HYDERABAD: A division bench of the Telangana High Court led by Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice T Vinod Kumar has delivered critical assessments of recent orders from the Telangana State Human Rights Commission (TSHRC).
The court, on Monday, deemed the TSHRC’s directive for the formation of a committee to investigate alleged medical negligence by a practitioner at People’s Hospital, Mustabad village, Siricilla, as beyond its jurisdiction.
This order was subsequently overturned by the court after a medical practitioner, who was the subject of the order, approached the High Court to challenge the TSHRC’s authority. The practitioner contended that the Commission’s actions exceeded its powers and violated Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
The directive from the Commission emerged from a complaint filed by Gouda Karuna, prompting the formation of a committee involving the deputy superintendent of police, Siricilla, the revenue divisional officer, Siricilla, and others. This committee was authorized to collect medical records and reports from the hospital in question. The bench noted that the situation seemed to pertain to medical negligence and that the Commission lacked the authority to take action against a private individual. Observing that alternative statutory remedies exist for addressing matters of medical negligence, the court quashed the TSHRC’s order.
In a separate case, the bench permitted a writ petition to proceed by setting aside a notice issued by the Telangana State Human Rights Commission in relation to a matrimonial dispute. The court’s ruling clarified that the Commission lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate matters concerning matrimonial disputes, child custody, and parental visitation rights.
B. Neha Priya, a resident of the city, brought the matter before the high court in a writ plea, challenging the notice issued by the TSHRC, which sought her appearance before the Commission. The petitioner argued that her husband, already engaged in a matrimonial dispute before a family court, had involved the Commission to secure visitation rights. The bench established that the Commission cannot make determinations on visitation rights, thus concluding the case.