Patna High Court
Dr. Ranjit Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 28 July, 2025
Author: Alok Kumar Sinha
Bench: Alok Kumar Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18177 of 2014
======================================================
Dr. Ranjit Kumar Son of Sri Raj Nandan Sharma, Sakshi Surgery Centre,
Sirhi Ghat Lane, P.S.- Bakhtiyarpur, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary.
2. Bihar Human Rights Commission, 9, Bailey Road, Patna through its
Secretary.
3.1. Gopal Kumar S/o Ram Narayan Singh, Resident of village- Sabnima, P.S.-
Athmalgola, District- Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Saket Tiwary, Advocate
Mr. Tarun, Advocate
Mr. Animesh Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Shivam Gupta, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vivek Prasad, GP-7
Mr. Aman Priyadarshi, Advocate
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date: 28-07-2025
Heard the parties.
2. The present writ application has been filed for
quashing of the order dated 25.07.2014 passed by the learned
Member of the Bihar Human Rights Commission, Patna
(hereinafter for brevity referred to as the 'Commission') in File
No.BHRC/Comp.676/12 (Ram Narayan Singh vs. Dr. Ranjit
Kumar).
3. For better appreciation of the case, the operative
portion of the impugned order dated 25.07.2014 (Annexure-1)
passed by the Commission is quoted herein below for needful.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18177 of 2014 dt.28-07-2025
2/14
"4. Commission in its order dated 02nd June,
2014 directed the Health Deptt. to send response
to the Commission's proposal to award
compensation to the victim. Health deptt. was told
to send response by 02nd July, 2014 after which
final orders will be passed. No response has come
from the Health Deptt. Dr. Ranjeet Kumar was
also asked to explain/summit his defence to the
Commission. He has done so but he has miserably
failed to rebut the charges levelled against him by
the committee set up by Health Deptt..
5. Commission, therefore, directs following
actions to be taken in the matter:-
(a) A compensation of Rs.1, 00,000 (One Lakh) be
paid to the victim by the Health Deptt. within two
months. The compensation be recovered from the
Doctor in the manner deem fit by the government.
(b) Action taken by the Govt. regarding
termination of the services Dr. Ranjeet Kumar (as
recommended by the committee) to be
communicated to the Commission within two
months.
(c) A copy of the expert committee report is sent to
the Chairman, Bihar Council of Medical
Education for effecting ban on the Gynaecological
practice and surgery by the Doctor. Action taken
be communicated to the Commission within three
months.
(d) A copy of the report from Director-in-Chief,
Health Services, Bihar be sent to SSP, Patna for
needful in regard to Bakhtiyarpur PS Case No.
112/11.
(e) Commission is of the view that the above two
cases of serious criminal medical negligence
(Barh G.R No. 473/11 & 1416/11) are fit cases for
SPEEDY TRIAL by the special court set up by
Bihar Government (notification no.1607 dated
18.3.2011
) designating the court of Addl. District
& Sessions Judge-l as the Court of Session for
speedy trial of offences u/s 30 of the Protection of
Patna High Court CWJC No.18177 of 2014 dt.28-07-2025
3/14
Human Rights Act, 1993. Commission requests
Hon’ble High Court, Patna to issue suitable
directions in this regard.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
4. Despite the fact that in the writ application the
petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 25.07.2014
(Annexure-1) but during the course of argument the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner confined his challenge only to
the direction contained in paragraph-5(c) of the said impugned
order on the following counts:
(a) The direction contained in paragraph-5(c) of
the impugned order (Annexure-1) has been passed without
considering the reply which was submitted by the petitioner
vide Annexure-12 of the writ application before the
Commission and,
(b) the direction given by the Commission as
contained in paragraph-5(c) is illegal and without
jurisdiction for the reason that while exercising power
under Section 18 of The Protection of Human Rights Act,
1993, the Commission could only have given a
‘recommendation’ and not a direction.
5. In support of the ground (a), the learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that in the proceeding before the
Commission, the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply
Patna High Court CWJC No.18177 of 2014 dt.28-07-2025
4/14
(Annexure-12) in File No.676/2012, in which the petitioner had
explained as to how the charges levelled by the Expert Committee
in its recommendation dated 23.05.2014 (Annexure-10) were not
correct. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
without proper consideration of the reply (Annexure-12) submitted
by the petitioner before the Commission, the Commission has
arbitrarily, erroneously and abruptly come to the conclusion that
the petitioner had miserably failed to rebut the charges. This
conclusion, as per the petitioner has been reached at without any
reasoning and is, therefore, fit to be set aside, consequently the
direction contained in paragraph-5 (c) based on such faulty
conclusion is also fit to be set aside.
6. In support of ground (b) the petitioner has relied
upon a judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court passed on
06.03.2024 in the case of Dr. Lalit Mohan Sharma vs. Bihar
Human Rights Commission & Anr. in CWJC No.13188 of 2012
in which in paragraph-14 & 15 it has been held as follows:
“14. From reading the provisions of Section 18
of The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
and also in the Judgment of Chhattisgarh State
Electricity Board Vs. Chhattishgarh State
Human Rights Commission and Ors. (Supra),
it is held that the Human Rights Commission is
only empowered to make a recommendation
and it cannot adjudicate and thereafter pass
an order for payment of compensation. Its
Patna High Court CWJC No.18177 of 2014 dt.28-07-2025
5/14powers are codified in Section 18 of The
Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and the
State Government and the Authorities are
obliged to consider the recommendation of the
Commission in accordance with law, meaning
thereby that the State Human Rights
Commission is a recommendatory body and it
can make recommendations only to the
concerned State Governments or its officials
for enforcement of its recommendations. The
Bihar State Human Rights Commission could
not have passed an order directing for
payment of compensation to the complainant.
15. In view of the above discussions, the order
dated 13.06.2012 passed by the Bihar Human
Rights Commission in File No. BHRC/Comp.
957 of 2011 granting compensation, is hereby
quashed.”
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 also
makes it very clear that the Commission can only give
recommendation and not a direction. Section 18 of The Protection
of Human Rights Act is quoted herein below for needful:
“[18. Steps during and after
inquiry- The Commission may take any of the
following steps during or upon the completion
of an inquiry held under this Act, namely:-
(a) where the inquiry discloses the
commission of violation of human rights or
negligence in the prevention of violation of
human rights or abetment thereof by a public
servant, it may recommend to the concerned
Government or authority-
Patna High Court CWJC No.18177 of 2014 dt.28-07-2025
6/14
(i) to make payment of compensation
or damages to the complainant or to the victim
or the members of his family as the Commission
may consider necessary;
(ii) to initiate proceedings for
prosecution or such other suitable action as the
Commission may deem fit against the
concerned person or persons;
(iii) to take such further action as it
may think fit;
(b) approach the Supreme Court or
the High Court concerned for such directions,
orders or writs as that Court may deem
necessary;
(c) recommend to the concerned
Government or authority at any stage of the
inquiry for the grant of such immediate interim
relief to the victim or the members of his family
as the Commission may consider necessary;
(d) subject to the provisions of clause
(e), provide a copy of the inquiry report to the
petitioner or his representative,
(e) the Commission shall send a copy
of its inquiry report together with its
recommendations to the concerned Government
or authority and the concerned Government or
authority shall, within a period of one month,
or such further time as the Commission may
allow, forward its comments on the report,
including the action taken or proposed to be
taken thereon, to the Commission;
(f) the Commission shall publish its
inquiry report together with the comments of
the concerned Government or authority, if any,
and the action taken or proposed to be taken by
the concerned Government or authority on the
recommendations of the Commission.”]
8. From the reading of the aforesaid provision as
contained in Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act,
1993, it is clear that after conducting the inquiry, if the inquiry
discloses the commission of violation of Human Rights or
negligence in the prevention of violation of Human Rights or
Patna High Court CWJC No.18177 of 2014 dt.28-07-2025
7/14
abetment thereof by a public servant, the Commission may
recommend to the concerned government or authority. In the case
of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board Vs. Chhattishgarh State
Human Rights Commission and Ors. reported in AIR 2018 CHH
53 in paragraph-21, it has been held and observed as follows:
“In view of the aforesaid principle of law laid
down by the Supreme Court in the above-
stated judgments (supra), if the facts of the
present case are examined, it is quite vivid
that the Human Rights Commission is a
recommendatory body and it only makes a
recommendation to the concerned authority
or Government for enforcement of its
recommendation. It has no jurisdiction to
pass an order directing payment of
compensation, therefore the impugned order
is vulnerable to the extent of directing
payment of compensation.”
9. Relying on the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that it is by now settled that Human
Rights Commission is only a recommendatory body and it can
only make recommendations to the concerned authority or
government for enforcement of its recommendation. It has no
jurisdiction to pass an order giving direction to do anything.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that from
bare perusal of paragraph-5 (c) of the impugned order (Annexure-
1), it is clear and beyond any shadow of doubt that the
Commission has directed the Chairman, Bihar Council of Medical
Patna High Court CWJC No.18177 of 2014 dt.28-07-2025
8/14
Education for effecting ban on the gynecological practice and
surgery by the petitioner based on Expert Committee’s
recommendation. Since this is in the nature of a direction and not a
recommendation, therefore, the petitioner submits that it is illegal,
without jurisdiction and therefore fit to be set aside.
10. Per contra; learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.3 submits that in paragraph-5(c) of the impugned
order (Annexure-1) no direction has been given by the
Commission, rather it is in the nature of asking the Chairman of
Bihar Council of Medical Education to implement the
recommendation given by the Expert Committee for effecting ban
on the gynecological practice and surgery by the petitioner. He,
therefore, submits that there is no illegality committed by the
Commission and hence as per him the recommendation given in
paragraph-5(c) by the Commission need not be interfered.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the State also
defended the impugned order (Annexure-1) particularly, what has
been observed and stated in paragraph-5(c) of the said order. While
advancing argument, learned counsel appearing for respondents-
State relied upon a decision of High Court of Allahabad reported
in MANU/UP/1239/2016 wherein paragraph-15, it has been held
and observed as follows:
Patna High Court CWJC No.18177 of 2014 dt.28-07-2025
9/14“15. The basic question is whether the use of the
expression “recommend” in Section 18(a) can be
treated by the State Government or by an authority
as merely an opinion or a suggestion which can be
ignored with impunity. In our view, 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. 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. Having regard to the importance of the
rule of law which is but a manifestation of the
guarantee of fair treatment under Article 14 and of
the basic principles of equality, it would not be
possible to accept the construction that the State
Government can ignore the recommendations of the
Commission under Section 18 at its discretion or in
its wisdom. That the Commission is not merely a
body which is to render opinions which will have
no sanctity or efficacy in enforcement, cannot be
accepted. This is evident from the provisions of
clause (b) of Section 18 under which the
Commission is entitled to approach the Supreme
Court or the High Court for such directions, orders
or writs as the Court may deem fit and necessary.
Governed as we are by the rule of law and by the
fundamental norms of the protection of life and
liberty and human dignity under a constitutional
order, it will not be open to the State Government to
disregard the view of the Commission. The
Commission has directed the State Government to
report compliance. The State Government is at
liberty to challenge the order of the Commission on
merits since no appeal is provided by the Act. But it
cannot in the absence of the order being set aside,
modified or reviewed disregard the order at its own
discretion. While a challenge to the order of the
Commission is available in exercise of the power of
judicial review, the State Government subject to
this right, is duty bound to comply with the order.
Otherwise the purpose of enacting the legislation
would be defeated. The provisions of the Act which
have been made to enforce the constitutional
protection of life and liberty by enabling the
Commission to grant compensation for violations
Patna High Court CWJC No.18177 of 2014 dt.28-07-2025
10/14
of human rights would be rendered nugatory. A
construction which will produce that result cannot
be adopted and must be rejected.”
12. Learned counsel for the State also relied upon
another decision of the High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench)
reported in MANU/TN/0767/2021 wherein in paragraph-9, it has
been held and observed as follows:
“9. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract
hereunder the relevant paragraphs of the decision of
the Full Bench of this Court:
“(iii) Whether the State Human Rights
Commission, while exercising powers under sub-
clauses (ii) and (iii) of clause (a) of Section 18 of
the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, could
straight away issue orders for recovery of the
compensation amount directed to be paid by the
State to the victims of violation of human rights
under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of Section 18 of
that enactment, from the Officers of the State who
have been found to be responsible for causing such
violation?
Ans: Yes, as we have held that the recommendation
of the Commission under Section 18 is binding and
enforceable, the Commission can order recovery of
the compensation from the State and payable to the
victims of the violation of human rights under Sub
Clause (a)(i) of Section 18 of the Act and the State
in turn could recover the compensation paid, from
the Officers of the State who have been found to be
responsible for causing human rights violation.
However, we clarify that before effecting recovery
from the Officer of the State, the Officer concerned
shall be issued with a show cause notice seeking
his explanation only on the aspect of quantum of
compensation recoverable from him and not on the
aspect whether he was responsible for causing
human rights violation.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18177 of 2014 dt.28-07-2025
11/14
“(iv) Whether initiation of appropriate disciplinary
proceedings against the Officers of the State under
the relevant service rules, if it is so empowered, is
the only permissible mode for recovery of the
compensation amount directed to be paid by the
State to the victims of violation of human rights
under sub-clause(i) of clause(a) of Section 18 of
the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, from the
Officers of the State who have been found to be
responsible for causing such violation?”
Ans: As far as the initiation of disciplinary
proceedings under the relevant Service Rules is
concerned, for recovery of compensation, mere
show cause notice is sufficient in regard to the
quantum of compensation recommended and to be
recovered from the Officers/employees of the
concerned Government. However, in regard to
imposition of penalty as a consequence of a
delinquent official being found guilty of the
violation, a limited departmental enquiry may be
conducted only to ascertain the extent of culpability
of the Official concerned in causing violation in
order to formulate an opinion of the punishing
Authority as to the proportionality of the
punishment to be imposed on the official
concerned. This procedure may be followed only in
cases where the disciplinary authority/punishing
authority comes to the conclusion on the basis of
the inquiry proceedings and the recommendations
of the Commission that the delinquent official is
required to be visited with any of the major
penalties enumerated in the relevant Service
Regulations.”
13. So far the reliance placed by respondent-State on
the judgment of High Court of Allahabad (Supra) is concerned, it
appears to be misplaced for the reason that the issue involved in
the present case for determination is different from the issue
Patna High Court CWJC No.18177 of 2014 dt.28-07-2025
12/14
discussed and decided in the said judgment. Hence this judgment
is of no help to the respondent-State.
14. The judgment of the High Court of Madras (Supra)
has simply held that the recommendation of the Commission under
Section 18 is binding and enforceable and the Commission can
order recovery of the compensation from the State and payable to
the victims of the violation of Human Rights under Section 18(i)
(a) of the Act and the State in turn could recover the compensation
paid, from the officers of the State who could have been found to
be responsible for causing Human Rights violation. There is
absolutely no quarrel with this finding as it emphasizes the
importance of the recommendation of the Commission and its
binding nature on the State. The issue under consideration in this
case is not about the importance of the recommendation of the
Commission and its binding nature on the State, but whether
instead of recommendation the Commission can give direction.
Therefore, even this judgment is not directly on the legal
proposition, which is being sought to be answered in the present
case.
15. It is a fact that the Expert Committee has
recommended for effecting ban on the gynecological practice and
surgery by the petitioner. The question is whether this
Patna High Court CWJC No.18177 of 2014 dt.28-07-2025
13/14
recommendation given by the Expert Committee could have been
directed by the Commission to be implemented by the Chairman,
Bihar Council of Medical Education.
16. Given the mandate of law as prescribed in Section
18(a) and the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court
dated 06.03.2024 in CWJC No.13188 of 2012 in the case of Dr.
Lalit Mohan Sharma vs. Bihar Human Rights Commission & Anr.
and further the judgment of Chhattisgarh High Court (supra), no
direction could have been given by the Commission to the
Chairman, Bihar Council of Medical Education for effecting ban
on the gynecological practice and surgery by the petitioner simply
because such was the recommendation of the Expert Committee.
Direction given by the Commission is therefore, completely
illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the mandate of Section
18 of The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. The impugned
order dated 25.07.2014 passed by the Commission in File
No.BHRC/Comp.676/12 (Ram Narayan Singh vs. Dr. Ranjit
Kumar) to the extent that the Commission has directed the
Chairman, Bihar Council of Medical Education for effecting ban
on the gynecological practice and surgery by the petitioner as
contained in paragraph-5(c) of the said order, is therefore quashed
and set aside.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18177 of 2014 dt.28-07-2025
14/14
17. The writ application, therefore, stands allowed to
the extent as indicated above.
18. All pending I.As, if any shall be deemed to have
been disposed of.
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
Prakash Narayan
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 24.07.2025
Uploading Date 28.07.2025
Transmission Date NA