The Gauhati High Court has ruled that a Commission of Inquiry cannot record adverse observations against an individual without providing them a reasonable opportunity to be heard and the right to cross-examine relevant witnesses. The judgment, delivered by Justice Kardak Ete, effectively expunged specific findings against two petitioners, Sunayana Aidew and Kavita Das, contained in a 2022 report regarding the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) Combined Competitive Examination (CCE) of 2013. The court emphasized that when a report impacts the reputation and conduct of a person, strict adherence to the statutory protections under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, is not merely a formality but a mandatory legal requirement.

The dispute stemmed from a report submitted on April 2, 2022, by a One-Man Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice (Retd.) B.K. Sarma. The Commission had been tasked with investigating allegations of systemic anomalies and malpractices during the 2013 CCE recruitment process, which resulted in the selection of the two petitioners to the state services. The petitioners challenged observations found at pages 505 and 509 of the report, arguing that these remarks were recorded without granting them the procedural safeguards guaranteed under Sections 8-B and 8-C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act.

Statutory Safeguards and Due Process

Sections 8-B and 8-C of the Act are designed to protect individuals from findings that could cause lasting damage to their personal and professional standing. Section 8-B mandates that if a Commission considers it necessary to inquire into the conduct of any person, or believes their reputation might be prejudicially affected, it must provide them a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present evidence. Section 8-C further empowers such individuals to cross-examine witnesses, address the Commission, and be represented by legal counsel.

During the proceedings, while the petitioners had initially responded to notices issued by the Commission, the court noted that new, damaging material was subsequently introduced—specifically the statement of a witness, Dr. Mrigen Saikia—without providing the petitioners an opportunity to rebut or cross-examine that testimony.

Justice Kardak Ete noted in the judgment: "The subsequent material relied upon by the Commission could not, therefore, have been used for recording adverse observations against the petitioners without affording them an effective opportunity to respond to such material and to exercise the rights available to them under Section 8-C of the Act. The written responses submitted by the petitioners to the earlier notices cannot be treated as sufficient compliance in respect of material which was subsequently brought on record and relied upon against them."

The Limitations of Fact-Finding Reports

The state’s legal team, while defending the report, acknowledged the necessity of adhering to the precedent set by a coordinate Bench of the same High Court in earlier related petitions. The court clarified that its ruling did not necessitate the quashing of the entire Commission report. Recognizing the importance of the document in addressing broader systemic issues, the court maintained the validity of the report’s overall findings regarding the general anomalies in the CCE 2013 process.

However, it drew a sharp distinction between the report’s factual findings and the specific adverse remarks concerning individuals. The court reasoned that while the Commission holds authority to suggest remedial measures for matters of public importance, it cannot bypass constitutional and statutory protections when casting aspersions on individuals. By failing to offer a second round of hearing when new incriminating material was added to the record, the Commission’s process effectively denied the petitioners their right to defend their reputation, which the court identified as a core component of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The court’s decision aligns with established legal principles regarding the right to reputation, echoing previous observations from the Supreme Court of India. The judgment serves as a reminder to various investigative bodies that the power to inquire does not include an unfettered right to tarnish reputations without the accompanying obligation to follow established procedural fairness.

Operative Directions and Implications

The court ultimately concluded that the impugned findings were recorded in violation of the principles of natural justice and the mandatory statutory requirements of the 1952 Act. Consequently, the court ordered that the harmful observations against the petitioners be removed from the record entirely.

"The observations, findings and recommendations recorded against the petitioners in the Report dated 02.04. 2022 , particularly those contained at pages 505 and 509 thereof, insofar as they prejudicially touch upon the conduct and reputation of the petitioners, are hereby expunged . Such observations, findings and recommendations shall not be used or relied upon against the petitioners in any proceedings or before any forum," the order stated.

With this ruling, the petitioners have successfully challenged the adverse remarks that had persisted against them since the report was tabled before the Assam Legislative Assembly in February 2025. The judgment ensures that the administrative findings cannot be utilized as a basis for further disciplinary or departmental action against the officers involved. As the legal dust settles on this particular segment of the APSC inquiry, the case underscores the judiciary's role in policing the limits of administrative fact-finding commissions, ensuring that even in the quest for accountability, the rights of the individuals under investigation are not bypassed or disregarded. The matter stands disposed of, with the expunction directive acting as the final word on the reputational impact of the 2022 report.