N.C. DHOUNDIALversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

A                              N.C. DHOUNDIAL
                                        V.
                         UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                              DECEMBER 11, 2003

B            [S. RAJENDRA BABU, P. VENKATARAMA REDDI
                         AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.]

         Prevention of Corruption Act; Section 13(2) r!w Section 13(1)(e)
   Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993; Ss. 13, 36(2)/Regulations; Section
C 18(1)(a): Officer-Corrupiion charges-Interrogation by CBI-Allegation
 . of harassment/illegal detention/false implication-Complaint to National
   Human Rights Commission (NHRC)-Dismissed by NHRC-Review Peti-
   tion allowed by NHRC holding that CB/· kept complainant in defacto
   custody without any authority of law resulting in violation of his human
   rights-Directed CBI to initiate disciplinary action against errant offi-
D cials-Writ Petition filed by CBI officials-Dismissed by High Court-In
   writ appeal, High Court directed to maintain status quo-NHRC!com-
   plainant!CBI Officials filed special leave petitions/writ petition/transfer
   petitions before Supreme Court-Held : Though the Commission is vested
   with ancillary.powers to exercise its jurisdiction effectively, it has to act
E within the parameters prescribed by the Act creating it,-Section 36(2) of
   Protection of Human Rights Act places an embargo against the Commis-
   sion taking cognizance in a matter after expiry of one year from the date
   of the alleged act of violation of human rights-Though provision of law
   procedural in nature, but could act as fetters on jurisdiction-In the facts
   and circumstances of the case, concept of continuing wrong could not be
F pressed into service to get over the limitation under the provision of the
   Act-In absence of extra-ordinary circumstances, even the relevant Regu-
   lation does not empower the Commission to enquire into the complaint
   after expiry of one year-Direction of the Commission violative ofArticle
   14 of the Constitution-Hence quashed.
G
         Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 473 :

         'continuing wrong' vis-a-vis 'continuing offence '-Meaning a/-
    Discussed-Words and Phrases.

H        CBI conducted a search at the residence of an Officer of the
                                        674
               N.C. DHOUNDIAL v. UNION OF INDIA                     675

  Telecom Department. During investigation he was admitted to a A
  hospital. On discharge from the hospital, he was arrested by CBI for
  further interrogation. Special Judge, CBI remanded him to judicial
  custody with a direction to the prison authority to get him medically
  examined. Later, Court granted him provisional bail and directed that
  he should be admitted to hospital and interrogated. On investigation, B
  charge-sheet was filed under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the
  Prevention of Corruption Act. The Officer filed a complaint before the
  National Human Rights Commission alleging false implication, illegal
  detention and harassment by CBI. NHRC took cognizance of the
  complaint and obtained a report from CBI. It found no substance in C
  the complaint and dismissed the same. The Complainant filed another
  petition. NHRC treated the petition as Review Petition and held that
  the complaint was kept in defacto custody by the CBI Officials without
  any authority of law, which has resulted in violation of his human
  rights. The Commission directed CBI to initiate appropriate discipli- D
  nary proceeding against the errant Officials. Aggrieved, CBI Officers
  filed a Writ Petition, which was dismissed by the High Court. In
. appeal, Division Bench of the High Court issued interim directions to
  maintain status quo in the matter. NHRC and the Complainant both
  filed special leave petitions against the interim order.
                                                                           E
       In the meanwhile, one of the CBI officials filed a writ petition
 against the order of NHRC before the Supreme Court and Complain-
 ant and NHRC filed transfer petitions for transfer of the cases pending
 before the High Court. Hence the present Writ Petition and Transfer
 Petitions.
                                                                           F
       Allowing the writ petition and dismissing the Special leave
 Petitions and Transfer Petitions, the Court

       HELD : 1.1. The Commission did not afford personal hearing to
 the officials who were put on notice nor any opportunity of adducing G
 evidence was afforded. The complaint was decided on the basis of
 averments in the Review Petition and the replies submitted by the
 officials concerned. The plea of the officials was tested broadly on the
 basis of probabilities and a conclusion was reached that the officials
 concerned were guilty of human rights violation. {684-E}                 H
     676                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A          1.2. The Commission which is an 'unique expert body' is, no
     doubt, entrusted with a very important function of protecting the
     human rights, but the Commission has no unlimited jurisdiction nor
     does it exercise plenary powers in derogation of the statutory limita-
     tions. The Commission is bound by its provisions. Its duties and
B    functions are defined and circumscribed by the Prevention of Human
     Rights Act. However, it undoubtedly has incidental or ancillary powers
     to effeetively exercise its jurisdiction in respect of the powers confided
     to it but the Commission should necessarily act within the parameters
     prescribed by the Act creating it and the confines of jurisdiction vested
C    in it by the Act. The Commission is one of the Fora which can redress
     the grievances arising out of the violations of human rights. Even if it
     is not in a position to take up the enquiry and to afford redressal on
     account of certain statutory fetters or handicaps, the aggrieved persons
     are not without other remedies. The assumption underlying the obser-
     vation of the Commission rests on an incorrect premise that the person
·D
     wronged by violation of human· rights would be left without remedy
     if the Commission does not take up the matter. (685-C-D~E-F)

           1.3. Section 36(2) of the Act places an embargo against the
     Commission enquiring into any matter after expiry of one year from
E    the date of the alleged act violative of human rights. The caption or
     the marginal heading to the Section indicates that it is a jurisdictional
     bar. Periods of limitation, though basically procedural in nature, can
     also operate as fetters on jurisdiction in certain situations. The bar
     under Section 36(2) is sought· to be got over by the Commission by
F    invoking the theory of continuing wrong and the recurring cause of
     action. According to the Commission every violation of human right
     is a continuing wrong until and unless due reparation is made. Such
     a view, if accepted, makes Section 36(2) practically a dead letter.
     Moreover, going by the language employed in Section 36(2) of the Act,
G    the concept of continuing wrong could not at all be pressed into service
     in the instant case. In a case of illegal detention, the vfiensive act must
     be deemed to have been eommitted when a person is placed under
     detention and it continues so long as the affected person remains under
     illegal detention. The commission of offensive act is complete at a
H    particular point of time and it does not continue to be so even after
               N.C. DHOUNDIAL v. UNION OF INDIA                     677
the unauthorized detention ends. It is not the effect of illegal detention A
which is contemplated by Section 36(2) but it is the illegal act itself.
                                        (686-B-C, E, G-H; 687-A-B-C)

     S.S. Gadgil v. Mis. Lal & Co., AIR (1975) SC 171; Uttam Das v.
S.G.P.C., [1996] 5 SCC 71 and Bhinka v. Charan Singh, AIR (1959) SC B
960, relied on.

      1.4. In the instant case, it would be a contradiction in terms to
say that the arrest or detention of the complainant/officer beyond a
certain period was in accordance with law and at the same time the C
arrest/detention continued to be wrongful.. It cannot, therefore, be
brought under the category of continuing wrong which is analogous
to the expression 'continuing offence' in the field of criminal law. It
cannot be said that the alleged wrongful act of detention repeats itself
everyday even after the complainant was produced before the Mag- D
istrate and remand was obtained in accordance with law. Detention of
the complainant beyond 3.4.1994 was not a breach of obligation
imposed by law either by means of positive or passive conduct of the
alleged wrong-doers. To characterize it is a continuing wrong is,
therefore, inappropriate. One year period for taking up the enquiry
into the complaint, therefore, comes to an end by 3.4.1995. Just as in E
the case of Section 473 Cr.P.C., there is no provision in the Act to
extend the period of limitation of one year. (687-D-E-F)

      1.5. Regulation 8(1)(a) of the Regulations implies that if extraor-
dinary circumstances exist, the complaint can be enquired into even F
after the expiry of one year. However, no extraordinary circumstances
have been made out in the instant case. For nearly 4Yz years the
compliant kept quiet. Th_ explanation given in the complaint for this
long silence was that he was under the impression that by reporting
the matter to NHRC he might be antagonizing the CBI officials, but, G
after realizing that they were not acting fairly and objectively and they
continued to harass him, he thought of filing the petition before NHRC.
The Commission, on its part, did not advert to this explanation which
is really no explanation at all, nor did it advert to any extraordinary
circumstances justifying interference after a long lapse of time pre- H
    678                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A scribed by Section 36(2) of the Act. The Commission thus tried to
    clutch at the jurisdiction by invoking the theory of continuing wrong
    which cannot be htvoked at all. Hence, tht- direction given by the
    Commission to the Director of CBI, which has an undoubted effect on
    the service career of the writ petitioner is violative of Article 14 of the
B   Constitution. Hence quashed. (687-G-H; 688-A-B-C-D]

          Paramjit Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1999) 2 SCC 131, relied on.

         1.6. The question as to whether the Commission has the power to
    reopen the closed complaint and enquire int~ the same in the absence
C   of new material need be gone into in view of the conclusion that the
    Commission exceeded its jurisdiction in taking up the enquiry in the
    face of the bar created by Section 36(2) of the Act. The High Court
    of Jharkhand may dispose of the related Writ Petitions/LPA pending
    on its file with expedition in the light of this judgment.
D                                                       [688-F-G; 689-A-B)

         CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 42 of
    2001.

          Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
E
                                      WITH

         1.P. (C) Nos. 180, 261, 283, 293, 850 and 877/2001 and S.L.P. (C)
    Nos. 8220, 11186 and 14392 of 2001.
F
          R.N. Trivedi, Additional Solicitor General, Rajeev Dhawan, N.N.
    Goswamy, Rishi Malhotra, Prem Malhotra, Ms. Sunita Sharma, Shree
    Prakash Sinha, Nikhil Nayyar, Anil Shrivastav, Rajeev Sharma, A.D.N.
    Rao, P. Parmeswaran , Ms. Indu Goswamy, Sanjay R. Hegde, _Ms. Sushma
    Suri, Ramesh Babu M.R. and G. Prakash for the Appearing Parties.
G
          Petitioner-in-person (NP) in W.P. (C) No. 42/2001.

          Respondent-in-person (NP) in W.P. (C) No. 42/2001.

H         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
         N.C. DHOUNDIAL v. UNION OF INDIA [REDDI, J.]                679

      P. VENKATARAMA RED DI, J. : A search was conducted by the A
officials of CBI on 25.03.1994 at the residential house of Shri Ashok
Kumar Sinha-an officer of the Telecom Department (hereinatrer referred
to as 'the complainant') at Ranchi. This was followed by ;.;earches of the
houses of his close relations and contractors at Patna and Ranchi. In
between he was admitted to hospital on two occasions. On discharge from B
CCI Hospital at Ranchi on 3.4.1994, the petitioner was arrested "with a
 view to interrogate him. in custody" and produced before the Court of
Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi with a prayer to remand him. to policy custody
 for lO days. The Special Judge remanded him to judicial custody for a
fortnight with a direction to the Jail Superintendent to get him medically C
examined and to submit the report. On receipt of the report of the Jail
 Superintendent, he was remanded to police custody for seven days and
 there was a further order to release him on provisional bail for one month
 from 13.4.1994. The Court also directed that he should be admitted in CCI
 Hospital and interrogated there. The provisional bail was confirmed later
 on subject to certain conditions. The CBI, after obtaining sanction, filed D
 a charge sheet on 18.8.1998 under Sections 13(2) read with Section
 13(1 )(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for the possession of assets
 disproportionate to the known sources of income.

      A day thereafter, i.e. on 19.8.1998, the National Human Rights E
Commission (for short 'NHRC') received a complaint from Mr. A.K. Sinha
alleging illegal detention from 25.3.1994 to 3.4.1994. He also alleged
harassment and torture by the CBI officials including Mr. N.C. Dhoundial,
S.P., CBI (Petitioner in WP (C) 42/2001). He alleged that a false case was
registered against him for extraneous reasons on account of the antagonistic
attitude of the S.P. Mr. Dhoundial, towards him. The complainant alleged F
that the action of the CBI in causing his unlawful detention during the
period 25.3.1994 to 3.4.1994 and the harsh treatment meted out to him
aggravated his disease of cancer (which was detected later) and a major
surgery had to be performed at Tata Memorial Cancer Hospital, Bombay
to save his life. Seven officers of CBI were named in the complaint who, G
according to the complainant, were directly or indirectly responsible for
his illegal detention. NHRC took cognizance of the complaint and called
for a repo1t from the Director, CBI. On consideration of the report, the
learned Member of NHRC found that there was no substance in the
complaint and that no action was called for. The learned Member observed H
    680                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A that there was no truth in the allegation of harassment and denial of proper
    medical attention. It was also observed that the complainant never com-
    plained to the Court that he was being ill-treated by the CBI officers. The
    learned Member further observed that "there was considerable force in the
    stand taken by the CBI that this complaint has been filed only to demoralize
B   the CBi officers who are zealously investigating." Proceedings to this
    effect were drawn up on 6.11.1998. The complainant then filed a petition
    on 21.9 .1999 pointing out cert&in facts which according to him missed .the
    attention of the NHRC while taking the decision recorded on 6.11.1998.
    The petitioner prayed for reopening the case and to take a fresh decision
C   after giving him adequate oppottunity to present his case.

           The learned Chairman ofNHRC, by his proceeding dated 10.3.2000
    treated the petition filed by Shri A.K. Sinha as review petition and having
    found a prima facie case of illegal detention of the complainant by the CBI
    officials during the period 25.3.1994 to 3.4.1994, thought it fit to recall
D   the findings recorded in the proceeding dated 6.11.1998 and to further
    proceed with the enquiry in the matter. Accordingly, show cause notices
    were issued to four CBI officials namely, Shri N.C. Dhoundial, Shri
    Narayan Jha, Shri P.K. Panigrahi and Shri B.N. Singh as to why appropriate
    recommendation should not be made to the Competent Authority for
E   initiating disciplinary action and such other action as may be found
    expedient. On receipt of replies from the concerned officials of the CBI,
    the learned Chairman, by his proceeding dated 12.6.2000, rejected the
    version of the CBI officials, over-ruled the objections raised by them on
    points oflaw and held that the complainant was iri de facto custody of the
    said officials without authority of law during the period 25.3.1994 to
F   3 .4.1994 resulting in the violation of his human rights. The Commission
    directed the Director, CBI to initiate appropriate disciplinary action for the
    misconduct of the four officials arising out of the illegal detention of the
    complainant Shri A.K. Sinha. It was made clear that the direction would
    not in any manner affect the prosecution of Shri Sinha for the offences ·
G   under Prevention of Corruption Act. It may be noted that before recording
    its findings and giving directions as above, the Commission did not afford
    personal hearing or the opportunity to adduce evidence to the writ
    petitioner and other officials.

H         Questioning the said order of NHRC, Shri P.K. Panigarhi, the then
         N.C. DHOUNDIAL v. UNION OF INDIA [REDDI, J.]                 681

Inspector, CBI filed a Writ Petition CWJC 2454/2000 under Article 226 A
in the Patna High Court (Ranchi Bench). The learned Judge dismissed the
writ petition by an order dated 14.8.2000. The learned Judge observed that
all the contentions raised by the writ petitioner were considered by NHRC
and he found no reason to interfere with the impugned order. However,
the learned Judge made it clear that the order in question was in the nature B.
of recommendation and disciplinary proceedings as and when initiated
have to be disposed of independently on the basis of the evidence brought
on record. Against this order in the Writ Petition Shri Panigrahi filed an
appeal LPA No. 309/2000 (R). By a speaking order dated 22.1.2001, the
Division Bench admitted .the appeal as the appeal raised important and
debatable questions. Legal questions arising in the appeal were broadly C
indicated by the Division Bench.         While ordering notice to NHRC,
status quo with respect to the appellant was directed to be maintained.
Questioning this interim order passed pending the LPA, the complainant
Shri A.K. Sinha filed SLP (C) No. 14392/2001. NHRC filed SLP (C)
 8220/2001 against the same interim order.                                   D
      Subsequent to the admission of LPA, two other CBI officials Shri
Bishwanath Singh, the then SI, CBI and Shri N. Jha, the then Deputy SP,
CBI also filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The
learned Single Judge, following the interim order passed in LPA, granted E
an order of status quo in regard to those writ petitioners also. It was further
ordered that the Writ Applications shall be heard after the disposal ofLPA.
Assailing this order, the complainant A.K. Sinha filed SLP (C) Nos. 11182/
2001 and 11186/2001. While so, Shri N.C. Dhoundial, the then SP, CBI,
Ranchi had directly filed Writ Petition (C) No. 42/2001 under Article 32
in this Court questioning the NHRC's order dated 12.6.2000. This Court F
directed issuance of notice on 15.1.2001. :fhereafter, a bunch of transfer
petitions, three by A.K. Sinha and three by NHRC came to be filed in this
Court with a prayer to transfer the LPA and Writ Petitions to the file of
this Court and to hear the same along with WP (C) No. 42 of 200 I filed
by N.C. Dhoundial. The ground of ~ransfer is that similar issues are G
involved for adjudication in the LPA/Writ Petitions pending in the High
Court and the Writ Petition pending in this Court.

     The SLPs, TPs and the Writ Petition have been grouped together and
posted for final disposal.. That is how these 11 matters are before us.     H
    6&2                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A         Before proceeding further, it is necessary to make a brief reference
    to the stand taken by the officials of CBI on the factual aspects relating
    to the alleged detention between 25.3.1994 to 3.4.1994 and the findings
    recorded by NHRC on this disputed issue.

          The factual account given by the CBI officials is as follows:
B
          After the search 0!1 25.3.1994 the complainant was asked to accom-
    pany the DSP, CBI to the SP's office at Ranchi. During interrogation,
    the complainant d(sclosed that he kept certain papers, pass-books and keys
    of lockers in a brief case handed over to one Ranjan Pandey, a contractor
C   of his department at Patna. He volunteered to accompany the CBI officials
    to Patna with a view to assist them in the investigation. Accordingly, Shri
    N. Jha, Shri Panigrahi and Shri B.N. Singh together with the complainant
    started on the journey to Patna in the evening. After reaching the outskirts
    of Ranchi. Sri Sinha complained of chest pain and wanted to be exam_ined
D   at a private nursing home named by him. Accordingly, he was taken to
    that hospital but the doctor concerned was not available. Hence, on the
    request of the complainant, he was taken to Central Coalfield Hospital at
    Ranchi and was admitted in the Hospital. The CBI officials left the
    hospital after his family members came to the hospital to attend on him.
E   On the morning of 26.3.1994, he was discharged from the hospital after
    certain tests including ECG were conducted. The complainant then
    expressed his preparedness to go to Patna by air. He bought his own ticket
    and accompanied the CBI officers to Patna. On search of the house ofShri
    Ranjan Pandey at Patna, the brief case could not be found. However,
    certain papers were seized from his residence. Then the houses of the two
F   close relatives of the complainant were searched till late night that day on
    the basis of the information furnished by him. On completion of the
    searches, the CBI officers stayed in the Coal India Guest House at Patna.
    The petitioner volunteered to stay with them that night on the ostensible
    ground that he felt embarrassed to stay with his relatives in the aftermath
G   of the raids. On 27.3.1994, the flight to Ranchi was cancelled and there
    was some uncertainty in the time schedule of the trains brought for Ranchi
    on account of Holi festival the next day. Hence, the officials alpng with
    the complainant took a bus from Patna on the night of March 27th and
    reached Ranchi in the early morning hours of March 28th. The complainant
H   was requested to attend the CBI office at Ranchi at 8.30 a.m. Accordingly,
         N.C. DHOUNDIAL v. UNION OF INDIA [REDDI, J.]                 683

he came to the CBI office and in the course of questioning he disclosed A
that one more brief case with important documents was kept with another
contractor. On a search of the said contractor's house, nothing incriminating
was found. While returning to the CBI office, the petitioner again reported
that he was not feeling well and requested that his father-in-law be
informed. Accordingly, his father-in-law came to the CBI office and both B
of them left for CCI Hospital. His father-in-law got him admitted in the
hospital and also deposited money for treatment. On 1.4.1994, even while
the complainant was in hospital, he came to the CBI office with two brief
cases said to have been kept with the two contractors. Those brief cases
were seized in the presence of witnesses in the CBI office. The brief cases C
did not contain any incriminating material. The complainant without
participating in further interrogation went back to the CCI Hospital. He
was discharged from the CCI Hospital on 3.4.1994 at 12 noon and on the
request of the IO went to the CBI office. As he did not cooperate with
the investigating agency and did not even come forward to produce the
 documents relating to investments etc. admitted by him, it was decided D
 to arrest and interrogate him in custody. That is why he was arrested on
 3.4.1994 and produced before the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi with a prayer
to remand him to police custody.

      The CBI officials denied having kept the police personnel in the E
hospital either on 25.3.1994 or on the second occasion. They relied on the
entries in the case diary in support of their contention that he was not
arrested till 3 .4.1994. Regarding the steps taken by them for providing
medical attendance to the complainant on the first day i.e. 25 .3 .1994, the
stand of CBI officials has been that it was done on humanitarian consid-
erations, but not because he was in their custody.                           F
      The Commission was not prepared to accept the version of the CBI
officials. The relevant coinment made by the learned Chairman of NHRC
to discredit their version is extracted hereunder:

         "The Commission has given its anxious consideration but it is not G
         inclined to accept the above explanation because it is unreal to
         expect that a wrong doer will make a record of his wrong actions.
         Absence of such record in the case diaries prepared by a noticee
         cannot be relied on to disprove the otherwise established fact of
         the illegal detention of Shri A.K. Sinha during the aforesaid H
    '
    684                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
'
A           period. Had Shri Sinha not been in actual custody of the CBI
            officers, there was no occasion for them to have provided him
            the medical aid arid attention and to keep him under constant
            surveillance. More so, as per the officers' own showing, they
            were accompanying the petitioner from Ranchi to Patna and back
            for the purpose of making recoveries of certain incriminatory
            articles. The Commis_slon, therefore, finds no substance In this
            objection of the noticee officers and rejects the same."

          Thus the inhiative taken by the CBI officers in joining him in the
    hospital when he complained of chest pain and the factum of complainant
C   accompanying the CBI officials to Patna and coming back with them were
    relied upon by the Commission to come to the conclusion that the
    complainant was in the actual custody of CBI officers. The Commission
    also observed that the complainant wa5 under constant surveillance.
    Though it is riot elaborated, the CommissiOn probably meant that he was
b   being watched while he was in hospital.

          It is to be noted that the Commission did not afford personal hearing
    to the officials who were put on notice nor any opportunity of adducing
    evidence was afforded. The complaint was decided on the basis of
    averments in the review petition and the replies submitted by the officials
E   concerned. The plea of the officials was tested broadly on the basis of
    probabilities and a conclusion was reached that the officials concerned
    were g1•.ilty of human rights violation.

        The three legal objections raised by the CBI officials were over-ruled
F by the Commission. Firstly, it was held that by vii:tue of Section 13 of the·
  Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the power of review conferred on
  the civil court was available to the Commission. As the earlier order was
  not a decision on merits but merely an order abstaining from further
  enquiry the Commission felt that there was no bar to reconsider the entire
  issue in the interest of justice. The second objection based on Regulation
G 8(l){b) of NHRC (Procedure Regulations) which bars complaints with
  regard to matters that are 'subjudice' was rejected with the observation that
  the question of violation of human rights as a result of alleged unauthorized
  detention of the compfainant was not subjudic'e. The other important
  objection that the Commission is debarred from enquiring into the matter
H after the expiry of one year from the date on which the alleged illegal
         N.C. DHOUNDIAL v. UNION OF INDIA [REDDI, J.]                 685

detention took place as per the mandate of Section 36(2) was answered A
by the Commission in the following words:

        "The violation of human rights is a continuing wrong unless due
        reparation is made. It gives rise to recurring cause of action till
        redressal of the grievance. The Protection of Human Rights Act, B
        1993 has been enacted with the object of providing better
        protection of Human Rights and it cannot be assumed that the
        mere lapse of a certain period would be sufficient to render the
        violation immune from the remedy ofredressal of the grievance."

        We cannot endorse the view of the Commission. The Commission C
which is an 'unique expert body' is, no doubt, entrusted with a very
 important function of protecting the human rights, but, it is needless to
point out that the Commission has no unlimited jurisdiction nor does it
exercise plenary powers in derogation of the statutory limitations. The
Commission, which is the creature of ·statute, is bound by its provisions. D
 Its duties and functions are defined and circumscribed by the Act. Of
·course, as any other statutory functionary, it undoubtedly has incidental
or ancillary powers to effectively exercise its jurisdiction in respect of the
powers confided to it but the Commission should necessarily act within the
parameters prescribed by the Act creating it and the confines ofjurisdiction E
vested in it by the Act. The Commission is one of the fora which can
 redress the grievances arising out of the violations of human rights. Even
 if it is not in a position to take up the enquiry and to afford redressal on
 account of certain statutory fetters or handicaps, the aggrieved persons are
 not without otter remedies. The assumption underlying the observation F
 in the concluding passage extracted above proceeds on an incorrect
 premise that the person "Wronged by violation of human rights would be
 left without remedy if the Commission does not take up the matter.

    Now, let us look at Section 36 of the Protection of Human Rights Act,
which reads thus:                                                         G
         36. Matters not subject to jurisdiction of the Commission - "(l)
         The Commission shall not inquire into any matter which is
         pending before a State Commission or any other Commission duly
         constituted under any law for the time being_ in force.          H
    686                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A            (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."

B Section 36(2) of the Act thus piaces an embargo against the Commission
    enquiring into any matter after expiry of one year from the date of the
    alleged act violative of human rights. The caption or the marginal heading
    to the Section indicates that it is a jurisdictional bar. Periods oflimitation,
    though basically procedural in nature, can also operate as fetters on
    jurisdiction in certain situations. If an authority is needed for this
C   proposition the observations of this Court in S.S. Gadgil v. Mis Lal & Co.,
    AIR (1975) SC 171 may be recalled. Construing Section 34 ofthe Income
    Tax Act, 1922 the Court observed thus:

             "Again the period prescribed by Section 34 for assessment is not
             a period of limitation. The section in terms imposes a fetter upo~
D
             the power of the Income-tax Officer to bring to tax escaped
             income."

    The language employed in the marginal heading is another indicator that
    it is a jurisdictional limitation. It is a settled rule of interpretation that
E   the section heading or marginal note can be relied upon to clear any doubt
    or ambiguity in the interpretation of the provision and to discern the
    legislative intent (vide Uttam Das v. S.G.P.C., [1996] 5 SCC 71 and
    Bhinka v. Charan Singh, AIR (1959) SC 960).

F         In fact, Section 36(2) does not mince the words and the language used
    is clear and categorical. The marginal note to the Section is being referred
    to only to consider whether.the bar created by S@Ction 36(2) has a bearing
    on the power or jurisdiction of the Commission.

          The bar under Section 36(2) is sought to be got over by the
G   Commission by invoking the theory of continuing wrong and the recurring
    cause of action. According to the Commission, every violation of human
    right is a continuing wrong until and unless due reparation is made. We
    find it difficult to accept this proposition propounded by the Commission.
    The short answer to this view point is that such a view, if accepted, makes
H   Section 36(2) practically a dead letter. Moreover, going by the language
         N.C. DHOUNDIAL v. UNION OF INDIA [REDDI, J.]                  687

employed in Section 36(2), we do not think that the concept of continuing A
wrong could at all be pressed into service in the instant case. The
time limit prescribed is referable to the alleged 'act' constituting the
violation of human rights. In a case like illegal detention, the offensive
act must be deemed to have been committed when a person is placed under
detention and it continues so long as the affected person remains under B
illegal detention. The commission of offensive act .is complete at a
particular point of time and it does not continue to be so even after the
unauthorized detention ends. It is not in dispute that the complainant was
produced before the Special Judge on 3.4.1994 and remand was obtained
in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The alleged act of C
unauthorized detention which gives rise to violation of human rights ceased
on 3.4.1994 and it does not perpetuate thereafter. It is not the effect of
illegal detention which is contemplated by Section 36(2) but it is the illegal
act itself. It would be a contradiction in terms to say that the arrest or
detention beyond 3 .4.1994 was in acc()rdance with law and at the same
time the arrest/detention continued to be wrongful. It cannot, therefore, D
 be brought under the category of continuing wrong which is analogous
 to the expression 'continuing offence' in the field of criminal law. It cannot
 be said that the alleged wrongful act of detention repeats itself everyday
even after the complainant was produced before the Magistrate and remand
was obtained in accordance with law. Beyond 3.4.1994, there was no E
 breach of obligation imposed by law either by means of positive <?r passive
 conduct of the alleged wrong-doers. To characterize it as a continuing
 wrong is, therefore, inappropriate. One year ·period for taking uµ the
 enquiry into the complaint, therefore, comes to an end by 3.4.1995. Just
 as in the case of Section 473 Cr.P.C., there is no p~ovision in the Act to F
 extend the period of limitation of one year. However, in the procedural
 Regulations framed by the Commission certain amount of discretion is
 reserved to the Commission. Regulation 8(1)(a) inter alia lays down that
 'ordinarily' a complaint in regard to events which happened more than one
 year before the making of the complaint is not entertainable.
                                                                             G
      Irrespective of the validity of the/prefacing expression 'ordinarily',
let us examine the issue from the point of view of the regulation itself. The
Regulation imp Iies that if extraordinary circumstances exist, the complaint
can be enquired into even after the expiry of one year. Are there any
extraordinary circumstances made out in this case? We find none in the H
    688                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A     impugned order of the Commission. As already noticed, the petition filed
      by the complainant was received by the Commission a day after the charge
      sheet was filed though it bears an earlier date. For nearly 4Yi years the
      complainant kept quiet. The explanation given in the complaint for this
     <long silence was that he was under the impression that by reporting ~he
lt;B matter to NHRC he might be antagonizing the CBI officia,ls, but, after
      realizing that they were not acting fairly and objectively and they continued
     ,to harass him, he thought of filing the petition before NHRC. The
     ,Commission, on its part, did not advert to this explanation which is really
      no explanation at all, nor did it advert to.any extraordinary circumstances
      justifying interference after a long lapse of time ;prescribed by Section
      36(2). The Commission thus tried to clutch at the jurisdiction by invoking
     -the theory of continuing wrong which, as we held earlier, cannot be
     .invoked at all. In this view of the matter, the direction given by the
      Commission to the Director of CBI, which has an undoubted effect on the
      service career of the writ petitioner, is violative of Article 14 of the
 I> Constitution.
         Before concluding our discussion on this .aspect,. we would ·like -to
   clarify in reiteration of what was said 'by this Court in Paramjit Kaur v.
   State of Punjab, [ 1999] 2 SCC 131 that in a case where-the NHRC proceeds
E to investigate and inquire into the violation of~human rights pursuant to
  'the directions of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, the bar
   contained in Section 36(2)·will not apply because in such an event, NHRC
   does not function underthe·provisions of the Act·but as an 'expert body'
   aiding the Supreme Court in the discharge of.its constitutional power under
   Article 32.
F
         The question whether Section 13 of the Act empowers.the Commis-
  .sion to exercise the power of review conferred on the Civil Court and if
   so, whether the conditions for the exercise of such1power.are:satisfied, has
   been debated ·before· us. In any . case, whether ·the CommiSsion has the
G power to reopen -the closed complaint-and·enquire;into the same :in the
   absence of new material coming to light has also been debated. These
   questions need be gone into in view of our conclusion that the Commission
   exceeded its jurisdiction in taking up the enquiry ,jn •the face of the bar
   created by Section 36(2).

H         In the result, the order of NHRC dated 12.6.2000 is quashed and the
         N.C. DHOUNDIAL v. UNION OF INDIA [REDDI, J.]               689

writ petition (civil) No. 42 of 2001 stands allowed. The S.L.P. Nos. 8220 A
of200l, 11182 of2001, 11186 and 14392 of2001 filed against the interim
orders granted by the High Court are dismissed. All the Transfer Petitions
are also dismissed with an observation that the High Court of Jharkhand
may dispose of the related Writ Petitions/LPA pending on its file with
expedition in the light of this judgment. No costs.                        B
S.K.S.                           W.P. allowed/SLP and T.P. dismissed.