1. Appointment of a Commission of Inquiry under the Jammu and Kashmir Commission of Inquiry Act, 1962, to investigate assets acquired through abuse of official position. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
1966 Supreme(SC) 155
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SARKAR, C.J.I., J.R. MUDHOLKAR, R.S. BACHAWAT, J.M. SHELAT AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.
The State of J. and K. and others, Appellants
Versus
Bakshi Gulam Mohammad and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal ,No. 1102 of 1966, dated 6-5-1966.
Advocates appeared
C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General for India, Mr. S. V. Gupte, Solicitor-General of India and Mr. Jaswant Singh; Advocate-General for the State of J. and K., (M/s. H. R. Khanna and S. Javali, Advocates, and Mr. Ravinder Narain. Advocate of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co. with them), for Appellants, Mr. B. Sen. Senior Advocate, (M/s. I. N. Shroff, M. K. Banerjee. B. N. Kirpal, R K Kaul. R. N. Kaul, P. L. Handu, Lalit Bhasin and T. R. Bhasin. Advocates with him) for Respondents.
Advocates:
B.N.KIRPAL, B.SEN, C.K.DAFTARY, H.R.KHANNA, I.M.SHROFF, J.B.DADACHAN, JASVANT SINGH, LALIT BHASIN, M.K.BANERJI, P.L.HANDU, R.K.KAUL, R.N.KAUL, Ravindra Narayan, S.JAVALI, S.V.Gupta, T.R.Bhasin
B.N.KIRPAL, B.SEN, C.K.DAFTARY, H.R.KHANNA, I.M.SHROFF, J.B.DADACHAN, JASVANT SINGH, LALIT BHASIN, M.K.BANERJI, P.L.HANDU, R.K.KAUL, R.N.KAUL, Ravindra Narayan, S.JAVALI, S.V.Gupta, T.R.Bhasin
Inquiries into a former Minister's abuse of office for personal gain are matters of public importance. The statutory power to receive evidence via affidavits in such inquiries is independent of the Code of Civil Procedure's cross-examination requirements, provided the right to a hearing is maintained.
Headnote:(A) Jammu and Kashmir Commission of Inquiry Act, 1962 - Sections 3, 4(c), 9 and 10 - Jammu and Kashmir Constitution - Section 37 - Constitution of India - Article 14 - Code of Civil Procedure - Order 19, Rule 1 - Appointment of a Commission of Inquiry to investigate assets of a former Prime Minister and alleged abuse of official position - Whether such inquiry is into a "definite matter of public importance" - Allegations that a Minister acquired vast wealth by abuse of official position are intrinsically matters of public importance. This character is not lost because the person is no longer in office, nor does it depend on the existence of public agitation. The cleanliness of public life and the exposure of lapses by Ministers are matters of public importance. (Paras 8-12)
(B) Jammu and Kashmir Constitution - Section 37 - Collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers to the Legislative Assembly refers to the principle that the Council stands or falls together. It does not preclude the Government from appointing a Commission of Inquiry into the acts of a former Minister under a validly enacted statute. (Para 6)
(C) Jammu and Kashmir Commission of Inquiry Act, 1962 - Section 4(c) - Power to receive evidence on affidavits - The power to receive evidence on affidavits is an independent statutory power and is not subject to the proviso of Order 19, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires the production of a witness for cross-examination upon a bona fide request. In a fact-finding inquiry, requiring all affidavit deponents to be cross-examined would make proceedings interminable. The right to cross-examine is restricted to witnesses giving viva voce evidence as per Section 10. (Paras 20-22)
(D) Administrative Law - Mala fides - Political rivalry between political leaders does not, by itself, establish that a Commission of Inquiry was set up mala fide, especially when the Commissioner appointed is a retired Judge of the highest court. (Paras 15-16) (E) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Discrimination - An inquiry into wealth acquired by a specific individual through abuse of office does not constitute hostile discrimination against that individual, as the person is in a class by himself based on the specific allegations of personal gain. (Para 17)
Facts of the case:
A notification was issued by the State Government appointing a Commission of Inquiry to investigate the assets of a former Prime Minister and his relatives, and whether such assets were obtained by abusing official positions. The respondent challenged the notification in the High Court, which quashed the proceedings. The State appealed to the Supreme Court.
Findings of Court:
The notification was issued under a valid law and the subject matter constituted a definite matter of public importance. The proceedings did not violate the rules of natural justice as the respondent was given a hearing, and the statutory power to take evidence by affidavit does not grant an absolute right to cross-examine every deponent.
Issues: 1. Whether the inquiry into the assets of a former Minister constitutes a "definite matter of public importance" under the Act. 2. Whether the right to cross-examine witnesses who provide evidence via affidavits is mandatory under the Act or the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Whether the appointment of the Commission was mala fide or discriminatory.
Ratio Decidendi: Corruption and abuse of official position by public servants are matters of public importance regardless of their current office status or public agitation. The statutory power of a fact-finding Commission to receive evidence on affidavits is distinct from the rules governing judicial suits under the Code of Civil Procedure and does not automatically trigger a right to cross-examination of all deponents.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the Notification on grounds of ministerial responsibility, lack of public importance, mala fides, Article 14 discrimination, and violation of natural justice. (Para 5 , 7 , 14 , 15 , 17 , 18 )
3. Abuse of official position by public officials to amass wealth constitutes a definite matter of public importance, regardless of current office status or public agitation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 22 )
4. The power to receive evidence on affidavits under the Inquiry Act is an independent power not subject to the proviso of Order 19, Rule 1, CPC. (Para 22 )
5. High Court judgment set aside and appeals allowed. (Para 23 )
6. Does collective responsibility of Ministers to the Legislature prevent a government-appointed Commission of Inquiry into a Minister's acts?
No. Collective responsibility means the Council stands or falls together. It does not preclude an inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Act, which allows both the Government and the Legislature to initiate such commissions. (Para 6 )
7. Does a matter of public importance require current office holding or public agitation to qualify for a Commission of Inquiry?
No. Public importance is determined by the intrinsic nature of the act. Abuse of official position by a public man to acquire wealth is intrinsically of public importance, regardless of whether the person is still in office or if the public is agitating. (Para 8 , 9 , 12 )
8. Does the right to a hearing in a fact-finding Commission of Inquiry automatically include a right to cross-examine all affidavit deponents?
No. The right to cross-examine depends on the statute and circumstances. Under the Act, the right is restricted to witnesses giving viva voce evidence; it does not extend to all persons swearing affidavits unless the Commission deems it necessary. (Para 20 , 22 )
9. Does initiating an inquiry against one specific member of a Cabinet for wealth acquisition violate the principle of equality?
No. If the inquiry concerns wealth acquired by a specific individual through abuse of office, that person constitutes a separate class, and the classification has a rational connection to the object of the inquiry. (Para 17 )
Judgment
SARKAR, CJI. : This is an appeal by the State of Jammu and Kashmir, G. M. Sadiq, Chief Minister of that State and D. P. Dhar, its Home Minister. The appeal is contested by respondent No. 1, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad. The other respondent N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, a retired Judge of this Court, has not appeared in this Court or in the Court below. These are the parties to the proceedings before us.
2. After the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India in 1947, a responsible Government was set up there under the Prime Ministership of Sheik Mohammad Abdulla. Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad was the Deputy Prime Minister in that Government and G. M Sadiq was also in the Cabinet. In 1953, Sheik Mohammad Abdullah was dismissed from office and a new Government was formed with Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad as the Prime Minister and G. M. Sadiq and D. P. Dhar were included in the Cabinet. On January 26. 1957, a new Constitution was framed for Jammu and Kashmir. In the first elections held under the Constitution, a party called the National Conference got the majority of votes. Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad and Sadiq were members of this party. A Ministry was then formed with Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad as the Prime Minister. It appears that G. M. Sadiq left the party sometime after 1957 and rejoined it along with D. P. Dhar in December 1960 and they were taken into the Cabinet. The next General Elections were held in 1962. Again, the National Conference Party came into power. In the Government that was formed, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad became the Prime Minister and G. M. Sadiq and D. P. Dhar were taken in the Ministry. In September 1963, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad resigned from the Ministry under what is called the Kamraj Plan and Shamsuddin became the Prime Minister in his place. It will be noticed that Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad was the Deputy Prime Minister of the State from 1947 to 1953 and its Prime Minister from 1953 to 1963. So he held these offices, one after the other for a total period of about sixteen years.
3. In February 1964, Shamsuddin left office and a new Government was formed with G. M. Sadiq as the Prime Minister. It is said that shortly thereafter, political rivalry between him and Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad started. In August 1964, a notice was issued fixing a session of the Legislature of the State in the following September. According to Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad thereafter, some of the legislators wanted to brink in vote of no-confidence against G. M. Sadiq s Ministry and by September 21, 1964 the no-confidence motion had obtained the support of the majority of members of the Assembly. On September 22, 1964, at 5 o clock in the morning, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad and some of his supporters were arrested under the Defence of India Rules. At 8.30 a.m. on the same day, the notice of the motion of no-confidence with the signatures of some members was handed over to the Secretary of the Legislative Assembly. G. M. Sadiq challenges the genuineness of the signatures on the notice of the motion and also denies that it had the support of a majority of the Assembly. At 9 a.m. the Legislative Assembly which was to meet on that day, was prorogued by the Speaker under the directions of the Sadar-i-Riyasat the constitutional head of the State. Sometime in November 1964, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus for the release of Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad was presented to the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. On December 15, 1964, before the petition could be heard and decided, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad was released from arrest by the State Government. On January 30, 1965, a Notification was issued by the State Government appointing a Commission of Inquiry constituted by N. Rajagopala Ayyangar to enquire into (1) the nature and extent of the assets and pecuniary resources of Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad and the members of his family and other relatives mentioned in the first Schedule to the Order, in October 1947 and in October 1963, and (ii) whether during this period, Bakshi G
