Punjab and Haryana High Court Intervenes in HHRC's Environmental Inspection Orders
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a significant stay on orders previously passed by the Haryana Human Rights Commission (HHRC). These orders had directed the Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB), Kaithal region, to conduct comprehensive inspections of every rice sheller unit located in and around Kaithal. The inspections were intended to verify compliance with essential environmental standards and regulations.
Legal Challenge by Rice Millers
A division bench, led by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, delivered this decision while addressing a petition filed by a consortium of rice millers, with M/s Amba Foods at the forefront. The petitioners had sought judicial intervention to quash the ongoing proceedings before the HHRC, which centered on alleged environmental violations by the rice milling industry.
The millers argued that the HHRC had engaged in what they termed "jurisdictional overreach." They contended that the commission was conducting a "roving inquiry" into matters that fall strictly under the purview of statutory environmental bodies and the National Green Tribunal (NGT). According to the petitioners, this exceeded the HHRC's legal mandate.
Background of the Complaint
The HHRC had initiated these proceedings after taking cognizance of complaints regarding pollution allegedly caused by rice shellers in Kaithal district. The complaints were lodged by Swaran Singh and other individuals, who called for action against the millers under key environmental legislation, including the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The complainants highlighted significant pollution concerns that they believed warranted immediate attention.
Arguments Presented in Court
Representing the rice shellers, senior advocate Vikas Chatrath presented a compelling case. He described the HHRC as a "creature of statute" and argued that it lacks the authority to assume the powers of an adjudicatory court or a specialized tribunal like the NGT. Chatrath emphasized that the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, which governs the HHRC, only grants the commission recommendatory powers, not directive ones.
Chatrath further submitted: "The principal argument on behalf of the petitioners is that the Haryana Human Rights Commission, based in Chandigarh, has issued directions, whereas the Act of 1993 does not confer any such power upon the commission. The scheme of the Act reveals that the powers vested in the commission are solely recommendatory. The commission cannot act as a court. It is ultimately for the state to decide whether to accept a recommendation from the commission and subsequently issue any specific directions."
He also pointed out that repeated inspection orders, including the most recent one dated December 11, 2025, disregarded consistent evidence of compliance from the millers. Chatrath characterized these actions as an "abuse of process," arguing that they imposed unnecessary burdens on the industry without proper legal footing.
Court's Interim Order and Future Proceedings
After hearing the arguments, the High Court bench decided to stay the HHRC's orders until further notice. The court observed that the interim orders passed by the commission would remain stayed until the next hearing date. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on March 17, allowing both sides to present additional arguments and evidence.
This development underscores the ongoing tension between human rights commissions and specialized environmental bodies in India. It raises important questions about the limits of jurisdiction and the appropriate mechanisms for addressing environmental complaints. The case will be closely watched by legal experts, environmentalists, and industry stakeholders alike as it progresses through the judicial system.
