2011 (3) ALT 317
High Court of Andhra Pradesh
MR. JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
M. Narayan Reddy
Versus
The Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Rep. by Home Secretary & Another
Writ Petition No.1569 of 2011
Decided on : 23-03-2011
B) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Article 226:- Objection to the writ petition for disclosure of the Chapter VIII of Justice Shri Krishna Committee report in a sealed cover that mandamus lie to a judicial committee which has given the report in a sealed cover and the Government is not bound to disclose its content is rejected as the writ petitioner had complained violation of several fundamental right, that Article 14, 19 and 21(Paras 48 and 50)
C) . COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY ACT, 1952, Section 3 (4):- Report of the commission of inquiry along with the action taken by the Government shall be placed before both houses of Parliament. The purpose of the commission is to assist the Government to form an opinion. (Para 44)
D) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Article 226:- The Shri Krishna Committee Report is appointed for the purpose of ascertaining public views and opinion in the wake of demands for separate agitations. It has been constituted under Commissions of Inquiries Act and Rs.20 crores are said to have been spent as announced on the floor of the Parliament. But the terms of reference does not cover any security aspects. It was held that there is no any logic or reason for keeping the Chapter VIII (Law and Order) secret. (Para 74)
E) TELANGANA AGITATION:- The views expressed by the committee in its VIII chapter regarding political management to soften the stance for Telangana Agitation is deprecated.
1. The petitioner is a Practicing Advocate, a former Member of Parliament and A.P. Legislative Assembly. He has also held positions in the Zilla Parishad, Nizamabad District, and was associated with the Agro Industries in different capacities. He filed this writ petition with a prayer to declare that the action of the Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (for short ‘the respondent’), in withholding a note on Chapter-VIII (Law and Order and Internal Security Dimensions) (for short ‘the note’) of the report of the Committee for Consultation on the situation in Andhra Pradesh, headed by Sri Justice Srikrishna (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Committee’); as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional. Consequential direction to the respondent to furnish the same to him, or to place it on the website of the respondent, is also sought.
2. The averments, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, in brief, are that, the State of Andhra Pradesh was formed by merging the Telangana Region of the erstwhile Hyderabad State with Andhra State, in 1956, and feeling that the conditions and safeguards are not honoured, the people of Telangana brought a movement in the year 1969, demanding formation of a separate State. It is alleged that 369 people lost their lives in the agitation, and in 1972, the people from other part of the State have also organized a movement for formation of Andhra State. The petitioner had narrated the subsequent developments, leading to the inclusion of the promise to form Telangana State in the election manifestoes of certain political parties, on the eve of the General Elections held in the year 2004 and in the common minimum programme of the United Progressive Alliance.
3. In the last quarter of the year 2009, there was a serious agitation, demanding formation of separate State of Telangana, by dividing the State of Andhra Pradesh. Taking note of the gravity of the situation and seriousness of the matter, the Government of India arranged for an All Party Meeting, on 07-12-2009, at Hyderabad, wherein, unanimous opinion is said to have been expressed in favour of formation of Telangana State, and that, on the next day, it was reiterated in the Assembly.
4. On 09-12-2009, the Union Home Minister made a statement, announcing the decision of the Government, to initiate steps for formation of Telangana State. The petitioner contends that this statement was reiterated on the floor of the Parliament on 10-12-2009.
5. There was protest from the Andhra and Rayalaseema regions of the State, against the announcement made by the Union of India, and almost a crisis-like situation emerged. Unable to reconcile the conflicting claims, instantly, the respondent announced constitution of a Committee, to be headed by a Former Judge of the Supreme Court of India, to examine various aspects pertaining to the issue. It was in this context, that the respondent issued an order dated 03-02-2010, forming a Committee, comprising of Sri Justice B.N. Srikrishna, a Retired Judge, Supreme Court of India, as Chairman; Prof. (Dr.) Ranbir Singh, Vice-Chancellor, National Law University, Delhi; Dr. Abusalem Shariff, Senior Research Fellow, International Food Policy Research Institute, Delhi; Dr. (Ms.) Ravinder Kaur, Professor, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, IIT, Delhi, as Members, and Sri Vinod K. Duggal, IAS (Retd.,) former Home Secretary, as Member Secretary. On 12-02-2010, Terms of Reference were announced. The Committee has undertaken wide-ranging consultations throughout the State. It ultimately submitted a report, on 30-12-2010. The report comprised of Nine Chapters, spread over 425 pages. The same was put on a website, a week thereafter. However, the note, dealing with the Law and Order and Internal Security Dimensions, representing Chapter VIII; was handed over by the Committee, to the respondent, in a sealed cover, and it was not made public.
6. The petitioner submits that the note dealt
Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks
Benett Coleman and Co. Ltd and others v. Union of India and others: AIR 1973 SC 106. (Para 86)
gpt-4
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.