Human rights commission procedure and hearing rights: irregular bench constitution was not jurisdictional nullity, but compensation notice failed for lack of hearing.

A procedural irregularity in constituting a Human Rights Commission bench did not amount to a jurisdictional nullity, because the governing procedure allowed complaints to be placed before a single-member bench and referred to a larger bench if needed. Pendency of related proceedings before the police or criminal court did not bar the Commission from examining an alleged human rights violation within its statutory domain. Interrogation continued till about 3.30 A.M. was treated as inconsistent with human dignity and could support a finding of human rights violation, but the proposed recovery of compensation from officials was quashed because they had not been given the reasonable opportunity of hearing required before their reputation could be prejudicially affected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a single-member bench of the Human Rights Commission lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as being coram non judice. (ii) Whether the complaint was liable to be rejected because the complainant had also approached other fora and the matter was sub judice before the criminal court. (iii) Whether the finding of human rights violation and the consequential notice for monetary compensation could stand in the absence of prior notice and opportunity of hearing to the concerned officials, and whether the interrogation carried on till odd hours amounted to human rights violation.

Issue (i): Whether a single-member bench of the Human Rights Commission lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as being coram non judice.

Analysis: The procedure under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and the National Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 1994 empowered the Commission to place complaints before a single-member bench and, if necessary, refer them to a larger bench. The defect alleged was one of procedure and not of inherent lack of jurisdiction. An order passed by a competent authority in an irregular manner does not become a nullity merely because it was not made by the larger bench contended for by the petitioner.

Conclusion: The objection was rejected and the order was not held to be coram non judice.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint was liable to be rejected because the complainant had also approached other fora and the matter was sub judice before the criminal court.

Analysis: Proceedings before the Human Rights Commission, the police, the criminal court, and other bodies operate in distinct jurisdictions and address different legal concerns. The omission to mention another complaint was at best an irregularity and did not extinguish the alleged human rights violation. The pendency of criminal proceedings did not bar the Commission from examining the complaint within its statutory domain.

Conclusion: The complaint was not liable to be rejected on these grounds.

Issue (iii): Whether the finding of human rights violation and the consequential notice for monetary compensation could stand in the absence of prior notice and opportunity of hearing to the concerned officials, and whether the interrogation carried on till odd hours amounted to human rights violation.

Analysis: The record did not conclusively establish uninterrupted interrogation for the entire period found by the Commission, but it did show that the questioning continued till about 3.30 A.M. on the second night. Even in search and seizure proceedings, the conduct of officials must conform to basic human dignity and the right not to be subjected to needless sleep deprivation or interrogation at unreasonable hours. The Commission was justified in treating interrogation at such odd hours as incompatible with human rights. However, Section 16 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 required a reasonable opportunity of hearing before any person's reputation could be prejudicially affected in inquiry proceedings. The officials were not given such opportunity before the impugned notice seeking recovery of compensation from their salaries.

Conclusion: The finding of human rights violation was upheld only to the limited extent of interrogation continued till odd hours, but the notice proposing recovery of compensation from the officials was quashed for want of hearing.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded only in part: the Commission's finding of human rights violation substantially survived, but the consequential notice against the officials was set aside for breach of the statutory requirement of notice and hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural irregularity in the constitution of a Commission bench does not amount to a jurisdictional nullity, and even in search and seizure operations the State must respect human dignity and afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing before making any person prejudicially liable.

---