IMPORTANT POINT
Recommendations of a proceeding which is without jurisdiction will be non-est.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.—

1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by Smt. Jayanti Das w/o Late Jay Ram Das and Shri Bani Kanta Das S/o Late Jay Ram Das. Challenge in the writ petition is to the legality of the order passed by the Governor of Assam, conveyed by the Secretary, Judicial Department, Government of Assam. By the said order the Governor of Assam had directed to commute the sentence of death awarded to one Rajnath Chauhan @ Ramdeo Chauhan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘accused’) to that of life imprisonment. The death sentence awarded to the convict by the trial Court was confirmed by the Guwahati High Court and was upheld by this Court.

2. It is basically submitted that no reason has been indicated to direct such commutation and apparently the order of commutation had its foundation on recommendations made by the National Human Rights Commission (in short the ‘NHRC).

3. It is basically stated that no reason was indicated as to why the Governor decided to commute the death sentence to that of life imprisonment when the accused was guilty of heinous, abominable crime where a family was massacred, and considering the nature of crime the death sentence as awarded by the trial Court came to be confirmed by this Court and a review petition filed was dismissed. Four persons of a family were brutally murdered by the accused.

4. It is submitted that the accused has taken various dilatory steps to undo effects of this Court’s judgment. It is submitted that NHRC had no role to play but it went beyond its jurisdiction to recommend purportedly on the basis of a complaint made by Prof. Ved Kumari.

5. Before we come to the merits of the case as regards requirement to record reasons, considering the important issue raised relating to the jurisdiction of the NHRC, learned counsel for the NHRC was directed to file copy of the entire record of the case. Notice was also issued to Prof. Ved Kumari to have her say in the matter. Certain important aspects are there which need to be gone into some detail. In her affidavit Prof. Ved Kumari has stated that she was not the complainant and the proceedings were initiated suo motu by NHRC. Though the records point to the contrary, learned counsel for the NHRC stated that actually the proceedings were initiated suo motu by NHRC. The other question which then arises is did NHRC have any jurisdiction to make recommendation in the manner done? To substantiate her stand that the proceedings were initiated suo motu, Prof. Ved Kumari has annexed to her affidavit a copy of the Article “Has child been executed in India” and copies of certain correspondences. One of them is a letter dated 20.9.2000. The same reads as follows:

“National Human Rights Commission Sardar Patel Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001

20.9.2000

M.L. Aneja Joint Registar (Law)

Dr. Ved Kumari G3/47 Model Town 3rd Stop, Opp. Chhatrasal Stadium, New Delhi.

Madam,

Apropos my telephonic talk with you regarding handing over of copy of the record of the Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2000 decided by the Supreme Court on 31.7.2000- Ram Deo Chauhan alias Raj Nath Chauhan vs. State of Assam, kindly hand over the same to the bearer of this letter.

As already informed you on telephone that the matter will be listed before the Full Commission on Monday the 25.9.2000 at 3.00 p.m. I am directly to request you to kindly appear before the Commission in the Conference Room at Sardar Patel Bhawan on the date and time mentioned above for further consideration of the matter.

(M.L. Aneja)”

6. Strangely this letter does not form part of copy of the records submitted by NHRC. Though Prof. Ved Kumari’s stand was that the proceedings before NHRC were initiated suo motu, the verification of the records points to the contrary. In Form No.1 under Regulation 12 in para 3 it has been stated that “Is it a public interest complaint”. The name and address of the complainant is tha