IMPORTANT POINT
The NHRC lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint beyond the limitation period specified in the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

JUDGMENT :

N. Senthilkumar, J.

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays to issue of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent/National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in case No. 969/22/13/2017, dated 13.02.2023 and the consequential order passed by the third respondent in G.O.(D) No. 201 issued by the Home (Police-HR) Department, dated 20.02.2023 and further consequential impugned order passed by the 12th respondent in proceeding in District Order No. 275/2023, Na.Ka.No. K2/127/4935/2023, dated 23.03.2023 and to quash the same.)

1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent/National Human Rights Commission in Case No. 969/22/13/2017, dated 13.02.2023, the consequential order passed by the third respondent in G.O. (D) No.201 issued by Home (Police - HR) Department dated 20.02.2023 and further consequential order passed by the 12th respondent in proceeding in District order No.275/2023, Na.Ka.No. K2/127/4935/2023 dated 23.03.2023 and quash all the aforesaid orders.

2. Brief facts set out in the writ petition are as follows:-

According to the petitioner, the petitioner was the Investigation Officer in Crime No.572 of 2017 registered against the 13th respondent for the offence punishable under Section 394 of IPC. It is stated that on the basis of the complaint given by one Sundaravelu, the first respondent/National Human Rights Commission has given its recommendation dated 13.02.2023 against the petitioner herein.

2(a) The petitioner herein contends that based on the complaint, that there was a large number of prisoners in the prisons of Tamil Nadu were subjected to torture, the first respondent was pleased to initiate proceedings on the above complaint.

(b) Being satisfied with the nature of allegations contained in the complaint that a huge number of remand prisoners were found with injuries, the first respondent constituted a Special Investigation Team which was headed by the Inspector General of Police and other Higher Officials. The Deputy Superintendent of Police has conducted an enquiry and a final report was submitted before the first respondent/Commission, in which, the petitioner's name was implicated by the Special Investigation Team, alleging that the petitioner had caused injury to the 13th respondent at the time of remand of the said individual in connection with Cr.No.572 of 2017.

(c) The first respondent has taken cognizance of the report filed by the SIT constituted by the first respondent and made its recommendation to the 3rd respondent, in which, a direction was given to the Government of Tamil Nadu, to pay a compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- to Sundaravelu, apart from initiating departmental action against the petitioner, as recommended by the Special Investigation Team and further, to submit the enquiry report within a period of four weeks.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was formed to enquire about the injuries sustained by 325 convicted prisoners at the Central Prison in Tamil Nadu. The Team has noticed that 323 Remand Prisoners have suffered injuries due to various reasons. During such enquiry, 3 cases of alleged human rights violation of prisoners was noticed by the Special Investigation Team constituted by the first respondent.

4. In connection with the case in Crime No.527 of 2017, a case was registered by the petitioner as against the 13th respondent and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. It is stated that the 13th respondent is a habitual offender and he has bad antecedent in the State of Tamil Nadu and in the Union territory of Pondicherry. The antecedents of the 13th respondent are extracted hereunder:-

Cases in Tamil Nadu: