The Complaint Filed Eleven Days Too Late: NHRC, Paramilitary Forces and the One-Year Bar
On 9 November 2023 a Central Reserve Police Force patrol opened fire near a village in Bastar, killing two villagers, aged 34 and 51, and injuring a 16-year-old girl. The district police registered an FIR against unnamed CRPF personnel, but no charge sheet followed. A fact-finding team of a registered voluntary organisation recorded the girl's statement and a village elder's affidavit in December 2023, but the organisation says it delayed approaching the National Human Rights Commission because the families feared reprisal and a legal-aid volunteer fell ill. On 20 January 2025 the organisation files a complaint under Section 12(a) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, seeking compensation of ten lakh rupees for the injured girl and departmental action against the patrol commander. The complaint is filed 14 months and 11 days after the firing. The Commission's registry notes that the CRPF is an armed force of the Union and that the State Government's report is still awaited. The organisation argues that the Commission may condone the delay and take suo motu cognizance.
1. Is the complaint maintainable before the NHRC? Identify every statutory bar that applies and explain what, if anything, the Commission can still do.
Read the worked answer
Issue. Can the Commission entertain a complaint filed 14 months and 11 days after the act, alleging misconduct by a paramilitary force?
Rule 1 - limitation. Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 prohibits inquiry into any matter after one year from the date of the alleged violation. The Limitation Act, 1963 does not automatically apply to a statutory commission, and the Act confers no power to condone delay; the bar is jurisdictional, not directory.
Rule 2 - armed forces. The CRPF is an armed force of the Union for the purposes of the Act. The Commission cannot inquire into allegations against the armed forces themselves; its role is confined to calling for a report from the Central Government and acting on that report.
Application. Counting from 9 November 2023, the one-year period expired on 9 November 2024; the complaint is about 72 days late. The explanation - fear of reprisal, illness of a volunteer - is sympathetic but legally irrelevant, because the Commission has no discretion to excuse delay. Suo motu cognizance does not create an exception: Section 36(2) speaks of 'any matter', not of the mode of initiation. Even a timely complaint would not have led to an inquiry into the patrol's conduct, because of the second bar.
Conclusion. The complaint is not maintainable on either ground. What survives: (i) the Commission may seek and forward the Central Government's report; (ii) it can recommend compensation from the State for its police's failure to protect the villagers and to investigate promptly; (iii) it may seek to intervene in any writ petition under Section 12(b) with the court's leave; (iv) it can take up the systemic issue of delayed fact-finding, which is not itself time-barred as an individual complaint.
2. Suppose the same complaint had been filed on 15 May 2024 and had been confined to the State police's failure to prevent the incident and to register the FIR promptly. How would the analysis change?
Read the worked answer
Limitation. Filing on 15 May 2024 falls within one year of 9 November 2023, so Section 36(2) is satisfied. The first bar disappears.
The armed forces bar. This bar turns on the identity of the alleged perpetrator. It does not immunise the State police. A complaint framed around police inaction is therefore within jurisdiction even though the underlying incident involved the CRPF.
Statutory hook. Section 12(a)(ii) empowers the Commission to inquire into 'negligence in the prevention of such violation by a public servant'. The failure to send a police party, to register an FIR promptly, to protect the wounded girl and to complete the investigation are omissions of State officials, not of the paramilitary force.
What the Commission could do. Summon the Superintendent of Police and the Station House Officer; call for the case diary and the FIR; examine whether safeguards for the injured girl were observed; recommend disciplinary action and compensation under Section 18; and monitor the investigation.
What does not change. The Commission still cannot inquire into the CRPF's firing and must route that limb through the Central Government report. It also cannot award compensation; its recommendation is not a decree.
Exam point. Students often treat the armed forces bar as a subject-matter exclusion. It is better understood as a bar on inquiring into the conduct of a defined class of force; the same incident can still generate a maintainable complaint against the civil police.
3. The injured girl has already filed a writ petition under Article 226 before the High Court seeking compensation. What is the effect on the Commission's jurisdiction, and what course should it adopt?
Read the worked answer
No statutory ouster. Section 36(1) bars the Commission only where the matter is pending before a State Human Rights Commission or 'any other Commission' constituted under a law. A High Court exercising writ jurisdiction is not such a Commission. Jurisdiction therefore survives.
But comity matters. Two forums examining the same facts risk inconsistent findings, and a compensation award by the court would make a Commission recommendation redundant. The prudent course is:
- Record on the file that the criminal investigation and the writ petition are pending.
- Seek intervention under Section 12(b) only with the High Court's approval, placing the Commission's fact-finding before it.
- Confine its own proceedings to the systemic limb - police training, timelines for registering FIRs, protection of witnesses - which the court is unlikely to be seized of.
- Defer the individual compensation question, or recommend interim relief expressly 'without prejudice' to the writ.
Reasoning to display. Jurisdiction and the exercise of jurisdiction are different questions. Here the Commission has jurisdiction but should exercise it with restraint to avoid abuse of process and conflicting findings. A model answer that says flatly 'the Commission cannot act because the matter is sub judice' overstates the law, while one that ignores comity altogether is institutionally naive.