Earlier Compensation Does Not Bar a Human Rights Commission from Recommending More, Rules Allahabad High Court in Chief Engineer, Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam v. U.P. Human Rights Commission
Case: Chief Engineer (Electrical), Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Another v. U.P. Human Rights Commission through Chairperson, Lucknow and 3 Others
Date of Judgment: 02 November 2026
Court: Allahabad High Court
Coram: Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai
Court Observation
“Entitlement of a person whose human rights have been violated in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions governing payment of compensation, does not in any manner create a fetter in the right of Commission to find out the magnitude of violation of human rights and award a compensation.”
Summary
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission’s direction to the Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited to pay an additional Rs. 10 lakh as compensation to a man who suffered electrocution in 2011. The Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the power corporation challenging the Commission’s order.
The Court held that the Commission’s power under Section 18(a) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, to recommend compensation operates in addition to other statutory provisions and not in derogation of them. The earlier payment of Rs. 1.65 lakh to the victim therefore did not fetter the Commission’s right to assess the magnitude of the human rights violation and recommend further compensation. The Court also rejected the limitation objection, holding that the violation was continuing because the corporation had not paid compensation as required by law, and observed that the additional compensation of Rs. 10 lakh ought to have been paid immediately.
Key Holdings
- A State Human Rights Commission can recommend additional compensation for a human rights violation even where the victim has already received damages under other provisions covering the same subject matter.
- The power under Section 18(a) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, to recommend payment of compensation operates in addition to, and not in derogation of, other provisions or State legislation.
- Where officials of a power corporation act negligently in maintaining transmission lines so as to expose people’s lives to danger, the human rights of citizens stand violated.
- A limitation objection under Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act fails where the violation is continuing because compensation required by law has not been paid; payment made after the complaint was filed amounts to an acknowledgement under Section 20 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Background
The victim suffered electrocution in 2011 and applied for compensation in the same year. The power corporation paid Rs. 65,000 to the victim’s father in 2017. The victim approached the Human Rights Commission in 2024, and on 13 February 2025 the corporation paid a further Rs. 1 lakh directly to him. By its order dated 27 July 2026, the Commission directed the corporation to pay an additional Rs. 10 lakh. The corporation challenged that direction before the High Court, arguing that the complaint was barred by limitation since the violation occurred in 2011 while the complaint was filed in 2024, and that compensation had already been paid. The High Court rejected both contentions and dismissed the writ petition.
Related Articles
Judgment Link: Read the full judgment (PDF)
Disclaimer: This is a summary prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should refer to the official judgment for the authoritative text.
