Court Rules Non-Payment of Electrocution Compensation as Continuing Human Rights Violation; Power Corporation's Delay in Payment Does Not Bar Commission's Jurisdiction
In a significant judgment dated November 2, 2026, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Division Bench) dismissed a writ petition filed by the Chief Engineer Electrical of Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and the company itself, thereby upholding an order passed by the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission. The Commission had directed the Power Corporation to pay an additional compensation of Rs.10,00,000 to the victim of a 2011 electrocution incident, over and above Rs.1,65,000 already paid in two installments.
The incident in question occurred in 2011 when the victim suffered electrocution due to alleged negligence in maintaining transmission lines. Although an application seeking compensation was initially filed in 2011, the majority of the compensation was paid only after the Human Rights Commission complaint was lodged in 2024. The petitioners contended that the complaint was barred by limitation under Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, since the original incident took place over a decade earlier.
However, the Court rejected this argument, holding that the failure to pay compensation itself constituted a continuing violation of human rights. The Court relied on Sections 20 and 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which address acknowledgment of claims and continuing breaches respectively. The payment of Rs.1,00,000 after the complaint was filed was taken as an acknowledgment of liability, thus resetting limitation.
Further, the Court emphasized the statutory duty of the Power Corporation to maintain transmission lines safely and held that negligence in this regard amounts to violation of human rights under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. The Human Rights Commission's power under Section 18 to recommend compensation is additional to other statutory provisions and is not limited by prior payments made by the Corporation.
Quoting Section 18 of the Act, the judgment clarified that the Commission may recommend compensation or damages as it deems necessary if an inquiry discloses violation or negligence by a public servant. The Court found no fault in the Commission's order directing payment of an additional Rs.10 lakh as adequate relief for the victim.
In conclusion, the Allahabad High Court upheld the Commission's order, dismissed the writ petition, and strongly underscored the role of Human Rights Commissions in ensuring timely and adequate compensation in cases involving human rights violations due to negligence by public authorities.
Bottom Line:
Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 - Electrocution compensation - Non-payment/delayed payment of compensation by Power Corporation amounts to continuing violation of human rights - Complaint filed before State Human Rights Commission not barred by limitation under Section 36(2) - Commission competent under Section 18 to recommend further compensation in addition to compensation already paid under other provisions.
Statutory provision(s):
Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 Sections 18, 36(2); Limitation Act, 1963 Sections 20, 22
