PARAMJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
LAWS(SC)-1998-9-8
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on September 10,1998

PARAMJIT KAUR Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

A R ANTULAY VS. R S NAYAK [DISTINGUISHED]



Cited Judgements :-

PEOPLES UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLHABAD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2000-12-5] [REFERRED TO]
MANIPUR ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. MANIPUR HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION [LAWS(GAU)-2006-8-29] [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATION FOR PROTECTION OF DEMOCRATIC VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2007-11-16] [REFERRED TO]
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board VS. State Human Rights Commission Tamil Nadu [LAWS(MAD)-2004-11-13] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL SHAMRAOJI SHINDE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-7-7] [REFERRED TO]
MUTHURAJ INSPECTOR OF POLICE CRIME VS. STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2007-11-74] [REFERRED TO]
PEOPLES UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLAHABAD VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2000-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
SADIN MEHER VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2007-10-18] [REFERRED TO]
T VENKATESWARAN VS. MUTHURAJ [LAWS(MAD)-2008-11-262] [REFERRED TO]
PULAK ENTERPRISES VS. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(PAT)-2000-6-28] [REFERRED TO]
LALIT NARAYAN MITHILA VS. ASHOK KUMAR JHA WITH [LAWS(PAT)-2010-3-316] [REFERRED TO]
KUNAL SAHA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2014-12-87] [REFERRED TO]
KUNAL SAHA VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2016-1-38] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SARUP VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2016-2-27] [REFERRED TO]
A P POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD VS. PROF M V NAYUDU RETD [LAWS(SC)-1999-1-27] [REFERRED]
N C DHOUNDIAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2003-12-90] [REFERRED]
PEOPLES UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2005-4-31] [REFERRED TO]
PEOPLES UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2005-1-33] [REFERRED TO]
REMDEO CHAUHAN ALIAS RAJNATH CHAUHAN VS. BANI KANT DAS [LAWS(SC)-2010-11-41] [REFERRED TO]
HOME GUARD SAINIK EVAM PARIVAR KALYAN SANGH VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2011-12-40] [REFERRED TO]
AMBIKESH MAHAPATRA AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2015-3-19] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR SINGH VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-9-158] [REFERRED TO]
MARIYADAS VS. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER [LAWS(KER)-2019-12-61] [REFERRED TO]
K.N.KESHAVA PANICKER VS. VIJAYAMMA MOHANAN [LAWS(KER)-2019-11-505] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH AT CHANDIGARH [LAWS(P&H)-2020-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI VS. ANKITA SINHA [LAWS(SC)-2021-10-31] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)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) Nos. 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 petitioners 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 gory 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 investitation.

(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 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 functions and determine issues entrusted to it by the Supreme Court.

2. If the answer of issue No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether in the discharge of its functions under the said remit, the powers of the Commission are not limited by Section 36(2) and other provisions of the 'Act'.

3. Whether, the order of the Supreme Court, requires the Commission to adjudicate on the compensation and whether such adjudications are binding on the Governments concerned. Whether such empowerment of the Commission amounts to an investiture of a new jurisdiction on the Commission not already existing under law and whether the order of the Supreme Court amounts to a constitution-ally impermissible delegation of its own judicial powers.

4. Whether the Commission could, to aid speedy disposal of the claims for compen-sation, set-up adjudicatory mechanism under it, subject in each case to its final approval."



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.