UNION OF INDIA Vs. NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 26th December 1997, a petition was submitted by Mr. Prabhakhar L. Mehta to national Human Right Commission (hereinafter referred to as "nhrc") and it was registered as case No. 1208/13/97-98 and it was alleged therein that on 22nd december 1997, at about 11. 30 AM, officers of Enforcement Directorate, Mumbai, raided the residence of the Complainant and in the raid proceedings, Complainant was subjected to torture, inhuman treatment, etc. NHRC had issued notice to the enforcement Directorate and Additional Director of Enforcement reported that an inquiry was conducted in this matter on the complaint of the Complainant Mr. Prabhakhar L. Mehta and no substance was found in it. However, NHRC was not satisfied with the aforesaid report and had asked its Investigation Division to conduct an inquiry and vide detailed order dated 5th February 1999, it was held by NHRC that a prima facie case of violation of the law and of fundamental rights of the Complainant was made out and accordingly, notice was issued to the concerned officers of the Directorate of Enforcement, who had filed affidavits before the NHRC and thereafter, vide impugned order dated 8th September 2000, nhrc has directed the Central Government under Section 18 (3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to grant immediate interim relief of Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainant - Mr. Prabhakhar L. Mehta.

(2.) UNION of India has questioned the aforesaid impugned order by contending that the NHRC has no jurisdiction to issue directions and grant of immediate interim relief after a lapse of three years of this incident is unwarranted and it would certainly prejudice the criminal prosecution and above all, the NHRC has erred in entertaining the time barred complaint.

(3.) NOTICE of this petition was issued to the Respondents and response to this petition has been filed. Mr. Sanjay Katyal, Advocate, has been heard on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. S. K. Dubey, Advocate, has been heard on behalf of respondent No. 2. Although, counsel for NHRC has not appeared to make oral submissions, but the written submissions on behalf of NHRC on record are perused and paper-book of this case has been scrutinised with the assistance of both the sides.