The Supreme Court on December 12, 1996 had requested the NHRC to examine flagrant violation of human rights on a mass scale in Punjab after the CBI submitted a report in this regard.

When the matter was taken up by the commission, preliminary objections were raised as to the jurisdiction with reference to its statutory obligations and limitations, including prohibition from inquiring into any matter after the expiry of one year from the occurrence of the incident.

However, the commission rejected preliminary objections saying the matter relating to 585 identified, 274 partially identified and 1238 unidentified bodies into which the Supreme Court had asked it to inquire, was a case of its own kind (suigeneris) and could not be subject to limitation act.

A division bench of the Apex Court comprising Justice Saghir Ahmad and Justice S Rajendar Babu upheld NHRC's view.

The Apex Court by its December 1996 order had directed the CBI to determine and establish among other things culpability of those responsible for violation of human rights while remaining issues were referred to the commission.

The Supreme Court held that NHRC, in the present case, would function pursuant to the directions issued by this court and not under the act by which it was constituted.

``Therefore, the jurisdiction exercised by NHRC in these matters is of a special nature not covered by the enactment of law and thus acts sui generis

,'' the court said.

Under article 32 of the Constitution, the powers of this court were unfettered and if this court had chosen to exercise such powers through NHRC as indicated in the order referring matters to it, it could not be said that a new jurisdiction is conferred on thecommission, the court said.

``The various objections raised before the commission indicate the attitude of the parties appearing before the commission, which we are constrained to say, is not a healthy attitude,'' the bench lamented.

``This attitude does not represent the effort to assist the commission for a quick conclusion of the proceedings so that if there have been violations of human rights, the families affected thereby may be rehabilitated and adequately compensated,'' it said.

Finally criticising the parties for approaching the court for clarification on the December order, the bench said, ``we also do not approve the conduct of the parties in approaching this court for clarification by way of a petition which has been pending for last ten months, during which the commission could have had disposed of the whole matter.''