HC sets aside NHRC order to pay ₹5 lakh compensation to kin of man: A practical reader guide

2026, local bodies can levy user fees on waste generators: A practical reader guide

New Delhi, The Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the National Human Rights Commission directing the Delhi Police to pay a compensation of ₹ 5 lakh to the kin of a man who allegedly committed suicide in its custody.

The court, however, held that there was no independent basis to develop an inference of negligence on the part of police officials. “A tragic consequence, however grave, does not by itself establish culpable inaction. What the NHRC has essentially sought to punish in this case is the lack of hindsight on the part of the petitioner to have anticipated and consequently, prevented the death of the deceased who had come to the police station voluntarily and whose movement was not restricted.

Justice Amit Mahajan allowed a petition filed by the Delhi Police challenging the April 19, 2024, order of the commission. “The proceedings before respondent no.1 are summary in nature and in view of the contentions…, the recommendation made by respondent no.1 for the payment of ₹ 5 lakh as monetary compensation on the ground that there was negligence in the prevention of violation of human rights on the part of the police officials cannot be sustained. The court noted that the NHRC order concerns the death of Rashid Raza, who was found hanging in a room on the ground floor of a police station in the Narela Industrial Area in December 2019.

The court said the inquest report by a sub-divisional magistrate said there was no evidence of scuffle or torture at the police station and the CCTV footage showed unrestricted movement on the part of the man and also suggested that the incident may have occurred without police having a reasonable opportunity to intervene. This court does not intend to and is not stating that police officials ought not to be vigilant or that unnatural death when in custody of police may not attract consequence,” the court said. The same cannot, in the opinion of this court, be countenanced, it said.