1. Challenge to adverse observations in Commission of Inquiry report under Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. (Para 2 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Gau) 1765
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KARDAK ETE, J.
Sunayana Aidew, W/o. Dr. Pranjal Bora – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam, Represented By The Additional Chief Secretary To The Govt. Of Assam, Home And Political Department And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C)/1579 of 2026, WP(C)/1568 of 2026
Decided On : 08-09-2026
Important Points
Adverse findings by a Commission of Inquiry that prejudicially affect a person's reputation are unsustainable and must be expunged if the mandatory procedural safeguards under Sections 8-B and 8-C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, and principles of natural justice are violated.
Subject
Administrative Law - Commission of Inquiry
Act Referred
COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY ACT : S.3, S.8(b), S.8(c)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.21
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.21
Headnote
(A) Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 - Sections 8-B and 8-C - Right to be heard - Where a Commission's findings prejudicially affect a person's reputation, the statutory requirement to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to produce evidence in defence is mandatory. (Para 9, 14, 25)
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Right to Cross-Examination - Reliance on subsequent material or witness statements without allowing the affected party to respond or cross-examine the witness constitutes a violation of natural justice and statutory safeguards. (Para 15, 28)
(C) Right to Reputation - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - The right to reputation is an integral part of the right to life, necessitating strict adherence to procedural fairness before recording adverse findings. (Para 17, 22)
Issues: Whether the adverse observations in the Commission of Inquiry Report could be sustained without complying with the mandatory notice and hearing requirements under Sections 8-B and 8-C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.
Result: Observations and findings prejudicially touching upon the conduct and reputation of the petitioners are expunged.
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Right to Cross-Examination - Reliance on subsequent material or witness statements without allowing the affected party to respond or cross-examine the witness constitutes a violation of natural justice and statutory safeguards. (Para 15, 28)
(C) Right to Reputation - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - The right to reputation is an integral part of the right to life, necessitating strict adherence to procedural fairness before recording adverse findings. (Para 17, 22)
Issues: Whether the adverse observations in the Commission of Inquiry Report could be sustained without complying with the mandatory notice and hearing requirements under Sections 8-B and 8-C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.
Result: Observations and findings prejudicially touching upon the conduct and reputation of the petitioners are expunged.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
constitutional law
-
right to life
- right to reputation (Para 17)
-
right to life
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. D. Das, Sr. Adv., Mr. A. Chowdhury, Ms. M. Borah, Mr. S. Das, Ms. B. Chowdhury, Mr. S. A. Hussain, Mr. D. J. Haloi, Ms. N. G. Boro.
For the Respondents: SC, Finance and Taxation, GA, Assam, GA, Assam, Mr. N. Kohli, Sr. Adv., Ms. A. Roy, Mr. N. Menon.
For the Petitioner: Mr. D. Das, Sr. Adv., Mr. A. Chowdhury, Ms. M. Borah, Mr. S. Das, Ms. B. Chowdhury, Mr. S. A. Hussain, Mr. D. J. Haloi, Ms. N. G. Boro.
For the Respondents: SC, Finance and Taxation, GA, Assam, GA, Assam, Mr. N. Kohli, Sr. Adv., Ms. A. Roy, Mr. N. Menon.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners: Observations made without hearing or opportunity to cross-examine. Respondents: Conceded relief based on coordinate bench order. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
3. Written responses to earlier notices insufficient for subsequent prejudicial material; Sections 8-B and 8-C violated. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 )
4. Adverse findings against an individual require compliance with Sections 8-B and 8-C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act. (Para 22 , 29 )
5. Adverse observations against petitioners at specific pages of the report expunged as non est. (Para 31 )
6. What procedural rights does an individual have under Sections 8-B and 8-C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act?
A reasonable opportunity of being heard, producing evidence, cross-examining witnesses, and legal representation when conduct is inquired into or reputation affected. (Para 9 , 14 , 15 , 25 )
7. Can a prior written response to an initial notice satisfy the hearing requirement for subsequently introduced prejudicial material?
No, a separate opportunity to respond to subsequently introduced material that may affect reputation is required for compliance with Sections 8-B and 8-C. (Para 15 , 24 , 28 )
8. Can a report containing findings on matters of public importance be quashed entirely due to procedural violation against individuals?
No; the report on public matters may stand, but adverse findings against individuals made without proper hearing must be expunged. (Para 23 , 26 , 27 )
JUDGMENT :
KARDAK ETE, J.
Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. N. Kohli, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Ms. A. Roy and Mr. N. Menon, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Both these writ petitions raise common questions of fact and law arising out of the proceedings of the One Man Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice (Retd.) B.K. Sarma and the Report dated 02.04.2022, particularly the observations recorded against the petitioners at pages 505 and 509 thereof, and are, therefore, taken up together for disposal by this common judgment and order.
3. At the outset, it may be noted that although various prayers have been made in the respective writ petitions, the petitioners, at the time of hearing, have confined to prayer No. (b), i.e. seeking quashing, expunging and/or deletion of the observations, findings and recommendations recorded against them in the Report dated 02.04.2022 submitted by the One Man Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice (Retd.) B.K. Sarma, particularly those contained at pages 505 and 509 thereof, and all actions emanating therefrom. The other prayers are not pressed and, accordingly, do not call for consideration in the present proceedings.
4. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1579/2026 had participated in the Combined Competitive Examination, 2013 conducted by the APSC pursuant to Advertisement dated 11.08.2013. She appeared in the Preliminary Examination, the Main Examination and thereafter in the interview, and was declared successful in the final result published on 12.05.2015. She thereafter served in various capacities, her last posting being as Superintendent of Taxes.
5. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1568/2026 had also participated in the same Combined Competitive Examination, 2013 and was selected for the Assam Police th Service (Junior Grade), securing 37 rank, as per the final result published on 12.05.2015. She joined the Assam Police Service on 31.08.2015 and th subsequently served as Deputy Superintendent of Police, 19 AP(IR) Battalion, Tengakhat, Dibrugarh.
6. The aforesaid Combined Competitive Examination, 2013, subsequently came under scrutiny following allegations of anomalies and malpractices in the conduct of the Preliminary and Main Examinations and the selection process. In view of such allegations, a Commission of Inquiry was constituted to inquire into the matter, including the circumstances surrounding the conduct of the examinations and the result published on 12.05.2015.
7. Accordingly, on 08.07.2019, the One Man Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice (Retd.) B.K. Sarma, former Judge of this Court, was constituted under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, to inquire into the allegations of anomalies and malpractices in the conduct of the Civil Services Preliminary and Main Examinations conducted by the APSC, the result of which had been published on 12.05.2015.
8. In the course of the proceedings before the Commission, notices were issued to the petitioners. By order dated 19.02.2021, the Commission directed issuance of notice to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1579/2026, which was forwarded to her on 02.03.2021. She accordingly submitted her written response on 18.03.2021. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1568/2026 was issued notice and she submitted her response on 22.03.2021.
9. The petitioners contend that, upon issuance of such notices, the provisions contained in Sections 8-B and 8-C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 became applicable to their cases. Section 8-B , inter alia, contemplates that where the Commission considers it necessary to inquire into the conduct of any person, or where the Commission is of the opinion that the reputation of such person is likely to be prejudicially affected by the inquiry, it shall give such person a reasonable opportunity of being heard and of producing evidence in his or her defence. Section 8-C further provides, inter alia, for the right t
