IMPORTANT POINT
It is incumbent upon the Commission of Inquiry to give an opportunity to a person, before any comment is made or opinion is expressed which is likely to prejudicially affect that person and it may not be necessary for such a person to wait till certain action is initiated by the Government considering the report of the Inquiry Commission as it would be open for him to move the Court for deletion of such remarks at any stage.

Headnote:Commissions of Enquiry Act, 1952-Section 8B as inserted by Amending Act 79 of 1971-Persons likely to be prejudicially affected to be heard-Communal riots in Bhagalpur District, State of Bihar-Appointment of a Commission of Inquiry-Observations made against Shri Lal Krishna Advani, respondent 1-Challenged as affecting his reputation and image-No notice had been given to respondent 1-Violation of right of natural justice-Petition for deletion of such remarks made against respondent violating provisions of Section 8B of the Act-Whether filing of petition before any action is initiated by the Government on Commission s report, is premature-(No)-High Court was justified in ordering that such part of the report shall be inoperative and no action can be taken on the basis thereof.
       Held : The provision as contained under Section 8B of the Act quoted above, was brought into the statute book by Amending Act 79 of 1971. It may be noticed that the amendment was brought about, about 20 years after passing of the main Act itself. The experience during past two decades must have made the Legislature to realize that it would but be necessary to notice a person whose conduct the Commission considers it necessary to inquire into during the course of the inquiry or whose reputation is likely to be prejudicially affected by the inquiry. It is further provided that such a person would have a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to adduce evidence in his defence. Thus the principle of natural justice was got inducted in the shape of statutory provision. It is thus incumbent upon the Commission to give an opportunity to a person, before any comment is made or opinion is expressed which is likely to prejudicially affect that person. Needless to emphasise that failure to comply with principles of natural justice renders the action non-est as well as the consequences thereof. (Paras 6 and 7)
       It may not be necessary for a person to wait till certain action is initiated by the Government considering the report of the Inquiry Commission where the observations made by the Commission are such which militate against the reputation of a person and particularly without giving any chance to such a person to explain his conduct. It would be open for him to move the Court for deletion of such remarks made against him violating the provisions of Section 8B of the Act. (Para 8)
       The government actually takes action or it does not or the fact that the report is yet to be considered from that angle, cannot be a reason to submit that it won t be appropriate stage to approach the Court. There may be occasions where after consideration of report the government may not decide to take any action against the person concerned yet the observation and remarks may be such which may play upon the reputation of the person concerned and this aspect of the matter has been fully taken care of under clause (b) of Section 8B of the Act. It is not, therefore, necessary that one must wait till a decision is taken by the government to take action against the person after consideration of the report. We have already dealt with the point about the right to have and protect one s reputation. We, therefore, find no force in the submission that the respondent No. 1 had approached the Court at pre-mature stage. (Para 10)

JUDGMENT

Brijesh Kumar, J.-In this appeal, preferred by the State of Bihar, ultimately the question which falls for consideration is the effect of non-compliance of all time tested and ancient principle of natural justice. One cannot be condemned unheard is one of the attributes of the principles of natural justice, which operates even in absence of a written provision under the law. Though in the case in hand there is such a provision which, according to the appellant, was not necessary to be complied with, but the High Court of Patna has held to the contrary. It relates to applicability of Section 8B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (60 of 1952) (for short the Act ).

2. In the year 1989 some communal riots took place in Bhagalpur District, State of Bihar, resulting in many deaths and left some others injured. Undoubtedly, it was a matter of concern and the State Government decided to constitute a Commission of Inquiry under Section 3 of the Act, which reads as under:

3. Appointment of Commission.-(1) The appropriate Government, may, if it is of opinion that it is necessary so to do, and shall, if a resolution in this behalf is passed by [each House of Parliament or, as the case may be, the Legislature of the State,] by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint a Commission of Inquiry for the purpose of making an inquiry into any definite matter of public importance and performing such functions and within such time as may be specified in the notification, and the Commission so appointed shall make the Inquiry and perform the functions accordingly:

xxx xxx xxx

(2) The Commission may consist of one or more members appointed by the appropriate Government, and where the Commission consists of more than one member, one of them may be appointed as the Chairman thereof

xxx xxx xxx

(4) The appropriate Government shall cause to be laid before [each House of Parliament or, as the case may be, the Legislature of the State,] the Report if any, of the Commission on the inquiry made by the Commission under sub-section (1) together with a memorandum of the action taken thereon, within a period of six months of the submission of the Report by the Commission to the appropriate Government.]"

The terms of the Reference are as follows :

"(a) to enquire into the facts and circumstances leading to communal disturbances in the district of Bhagalpur and adjacent areas on 24th October, 1989 and thereafter;

(b) to enquire into whether these disturbances were pre-planned and, if so, the elements responsible for the same;

(c) to enquire whether measures taken by the District Administration to prevent and deal with the said disturbances were timely and adequate, and to fix responsibility for lapses if any, in this regard with the said disturbances were timely and adequate, and to fix responsibilities for lapses if any, in this regard;

(d) to recommend measures for preventing recurrence of such disturbances;

(e) to consider such other matter relating to these communal disturbances and make such recommendations as the Commission may think it proper and necessary."

3. It was initially a single Member Commission and Mr. Justice Ram Nandan Prasad was appointed as a sole Member of the Commission. Subsequently, however, on 20.09.1993 two others were also notified as Members of the Commission, namely, Mr. Justice Ram Chandra Prasad Sinha and Mr. Justice S. Shansul Hasan. They are also retired Judges of the High Court. The Commission seems to have been divided in its opinion; one report was handed down by Justice Ram Nandan Prasad and the second by the other two members, namely, Mr. Justice Ram Chandra Prasad Sinha and Mr Justice S. Shansul Hasan. The respondent No.1 Shri Lal Krishna Advani and some others felt aggrieved by certain parts of the Report submitted by the two members of the Commission. In this appeal we are concerned with the remarks relating to the resp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 908

Cases Referred (5)