Inquiry:
Commission of Inquiry – Constitution of – By Supreme Court – To investigate the alleged encounter of ‘Vikas Dubey’ – Application by the petitioner seeking scrapping of the Commission alleging ‘conflict of interest’ and ‘bias’ against the two of the members of the Commission – Held: The basis for allegation was newspaper report – The newspaper report without further proof has no evidentiary value – The present case is a fact-finding exercise – The Commission has been constituted under Commissions of Inquiry Act, which is empowered merely to investigate, record its findings and make its recommendations – The recommendations are not enforceable proprio vigore – There would be sufficient safeguard to the manner in which the inquiry would be held.
Dismissing the application, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The entire basis for making the allegations as contained in the miscellaneous petition is an Article relied on by the petitioner said to have been published in the newspaper. There is no other material on record to confirm the truth or otherwise of the statement made in the newspaper. This Court will have to be very circumspect while accepting such contentions based only on certain newspaper reports. The newspaper item without any further proof is of no evidentiary value. [Para 6] [987-F-G]
Kushum Lata v. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 6 SCC
180 : [2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 462; Rohit Pandey v. Union of India (2005) 13 SCC 702 – relied on.
1.2 In the instant case, the Chairman and a Member of the Commission had held high Constitutional positions and while making allegations, the petitioner has based his claim only on the newspaper report and the manner in which the averments are made in the application is unacceptable. In any case, the allegation that the brother of the chairman of the Commission is a legislator belonging to or supporting the party in power and that the member of the Commission is related to the IG of Police are not sufficient to come to the conclusion that it would lead to bias or conflict of interest since there is no indication whatsoever as to the nature of influence such of those relatives would be able to exert and as to whether they are in a dominant position. [Paras 8-9][988-C-E]
1.3 In the present case, the Petitioner is a lawyer by profession who practices in Mumbai and has come up by way of Public Interest Litigation. Therefore, the allegations of bias made by him against the members of the Commission merely on the basis of newspaper reports and nothing more, are liable to be rejected outright. [Para 14][989-H; 990-A]
Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India & Ors. (1987) 4 SCC
611 : [1988] 1 SCR 512 – distinguished.
K. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1996 AP 62 – referred to.
2. The Court is dealing here with an Inquiry Commission constituted under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 whose functions and role are by now well defined. A Commission constituted under the Commissions of Inquiry Act is empowered merely to investigate, record its findings and make its recommendations. These recommendations are not enforceable proprio vigore. The proceedings in the present case are not an inter se determination of legal issues between the parties but a fact-finding exercise. The petitioner herein is an advocate who practices law in Mumbai, Maharashtra and is in no way connected to the incident in question which took place in U.P. However, the petition filed by him in public interest was accepted and the Commission of Inquiry consisting of persons who had held high position has been constituted. The enquiry held would be in public domain and the petitioner has already been granted the liberty of participating therein. The report of the enquiry is ordered to be filed in the petitions which were filed before this Court. Therefore, there would be sufficient safeguard to the manner in which the inquiry would be held. The petitioner has been raising unnecessary apprehensions and repeated applications are being filed which in fact is hampering the process of inquiry. [Paras 10 and 15][988-F-G; 990-C-E]
Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S. R. Tendolkar [1959] SCR 279; State of Karnataka v. Union of India (1977)
4 SCC 608 : [1978] 2 SCR 1; Sham Kant v. State of Maharashtra (1992) 2 Suppl. SCC 521 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.