Very Important Point
The National Human Rights Commission can investigate or look into violation of Human rights as requested by Supreme Court u/Art. 32 on 12.12.96 even though the period of limitation indicated in Section 36(2) of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 might have expired having special power to act sui generis i.e. on its own and not under any law.

Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950—Art. 32—Order passed under on 12.12.96 by which a request was made to National Human Rights Commission to examine violation of human rights, inter alia, kidnapping of Khalra and his whereabouts; dead bodies of large number of persons allegedly cremated by Punjab Police with a label “unidentified”—Preliminary objections as to period of limitation u/s. 36(2) of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and Jurisdictional limitations—Union of India asking for clarifications—Order accordingly.
       Held : The power of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be curtailed by any statutory limitation, including those contained in Section 36(2) of the Act. If this Court can exercise that power unaffected by the prohibitory contained in Section 36(2) there is no reason why the Commission, at the request of this Court, cannot investigate or look into the violations of human rights even though the period of limitation indicated in Section 36(2) might have expired. In such a situation, the Commission will not be affected by the bar contained in Section 36(2) and it will be well within its rights to investigate the matter referred to it by this Court. (Para 12)
       Held also : All authorities in the country are bound by the directions of this Court and have to act in aid of this Court. National Human Rights Commission is no exception. The Commission would function pursuant to the directions issued by this Court and not under the Act under which it is constituted. In deciding the matters referred by this Court, National Human Rights Commission is given a free hand and is not circumscribed by any conditions. Therefore, the jurisdiction exercised by the National Human Rights Commission in these matters is of a special nature not covered by enactment or law, and thus acts sui generis. (Para 15)
       Antulay’s case clarified. (Para 16)
       Held further : The Commission is also a body sui juris created under an Act made by the Parliament for examining and investigating the questions and complaints relating to violation of human rights, as also the negligence on the part of any public servant in preventing such violations. (Para 17)
       Held also : No no intervention can be permitted in a petition filed on behalf of Union of India for clarification of this Court’s order dated 12th December, 1996. (Para 24)
       Result : Order accordingly.

Order

S. Saghir Ahmad, J.—Crl. M.P. No. 6674 of 1997 In Writ Petitions (Criminal) Nos. 497 and 447 of 1995

Union of India has filed this petition for clarification of the order dated 12th December, 1996, passed by this Court in Writ Petitions (Criminal) No. 447 of 1995 and 497 of 1995, by which a request was made to the National Human Rights Commission to examine the flagrant violations of human rights on a mass scale in the State of Punjab as disclosed in the CBI Report submitted to this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petitions in pursuance of the earlier order dated 15th November, 1995, in which it was, inter alia, stated as under :

“Mr. M.L. Sareen, learned Advocate-General, Punjab has very fairly stated that keeping in view the serious allegations levelled by the petitioner against the officers/officials of the Punjab Police, it would be in the interest of justice that the investigation in this matter be handed over to an independent authority. Even otherwise, in order to instil confidence in the public mind and to do justice to the petitioner and his family it would be proper to withdraw the investigation from Punjab Police in this case. We, therefore, direct the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation to appoint an investigation team headed by a responsible officer to hold investigation in the kidnapping and whereabouts of Khalra. We further direct the Director General of Police, Punjab, all concerned Punjab Police Officers, Home Secretary and Chief Secretary Punjab to render all assistance and help to the CBI in the investigation.

The second issue highlighted in this petition is equally important. This Court cannot close its eyes to the contents of the Press Note dated January 16, 1995 stated to be investigated by Khalra and Dhillon. In case it is found that the facts stated in the Press Note are correct - even partially—it would be a glory tale of Human-rights violations. It is horrifying to visualize that dead-bodies of large number of persons—allegedly thousands—could be cremated by the police unceremoniously with a label “unidentified”. Our faith in democracy and rule of law assures us that nothing of the type can ever happen in this country but the allegations in the Press Note-horrendous as they are—need thorough investigation. We, therefore, direct the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation to appoint a high powered team to investigate into the facts contained in the Press Note dated January 16, 1995. We direct all the concerned authorities of the State of Punjab including the Director General of Police, Punjab to render all assistance to the CBI in the investigation. All authorities of the Punjab Government shall render all help and assistance to the CBI team as and when asked by any member of the said team. We give liberty to the CBI to seek any further directions from this Court from time to time as may be necessary during the investigation.”

2. When the matter was taken up by the Commission, preliminary objections were raised as to the jurisdiction with reference to its statutory obligations and limitations, including the prohibition from inquiring into any matter after the expiry of one year from the date on which the act constituting violation of human rights is said to have been committed as set out in Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short), which provides as under :-

“The Commission or the State Commission shall not inquire into any matter after the expiry of one year from the date on which the act constituting violation of human rights is alleged to have been committed.”

3. The Commission framed four preliminary issues as under :

“1. Whether the order dated 12 December, 1996 is referable to the plenitude Article 32 and has the effect of designating the National Human Rights Commission, not as a mere statutory authority functioning within the strict limits of the provisions of the Act, but as a body sui-generis to perform functio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document