IMPORTANT POINT
Time limit prescribed u/s 36(2) of Protection of Human Rights Act is referable to alleged act. Constituting violation of human rights and in case of alleged illegal detention, offensive act must be deemed to have been committed when person was placed under detention and would not be continuing after unauthorised detention ends.

Headnote:(i) Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993-Section 36(2)-Inquiry into a complaint alleging violation of human right-Limitation-Provisions of Section 36(2) of the Act places embargo against Commission after expiry of one year from date of alleged act violative of human rights-Complainant an officer of Telecom Department was arrested by CBI and was charge-sheeted for offences under Prevention of Corruption Act-Complaint to Human Rights Commission alleging illegal detention from 25-3-1994 to 3-4-1994 of complainant-accused by CBI officers-Commission rejecting version of CBI held that complainant was in defacto custody of said officials without authority of law during 25-3-1994 to 3-4-1994 resulting in violation of human rights-Directions were issued to Director CBI to initiate disciplinary action for misconduct-Writ petition questioning legality of order-On point of limitation commission overruled objection that wrong was continuing-Proposition propounded by commission was not acceptable-It is not the effect of illegal detention which was contemplated by Section 36(2) of the Act but illegal act itself-Delay of 4 1/2 years could not be ignored-Impugned order was liable to be set aside.
       Held : The bar under Section 36(2) is sought to be got over by the Commission by invoking the theory of continuing wrong and the recurring cause of action. According to the Commission, every violation of human right is a continuing wrong until and unless due reparation is made. We find it difficult to accept this proposition propounded by the Commission. The short answer to this view point is that such a view, if accepted, makes Section 36(2) practically a dead letter. Moreover, going by the language employed in Section 36(2), we do not think that the concept of continuing wrong could at all be pressed into service in the instant case. 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. (Para 17)
       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. Irrespective of the validity of the prefacing expression ordinarily , let us examine the issue from the point of view of the regulation itself. The Regulation implies that if extraordinary circumstances exist, the complaint can be enquired into even after the expiry of one year. Are there any extraordinary circumstances made out in this case? We find none in the impugned order of the Commission. 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 1/2 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. (Paras 17 & 18)
       (ii) Interpretation of Statute-Section heading or marginal note can be relied upon to clear any doubt or ambiguity in interpretation of the provision and to discern the legislative intent. (Para 15)

JUDGMENT

P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.-A search was conducted by the officials of CBI on 25.03.1994 at the residential house of Shri Ashok Kumar Sinha-an officer of the Telecom Department (hereinafter referred to as the complainant ) at Ranchi. This was followed by searches of the houses of his close relations and contractors at Patna and Ranchi. In between he was admitted to hospital on two occasions. On discharge from CCI Hospital at Ranchi on 3.4.1994, the petitioner was arrested "with a view to interrogate him in custody" and produced before the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi with a prayer to remand him to policy custody for 10 days. The Special Judge remanded him to judicial custody for a fortnight with a direction to the Jail Superintendent to get him medically examined and to submit the report. On receipt of the report of the Jail Superintendent, he was remanded to police custody for seven days and there was a further order to release him on provisional bail for one month from 13.4.1994. The Court also directed that he should be admitted in CCI Hospital and interrogated there. The provisional bail was confirmed later on subject to certain conditions. The CBI, after obtaining sanction, filed a charge sheet on 18.8.1998 under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for the possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income.

2. A day thereafter, i.e. on 19.8.1998, the National Human Rights Commission (for short NHRC ) received a complaint from Mr. A.K. Sinha alleging illegal detention from 25.3.1994 to 3.4.1994. He also alleged harassment and torture by the CBI officials including Mr. N.C. Dhoundial, S.P., CBI (Petitioner in WP (C) 42/2001). He alleged that a false case was registered against him for extraneous reasons on account of the antagonistic attitude of the S.P.- Mr. Dhoundial, towards him. The complainant alleged that the action of the CBI in causing his unlawful detention during the period 25.3.1994 to 3.4.1994 and the harsh treatment meted out to him aggravated his disease of cancer (which was detected later) and a major surgery had to be performed at Tata Memorial Cancer Hospital, Bombay to save his life. Seven officers of CBI were named in the complaint who, according to the complainant, were directly or indirectly responsible for his illegal detention. NHRC took cognizance of the complaint and called for a report from the Director, CBI. On consideration of the report, the learned Member of NHRC found that there was no substance in the complaint and that no action was called for. The learned Member observed that there was no truth in the allegation of harassment and denial of proper medical attention. It was also observed that the complainant never complained to the Court that he was being ill-treated by the CBI officers. The learned Member further observed that "there was considerable force in the stand taken by the CBI that this complaint has been filed only to demoralize the CBI officers who are zealously investigating." Proceedings to this effect were drawn up on 6.11.1998. The complainant then filed a petition on 21.9.1999 pointing out certain facts which according to him missed the attention of the NHRC while taking the decision recorded on 6.11.1998. The petitioner prayed for reopening the case and to take a fresh decision after giving him adequate opportunity to present his case.

3. The learned Chairman of NHRC, by his proceeding dated 10.3.2000 treated the petition filed by Shri A.K. Sinha as review petition and having found a prima facie case of illegal detention of the complainant by the CBI officials during the period 25.3.1994 to 3.4.1994, thought it fit to recall the findings recorded in the proceeding dated 6.11.1998 and to further proceed with the enquiry in the matter. Accordingly, show cause notices were issued to four CBI officials namely, Shri N.C. Dhoundial, Shri Narayan Jha, Shri P.K. Panigrahi and Shri B.N. Singh as to why appropriat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 1246

Cases Referred (4)