Human rights complaint limitation barred delayed inquiry; continuing wrong and review powers could not override the statutory time limit.

An express one-year jurisdictional bar under Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act prevents the Human Rights Commission from entertaining a complaint alleging illegal detention after that period. The doctrine of continuing wrong and the concept of recurring cause of action cannot extend the limitation where the alleged wrongful detention had already ceased, and general review powers cannot revive a barred inquiry. As no exceptional basis for delayed scrutiny was shown, the Commission acted beyond jurisdiction and its directions were unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the National Human Rights Commission could reopen and inquire into a complaint alleging illegal detention after the expiry of one year by invoking the doctrine of continuing wrong and its asserted power of review, and whether its directions were sustainable in law.

Analysis: The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 places a clear jurisdictional bar in Section 36(2) against inquiry by the Commission after one year from the date of the alleged act constituting violation of human rights. The expression used in the provision refers to the alleged act itself, and in a case of unlawful detention the wrong cannot be treated as continuing after the detention has ended in accordance with law. The theory of continuing wrong and recurring cause of action cannot be used to defeat the statutory bar, for that would render Section 36(2) ineffective. The Commission also could not justify the belated inquiry on the basis of general review powers where the statutory limitation had already excluded jurisdiction. Since the complaint was taken up long after the permissible period and no extraordinary circumstances were shown, the Commission acted beyond its authority.

Conclusion: The Commission had no jurisdiction to reopen the complaint or to issue the impugned directions, and the order was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the Commission's order was set aside, while the connected special leave petitions were dismissed and the transfer matters were disposed of accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory human-rights commission cannot invoke continuing wrong or review principles to override an express one-year jurisdictional bar on inquiry into an alleged violation when the wrongful act had ceased and no exceptional basis for delayed inquiry exists.

---