Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.A. Bobde, CJI., A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.
Ghanshyam Upadhyay – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. – Respondents
Crl. M.P. No. 70798/2020 In Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 177 of 2020
Decided On : 19-08-2020
Commission of Inquiries Act, 1952 – Sections 3 and 8-B – Constitution of commission of enquiry – Alleged conflict of interest and likely bias on part of Chairman – Entire basis for making allegations as contained in miscellaneous petition is an Article relied on by petitioner said to have been published in newspaper – There is no other material on record to confirm truth or otherwise of statement made in newspaper – Court will have to be very circumspect while accepting such contentions based only on certain newspaper reports – Newspaper item without any further proof is of no evidentiary value – Chairman and a Member of Commission have held high Constitutional positions and while making allegations petitioner has based his claim only on newspaper report and manner in which averments are made in application is unacceptable – Allegation that brother of chairman of Commission is a legislator belonging to or supporting party in power and that member of Commission is related to IG of Police are not sufficient to come to conclusion that it would lead to bias or conflict of interest since there is no indication whatsoever as to nature of influence such of those relatives would be able to exert and as to whether they are in a dominant position – A commission constituted under Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 is empowered merely to investigate, record its findings and make its recommendations – These recommendations are not enforceable proprio vigour – Allegations of bias made by him against members of Commission merely on the basis of newspaper reports and nothing more, are liable to be rejected outright – Proceedings herein are not an inter se determination of legal issues between parties but a fact-finding exercise – Petitioner has been raising unnecessary apprehensions and repeated applications are being filed which in fact is hampering process of inquiry – Petition dismissed. (Paras 6, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15 and 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition/application is the petitioner in W.P (Crl.) No.177/2020. The said writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, in the nature of public interest seeking for issue of Writ of Mandamus and direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the writ petition to initiate action with regard to the destruction of residential building and other properties of accused –Vikas Dubey and to safeguard the life of the accused. Before the petition was taken up for consideration certain other developments had occurred, inasmuch as the said Vikas Dubey was killed by police in an alleged encounter. instant criminal miscellaneous petition is filed by the petitioner seeking that Judicial Commission constituted by the State be scrapped and a SIT as sought by the petitioner be constituted by this Court to carry out investigation on all issues raised by the petitioner. The said prayer is made by petitioner alleging conflict of interest and likely bias on part of the Chairman, Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan and Shri K.L. Gupta, the Member. The petitioner in that regard has relied upon an Article published in “The Wire” dated 29.07.2020.
Findings of Court:
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.
Result : Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. The petitioner in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition/application is the petitioner in W.P (Crl.) No.177/2020. The said writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, in the nature of public interest seeking for issue of Writ of Mandamus and direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the writ petition to initiate action with regard to the destruction of residential building and other properties of accused – Vikas Dubey and to safeguard the life of the accused. Before the petition was taken up for consideration certain other developments had occurred, inasmuch as the said Vikas Dubey was killed by the police in an alleged encounter. Along with the said writ petition, certain other writ petitions which were also filed in public interest seeking for an appropriate enquiry in that regard were tagged. All the related writ petitions were taken up for consideration together. The State Government in a reply filed to the said writ petitions, apart from referring to the other aspects of the matter had also indicated that the Government having taken serious cognizance of all the events, apart from constituting a Special Investigation Team had also constituted a Commission of Inquiry under the Commission of Inquiries Act, 1951 headed by a former Judge of Allahabad High Court. In that regard it is to be noted that Shri Justice Shashikant Agrawal, a former Judge had been appointed.
2. In the course of the proceedings before this Court, based on a suggestion made by this Court, the State Government had undertaken the exercise to expand the composition of the Commission. Accordingly, in addition to the former High Court Judge who had been appointed the State Government suggested the name of Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan, a former Judge of this Court to be the Chairman and Mr. K.L. Gupta, IPS, Former Director General of Police to be a Member. This Court having considered it appropriate had through the order dated 22.07.2020 accepted the constitution of the Commission of Inquiry in the said manner and the writ petition was directed to be listed along with the report of the Commission. The petitioners were also granted the liberty of applying to the Inquiry Commission to be heard in the matter.
3. When this is the position the instant criminal miscellaneous petition is filed by the petitioner seeking that the Judicial Commission constituted by the State be scrapped and a SIT as sought by the petitioner be constituted by this Court to carry out investigation on all issues raised by the petitioner. The said prayer is made by the petitioner alleging conflict of interest and likely bias on the part of the Chairman, Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan and Shri K.L. Gupta, the Member. The petitioner in that regard has relied upon an Article published in “The Wire” dated 29.07.2020.
4. We have heard the petitioner-in-person and perused the petition papers.
5. At the outset it is necessary to notice that the petitioner herein had filed the applications in I.A. No.68207/2020 and I.A. No.67940/2020 after the constitution of the Inquiry Commission raising certain objections with regard to Shri K.L. Gupta being the Member of the Commission since according to the petitioner he had made certain comments in favour of the police in the interview given to the media. This Court having considered the same and on not finding it objectionable, dismissed the application through the order dated 28.07.2020 holding the application to be devoid of merits. Despite the same, the very same contentions are urged in the instant application as well and has also raised an additional contention that the said Shri K.L. Gupta is related to Shri Mohit Agarwal, the IG of Kanpur Zone. Further, objection is raised to the continuation of Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan as the Chairman of the Commission since the news report relied on by the petitioner states that his brother and relative are legislators from the Bhartiya Janata Party which runs the Government in Uttar Pradesh.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
