A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Jharkhand High Court challenging a circular issued by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) withdrawing its earlier directive mandating judicial inquiries in cases of custodial death, disappearance and rape.
The plea seeks quashing of the NHRC’s May 14, 2024 circular, through which the Commission declared that its earlier circular dated September 4, 2020 had become “nugatory” and stood “withdrawn and annulled” after the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
The petitioner has also sought directions to the NHRC to frame fresh guidelines in line with the Jharkhand High Court’s recent judgment in Md. Mumtaz Ansari v. State of Jharkhand (2026 SCC OnLine Jhar 617). In that decision, the High Court held that inquiries under Section 196(2) of the BNSS must be conducted by a Judicial Magistrate and cannot be substituted by an inquiry conducted by an Executive Magistrate.
The PIL has been filed by advocate Md. Mumtaz Ansari, who practises before the Dhanbad Civil Court. He contends that the impugned circular is based on an erroneous interpretation of Sections 194(4) and 196(2) of the BNSS.
According to the plea, Section 194(4) merely empowers an Executive Magistrate to conduct an inquest, which is a preliminary fact-finding exercise intended to ascertain the apparent cause of death. In contrast, Section 196(2) specifically mandates a judicial inquiry by a Judicial Magistrate in cases involving custodial death, disappearance or rape.
The petitioner argues that the NHRC wrongly conflated the two provisions and incorrectly concluded that the statutory requirement of a judicial inquiry had become redundant merely because Executive Magistrates are authorised to conduct inquests under Section 194(4).
The plea stresses that the two provisions operate in distinct spheres and serve entirely different purposes. While an inquest under Section 194(4) is limited in scope, the inquiry contemplated under Section 196(2) is a detailed quasi-judicial exercise aimed at ensuring accountability in serious human rights violations.
It is further contended that by withdrawing its 2020 circular, the NHRC acted contrary to its statutory duty to protect human rights.
According to the petitioner, instead of diluting safeguards, the Commission ought to have reinforced and reiterated the requirement of judicial inquiries in cases involving custodial deaths, disappearances and rapes.
The PIL also states that the impugned circular has created a “dangerous legal vacuum” in the procedural safeguards governing such inquiries, thereby weakening accountability mechanisms in cases involving alleged human rights abuses.
The post Petition filed in Jharkhand High Court challenges NHRC circular ending mandatory inquiries into custodial death, rape cases appeared first on India Legal.