2003 (12) TMI 637 - SC - Indian Laws

Possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income - illegal detention and harassment by CBI officials - Jurisdiction and powers of NHRC under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 - Validity of NHRC's review and reopening of the case - Validity of NHRC's review and reopening of the case - HELD THAT - It is to be noted that the Commission did not afford personal hearing to the officials who were put on notice nor any opportunity of adducing evidence was afforded. The complaint was decided on the basis of averments in the review petition and the replies submitted by the officials concerned. The plea of the officials was tested broadly on the basis of probabilities and a conclusion was reached that the officials concerned were guilty of human rights violation. The three legal objections raised by the CBI officials were over-ruled by the Commission. Firstly, it was held that by virtue of Section 13 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the power of review conferred on the civil court was available to the Commission. As the earlier order was not a decision on merits but merely an order abstaining from further enquiry the Commission felt that there was no bar to reconsider the entire issue in the interest of justice. We cannot endorse the view of the Commission. The Commission which is an unique expert body is, no doubt, entrusted with a very important function of protecting the human rights, but, it is needless to point out that the Commission has no unlimited jurisdiction nor does it exercise plenary powers in derogation of the statutory limitations. The Commission, which is the creature of statute, is bound by its provisions. Its duties and functions are defined and circumscribed by the Act. Of course, as any other statutory functionary, it undoubtedly has incidental or ancillary powers to effectively exercise its jurisdiction in respect of the powers confided to it but the Commission should necessarily act within the parameters prescribed by the Act creating it and the confines of jurisdiction vested in it by the Act. It is not in dispute that the complainant was produced before the Special Judge on 3.4.1994 and remand was obtained in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The alleged act of unauthorized detention which gives rise to violation of human rights ceased on 3.4.1994 and it does not perpetuate thereafter. It is not the effect of illegal detention which is contemplated by Section 36(2) but it is the illegal act itself. It would be a contradiction in terms to say that the arrest or detention beyond 3.4.1994 was in accordance with law and at the same time the arrest/detention continued to be wrongful. It cannot, therefore, be brought under the category of continuing wrong which is analogous to the expression continuing offence in the field of criminal law. It cannot be said that the alleged wrongful act of detention repeats itself everyday even after the complainant was produced before the Magistrate and remand was obtained in accordance with law. Beyond 3.4.1994, there was no breach of obligation imposed by law either by means of positive or passive conduct of the alleged wrong-doers. To characterize it as a continuing wrong is, therefore, inappropriate. One year period for taking up the enquiry into the complaint, therefore, comes to an end by 3.4.1995. Just as in the case of Section 473 Cr.P.C., there is no provision in the Act to extend the period of limitation of one year. However, in the procedural Regulations framed by the Commission certain amount of discretion is reserved to the Commission. Regulation 8(1)(a) inter alia lays down that ordinarily a complaint in regard to events which happened more than one year before the making of the complaint is not entertainable. As already noticed, the petition filed by the complainant was received by the Commission a day after the charge sheet was filed though it bears an earlier date. For nearly 4 years the complainant kept quiet. The explanation given in the complaint for this long silence was that he was under the impression that by reporting the matter to NHRC he might be antagonizing the CBI officials, but, after realizing that they were not acting fairly and objectively and they continued to harass him, he thought of filing the petition before NHRC. The Commission, on its part, did not advert to this explanation which is really no explanation at all, nor did it advert to any extraordinary circumstances justifying interference after a long lapse of time prescribed by Section 36(2). The Commission thus tried to clutch at the jurisdiction by invoking the theory of continuing wrong which, as we held earlier, cannot be invoked at all. In this view of the matter, the direction given by the Commission to the Director of CBI, which has an undoubted effect on the service career of the writ petitioner, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In the result, the order of NHRC dated 12.6.2000 is quashed and the writ petition (civil) No. 42 of 2001 stands allowed. The S.L.P. Nos. 8220 of 2001, 11182 of 2001, 11186 and 14392 of 2001 filed against the interim orders granted by the High Court are dismissed. All the Transfer Petitions are also dismissed with an observation that the High Court of Jharkhand may dispose of the related Writ Petitions/LPA pending on its file with expedition in the light of this judgment. No costs.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Alleged illegal detention and harassment by CBI officials.
2. Jurisdiction and powers of NHRC under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
3. Validity of NHRC's review and reopening of the case.
4. Applicability of the limitation period u/s 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

Summary:

1. Alleged Illegal Detention and Harassment by CBI Officials:
A search was conducted by CBI officials on 25.03.1994 at the residence of a Telecom Department officer, followed by searches at the houses of his close relations. The officer was admitted to the hospital twice and was arrested on 3.4.1994. He alleged illegal detention from 25.3.1994 to 3.4.1994, harassment, and torture by CBI officials, which he claimed aggravated his cancer. NHRC initially found no substance in the complaint but later reviewed and found a prima facie case of illegal detention, directing disciplinary action against four CBI officials.

2. Jurisdiction and Powers of NHRC:
NHRC's decision to review its earlier order was based on Section 13 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, which it interpreted as conferring the power of review similar to that of a civil court. The Commission overruled objections based on Regulation 8(1)(b) of NHRC (Procedure Regulations) and Section 36(2) of the Act, asserting that the violation of human rights is a continuing wrong.

3. Validity of NHRC's Review and Reopening of the Case:
The Supreme Court found that NHRC did not afford personal hearing or the opportunity to adduce evidence to the CBI officials. The Commission's decision was based on averments in the review petition and replies submitted by the officials, leading to a conclusion of human rights violation without a detailed examination of evidence.

4. Applicability of the Limitation Period u/s 36(2):
The Supreme Court held that Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, places an embargo on NHRC from inquiring into any matter after the expiry of one year from the date of the alleged act constituting the violation of human rights. The Court rejected NHRC's theory of continuing wrong, stating that the alleged act of unauthorized detention ceased on 3.4.1994, and the one-year period for taking up the enquiry ended by 3.4.1995. The Court concluded that NHRC exceeded its jurisdiction by taking up the enquiry beyond the statutory limitation period.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court quashed NHRC's order dated 12.6.2000, allowing the writ petition (civil) No. 42 of 2001. The SLPs and Transfer Petitions were dismissed, and the High Court of Jharkhand was directed to dispose of the related Writ Petitions/LPA pending on its file with expedition in light of this judgment. No costs were awarded.