TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Upholds Jurisdiction of Single Member for Human Rights Complaints</h1> <h3>Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (CCA), Patna Versus State of Bihar</h3> The court upheld the jurisdiction of a Single Member of the Human Rights Commission to hear the complaint, rejecting the petitioners' argument that all ... Search & seizure – violation of human rights by the concerned officials of the Income Tax Department – confirmed by Bihar State Human Rights Commission – writ petition filed against such confirmation on various grounds - Held that:- Jurisdiction defect - With reference to Rule 8(1) of NHRC Regulations, 1994 Single Member Bench is competent to hear a complaint regarding violation of human rights.It is desirable that facts regarding the complaint being written to NHRC also, ought to be stated in the complaint to SHRC however, same cannot be a ground for rejection of the complaint filed before the SHRC.Continuous interrogation - Department has no plausible excuse for making interrogations till odd hours of second night till 3 A.M. Thus order of Commission is partially affirmed holding the department guilty of violating human rights but only to the extent indicated.Opportunity of being heard - In absence of an opportunity to defend themselves against such charge in an enquiry, Commission erred in issuing notice to the officials to show cause or respond as to why penalty may not be levied for awarding compensation to the complainant and is accordingly quashed.Writ application is partially allowed so far response of officials were sought for levying monetary penalty; it's challenge against findings of violation of Human Rights is dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of a Single Member of the Human Rights Commission.2. Non-disclosure of parallel complaints by the complainant.3. Sub-judice status of the criminal case.4. Violation of human rights without personal hearing under Section 16 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.5. Good faith and official duty of the officers.6. Continuous interrogation and search operations.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:Issue No. (i): Jurisdiction of a Single Member of the Human Rights CommissionThe petitioners argued that the Chairperson, sitting singly, lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint. They contended that all three members of the Commission should have heard the case. The respondent countered that the doctrine of Coram non-judice pertains to inherent or complete lack of jurisdiction, which was not applicable here. The court examined Section 10(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and Rule 8 of the National Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulation, 1994, which allows a Single Member to refer a case to a bench of two or more members if deemed necessary. The court concluded that the Single Member Bench was competent to hear the complaint, thereby rejecting the petitioners' contention.Issue No. (ii) & (iii): Non-disclosure of parallel complaints and sub-judice statusThe petitioners argued that the complainant did not disclose his complaints before the NHRC, National Commission of Minorities, and the pending criminal case. The court noted that different jurisdictions address distinct concerns, and non-disclosure of such complaints was an irregularity but not a ground for rejection. The court held that the non-mentioning of the NHRC complaint, which was subsequently transferred to the SHRC, did not obviate the act of human rights violation.Issue No. (iv), (v) & (vi): Violation of human rights without personal hearing, good faith, and continuous interrogationThe petitioners argued that the officials acted in good faith and that continuous interrogation was permitted by the search and seizure manual. They contended that it was humanly impossible for a single officer to interrogate continuously for 42 hours. The court noted that the Commission found continuous interrogation for 36 hours, which violated basic human rights. The court emphasized that interrogation at odd hours caused physical and mental torture, and the department should have deferred the interrogation to the next morning. The court partially affirmed the Commission's finding of human rights violation, noting that the interrogation continued till 3 A.M. on the second night without a plausible excuse.Notice to Officials for Monetary CompensationThe court addressed the issue of the Commission issuing a notice to officials for monetary compensation without affording them an opportunity of hearing. Section 16 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, mandates a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The court held that the Commission erred in issuing such a notice without first adjudging the officials guilty of human rights violation. Consequently, the notice for monetary compensation was quashed.ConclusionThe court partially allowed the writ application, affirming the Commission's finding of human rights violation but quashing the notice for monetary compensation against the officials. The court acknowledged the efforts of the search team in unearthing undisclosed income but emphasized the need to respect human dignity and basic human rights during such operations.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
