Revisiting the Nature of NHRC’s Compensation Directives: Binding Mandate or Advisory Suggestion?

Educator · Oct 10, 2025

Recently, the State Government of Kerala has filed a petition before the Kerala High Court challenging the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) order which directed it to pay Rs 7 lakhs as compensation to the family of J.S. Sidharthan.1 Sidharthan was a second year Bachelor of Veterinary Science (BVSc) student at the Pookode campus of the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University who was found dead allegedly following ragging.

He was found hanging in the bathroom of the college hostel on 18-2-2024. 19 students were arrested following the incident. An anti-ragging squad of the college investigated the case, and its report confirmed that J.S. Sidharthan was subjected to brutal physical abuse.2 The investigation was later probed by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) which corroborated the findings of the anti-ragging squad by stating in the charge-sheet that the victim was harassed continuously for two days before his death.3

Simultaneously, a complaint before the NHRC bearing the case number 100/11/14/2024 was filed on 7-3-20244. On 1-10-2024, the NHRC directed a monetary compensation of 7 lakhs to be paid by the State Government to next of kin (NOK) of the deceased. The same was not complied with leading to summons being enforced, prompting the State Government to file this petition.

The main contention of the Kerala Government is the lack of power vested in NHRC to order compensation directives. This rekindles the discussion on the subject whether Section
185 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 19936 empowers the NHRC to direct legally binding obligations or mere recommendations.

Guardians of rights: Understanding the role of the NHRC

NHRC is an independent statutory body established under Section
3 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.7 The Commission acts as a watchdog for human rights in India, safeguarding the fundamental rights to life, liberty, equality and individual dignity. Section 2(1)(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (the Act) defines human rights as the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution of India8, or embodied in the international covenants and enforceable by courts in India.9
Therefore, constitutional rights like Article 1410 (right to equality), Article 1511 (right against discrimination), Article 1712 (right against untouchability), Article 1913 (right to freedom of speech), Article 2114 (right to life) and Article 2315 (right against trafficking) are sought to be protected by NHRC.

These rights are parallel to the ones enshrined under international covenants like Paris Principles, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)16, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)17, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)18 and European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)19. India is a signatory to or has ratified most of these conventions.20

These international conventions gain relevance to the current discussion particularly because of Articles
51 and 253 of the Indian Constitution which states that the State shall endeavour to foster respect for international law and treaty obligations.21 The significance of such covenants has been highlighted by numerous cases as well.22

Understanding the statutory procedure governing NHRC

Chapter II of the Act covers the Constitution and composition of the NHRC. Sections 6 and 8 lays down the tenure, terms and conditions of the Chairperson and other members of the NHRC.23 Chapter III lays down the function and powers of the Commission. Section 12 is the most comprehensive section which locates the ambit of power provided to the Commission. This includes inquiring into human rights violations suo motu, on petitions or court directions. The section further empowers the Commission to intervene in court cases with approval and inspect jail or detention facilities to check living conditions.24

Section 13 of the Act endows NHRC with powers of a civil court under the
Civil Procedure Code, 190825 vis-à-vis conducting enquiries. This includes summoning and examining witnesses, compelling production of documents, receiving evidence via affidavits, etc. A proceeding under NHRC is a deemed judicial proceeding.26 Section 18 of the Act lays down the procedure to be taken during or after an inquiry. Upon finding of a violation of human rights or negligence in preventing one, the Commission can recommend the Government concerned to make a monetary compensation to the victim or NOK, initiate proceedings for prosecution or take any action it deems fit.27 Furthermore, a recommendation of monetary compensation as an interim relief can be made at any stage of the inquiry by the Commission as per Section 18(3).
However, judicial fraternity is divided over the question whether these directives are legally binding obligations despite the explicit usage of the term “recommendation”. An analysis of several judicial decisions shall throw a light upon the discourse.

Judicial interpretation of NHRC’s directions as advisory

Section 18 of the Act uses the expression “may recommend to the authority concerned”. The word “recommendation” refers to an action which is advisory in nature rather than one having any binding effect. By deploying literal rule of interpretation on the same, it is abundantly clear that after concluding an inquiry, if the Commission determines that a human rights violation has occurred, it may recommend that the Government concerned provide compensation. However, the Commission would lack the power and jurisdiction to issue a binding order.

The Chhattisgarh High Court in Chhattisgarh SEB v. Chhattisgarh Human Rights Commission came to the conclusion that under Section 18, the State Human Rights Commission’s powers are only recommendatory in nature.28 It relied on N.C. Dhoundial v. Union of India29 and Rajesh Das v. T.N. State Human Rights Commission, wherein by employing textualist mode of interpretation and holistically reading Sections 12, 13, 1730 and 18 of the Act, it was concluded that the Commission possesses the power to only make recommendations and no directions.31

External aids of statutory interpretation, such as Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act32, were also considered to deduce that the legislature intended the Commission to function solely as a fact-finding body, empowered to inquire into complaints of human rights violation and not an adjudicatory authority. This was later reiterated by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Girdhari Lal Chandrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh33.

Chhattisgarh SEB case34 further relies upon Ram Krishna Dalmia v. S.R. Tendolkar and draws an analogy to the functioning of Enquiry Commission constituted under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.35 It is stated therein that the sole purpose of these Commissions is to investigate and recommend so that there is no usurpation of judicial power.

Several other High Courts have followed the lead and reiterated the above findings on similar rationale. The Orissa High Court, for example, in State of Odisha v. Radhakanta Tripathy held that the Commission can only “recommend” compensation under Section 18 of the Act.36

A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Malabar Cements Ltd. v. K. Baburajan held that the Commission does not possess unlimited powers and is circumscribed by statutory limits.37 Thus, going by the statutory language used, the directives under Section 18 are only recommendary. Furthermore, a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in C. Girish Naik v. State of Karnataka reiterated that State Commissions can only recommend and not direct State Government for action against policemen.38

Judicial recognition of NHRC’s binding powers

The most recent judgment upon this issue is State (NCT of Delhi) v. NHRC which was decided by the Delhi High Court on February 24th this year. The petitioner in this case is the Commissioner of Police who was found negligent by the NHRC for non-registration of a first information report (FIR) in a case wherein the information given by the complainant clearly exposed occurrence of cognizable offences. The final order of the Commission was assailed by the petitioner on merits, which was later dismissed. However, the judgment mentioned in passing that the recommendations made by the NHRC under Section 18 of the Act were binding in nature.39

Reliance was placed upon a Division Bench judgment of the same Court in Kiran Singh v. NHRC. Herein, the petitioner was the father of the deceased who was allegedly killed in a fake encounter by Delhi Police Special Cell. The petitioner preferred a complaint before NHRC which directed for a magisterial inquiry and a CBI probe later. However, both were ignored and delayed by the authorities. The Commission later directed payment of Rs 5 lakhs to NOK of the deceased which was never paid. Thus, the main issue before the Court was to examine the binding nature of NHRC directives on compensation and inquiries. It held that the recommendations would be legally binding obligations lest the Commission’s existence is rendered otiose.40

Other High Courts have adopted similar approach in this matter. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud and Yashwant Varma, JJ., had an opportunity to adjudicate upon the same in State of U.P. v. NHRC41. The basic question remained whether the expression “recommend” in Section 18(a) of the Act could be regarded by the authorities as a mere opinion than can be ignored with impunity. The Court observed that:

16. … to place such a construction on the expression “recommend” would dilute the efficacy of the Commission and defeat the statutory object underlying the constitution of such a body.

Continuing, the Court emphasised that:

16. An authority or a Government which is aggrieved by the order of the Commission is entitled to challenge the order. Since no appeal is provided by the Act against an order of the Commission, the power of judicial review is available when an order of the Commission is questioned.

A later Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court had reached the same conclusion in State of U.P. v. U.P. Human Rights Commission42. Similarly, a Single Judge Bench of the Bombay High Court in Chandrakant Dashrath Vadgule v. State of Maharashtra held likewise.43 The judgment placed reliance on the Full Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in Abdul Sathar v. State44.

The Full Bench was tasked with resolving conflict of views between two Single Bench judgments of the Madras High Court, viz. Rajesh Das case45 and T. Vijayakumar v. Madhavi46. Upon perusal of both of the cases, the Full Bench concluded that the NHRC’s recommendation amounts to an adjudicatory order. The Government is legally obligated to respond with comments and details of action taken, as per Section 18(e), making the recommendation legally and immediately enforceable.

Binding versus recommendatory: Which interpretation best serves human rights?

The issue in this legal situation is the absence of a clear constitutional directive regarding the binding nature of High Court precedents. While it is trite law that Article
141 of the Constitution of India mandates that the Supreme Court rulings are binding on all courts in India47, no equivalent provision exists for High Court decisions, leaving a legal void unaddressed by the Supreme Court. In fact, it is well-established that a High Court’s decision is not binding on other High Courts and holds only persuasive value.48 Therefore, a judicial pronouncement from the Supreme Court is really necessary to fill this legal lacuna.
However, in contemporary times, I believe the NHRC directives should be seen as binding for three key reasons:

(1) Under Section 18(c) of the Act, in addition to Section 18(a), the NHRC can grant compensation as interim relief during an ongoing inquiry. By taking a purposive interpretation, this power to recommend “immediate” relief should be viewed as binding, not discretionary, as the term “immediate” implies prompt and obligatory compliance. Treating it as merely advisory would undermine its intent and effectiveness.

(2) The catena of cases that held the directives to be recommendatory erroneous relies upon N.C. Dhoundial case49, to downplay the binding nature of NHRC recommendations. The Supreme Court’s observations therein were made specifically in the context of Section 3650 of the Act, which limits the Commission’s jurisdiction based on time and other procedural constraints. It is therefore inappropriate and decontextualised to apply this reasoning to Section 18 which deals with the Commission’s power to recommend relief and compensation. These provisions operate independently and are meant to ensure immediate and effective redress, underscoring a more binding character.

(3) Similarly, these cases place reliance upon Rajesh Das case51, wherein the Single Judge Bench had set aside the compensation granted by the State Human Rights Commission. However, in Abdul Sathar case52, the Madras High Court reviewed Rajesh Das case53 decision and held that such recommendations are binding in nature. Therefore, Rajesh Das case54 has been effectively overruled.

Therefore, the reliance on N.C. Dhoundial case55 and Rajesh Das case56 to support the view that NHRC recommendations are non-binding lacks persuasive legal grounding and fails to withstand closer judicial scrutiny.

Conclusion

By recognising the enforceability of NHRC recommendations, the High Courts have strengthened the protection of human rights, assuring citizens that the legal system is committed to upholding their dignity and interests. This role resonated with the expectations of the common person, who sees the judiciary as a true avenue for justice. While the NHRC’s website states that its recommendations are not binding57, this stance must evolve. It should reflect the reasoned approach adopted by several High Courts, which underscores that treating such recommendations as binding would significantly advance the cause of human rights and place them on a more luminous and effective path.

Revisiting the Nature of NHRC’s Compensation Directives: Binding Mandate or Advisory Suggestion?

Educator

New member

Guardians of rights: Understanding the role of the NHRC​

Understanding the statutory procedure governing NHRC​

Judicial interpretation of NHRC’s directions as advisory​

Judicial recognition of NHRC’s binding powers​

Binding versus recommendatory: Which interpretation best serves human rights?​

Conclusion​