M.B. SHARMA, J.— In this public interest litigation relating to functioning of the S.M.S. Hospital Jaipur and other government hospitals in Rajasthan, more so, in respect of various commissions and omissions by various function-aries therein, the petitioner, who is a freedom fighter and has been active in and has very long association with the Sarvodaya Movement and claims to believe in the Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi, the father of the Nation, seeks from this court direction that a commission of Inquiry under the provisions of commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 (for sort, the Act) be set-up by the State of Rajasthan to find out and identify the guilty persons responsible for the various incidents of deaths and other sufferings. We will at the latter stage of this order deal with the question as to whether this Court can order the State Government to set up a commission of Inquiries under the provisions of the Act, but for the present we will give few facts as alleged in this writ petition, though we may state that in a public interest litigation the strict law that the court should confine to the pleadings is not practicable as it is not expected that in such matters the petitioner can be and should be in possession of all the material facts on which relief is sought and can be granted. The court in such matters of public interest litigation if the matter is really of public importance can even act on the news papers clippings. In the case of Rakesh Chand Narain V. State of Bihar. (1) the court took up the matter on the report published in the news paper pointing substandard conditions existing in Ranchi Mental Hospital and the court issued directions for provisions of various amentities to the patients and for periodical visit of Chief Judicial Magistrate to the hospital and to submit report to the Court. The arguments of Mr. Calla, learned counsel for the non-petitioner that news in papers at best are secondary evidence and therefore they cannot form the basis even in public interest litigations in the matters of public places like the hospitals run by the State Government cannot be accepted and so far as the case of Manmohan Kalia V. Shri Yash, (2) is concerned, it was not a case of public interst litigation and was the case under the Representation of the People Act. The court said that it is very difficult for the court to rely on the news items published on the information given by correspondents because they may not represent the true state of affairs. A news item without any further proof of what had actually happened through witnesses is of no value. It is at best a second hand secondary evidence The court further said that it is well known that reporters collect information and pass it on to the editor who edits the news item and then publishes it. In this process the truth might get perverted or garbled Such news items cannot be said to prove themselves although they may be taken into account with other evidence if the other evidence is forcible. We are of the opinion that whatever was said in that case is in respect of an adversery system of litigation, but so far as public interest litigation is concerned, we will say with all emphasis at our command that the present is a public interest litigation and litigation is not based on adversary system, but the petitioner brings certain facts to the notice of the court. The petitioner and the state are to assist the court in arriving at a conclusion and if possible to take remedial action and grant relief to public at large and to ameliorate their conditions. In the case of Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Thera V. Union of India (3) the court was dealing with matter under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition was filed under the aforesaid provisions seeking directions to the Union of India and its instrumentalities to improve the service conditions. The court in para 9 said—

"The lis before us is not of the ordinary type where there are two contending parties,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document