Filing a petition before the Commission should be construed as the initiation of proceedings, stopping the running of the period of limitation.

Heard learned counsel for the parties including the learned counsel for the writ petitioner.

2. The facts of the case can be briefly stated as follows: -

The appellant, who was the second respondent in the writ petition, filed on 01.07.2002 a complaint before the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Commission’) alleging that the first respondent herein acted in violation of the human rights of the appellant by physically assaulting him and using filthy language against him without any reason and thus preventing the appellant from recovering his gold ornaments from one M.M. Rangaswamy of Lakshmi Gold Bankers and his agents. We are not going into the merits of those allegations. When such a complaint was filed on 01.07.2002 before the Commission in respect of an incident which took place on 28.02.2002, it was filed very much within one year. On the said complaint being filed, the Commission issued summons on 14. 2003 and hearing took place before the Commission on 13.05.2003. On 13.05.2003, hearing was adjourned and before further hearing could took place on the adjourned date, a writ petition was filed by the first respondent and a stay was granted by this Hon’ble Court on 16th July, 2003. Thereafter, the writ petition was heard by the learned Judge and by the impugned judgment, the learned Judge was pleased to quash the complaint and allowed the writ petition. Against the said judgment, this appeal has been filed.

3. In the judgment of the writ court, the learned Judge construed the provisions of Section 36(2) of The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”). The said provision of Section 36(2) of the said Act is set out below.

“ 36. Matters not subject to jurisdiction of the Commission: -

(1)…….

(2)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.”

4. Construing the said provision, the learned Judge of the writ court, by considering the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Paramjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others, 1999(2) SCC 131, held that the provision of Section 36(2) of the said Act is mandatory and creates a judicial bar on the Commission in taking up the enquiry of a matter after the period of one year from the date the act constituting the violation of right is alleged to have been committed. The learned Judge also held that there is no provision in the said Act for extending the said period of limitation and only in extraordinary circumstances, the complaint can be enquired into after the period of one year, but the learned Judge held that in the instant case there are no extra-ordinary circumstances, for which the Commission can conduct enquiry beyond the period of one year, and as such quashed the proceedings.

5. In this matter, we have appointed Mr. Raja Kalifulla, learned Government Pleader, as amicus curiae, and the learned Government Pleader has fairly assisted the Court.

6. We are unable to accept the aforesaid reasoning of the learned Judge in construing the provisions of Section 36(2) of the said Act for the following reasons.

7. The rationale behind the enactment of the said Act appears from its Statement of Objects and Reasons. From the said Statement of Objects and Reasons, it appears that India is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted by the General Assembly of United Nations on 16th December, 1966, and the human rights embodied in the aforesaid international covenants are substantially protected by our National Charter. A growing and abiding concern for Human Rights was felt in this country and abroad in view of changed social realities and the emerging trends in the nature of rights. It was therefore decided to have a law devising efficient a