JUDGMENT- S.H. KAPADIA, J.:---REASONS FOR THE RULING DATED 31ST JULY, 2001 ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE REPORT OF J.P.C. IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT :

1. Learned Counsel for Canbank Mutual Fund tenders the Report of J.P.C. Mr. Cooper for Standard Chartered bank objects. The matter was argued thread bare. Two points arise for determination. Firstly, whether the Report of Joint Parliament Committee is a public document as defined under section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Secondly, even if it is a public document, whether the findings of the Joint Parliamentary Committee constitute evidence as defined under section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act.

ARGUMENTS :

2. Mr. Harish Salve, Solicitor General of India contended that the Report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee, (hereinafter referred to as “J.P.C.”), is the Report the Parliament. That, J.P.C. consisted of the members of both Houses of Parliament. That, the entire object of the Report was to keep the Parliament informed of the events which took place and the circumstances under which the scam took place. He contended that the scam became public in April, 1992. That, the Parliament wanted to know the details of the financial irrergularities which arose on account of irregular practices followed by institutions, contrary to the guide lines issued by Reserve Bank of India. That, the Report contains the facts of notoriety. Mr. Salve contended that the Report is a public document as defined under section 74(1)(iii) of the Evidence Act. He contended that in several cases, the Parliament is required to probe into certain state of affairs of public concern before enacting a law. For this purpose, the legislature has the power to probe into such state of affairs. For that purpose it can constitute a Committee. He contended that J.P.C. is one such Committee. He pointed out that when the scam became public, the Parliament decided to probe the scam. Therefore, they constituted the Committee so that further steps could be taken and so that such occurrence do not recur. He contended that when the members of the J.P.C., who are also members of the Parliament, entered into a legislative enquiry, then such an enquiry is an integral part of the legislative work of the Parliament. He relied upon the word “legislative” in section 74(1)(iii) to be read in conjunction with the expression “public officers”. He contended that every act, which has a flavour of legislation, constitutes a legislative act. He contends that the debate in the Parliament in one such act. It is a legislative act. It is an activity of the legislature. Similarly, when the legislature probes into a given state of affairs, that probe constitutes a legislative activity of the legislature. He contends that a scam of this magnitude is a matter of public concern. That, the Parliament took note of that scam and constituted a Committee under its rules. J.P.C. is that Committee. That, it carried out a legislative probe. Mr. Salve contended that one must read the provisions of the Evidence Act in the background of the above facts. He contended that when the Parliament, which is the highest law making authority, constitutes a Committee empowering it to make a legislative probe, the members of the Committee are public officers under section 74(1)(iii) of the Evidence Act and the documents forming the act or record of the act of such public officers, event in their legislative capacity constitute a public document. He contended that in large number of cases even the judicial branch has taken cognizances of such reports in order to ascertain the reasonableness of the legislation. Similarly, in the present case, the judicial branch can certainly take note of such a legislative probe in the present proceedings. He contended that the Report of the J.P.C. is the result of such a legislative probe into a given state of affairs of public concern. He, therefore, contended that when the members of the J.P.C. function as Committee members, which Com

Click Here to Read the rest of this document