SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Del) 789

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG & PRATIBHA RANI, JJ.
CHHATRAVAS CHANDRA ARYA VIDYA MANDIR – Petitioner
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANOTHER – Respondents
WP (C) 1345, 1346 & 1347 of 2012
Decided On: 14.3.2012

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Mr. P.S. Bindra, Mr. Maninder Singh, Mr. Viraj Datar, Mr. Satvik Varma, Mr. Chetan Lokur, Ms. Upasna Vats, Mr. Rajiv Nayar & Mr. Amit Mahajan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. S.D. Salwan, Additional Standing Counsel with Mr. Neeraj Choudhary, Advocate for GNCT of Delhi.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for strict conditions to be observed when exercising power in public interest, and the importance of inquisitorial inquiries in finding facts to instruct the Government in taking remedial measures.

Headnote:

Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952 - Public Interest - Section 3 - [Arya Anathalaya, Daryaganj, New Delhi] - [Section 3 of The Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952] - The Act confers power on the appropriate Government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry into any definite matter of public interest. The Act does not define the expression „definite matter of public interest but the expression has been the subject matter of judicial interpretation on several occasions. The running of orphanages and children homes would be a matter of public importance, and if an evil is suspected to exist, it must be exposed, so that it may be rooted out. The inquiry under the Act has no accuser and no accused. The inquisitorial inquiry is a mission in finding facts, only to instruct the mind of the Government in taking remedial measures.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a challenge to a notification appointing a Commission of Inquiry into incidents of abuse of children and death in mysterious circumstances in an unregistered Children Home. The petitioners, societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, were engaged in the public activity of looking after destitute children and challenged the notification on various grounds.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found a complete non-application of mind by the Lt. Governor when approving the notification, and highlighted the public interest in the exploration of how various institutes serve public interest. The Court concluded that there was sufficient public interest on a matter of public importance requiring an inquiry into the affairs of the institutions.

Issues: The issues included the validity of the notification appointing a Commission of Inquiry, the link between the organizations being investigated, and the non-application of mind by the Lt. Governor in approving the notification.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the inquiry under the Act has no accuser and no accused, and is a mission in finding facts to instruct the Government in taking remedial measures. The Court also highlighted the importance of inquisitorial inquiries, but also the negative side thereof, and the need for strict conditions to be observed when exercising power in public interest.

Final Decision: The Court quashed the notification with respect to two of the institutions and dismissed the petition with respect to the third institution.

JUDGMENT

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. Sub section (1) of Section 3 of The Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952, confers power on the appropriate Government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry into any definite matter of public interest.

2. The Act does not define the expression „definite matter of public interest but the expression has been the subject matter of judicial interpretation on several occasion, and one finds that the expression has taken various shapes and dimensions. In the year 1954, Plantation Inquiry Commission was appointed to inquire into the economic conditions and problems of the tea, coffee and rubber industries. In the same year, Hindu Religious and Charitable Trusts came up for inquiry by Neeladari Rao Commission. In the year 1956, Vivian Bose Commission, Chagla Commission and Tendolkar Commission were appointed, to inquire into the affairs of M/s.Allen Berry & Company, Mundhra Group of Companies and Dalmia-Jain Group of Companies respectively. Argument, that conduct of individual persons or companies cannot be a matter of public importance and far less a definite matter of public importance was repelled by the Courts, holding that there was no warrant for the proposition that a definite matter of public importance must necessarily mean only some matter involving the public benefit or advantage in the abstract. It was opined that quite conceivably, the conduct of an individual person or company or a group of individual persons may assume a proportion which may prejudicially affect public well being, as to make such conduct a definite matter of public importance.

3. Exploration of how various kinds of institutions live their lives is a matter of public interest; the connection they make with people whom they serve, and for whom they exist, and their connection with social capital requires attention, especially when the institutions are engaged in activities which are a source of human development.

4. Social organizations, founded on charity, but receiving governmental help need a scrutiny on the subject: Whether these institutions achieve what they are supposed to achieve.

5. If events, unexpected, occur in social institutions, they affect the present and can direct or misdirect the future. Therefore, society's concern for its institutions has to be consistently on the move and if contemporary issues throw up problems, they require an examination of the problem, to find a solution thereto.

6. The running of orphanages and children homes would therefore be a matter of public importance, and if in the working of orphanages and/or children homes an evil is suspected to exist, it must be exposed, so that it may be rooted out. And if it does not exist, the public needs to be satisfied that there is no substance in the prevalent rumours and suspicions, by which the public has been disturbed.

7. The Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952, is a piece of legislation to achieve the social object aforesaid. The inquiry under the Act has no accuser and no accused. There is no lis. No judgment is therefore pronounced. The inquisitorial inquiry is a mission in finding facts, only to instruct the mind of the Government in taking remedial measures. The report is not effective proprio vigore. The aim of the task is to collect facts and materials on the subject referred and submit a report containing recommendations.

8. It is true that the proceedings, open to public, suffer from the draw back of there being no charge, no prosecutor and no defence; but public interest and public good, to bring into gaze the truth on matters of public importance, far outweigh these deficiencies. The facts found at the inquiry facilitate rectification, and prevents reoccurrence of such lapses, by eradicating the evil found, and helps in establishing a moral public order in the future.

9. Since reputations of persons and institutions are brought into public gaze, when their affairs are investigated by a Commission appointed under the Commissions of Inquiry Ac
























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top