Recommendations Under Section 18(e) Are Not Mere Advice, But Binding Determinations: Bombay High Court To Hear Crucial PIL On Powers Of Human Rights Commissions

"Decisions of the Human Rights Commissions cannot be reduced to ceremonial advice when victims await justice", Today, Hon’ble High Court of Bombay (Coram: Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Hon’ble Justice Gautam Ankhad) is set to hear Public Interest Litigation No. 118 of 2025, filed by Mr. Satyam Atul Surana, a petitioner in person. The PIL raises significant questions of constitutional law and administrative accountability, focusing on the binding nature of recommendations issued by the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission (MSHRC) under Section 18(e) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

The petition seeks a judicial declaration that recommendations made by the State Human Rights Commission under Section 18(e) are binding, unless challenged, and not to be treated as non-enforceable advice. The matter assumes vital importance as it touches on the core of State compliance with statutory human rights redressal mechanisms, and its implications on victims' access to justice.

“76% of Human Rights Recommendations Ignored Since 2013”: Alarming Data Revealed Through RTI Forms Basis of PIL

At the heart of the PIL lies a Right to Information (RTI) application filed by the petitioner on March 4, 2025, seeking clarity on the number of recommendations issued by the MSHRC and their implementation status. The official reply exposes a disturbing pattern of inaction:

From 2013 to 2025, the MSHRC issued 180 recommendations under the PHRA. Of these, only 44 (24%) were acted upon by the State Government. A staggering 136 recommendations (76%), involving total compensation of ₹3.39 crores, remain unimplemented without justification.

The petitioner argues that this prolonged non-compliance by the State of Maharashtra constitutes a travesty of justice, not only denying victims their rights but also inflicting a second wave of human rights violations. The PIL asserts that victims, who have already suffered at the hands of the system, are now doubly victimised by bureaucratic apathy.

The PIL squarely raises two central legal issues:

1. Whether recommendations issued by the State Human Rights Commission under Section 18(e) of the PHRA are binding upon the State, unless challenged.
2. Whether the inaction of the State Government in implementing such recommendations constitutes a violation of fundamental and human rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

The petitioner submits that treating these recommendations as non-binding "makes the entire statutory mechanism under the PHRA a dead letter." The petition invokes constitutional guarantees and recent judicial pronouncements that underscore the quasi-judicial character of State Human Rights Commissions, whose reasoned determinations cannot be reduced to advisory opinions.

"State Cannot Ignore Quasi-Judicial Orders Without Challenge": Judicial Precedents Likely To Be Relied Upon

While the PIL reserves detailed citation of precedents for the final arguments, the synopsis hints at reliance on recent judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts that reaffirm the binding nature of SHRC recommendations, especially when they are the outcome of a due legal process.

The PIL anticipates that the Hon’ble High Court may consider the principle of administrative accountability, constitutional morality, and the rule of law while examining the State’s default in implementing Commission recommendations that are intended to provide compensation and redressal to victims of human rights violations.

 “If Not Binding, Then What Is The Purpose Of A Statutory Human Rights Commission?”

The petition brings to the forefront a larger question of institutional relevance and access to justice for vulnerable citizens. If the recommendations of a statutory human rights body, constituted under a Parliamentary law, are not treated as binding or enforceable, the very purpose of setting up such bodies stands defeated.

As the PIL is set to be heard, the High Court's ruling is expected to clarify the legal enforceability of SHRC recommendations and potentially usher in systemic reforms in how States respond to findings of statutory bodies under the PHRA.

This could mark a watershed moment in the jurisprudence of human rights enforcement in India.

Date of Hearing: 18th November 2025
Case Title: Satyam Atul Surana v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
*Public Interest Litigation No. 118 of 2025
Before: Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Hon'ble Justice Gautam Ankhad, Bombay High Court