HC stays Haryana rights panel’s order for environment check of Kaithal rice shellers

The Punjab and Haryana high court has stayed orders passed by the Haryana Human Rights Commission (HHRC), which had asked the Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB), Kaithal region, to inspect every rice sheller unit situated in or around Kaithal to check necessary compliance with environmental norms.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry passed these orders while hearing a petition filed by a group of rice millers, led by M/s Amba Foods. The petitioners sought directions to quash proceedings before HHRC regarding alleged environmental violations.

The petitioners alleged that the commission engaged in “jurisdictional overreach” by conducting a “roving inquiry” into matters that fell under the exclusive domain of statutory environmental bodies and the National Green Tribunal (NGT). HHRC passed the contentious orders while taking cognisance of alleged pollution caused by rice shellers in Kaithal district.

A complaint in this regard was made before the commission by Swaran Singh and others. The complainants sought action against rice millers under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, alleging significant pollution.

The counsel for the rice shellers, senior advocate Vikas Chatrath, contended that the HHRC was a “creature of statute” and cannot assume the powers of an adjudicatory court or specialised tribunal like the NGT. Chatrath argued that the repeated orders for inspection, the most recent being on Dec 11, 2025, ignored consistent evidence of compliance and constituted an abuse of process. “The principal argument of learned Senior Counsel on behalf of petitioners is that the Haryana Human Rights Commission, Chandigarh, has issued directions, whereas the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, does not confer any such power upon the commission. The scheme of the Act of 1993 reveals that powers vested in the commission are only recommendatory. The commission cannot act as a court. It is for the state to take a decision as to whether to accept a recommendation made by the commission or not and thereafter issue any particular direction,” the senior counsel submitted.

After hearing the plea, the court fixed the matter for March 17 for further hearing and stayed the HHRC order, observing, “interim orders passed by commission shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing”.

This article has been republished from The Times of India.