LexPARAMJIT KAUR versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B P ARAMJIT KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 10, 1998 (S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND S. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.] Protectio11 of Huma11 Rights Act, 1993-Sectio11 36(2)-Prohibition from enquiling into ally matter after the expily of one year from the date 011 whicH the act co11stituting violatio11 of huma11 1ights is said to have been C comniitted-The said prohibition can11ot control the plenitude of jurisdictio11 of Supreme Cowt u11der A1ticle 32 of tire Constitution of lndia-Commissio11 acts as a Sui-ge11e1is whe11 it acts under tire remit of Supreme Cowt a11d is 11ot circumsC1ibed by tire prohibition contained in Section 36(2) of the Act. Limitation-Huma11 Rights Commission-l11quili11g of violation of D huma11 1ights Ufter 011e year can11ot co11trol the plenitude of the jwisdiction of the Supreme Cowt under A1ticle 32. E Constitutio11 of India, I95(}-A1ticle 32-17ze ple11itude of jurisdiction under Alticle 32 can11ot be controlled by any statutmy fetter. Human Right commission-In decidi11g the matters referred by Supreme Cowt, the Commission is give11 a free ha11d and is not circumsCJibed by any conditio11s and the jwisdiction exercised by Commission is of a special nature not covered by enactme11t of law and thus acts sui-generis. F Words and Phrases-'Sui-gene1is'-Meaning of. Contents of a Press Note dated 16th January, 1995 depicted the llagrant violation of human rights on a mass scale in the State of Punjab. This Court converted the contents of news reports into Writ Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and directed the National G Human Rights Commission to enquire into the allegation of violation of human rights vide its order dated 12th December, 1996. When Human Rights Commission took up the matter, preliminary objections were raised as to the jurisdiction with reference to its statutory obligation and limita· tions, including the prohibition from enquiring into any matter after the H expiry of one year from the date on which the act constituting the violation 538 - ,. , ........ P. KAUR v. STATE 539 of human rights is said to have been committed as set out in Section 36(2) A of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. The Commission framed four preliminary issues and held as under: (i) Once the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under B Article 32 of the Constitution of India identifies the Commission for enquiring into the allegation of violation of human rights, it becomes a body Sui-gene1is as the one chosen by the Supreme Court for carrying out its behest, and limitations under the Act are not attracted. (ii) The powers of the Commission in carrying out the mandate of the Supreme Court are not limited by Section 36(2) or other provisions if it acts as a body Sui-genelis under the remit of the Supreme Court. (iii) If the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article c 32 of the Constitution of India directs the Commission to enquire aliout D the allegation of violation of human rights, then the Commission does not act as an independent adjudicatory body but as a~ instrumentality or an agency of the Supreme Court and thus there is no question of creating a jurisdiction in Commission because Supreme Court is continuing to retain seisin over the case; and (iv) In view of the large number of claims, the Commission does need greatly to augment its logistical capability, including its administrative and judicial personnel for processing the claim. E' Union of India took exception to the above ruling of the Commission F on preliminary objections and approached this Court by way of Misc. Petition for clarification of order of this Court dated 12th December, 1996 passed in Writ Petitions. Dismissing the Misc. Petitions; this Court HELD : I.I. The power and 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 the Commission is directed to investigate any matter and if it acts under remit of order of G this Court, it acts as sui-genelis and the jurisdiction exercised by the H 540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A National Human Rights Commission is of a special nature not covered by any enactment. [546-D; E] 1.2. In exercise of powers under Article 32, the powers of this Court are unfettered and if this Court has chosen to exercise such powers through National Human
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.