrown near his house.
The Commission had recommended that an amount of Rs one lakh be given as compensation to the family of the victim and copy of recommendation of the Commission was furnished to the then Chief Secretary as also to the Advisor to the Governor but the same was not implemented and no ex-gratia relief was provided compelling him to knock the portals of High Court for implementation of SHRC recommendations.
Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed the plea of the petitioner-Sofi by recording that as has been already by the court that the recommendations made by the Commission cannot be termed as a verdict on resolving the disputed facts and that the same are not binding on the parties (authorities) before the Commission.
Court said the claim of the petitioner is based on the assertion that his son was an innocent person whereas the claim of the respondent-authorities is that he was a militant. Court added that his claim is backed by the report of the Commission whereas claim of the respondent-authorities is backed by the report of investigation in FIR No.51/1998 of Police Station, Achabal, which was also accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anantnag.
Court while referring the verdict on this issue also said that that the Commission is neither a judicial authority nor a quasi-judicial authority to adjudicate upon disputed facts as such the findings of the Commission, on which the petitioner has relied upon, cannot become a basis for concluding that his son was not a militant.
“The issue, therefore, becomes a disputed question of fact which cannot be determined by this court in these proceedings, as the determination of the same would involve examination and cross-examination of the witnesses and appreciation of evidence. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy before a Civil Court”, Court concluded.
Follow our WhatsApp channel