Sayad Asifulla v. State of Karnataka (2026 INSC 964) — Prior Commission Referral Not Required to Approach Human Rights Court Directly

Can a victim of a human rights violation walk directly into a Human Rights Court, or must they first exhaust the route through the National or State Human Rights Commission? The Karnataka High Court had said the Commission route was mandatory. The Supreme Court of India, on 9 September 2026, disagreed.

In Sayad Asifulla v. State of Karnataka and Others, 2026 INSC 964, the Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside the Karnataka High Court's judgment, upheld Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules, 2006, and held that a prior inquiry or recommendation by the Human Rights Commission is not a mandatory condition precedent to approaching a Human Rights Court.

Background: The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993

The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (the 1993 Act) establishes two distinct mechanisms for protecting human rights:

●       National and State Human Rights Commissions — under Sections 12 to 18. These are quasi-judicial inquiry bodies that receive complaints, inquire into violations, and make recommendations.

●       Human Rights Courts — under Section 30. These are special courts designated by the State Government at the Sessions Court level, for the speedy trial of offences arising from violation of human rights.

The 1993 Act empowers State Governments under Section 41 to make rules to carry out its provisions. Karnataka exercised this power and enacted the Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules, 2006. Rule 6 of these Rules provides a mechanism for an aggrieved person to directly approach a Human Rights Court and prescribes the procedure for such complaints.

What Happened: The High Court's Ruling

A complaint was filed directly before the Human Rights Court under the Karnataka Rules without first approaching the Human Rights Commission. Crime No. 15 of 2024 was registered. The High Court of Karnataka, in a judgment dated 17 July 2025, struck down Rule 6 as unconstitutional. The High Court held that:

●       Sections 13, 14, 17, and 18 of the 1993 Act — which deal with the Commission's powers and procedure — constituted the exclusive route for human rights complaints.

●       A complaint must travel through the Commission's inquiry process before prosecution in a Human Rights Court could be initiated.

●       Rule 6, by allowing direct access to the Human Rights Court, created a parallel substantive regime inconsistent with the 1993 Act, and was ultra vires the State Government's rule-making power.

The Supreme Court stayed the High Court's order in October 2025 and heard the matter fully.

Also Check: Manav Bhanot v. NHAI (2026 INSC 973)

The Supreme Court's Analysis and Holding

The bench analysed the text and scheme of the 1993 Act carefully. Its holding on each of the High Court's grounds was clear.

First, the Commission and the Human Rights Court are two distinct and complementary mechanisms — not a sequential hierarchy. Section 30 of the 1993 Act establishes Human Rights Courts independently of the Commission's inquiry route. Nothing in Sections 13, 14, 17, or 18 makes the Commission a mandatory first stop.

Second, the High Court had read into the statute a limitation that the text does not contain. It treated the Commission's mechanism as the exclusive route — but the Act does not say this. The Commission and the Human Rights Court serve different functions: the Commission inquires and recommends; the Human Rights Court tries offences and grants remedies.

Third, Rule 6 of the 2006 Rules does not create a new substantive regime. It merely provides the procedural machinery for a Human Rights Court that Parliament itself had already contemplated through Section 30. The State Government's power under Section 41 to make rules for carrying out the Act's provisions squarely covers prescribing the procedure for approaching a Human Rights Court.

The Court also cited its earlier decision in State of Karnataka v. H. Ganesh Kamath (1983) and Kunj Behari Lal Butail v. State of H.P. (2000) for the proposition that recourse to a Human Rights Court is not dependent upon a prior inquiry or recommendation by the Human Rights Commission.

The Result: Rule 6 Is Valid

The Supreme Court held that Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules, 2006 is valid and intra vires the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. It set aside the Karnataka High Court's judgment and directed that the proceedings arising from Crime No. 15 of 2024 shall continue from the stage at which they presently stand, in accordance with law.

Build strong legal concepts, improve exam preparation, and access structured learning resources with the right online judiciary courses for your judiciary exam journey. 

What This Means for Practice

An aggrieved person in Karnataka — and potentially in any state with similar rules — can approach the Human Rights Court directly with a complaint of a human rights violation by a public servant. They are not required to first file a complaint before the Commission, wait for an inquiry, and receive a recommendation before a Human Rights Court can be approached.

This removes what the High Court had treated as a procedural prerequisite and ensures that the Human Rights Court operates as a genuinely accessible, separate mechanism rather than a downstream consequence of Commission proceedings.

Exam Relevance

●       Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 — Sections 12-18 (Commission) vs. Section 30 (Human Rights Courts): two distinct mechanisms.

●       Rule 6 Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules, 2006: valid and intra vires.

●       Prior Commission inquiry is not a mandatory condition precedent to approaching a Human Rights Court.

●       Section 41 of the 1993 Act — State Government's rule-making power to prescribe procedure.

●       Case: Sayad Asifulla v. State of Karnataka, 2026 INSC 964, 9 September 2026. Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. What is this case about?

Sayad Asifulla v. State of Karnataka (2026 INSC 964) holds that a victim of a human rights violation can directly approach a Human Rights Court under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 without first going through the Human Rights Commission. Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules, 2006, which enables this direct approach, is constitutionally valid.

Q2. What is the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993?

The 1993 Act establishes the national and state human rights protection framework. It creates: (1) National and State Human Rights Commissions (Sections 12-18) — inquiry-based bodies that receive complaints, investigate violations, and make recommendations; and (2) Human Rights Courts (Section 30) — designated Sessions Courts for speedy trial of offences arising from human rights violations.

Q3. What is Section 30 of the 1993 Act?

Section 30 directs State Governments to specify, for each district, a Court of Session as the Human Rights Court for speedy trial of offences arising out of violation of human rights. The State Government may also appoint a Special Public Prosecutor for such cases. Section 30 operates independently of the Commission's inquiry mechanism.

Q4. What did the Karnataka High Court hold?

The High Court had held that Sections 13-18 of the 1993 Act (dealing with the Commission's powers) constitute the exclusive route for human rights complaints — meaning a complaint must first go through the Commission's inquiry before a Human Rights Court could be approached. On this basis, it struck down Rule 6 of the 2006 Karnataka Rules as unconstitutional.

Q5. Why did the Supreme Court reverse the High Court?

Because the High Court read into the statute a limitation that its text does not contain. The 1993 Act does not say the Commission route is mandatory. The Commission and Human Rights Court are two separate, complementary mechanisms. Rule 6 merely provides the procedural machinery for Section 30 of the Act, which is squarely within the State Government's rule-making power under Section 41.

Q6. Is the prior Commission inquiry route ever required?

The Act does not make it mandatory. A complainant may choose to approach the Commission — which has wide investigative powers and can recommend remedies and compensation — or may directly approach the Human Rights Court where criminal prosecution of a public servant is sought. Both routes are available and serve different purposes.

Q7. What is Section 41 of the 1993 Act?

Section 41 empowers State Governments to make rules, by notification in the Official Gazette, to carry out the provisions of the 1993 Act. The Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules, 2006 were made under this power. The Supreme Court held that Rule 6 — prescribing the procedure for directly approaching a Human Rights Court — is within the scope of this rule-making power.

Q8. What happened to Crime No. 15 of 2024?

The Karnataka High Court had quashed Crime No. 15 of 2024, which was registered pursuant to a complaint directly before the Human Rights Court. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order. The proceedings are to continue from the stage at which they stood before the High Court's intervention.

Q9. Does this ruling apply only in Karnataka?

The judgment specifically concerned Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules, 2006. However, the underlying constitutional and statutory interpretation — that the Commission route is not a mandatory prerequisite for approaching a Human Rights Court — is a general statement of law under the 1993 Act that would apply wherever similar rules exist.

Q10. Why is this case relevant for judiciary exam preparation?

The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, human rights courts, and the Commission's jurisdiction are topics within the special laws papers of APO exams and constitutional law papers of PCS J exams. This case clarifies the relationship between the Commission (Section 12-18) and Human Rights Courts (Section 30), the scope of state rule-making power under Section 41, and an important question of procedure — none of which were settled by the text of the Act alone.

Conclusion

Sayad Asifulla v. State of Karnataka clears an important procedural path. Human Rights Courts are not just backup forums to be approached only after the Commission has moved. They are independent mechanisms — constituted by Section 30 of the 1993 Act — available to victims of human rights violations who seek criminal prosecution of public servants. Rule 6 of the Karnataka Rules, far from being unconstitutional, is exactly the kind of procedural machinery the Act anticipated. The Supreme Court has restored that machinery to its proper function.

Nitesh Sir at Aashayein Judiciary covers human rights law, special legislation, and constitutional provisions as part of the APO exam, Civil Judge exam, and PCS J exam preparation. Explore our Online Judiciary Coaching, Judiciary Notes, and Mock Test series to prepare with precision on every recent judgment and statutory topic.