1. Petition seeking implementation of Commission of Inquiry recommendations — compensation for victims of communal violence — disciplinary action against police officials — legal aid for victims. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1129
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka, Vikram Nath, JJ.
Shakeel Ahmed – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No.182 of 2001
Decided On : 04-11-2022
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sadiq Noor, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sadiq Noor, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR
The government is obligated to implement the recommendations of a Commission once accepted, and must provide timely compensation and legal aid to victims.
Headnote:
Riots - Implementation of Recommendations of Sri Krishna Commission - Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The city of Mumbai witnessed severe riots and bomb blasts from December 1992 to March 1993, resulting in numerous deaths, injuries, and property damage. A Commission was constituted to investigate the incidents and make recommendations. The petition sought the implementation of the Commission's recommendations, including disciplinary action against police officials, reopening of cases, and compensation for victims.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that while the recommendations of the Commission could not bind the government, once accepted, they became an obligation. The State Government had accepted most recommendations but disputed the causes of the riots. The Court noted delays in trials and disciplinary inquiries, and the failure to provide legal aid to victims. It also found inadequate investigation and delayed compensation payments.
Issues: The main issues were the implementation of the Commission's recommendations, disciplinary action against police officials, reopening of cases, and compensation for victims.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that once the government accepts the recommendations of a Commission, it becomes obligated to implement them. It also emphasized the duty to provide legal aid to victims and the need for timely compensation payments.
Final Decision: The Court directed the formation of a Committee to monitor the implementation of its directions, including tracing missing persons' families, ensuring compensation payments, and expediting trials. It also ordered the State Government to implement police force reforms and provide details of pending cases.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
constitutional law
-
fundamental rights
- right to life and dignity (Para 20)
-
fundamental rights
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
- crime and sentencing
- tort
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner alleges failure to implement recommendations and inadequate compensation; State contends that disciplinary proceedings were concluded and the time for interference has passed. (Para 8 , 9 )
3. State failure to maintain law and order violates Article 21; communal violence qualifies as ethnic violence for legal aid; accepted Commission recommendations create an enforceable obligation. (Para 10 , 16 , 20 )
4. Acceptance of Commission of Inquiry recommendations creates a government obligation enforceable by mandamus; communal violence constitutes ethnic violence under the Legal Services Authorities Act. (Para 10 , 16 )
5. Committee constituted to ensure compensation and interest payments; directions for tracing missing persons and absconding accused; mandate to implement accepted police reforms. (Para 28 )
6. Are recommendations of a Commission appointed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, binding on the Government?
Recommendations are not binding, and courts cannot compel the Government to act upon them. However, once the Government accepts the recommendations, it becomes an obligation to implement them, and a Writ Court can issue a mandamus for such implementation. (Para 10 )
7. Does communal violence between religious groups qualify as ethnic violence under Section 12 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987?
Yes. The term ethnic is broadly construed to include religion, tribe, and caste. Therefore, communal disharmony and resulting violence between religious groups constitute ethnic violence, entitling victims or their heirs to legal services. (Para 15 , 16 )
8. Does the failure of the State to maintain law and order during communal riots entitle victims to compensation under Article 21?
Yes. Article 21 guarantees the right to live with human dignity. Failure to maintain law and order, resulting in loss of life and property, violates this right, entitling affected persons to seek compensation from the State. (Para 20 )
9. What is the legal presumption regarding persons missing for seven years or more?
Under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if a person has not been heard of for seven years or more by those who would naturally have heard of them, such person is presumed dead unless the contrary is proved. (Para 22 )
JUDGMENT :
Abhay S. Oka, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. The city of Mumbai had a torrid time from 6th December 1992 till 12th March 1993. Mumbai witnessed perhaps the worst mob frenzy, violence, communal tension and riots from 6th December 1992 to 10th December 1992 and from 6th January 1993 to 20th January 1993. There were many incidents of arson and violence resulting in a large-scale loss of lives and damage to properties. The Police resorted to firing at many places. Ultimately, Army was called to aid the civil administration. Thereafter, the situation was gradually brought under control. When the citizens of Mumbai were about to breathe a sigh of relief, there were serial bomb blasts in various parts of the city on 12th March 1993. In December 1992 and January 1993, there were about 900 deaths, 168 persons were reported missing and about 2036 persons suffered injuries. As a result of the serial bomb blasts of 12th March 1993, there were 257 deaths and 1400 people were injured.
2. The Government of Maharashtra by a notification dated 25th January 1993 constituted a Commission under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (for short, ‘the 1952 Act’) headed by Hon’ble Shri Justice B.N. Srikrishna, the then sitting Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, who subsequently retired as a Judge of this Court. The Terms of Reference of the Commission were as under:
“(i) The circumstances, events and immediate causes of the incidents which occurred in the Bombay Police Commissionerate area in December 1992 on or after the 6th December 1992 and, again in January 1993, on or after the 6th January 1993;
(ii) Whether any individual or group of individuals or any other organizations, were responsible for such events and circumstances;
(iii) The adequacy or otherwise of the precautionary and preventive measures, taken by the Police preceding the aforesaid incidents;
(iv) Whether the steps taken by the Police in controlling the riots were adequate and proper and whether the Police firing resulting in deaths was justified or not; and
(v) The measures, long and short term, which are required to be taken by the administration to avoid recurrence of such incidents, to secure communal harmony and also to suggest improvements in law and order machinery.”
3. Subsequently, the Terms of Reference of the Commission were expanded by the State Government and the following additional terms were incorporated:
“(vi) The circumstances and the immediate cause of the incidents commonly known as the serial bomb-blasts of the 12th March 1993, which occurred in the Bombay Police Commissionerate area;
(vii) Whether the incidents referred to in term (i), have any common link with the incidents referred to in term (vi) above; and
(viii) Whether the incidents referred to in term (i) and in term (vi) were part of a common design.”
By a notification dated 23rd January 1996, the State Government disbanded the Commission on a very strange ground that there was an inordinate delay on the part of the Commission in submitting its report. As noted in the report of the Commission, the then Hon’ble Prime Minister requested the Chief Minister of Maharashtra to revive the Commission and that is how it was revived by the notification dated 28th May 1996. The Commission submitted its report on 16th February 1998 which consisted of two volumes. Volume-I contained the conclusions and recommendations of the Commission. Volume II contained a summary of the evidence recorded and analysis of the evidence.
4. The present petition invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. There are five substantive prayers made in the petition, which read thus:
“i. Declare that an enquiry conducted under the Commission of Enquiry Act, 1952, would tantamount to an Inquiry within the meaning of Article 311 [2] of the Constitution of India;
ii. Declare that a public servant found guilty/indicted under the Commission of Enquiry Act, 1952 be liable to be summarily dismissed; an
