W.P.(C) No.8204/2009 Page 1 of 4 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 26th July, 2011 + W.P.(C) 8204/2009 ASIAN CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Adv. versus NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION .....Respondent Through: Mr. B.S. Gautham, Adv. CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may Not necessary be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Not necessary 3. Whether the judgment should be reported Not necessary in the Digest? RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 10th September, 2008 of the respondent NHRC closing the complaint dated 14th December, 2007 of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner had complained of brutal assault of a pregnant woman identified as Shriti/Shirita Wanniang and four others by personnel W.P.(C) No.8204/2009 Page 2 of 4 of CRPF at Mothphram in Shillong on 10th December, 2007. It was the case of the petitioner that the street vendors were protesting against an alleged attempted eviction by Shillong Municipal Board; that a tussle broke out between the police and the protestors; that in the meantime CRPF personnel, who were patrolling the area interfered and resorted to lathi charge without issuing any warning; that the said Mrs. Shriti Wanniang was referred to hospital where she was declared having suffered a miscarriage. It was the case of the petitioner that the lathicharge was unwarranted and disproportionate force had been used against innocent persons. 3. The NHRC issued notice to the DG, CRPF as well as the Superintendent of Police, Shillong and called for the reports. 4. Since the complaint was against CRPF, i.e., against members of armed forces, the procedure therefor provided in Section 19 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. I have today in judgment dated 26th July, 2011 in W.P.(C) No. 8102/2007 titled as Asian Centre for Human Rights v. NHRC discussed the interpretation thereof. Thus, need is not felt to reiterate the same here. Suffice it is to observe that it has been held that it is mandatory for NHRC to follow the procedure under W.P.(C) No.8204/2009 Page 3 of 4 Section 19, i.e. to seek report from the Central Government and thereafter to take a decision either not to proceed with the complaint or to make a recommendation to the Government. 5. In the present case, the NHRC though called for the report from the Police and from the Director General, CRPF but did not call for any report from the Central Government. The Superintendent of Police, Khasi Hills, Shillong reported that after the eviction team left the scene, the patrol party of the CRPF on routine patrol were mistaken for the eviction team and abused verbally and physically by the hawkers/vendors and two women hawkers encouraged by the protestors charged at the CRPF personnel with bamboo sticks in hand and rebuked them and that is when the CRPF personnel had to disperse the crowd. It was also reported that one of the women who had complained to the police was sent for medical examination but there was no mention in the medical records of any injury on her person or of any miscarriage. The report of the examination forwarded did not indicate of any miscarriage. 6. There is no record of any report having been made by the CRPF. 7. The respondent NHRC on the basis of the aforesaid report decided that no action was called for. W.P.(C) No.8204/2009 Page 4 of 4 8. The counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the medical report forwarded by the East Khasi Hills District Police. It is contended that even though the same does not show any miscarriage, it is indicative of injuries having been inflicted. The medical record indicates that the patient was having tenderness in both legs and calfs; was unable to move right arm and forearm and was unable to move the upper arm and shoulder joint. 9. The NHRC appears to have been of the view that the complaint being of having violated human rights by causing miscarriage and the same having not been borne out from the medical records, no case for proceeding further was made out. 10. I find no reason to interfere with the matter. As aforesaid the procedure prescribed in Section 19 does not even provide for calling for the report from the police and provides for seeking report from the Central Government only. 11. Dismissed. No order as to costs. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW,J JULY 26, 2011 anb