Written by Aditi RajaVadodara | January 16, 2026 12:26 AM IST 5 min readEven as the civil suit is pending, Sharda Patel initiated proceedings before the HRC in respect of the same land, claiming a share in the property by alleging violation of human rights.Quashing the proceedings initiated by the Gujarat State Human Rights Commission in a case of property dispute between members of a family, the Gujarat High Court Thursday issued directions and guidelines to the commission to ensure that the powers conferred upon it under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, are “not abused and the process of law is not misused”.In a 40-page judgment, Justice NR Mehta of the Gujarat HC states the initiation of inquiry by the HRC “not only exceeded its jurisdiction but also amounted to usurpation of the powers of the civil court”.“The Commission cannot conduct inquiries or proceedings in a casual manner that defeats the object and intent of the legislature. It is expected to exercise its powers with due caution and circumspection. Before initiating any proceedings, the Commission must form at least a prima facie opinion regarding the existence of a human rights violation…,” the court said in its judgment.Issuing directions and guidelines regarding the jurisdiction and exercise of powers by the Human Rights Commission under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the High Court directed the HRC to conduct a primary scrutiny to ascertain any violation of human rights in the allegations, prima facie, before taking suo motu cognizance. The HC directed the HRC to be “more vigilant” and not to exercise powers “on casual information” but on “prima facie trustworthy material”.The court directed the HRC not to entertain complaints which “predominantly involve private civil dispute including the disputes relating to title, possession, succession, partition, release deed, contracts or other matters squarely falling within the domain of the civil court unless there is a demonstrable involvement of the State action resulting in a recognizable human rights violation”.Stating that the HRC must seek declaration from the complainant about any ongoing proceeding before any court of law for the same complaint, the HC directed the commission to “refrain from proceeding further usurping the powers of the competent civil court” to ensure that its inquiry does not “obstruct judicial proceedings”.The HC also directed the HRC to hold preliminary inquiry into complaints and “exercise due diligence” before issuing summons, notices and warrants to ensure that such measures are taken only “after proper application of mind” and “strictly avoid unnecessary impleadment of public officials in purely private matters”.Story continues below this adThe judgement was delivered on a Special Civil Application filed by Mahendra Patel, Rakesh Patel and Bharat Patel in the case of a property dispute with a relative, Sharda Naran Patel– who had relinquished her one-fourth share and interest in the lands under contention in favour of the three petitioners by a registered sale deed in 2015.The HC judgment noted that the HRC took cognisance of a complaint by Sharda Patel in 2025, after a lapse of 10 years and even though she had already filed a regular civil suit in April 2025 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar, seeking cancellation of the relinquishment deed, declaration, injunction, and partition.Even as the civil suit is pending, Sharda Patel initiated proceedings before the HRC in respect of the same land, claiming a share in the property by alleging violation of human rights.The HC order noted the submissions of the advocates appearing for the petitioners contending that the HRC “ought not to have issued notices” for settlement of a private property dispute as such intervention “not only exceeds the scope of (powers under the Act), but also amounts to usurpation of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, which is impermissible in law.”Story continues below this adNoting that Section 2(d) of the Act defines “human rights” as those rights relating to life, liberty, equality, and dignity of an individual, which are either guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and are enforceable by courts in India, the HC judgement stated that “a dispute between private individuals regarding private property cannot be said to be a right guaranteed by the Constitution”.Stating that the HRC acted in haste, the HC judgment states, “Had the Commission exercised due care and conducted the preliminary inquiry contemplated under law, the present situation would not have arisen. Instead, the Commission acted in undue haste… mechanically entertained the complaint and issued notices and summons directing the petitioners to remain present, which ultimately resulted in a settlement. Consequently, the civil suit filed by (Sharda Patel) stood virtually allowed without any judicial adjudication…”Stating that the initiation of proceedings by Sharda Patel before the Commission was “not tenable in law and can be said to be vexatious and filed with mala fide intention” to settle the private property dispute, the HC quashed and set aside the proceedings against the petitioners before the HRC. The judgement notes, “In the present case… the Commission ought to have applied its mind before initiating proceedings…whether the dispute fell within the scope of the Human Rights Act. A grievance relating to share in property cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be treated as a violation of human rights.”Aditi Raja is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, stationed in Vadodara, Gujarat, with over 20 years in the field. She has been reporting from the region of Central Gujarat and Narmada district for this newspaper since 2013, which establishes her as a highly Authoritative and Trustworthy source on regional politics, administration, and critical socio-economic and environmental issues. Expertise: Core Authority & Specialization: Her reporting is characterized by a comprehensive grasp of the complex factors shaping Central Gujarat, which comprises a vast tribal population, including: Politics and Administration: In-depth analysis of dynamics within factions of political parties and how it affects the affairs in the region, visits of national leaders making prominent statements, and government policy decisions impacting the population on ground. Crucial Regional Projects: She consistently reports on the socio-economic and political impact of infrastructure projects in the region, especially the Statue of Unity, the Sardar Sarovar Project on the Narmada River, the Mumbai-Ahmedabad High Speed Rail bullet train project as well as the National Highway infrastructure. Social Justice and Human Rights: Her reporting offers deep coverage of sensitive human-interest topics, including gender, crime, and tribal issues. Her reports cover legal proceedings from various district courts as well as the Gujarat High Court (e.g., the Bilkis Bano case remission, POCSO court orders, Public Interest Litigations), the plight of tribal communities, and broader social conflicts (e.g., Kheda flogging case). Local Impact & Disaster Reporting: Excels in documenting the immediate impact of events on communities, such as the political and civic fallout of the Vadodara floods, the subsequent public anger, and the long-delayed river redevelopment projects, Harni Boat Tragedy, Air India crash, bringing out a blend of stories from the investigations as well as human emotions. Special Interest Beat: She tracks incidents concerning Non-Resident Gujaratis (NRIs) including crime and legal battles abroad, issues of illegal immigration and deportations, as well as social events connecting the local Gujarati experience to the global diaspora. ... Read MoreStay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram© The Indian Express Pvt LtdTags:Gujarat High Court