The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the Uttar Pradesh State Human Rights Commission can recommend additional compensation for human rights violations even when a victim has already received payments under other statutory provisions, widening the remedies available in cases involving public authorities and essential services.
A Lucknow bench comprising Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai dismissed a writ petition filed by Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd against an order of the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission. The commission had directed the electricity distribution company to pay an additional Rs 10 lakh to a victim who suffered electrocution in 2011.
The case involved multiple payments made over several years. The electricity corporation had paid Rs 65,000 to the victim’s father in 2017 and Rs 1 lakh to the victim in February 2025. Despite these payments, the State Human Rights Commission directed the corporation to provide another Rs 10 lakh as compensation.
The electricity corporation challenged the commission’s order, arguing that the complaint filed in 2024 was barred by limitation because the electrocution incident had occurred in 2011. The court rejected that argument, holding that the non-payment of compensation constituted a continuing violation of human rights.
The bench also held that the payment of Rs 1 lakh made after the complaint was filed amounted to an acknowledgement under the Limitation Act. This finding was relevant to the corporation’s limitation argument and formed part of the court’s reasoning in allowing the commission’s proceedings to continue.
Interpreting the Protection of Human Rights Act, the court said the commission’s power to recommend compensation was independent of, and additional to, other legal remedies. Compensation paid under another statutory mechanism could not by itself prevent the commission from recommending further relief or restrict its jurisdiction.
The ruling clarifies the relationship between routine statutory compensation and remedies available through a human rights institution. For victims of electrocution and similar violations, the judgment means that an earlier payment will not automatically close the question of additional relief before the State Human Rights Commission.
The decision also places continuing importance on how public utilities respond after an incident. In this case, the court treated the later payment made by the electricity corporation as an acknowledgement under the limitation law, while separately recognising the commission’s authority to recommend additional compensation under the human rights statute.
The immediate outcome is that the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission’s direction for an additional Rs 10 lakh to the electrocution victim remains in place. The judgment was delivered while dismissing Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd’s challenge to that direction.
