High Court Stays Human Rights Commission's Inspection Orders for Kaithal Rice Mills
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a significant stay order on three interim directives from the Haryana Human Rights Commission (HHRC) that mandated inspections of rice shellers in Kaithal district. The court's ruling emphasizes the limited recommendatory powers of the human rights panel under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
Jurisdictional Overreach Alleged by Rice Mill Owners
A bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry passed this order while hearing a petition filed by M/s Amba Foods and other rice sheller owners. These petitioners challenged the HHRC's orders dated May 15, 2025, August 21, 2025, and December 11, 2025, which were issued in response to a complaint from villagers led by Swaran Singh.
The villagers had alleged that approximately 50 rice mills were causing air and water pollution, violating environmental laws including the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. They sought criminal action against the millers in their initial complaint filed on March 1, 2023.
Legal Arguments and Precedents Cited
Senior advocate Vikas Chatrath, assisted by advocates Preet Agroa, Tarun Seth, and Pawandeep Singh, presented compelling arguments before the court. They contended that the HHRC had exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing binding directions on environmental matters, which properly fall within the domain of specialized bodies like the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and the Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB).
The petitioners' legal team submitted that the 1993 Act explicitly limits the commission to making recommendations to the state government, which alone possesses the authority to act upon them. They argued that the complaint lacked any direct nexus to state-attributable human rights violations, as it was directed against private mill operators.
In support of their position, the petitioners relied on established legal precedents including:
- N C Dhoundial vs Union of India (2004)
- Jatt Ram vs Punjab State Human Rights Commission (2005)
Pollution Control Board Findings and Commission's Actions
Despite the HHRC's intervention, multiple reports from the Haryana State Pollution Control Board presented a different picture:
- An interim status report dated July 17, 2023, found that 41 out of the 50 units, including the petitioners, had valid consents to operate.
- A subsequent report on November 28, 2023, noted 39 compliant units.
- The May 15, 2025, report again cleared 41 units of any violations.
Water samples collected on April 10, 2023, and analyzed on November 18, 2025, by the District Water Testing Laboratory in Kaithal were found to conform to BIS 10500:2012 standards. Additionally, an August 20, 2025, pollution control board report noted that several mills were not operating during inspections due to seasonal closure.
Court's Observations and Interim Relief
The High Court bench noted the primary contention regarding the HHRC's limited powers under the 1993 legislation. The court observed that the human rights commission functions with recommendatory authority only and cannot issue binding directions or operate as a judicial court.
In its order, the bench issued a notice to the Haryana government, which was accepted by Additional Advocate-General Neeraj Gupta. The court stayed the impugned HHRC orders until March 17, 2026, providing interim relief to the rice mill owners.
The petitioners had approached the High Court on January 18, 2026, alleging several concerns including:
- Jurisdictional overreach by the HHRC
- Forum shopping to bypass the National Green Tribunal
- Harassment through repeated inquiries despite favorable pollution control reports
This case highlights the ongoing tension between human rights commissions' mandate and their operational boundaries, particularly when addressing environmental complaints that involve private entities rather than state actors.
