Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Amit Rawal, J.
Justice (retd.) Ranjit Singh - Appellant
Versus
Sukhbir Singh Badal & Anr. - Respondents
CRM-CLT-OJ No. 1 of 2019 (O&M)
Decided On : 08-11-2019
COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY ACT, 1952 - SECTION 10-A - MAINTAINABILITY OF COMPLAINT - EX-CHAIRMAN OF COMMISSION - LIMITATION - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - DOCTRINE OF INTERPRETATION - PUBLIC SERVANT - SECTION 21 OF IPC - SECTION 199 OF CRPC - SECTION 200 OF CRPC - SECTION 204 OF CRPC - SECTION 244 OF CRPC - SECTION 245 OF CRPC - SECTION 482 OF CRPC.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a former Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, was appointed as the Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry constituted under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (1952 Act) to inquire into the incidents of alleged desecration of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji in 2015. The tenure of the Commission was extended twice, till 31.08.2018. During his tenure, the complainant faced criticism and allegations of misconduct from the respondents, who were Deputy Chief Minister and an elected member of the State Legislative Assembly, respectively. After the submission of the Commission's report, the respondents continued to make defamatory statements against the complainant and the Commission. The complainant filed a complaint under Section 10-A of the 1952 Act, alleging that the respondents' actions brought the Commission and its members into disrepute. The respondents challenged the maintainability of the complaint, arguing that the complainant was no longer a member of the Commission and, therefore, could not invoke the provisions of Section 10-A. They also contended that the complaint was barred by limitation as it was filed more than six months after the alleged offences were committed.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the complaint was not maintainable. The Court observed that the provisions of Section 10-A of the 1952 Act are clear and unambiguous, and do not provide for the filing of a complaint by an ex-member of the Commission. The Court further held that the period of six months for filing the complaint cannot be extended beyond the expiry of the Commission's term. The Court also rejected the complainant's argument that he could be deemed to be a public servant for the purpose of filing the complaint, as the provisions of Section 21 of the IPC and Section 199 of the CrPC are not applicable to ex-members of the Commission. The Court also held that the issuance of notice and admission of the respondents on bail did not amount to taking cognizance of the offence, and that the Court was not required to proceed under Section 244 of the CrPC. The Court further held that the provisions of Section 482 of the CrPC could not be invoked to dismiss the complaint, as the complaint was not frivolous or vexatious.
Issues: 1) Whether the complaint under Section 10-A of 1952 Act by an Ex-member of the Commission filed in January, 2019 and registered on 04.02.2019 is maintainable or not? 2) Whether the period of six months provided under the provisions of 1952 Act can be extended enabling the Ex-member to espouse the grievance or not? 3) Whether an Ex-Chairman of the Commission can be treated as a public servant as per the provisions of Section 21 of the IPC and claim exemption from examination and evidence in terms of Section 199 of the Cr.P.C;? 4) Whether this Court while issuing notice by putting a caveat qua maintainability has taken the cognizance and proceed further in accordance with the provisions of Section 244 of the Cr.P.C;? 5) Whether the intent of the Legislature in protecting the rights of the member and a Chairman can be enlarged de hor of the fact that he ceased to be a member of a Commission.
Ratio Decidendi: 1) The provisions of Section 10-A of the 1952 Act are clear and unambiguous, and do not provide for the filing of a complaint by an ex-member of the Commission. 2) The period of six months for filing the complaint cannot be extended beyond the expiry of the Commission's term. 3) An ex-Chairman of the Commission cannot be treated as a public servant for the purpose of filing a complaint under Section 10-A of the 1952 Act, as the provisions of Section 21 of the IPC and Section 199 of the CrPC are not applicable to ex-members of the Commission. 4) The issuance of notice and admission of the respondents on bail did not amount to taking cognizance of the offence, and the Court was not required to proceed under Section 244 of the CrPC. 5) The provisions of Section 482 of the CrPC could not be invoked to dismiss the complaint, as the complaint was not frivolous or vexatious.
Final Decision: The complaint was held to be not maintainable and dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Amit Rawal, J. - The complainant, a member of the Commission of Inquiry constituted under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (for short, 1952 Act), through various notifications, Annexures C-8(i), 8(ii) & 8(iii), has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 10-A of the 1952 Act by making the respondents as accused enclosing three applications, i.e., CRM No.5006 of 2019 for seeking exemption from filing typed/certified copies of news reports Annexures C-l to C-5 and CDs Annexures C-6 and C-7, CRM No.5007 of 2019 under proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 10-A of 1952 Act for exemption from personal appearance as Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry and CRM No.5008 of 2019 under proviso to Section 200 read with Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for dispensing with the examination of the complainant and witnesses.
2. The facts and circumstances resulting into filing of the complaint, in brief, are recapitulated as under:-
Complainant, a former Judge of this Court, vide notification dated 14.04.2017, Annexure C-8 (i), was appointed as a Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry regarding the incidents of alleged desecration of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji in 2015, particularly in District Faridkot and other places in the State, to conduct an inquiry into the incidents of sacrilege by confining its scope as under:-
a) Conduct an enquiry into the cases of sacrilege of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Srimad Bhagwad Gita, Holy Quran Sharif;
b) Enquire into the detailed facts and circumstances and chronology of events of what actually happened and to identify as a matter of fact the role played by various persons into what happened;
c) Enquire into the truth of what occurred in such incidents and factual role of the persons who may have been involved;
d) Enquire into the firing at Kotkapura on 14.10.2015 and village Behbalkalan, District Faridkot in which two persons died; and
e) Identify and enquire into the role of the police officers/officials in incomplete/inclusive investigations into the earlier incidents of sacrileges so far."
3. The tenure of the Commission was fixed as six months. However, vide second notification dated 22.09.2017, Annexure C-8(ii), the tenure was extended for another six months, i.e., upto 12.04.2018. Through another notification dated 02.04.2018, Annexure C-8 (iii), period was extended upto 31.08.2018.
4. Respondent No.l, at the time of the incident, was Deputy Chief Minister as well as the Home Minister of the State of Punjab and similarly, respondent No.2 was elected member of the State Legislative Assembly. Earlier a Commission of Inquiry was constituted headed by a former Judge of this Court to enquire into the acts and incidents, but after extension of the terms of the previous Chairman, report was submitted on 30.06.2016, which was not accepted by the Government resulting into appointment of the complainant as the Chairman. The complainant, being Chairman of the Commission, executed his duties and functions in a completely non-partisan manner and with utmost honesty, integrity and a great sense of responsibility and on publication of the enquiry report, respondent No.l and his associates embarked upon a tirade to publicly undermine and ridicule the Commission as well as the complainant, which as per the provisions of Section 10-A of 1952 Act, constitute an offence and the offences have been committed by means of medium of Social Media, Press Conferences, Print Media, Public Gatherings, Interviews etc. Certain instances have been referred to in Para 9 of the petition and its English translation. The allegations levelled by respondent No.l are stated to be false, baseless and have been made with the solitary motive to malign the reputation of the complainant on his degree of law, complainant not only served in the JAG Branch of the Indian Army, but also practiced as an Advocate for approximately two decades and adorn the Bench of this court for a period of more than seven years. The secon
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
