( 1 ) PETITIONER, Ms. Jayalakshmi, Jaitly, has filed this writ petition, seeking quashing of the orders dated 14. 9. 2001, 12. 10. 2001, 9. 11. 2001, 29. 11. 2001, 11. 12. 2001, 16. 1. 2002 and 22. 1. 2002, passed by the respondent Commission, namely. Justice K. Venkataswami Commission of Inquiry. The above orders are concerned primarily with the authenticity of the tapes, the request for their forensic examination and the order in which the witnesses and 8-B noticees are to be examined.

( 2 ) PETITIONER, additionally, seeks an order for referring the alleged unedited camera original tapes of approx 105 hours duration for forensic examination by independent experts or a direction to the Commission to the same effect. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent Commission to examine Mr. Mathew Samuel, Mr. Tarun Tejpal and Mr. Annirudh Bahai, 8-B noticees, prior to her examination. Petitioner had also prayed for provision of authentic and accurate transcripts of the tapes by independent experts, after forensic examination of the tapes being carried out. In this connection, it is to be noted that transcription of tapes having been undertaken under the supervision of Commission by the Central Government, the petitioner does not press the prayer for provision of transcripts.

( 3 ) NOTICE to show cause in the writ petition was issued on 4. 2. 2002 and counter affidavits have been filed by respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5. Written submissions have also been filed by counsel for the petitioner as well as on behalf of respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5. Counsel for the parties have also been heard at length and Judgment was reserved on, 8. 5. 2002. For the facility of reference, the challenge in the impugned orders of the Commission as well as the prayers made in the writ petition, can be considered under two broad categoriest (i) Order in which witnesses and 8b noticees including the petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 are to be examined; and (ii) Unedited camera original tapes to be sent for forensic examination.

( 4 ) AS for the first (i) Petitioner prays that she be examined after the examination of other 8-B noticees, namely, Mr. Mathew Samuel, Mr. Tarun Tejpal and Mr. Annirudh Bahal i. e. the members of the Tehelka. com. As regards the second, the petitioner challenges the authenticity of the tapes and seeks a direction to the Commission for sending the same for forensic examination.

( 5 ) BEFORE going into the respective contentions of the parties, it may be noted that Tehelka. com had released tapes named "operation West End" in the media purporting to show and expose corrupt practices in defence deals. The video tapes shown were of a duration of four and half hours, which had been edited and made from over 100 hours of filming.

( 6 ) THE Central Government under The Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as the Act, issued a notification dated 24. 3. 2001, constituting respondent No. 2 and appointing Justice K. Venkataswami, a retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India, in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Act to go into the allegations made in the video tapes shown in media. The notification records that the allegations stand to pass an adverse reflection on the manner in ,which defence procurement and other transactions have been transacted, allegedly for illicit gains and extraneous considerations. The following were the terms of reference :-

" (A) to inquire whether the transactions relating to Defence and other procurements referred to in the said video tapes and transcripts have been carried out in terms of the prescribed procedures and the imperatives of national security; (b) to inquire whether in any of the aforesaid procurement transactions, illicit gains have beep made by persons in public office, individuals, and any other organisations as alleged, and if so, to what extent; (c) to suggest action that may be taken in respect of persons who may be found responsible by the Commission for