Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ELIPE DHARMARAO & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL
M. Mahendran & Others
Versus
K.A. Anthony & Others
Writ Petition No.2557 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008
Decided On :Decided on : 12-05-2010
(B)Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993(10 of 1994)-Sec.36-Human rights-Violation- Complaint-Enquiry-Limitation-Jurisdiction-Limitation provided under Sec.36 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 is only for taking cognizance of the complaint and not for its disposal-Complaint for violation of human rights entertained by the State Human Rights Commission within one year from the date of the incident may be enquired by it even after the expiry of one year from the date of the incident.
A reading of the Section would make it unambiguously clear that the intention of the Legislature is very clear that the Commission shall not take into congnizance any compliant after expiry of one year from the date on which the act constituting violation of human rights is alleged to have been committed. The purport of the Section is not to restrain or refrain the Commission from proceeding with the enquiry in the matters already entertained by it after a period of one year, just for the simple reason that the matters have been entertained a year back. Para 18
(C)Interpretation of statutes-Purposive construction-Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993-Sec.36-Human rights-Violation- Complaint-Enquiry-Limitation-Jurisdiction-Courts are to avoid any interpretation which is unjust or absurd but adopt the principles of reasonable and harmonious construction in consonance with the avowed statutory purpose.
In the interpretation of statutes, the courts always presume that the legislature inserted every part thereof for a purpose and the legislative intention is that every part of the statute should have effect. The legislature is deemed not to waste its words or to say anything in vain. By an interpretative process, the Court cannot reach a conclusion which makes it impossible for remedies provided for under the law to be worked out. The purposive interpretation requires that any interpretation which is unjust or absurd must be eschewed and the Court must adopt principles of reasonable and harmonious construction in consonance with the avowed statutory purpose. Para 18.
ELIPE DHARMARAO, ACJ.
The interpretation of Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is the subject matter involved in this writ petition.
2. The brief facts are that the respondents 1 and 2 herein have lodged a complaint before the State Human Rights Commission, as against the petitioners 1 to 5, alleging certain violations of the human rights by the petitioners 1 to 5, who are the officials of the Forest Department of Tamil Nadu. From the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, it is seen that the Krishnagiri-Hosur stretch of National Highways was widened about 5 to 10 years back and there was a proposal to raise avenue plantation along National Highways 78 and 46 by the Tamil Nadu Forest Department, Hosur Division in the year 2004. During the months of August and September, 2004, a stretch of about 3.20 kms. was planted with saplings in Sundampatti village and in one stretch alone from 6.490 km. to 7.31 km. the Forest Department planted about 200 saplings. It has been submitted in the affidavit that the above saplings were planted in the Poramboke land adjoining the Highway which belongs to the State Government and it appears that the land adjoining the Highway after the Government poramboke belongs to the respondents 1 and 2; that the first respondent is a retired Forest Ranger and the second respondent is a retired military man. It has also been averred in the affidavit that on 13.9.2004, when the petitioners 2 to 5 were overseeing the work done by local workers in the Sundampatti village in National Highways 47, the respondents 1 and 2 had clandestinely removed about 63 saplings which were planted along Sundampatti village, which were about 2 meters in height. A complaint was preferred by the 5th petitioner on the very same date before the Kandikuppam police Station, alleging that the respondents 1 and 2 have removed 63 saplings, which caused damage and monetary loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.14,112/=, on which a complaint was registered by the police and the respondents 1 and 2 were brought to the police station for an enquiry and on enquiry, the respondents 1 and 2 undertook to compensate the loss due to Government and assured future good behaviour. It has further been submitted by the petitioners that they did not want to precipitate the issue further and taking into account the fact that the first respondent himself was a retired forest Ranger, they withdrew the aforesaid complaint after the Police recorded their undertaking and a joint memo. was filed before the Police at Kandikuppam Station, to which the petitioners 2 to 4 and the respondents 1 and 2 were the parties. It has further been submitted on the part of the petitioners that after a lapse of nearly three years of the above incident, the petitioners received summons from the third respondent herein, directing them to appear before the State Human Rights Commission, Chennai on 12.9.2007. Aggrieved, they have filed this writ petition contending that Section 36(2) of the Act specifically created a bar on the State Commission not to 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. For better understanding, Section 36(2) of the Act is extracted hereunder: "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. Placing reliance on the said Section, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would strenuously argue that the alleged incident of violation of human rights took place on 13.9.2004 and within one year i.e. by 13.9.2005, the Commission ought to have instituted the enquiry, but the Commission has cho
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
