N.C. Dhoundial v. Union of India
Supreme Court of India, 11 December 2003, 3 judges
Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 is a jurisdictional bar; the NHRC could not inquire into an alleged illegal detention more than one year after it ended, and its order against CBI officers was quashed.
Facts
After a CBI search on 25.3.1994 at the house of A.K. Sinha, a Telecom Department officer, he was arrested on 3.4.1994 and produced before the Special Judge, who remanded him. He was later charge-sheeted for disproportionate assets. On 19.8.1998 he complained to the National Human Rights Commission of illegal detention by CBI officials from 25.3.1994 to 3.4.1994. The Commission first found no substance in it; on his later petition the Chairman treated it as a review, reopened the matter and, by order dated 12.6.2000, held that he had been in de facto custody without authority of law and directed the CBI Director to take disciplinary action against four officers. The Commission rejected the objection that Section 36(2) barred the inquiry, treating the violation as a continuing wrong. The petitioner, one of the officers, challenged the order under Article 32; connected transfer and special leave petitions were heard with it.
Questions before the Court
- Is the one year limit in Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act a bar on the Commission's jurisdiction?
- Can the Commission avoid that bar by treating an illegal detention as a continuing wrong?
- Were extraordinary circumstances shown under Regulation 8(1)(a) to entertain a complaint made after one year?
What the Court held
- The Commission is a creature of statute, bound by the Act; it has incidental powers but no unlimited jurisdiction or plenary power to override statutory limits.
- Section 36(2) places an embargo on the Commission inquiring into any matter after one year from the alleged act violating human rights; read with its marginal heading, it is a jurisdictional bar.
- An illegal detention is complete when it ends. Here it ceased on 3.4.1994, when the complainant was produced and lawfully remanded. Section 36(2) looks to the illegal act, not its effects, so the theory of continuing wrong does not apply and the one year period ended by 3.4.1995.
- No extraordinary circumstances were shown for the delay of over four years. The Commission exceeded its jurisdiction, and its direction, which affected the petitioner's service career, violated Article 14. The order dated 12.6.2000 was quashed.
- Where the NHRC inquires pursuant to directions of the Supreme Court under Article 32, the bar in Section 36(2) does not apply, since it then acts as an expert body aiding the Court, as said in Paramjit Kaur v. State of Punjab.
Why it matters
The judgment holds that the one year limit in Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 limits the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Commissions and cannot be avoided by calling a completed illegal detention a continuing wrong. It also confirms that the bar does not apply where the NHRC acts on directions of the Supreme Court under Article 32.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“The time limit prescribed is referable to the alleged 'act' constituting the violation of human rights. In a case like illegal detention, the offensive act must be deemed to have been committed when a person is placed under detention and it continues so long as the affected person remains under illegal detention. The commission of offensive act is complete at a particular point of time and it does not continue to be so even after the unauthorized detention ends.”
“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.”
“Section 36(2) of the Act thus places an embargo against the Commission enquiring into any matter after expiry of one year from the date of the alleged act violative of human rights. The caption or the marginal heading to the Section indicates that it is a jurisdictional bar.”
“in a case where the NHRC proceeds to investigate and inquire into the violation of human rights pursuant to the directions of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, the bar contained in Section 36(2) will not apply because in such an event, NHRC does not function under the provisions of the Act but as an 'expert body' aiding the Supreme Court in the discharge of its constitutional power under Article 32.”
Provisions interpreted
- Section 36(2), Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
- Regulation 8(1)(a), NHRC (Procedure) Regulations
- Article 14, Constitution
- Article 32, Constitution
Case and bench
- Parties
- N.C. Dhoundial v. Union of India
- Case
- Writ Petition (Civil) No. 42 of 2001
- Decided
- 11 December 2003
- Bench
- S. Rajendra Babu, P. Venkatarama Reddi, H.K. Sema
- Opinions
- Judgment of the Court delivered by P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.; signed by S. Rajendra Babu, P. Venkatarama Reddi and H.K. Sema, JJ.
Questions on this case
2 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.