Which of the following is/are valid ground(s) for challenging the jurisdiction of the National Human Rights Commission to inquire into an allegation of human rights violation against a member of the Central Industrial Security Force ?
- 1. That the same complaint is under investigation by the Human Rights Commission of the State in which the violation is alleged to have been committed
- 2. That the same complaint is being investigated by a Commission of Inquiry set up by the Central Government
- 3. That more than one year has expired from the date on which the act constituting violation of human rights is alleged to have been committed
Select the correct answer using the code given below :
1 only
1 and 2 only
2 and 3 only
1, 2 and 3
Answer is Right!
Answer is Wrong!
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2017
– Statement 1: Section 36(2) of the PHRA states that the NHRC shall not inquire into any matter if it is already pending before a State Commission or any other Commission duly constituted under any law for the time being in force. Thus, investigation by a State Human Rights Commission for the same complaint is a valid bar.
– Statement 2: Section 36(2) also includes inquiry by “any other Commission duly constituted under any law”. A Commission of Inquiry set up by the Central Government falls under this category. If the same complaint is being investigated by such a commission, the NHRC cannot inquire. This is a valid bar.
– Statement 3: Section 36(1) of the PHRA explicitly states that the NHRC shall not inquire into any matter after the expiry of one year from the date on which the act constituting the violation of human rights is alleged to have been committed. This is a statutory limitation on the time frame for the complaint.
– Since all three statements describe valid grounds under Section 36 of the PHRA for the NHRC not to inquire, all three are correct.
– Section 36(2) prevents duplication of inquiries by different commissions or authorities, ensuring efficient use of resources and avoiding conflicting findings.
– The NHRC also has limitations regarding inquiring into matters concerning members of the armed forces (Section 19), where its role is typically restricted to seeking a report from the Central Government. However, the question is about general grounds for challenging jurisdiction applicable even to complaints against police/paramilitary forces like CISF, which fall under the NHRC’s direct inquiry mandate (unlike the ‘armed forces’ as defined in Section 2(1)(a)).