Sayad Asifulla v. State of Karnataka
Supreme Court of India, 25 August 2026, 2 judges, 2026 INSC 964
Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules, 2006, which lets a victim complain directly to a Human Rights Court, is consistent with the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and within Section 41, and is valid.
Facts
The appellant, an accused in a crime registered at Jalanagar Police Station, Vijayapura, filed a private complaint under Rule 6 of the 2006 Rules before the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Human Rights Court, Vijayapura, alleging violation of his human rights by police officials in connection with his custody. The Court referred the complaint to the Superintendent of Police for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, and a crime was registered against the officials. On their writ petition, the Karnataka High Court struck down Rule 6 as unconstitutional, inconsistent with the 1993 Act and ultra vires Section 41, and quashed the crime. The complainant and the State of Karnataka appealed. This Court had stayed the High Court's judgment.
Questions before the Court
- Whether Rule 6 of the 2006 Rules, in enabling an aggrieved person to approach the Human Rights Court directly and prescribing the procedure on such a complaint, is inconsistent with the scheme of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
- Whether Rule 6 travels beyond the rule-making power of the State Government under Section 41 of the 1993 Act.
What the Court held
- The 1993 Act sets up two distinct mechanisms: the Human Rights Commissions, with inquisitorial and recommendatory powers under Sections 12 to 18, and Human Rights Courts under Section 30, which exercise judicial power for speedy trial of offences arising out of human rights violations.
- An inquiry or recommendation by the Commission is not a condition precedent to prosecution. Section 30 does not make the Human Rights Court's jurisdiction depend on prior Commission proceedings, and reading in such a limit would supply a condition Parliament did not enact.
- Rule 6 creates no new offence or punishment and does not enlarge the meaning of human rights. It only provides the procedure by which the jurisdiction under Section 30 is invoked and exercised; it supplements the Act and does not supplant it.
- The State's power under Section 41(1) to make rules to carry out the Act is not confined to the matters in Section 41(2), which are illustrative.
- Sanction for prosecution is a matter for the facts of each case and is no ground to invalidate Rule 6. Simultaneous recourse to the Commission and the Court does not raise double jeopardy, since a Commission inquiry is not a prosecution or punishment.
- The High Court's judgment and the quashing of the crime were set aside, and the proceedings were to continue from their present stage, with no opinion expressed on the merits.
Why it matters
The judgment settles that under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 the remedy before a Human Rights Commission and the remedy before a Human Rights Court are distinct and complementary, and that the Commission is not a mandatory gateway to prosecution. It upholds State rules giving victims direct access to Human Rights Courts, and restates that a general rule-making power allows a delegate to supply procedural machinery so long as it is consistent with the parent statute.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“The mere conferment of power upon the Commission to inquire into a complaint and, where appropriate, recommend initiation of prosecution cannot, in our view, be construed as making such an inquiry or recommendation an indispensable condition precedent to the initiation of criminal proceedings.”
“Moreover, it must be noted that Rule 6 of the 2006 Rules does not create any new offence, prescribe any new punishment or enlarge the meaning of human rights under the 1993 Act. It merely provides the procedural means by which the jurisdiction conferred upon a Human Rights Court under Section 30 of the 1993 Act may be invoked and exercised.”
“In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that Rule 6 of the 2006 Rules is not inconsistent with the 1993 Act and does not travel beyond the rule-making power conferred upon the State Government under Section 41 thereof. Rule 6 of the 2006 Rules is therefore intra vires the 1993 Act and is valid.”
Provisions interpreted
- Section 30, Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
- Section 41, Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
- Section 18, Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
- Rule 6, Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules, 2006
Case and bench
- Parties
- Sayad Asifulla v. State of Karnataka
- Case
- Criminal Appeal No. 4075 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 16453 of 2025) with Criminal Appeal No. 4076 of 2026
- Decided
- 25 August 2026
- Bench
- Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Order of the Court delivered by Vikram Nath, J., for himself and Sandeep Mehta, J.
Questions on this case
From free Law Maker papers. Try each one before you open the answer.
Question 1, Legal Current Affairs: August 2026
Match the Supreme Court judgments of August 2026 (List I) with the statute mainly interpreted (List II): List I A. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brij Pal Singh B. Sayad Asifulla v. State of Karnataka C. Kavitha Kuruganti v. PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. D. Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury v. Kripanath Mallah List II 1. Representation of the People Act, 1951 2. Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 3. Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 4. Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
- A. A-2, B-4, C-1, D-3
- B. A-2, B-4, C-3, D-1
- C. A-2, B-3, C-4, D-1
- D. A-4, B-2, C-3, D-1
Show the answer
B. A-2, B-4, C-3, D-1
Brij Pal Singh (20 August) concerned cognizance under the PC and PNDT Act; Sayad Asifulla (25 August) the Human Rights Courts under the 1993 Act; Kavitha Kuruganti (5 August) farmers' rights under Section 39 of the 2001 Act; and Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury (24 August) an election petition under the 1951 Act.
Question 2, Legal Current Affairs: August 2026
Which of the following correctly reflects the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Sayad Asifulla v. State of Karnataka (25 August 2026)?
- A. A Human Rights Court specified under Section 30 must be the court of a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class in each district
- B. A Human Rights Court may try only those offences that a Human Rights Commission has first recommended for prosecution
- C. A Commission's inquiry or recommendation is not a prior prosecution, so a later Human Rights Court case is not double jeopardy
- D. Once a Human Rights Commission takes up a complaint, a Human Rights Court is barred from taking any step on the same facts
Show the answer
C. A Commission's inquiry or recommendation is not a prior prosecution, so a later Human Rights Court case is not double jeopardy
The Court held that the High Court's fear of double jeopardy was misplaced, since a Commission's inquiry or recommendation is not a prior prosecution or punishment (para 18). Section 30 of the 1993 Act provides for a Court of Session in each district to be specified as a Human Rights Court, not a Magistrate's court.
Question 3, Legal Current Affairs: August 2026
In Sayad Asifulla v. State of Karnataka (25 August 2026), the Supreme Court examined Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules, 2006, which the High Court had struck down. The Supreme Court held that Rule 6:
- A. is valid, but only for offences committed by public servants after the Rules were notified in 2006
- B. is ultra vires, as only the Central Government may make rules for Human Rights Courts under the Act
- C. is intra vires the 1993 Act and within the State's rule-making power under Section 41
- D. is ultra vires, as every complaint must first be inquired into by a Human Rights Commission
Show the answer
C. is intra vires the 1993 Act and within the State's rule-making power under Section 41
In 2026 INSC 964 (Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.) the Court held that the High Court wrongly treated the Commission route under Sections 13, 14, 17 and 18 of the 1993 Act as exclusive and failed to give independent operation to Section 30 (Human Rights Courts). Rule 6 only supplies procedure and is within the State Government's power under Section 41.