https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182504 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. en-us Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Jul 2024 10:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182504 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182504