SETHUNATHAN PILLAI Vs. NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is partly a public interest litigation and partly a private interest litigation. The first petitioner is a practising lawyers and he claims that he is a social activist engaged in taking up issues of public importance with statutory authorities for their redressal to the benefit of the public at large. Petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents of one Aravindakshan alias Maniyian who was killed in the police firing on 22nd May 1991. Following are the prayers made in this Original, Petition "'(1) to issue a writ of mandamus or other writ or direction commanding the 4th respondent to honour the direction Ext. P3 issued by the 1st respondent by disbursing Rs. 3,00,000 together with interest to the petitioners 2 and 3 forthwith; (2) to issue a writ of mandamus, or other writ or direction, commanding the 1st and 2nd respondents to move the Hon'ble Supreme Court or concerned High Courts for ensuring the execution of each and every decision taken by it, on refusal of the Govt, or the concerned authorities in implementing the same or after the expiry of the period granted to them for compliance; (3) to issue a writ of mandamus, or other writ or direction, commanding the 3rd and 4th respondents to enact necessary provision conferring powers upon the 1st and 2nd respondents to implement their directions / decisions."

(2.) Ext. P3 is a proceeding of the National Human Rights Commission,, dated 7th September 1999 in respect of an incident which happened on 22nd May 1991. The Commissioner had directed the Chief Secretary, Kerala to pay an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs to the next of the kin of deceased Aravindakshan. The second petitioner brought the above proceeding to the notice of the 4th respondent to which he received Ext. P4 reply. The second petitioner was informed by Ext. P4 that Ext. P3 cannot be implemented for two reasons, namely that Ext. P3 had been issued beyond the time prescribed under S.36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and that the enquiry conducted through the Revenue Divisional Officer has justified the firing which happened on 22nd May 1991.

(3.) S.36 (2) provides that the Commission or the State Commission shall not enquire 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. Admittedly in this case the act alleged had happened on 22nd May 1991. The complaint before the National Human Rights Commission itself is made in 1997. Ext. P3 is dated 7th July 1999. The 4th respondent is perfectly justified in taking the stand that Ext. P3 had been issued without, jurisdiction in view of the provisions contained in S.36(2) of the Act.