Judicial Scrutiny Intensifies as Courts Address Non-Compliance and Investigative Failures

New Delhi/Mumbai – Recent developments in two distinct but legally significant cases have cast a spotlight on the judiciary's increasing intolerance for procedural non-compliance and investigative malfeasance. In Maharashtra, a high-profile commission of inquiry has issued a show-cause notice to a former Chief Minister for failing to produce a crucial document, while in Delhi, a court has ordered action against senior police officials for filing a false report and conducting a flawed investigation. These instances underscore the critical role of judicial and quasi-judicial bodies in upholding the rule of law and ensuring accountability from both political figures and law enforcement agencies.

---

Bhima Koregaon Commission Demands Accountability from Former CM Thackeray

The Bhima Koregaon Commission of Enquiry, a two-member panel tasked with investigating the 2018 violence, has escalated its efforts to obtain a key piece of evidence by issuing a show-cause notice to former Maharashtra Chief Minister, Uddhav Thackeray. The notice compels Mr. Thackeray to explain his failure to appear before the commission or produce a document it has sought for months.

This action stems from a letter allegedly written by Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) chief Sharad Pawar to Mr. Thackeray in January 2020. The letter, as reported in the media and cited in an application by Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi (VBA) president Prakash Ambedkar, purportedly claims the Bhima Koregaon violence was the result of a conspiracy by the then-Devendra Fadnavis-led government. It also allegedly called for a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the incident.

The commission's pursuit of this document highlights the procedural powers vested in such panels under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. The sequence of events leading to the notice is a case study in the procedural mechanisms available to an inquiry.

1. The Initial Application: The matter was brought to the forefront by Prakash Ambedkar, who filed an application seeking the production of Mr. Pawar's alleged letter to establish a broader conspiracy.
2. Summons to Pawar: When questioned, Mr. Pawar informed the commission that he did not possess a copy of the letter, effectively shifting the onus of production.
3. Summons to Thackeray: Consequently, Mr. Ambedkar requested that the commission direct Mr. Thackeray, the recipient of the letter, to produce it. The commission, led by retired Justice J.N. Patel, issued notices to Mr. Thackeray to this effect.
4. Non-Compliance and Escalation: According to the commission, Mr. Thackeray neither responded to the notices nor appeared before the panel. This inaction prompted the latest step. Advocate Kiran Kadam, representing Mr. Ambedkar, even pushed for a bailable warrant to secure Mr. Thackeray's presence. However, the commission opted for a more measured approach, issuing a show-cause notice first.

The notice warns, “If you fail to comply with this show-cause notice, further action as permissible in law would be taken against you.” Mr. Thackeray is now required to appear, either in person or through an authorised representative, on December 2, 2025.

Legal Implications and Powers of the Commission

For legal practitioners, this development is a reminder of the potent, albeit often underutilised, powers of commissions of inquiry. These bodies, while not courts of law, are vested with certain powers of a civil court, including summoning witnesses, compelling the production of documents, and issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses.

The failure to comply with a summons or notice from such a commission can have legal repercussions. While the commission itself cannot penalise for contempt, it can make a complaint to a magistrate, who can then take cognizance of the offence under the Indian Penal Code. The current show-cause notice serves as a final opportunity for compliance before potentially initiating more stringent legal proceedings.

The case also touches upon the evidentiary value of political correspondence in a quasi-judicial inquiry. The contents of the alleged letter could be crucial in shaping the commission's final report on the causes and culpability behind the 2018 violence. The panel's insistence on obtaining the primary document, rather than relying on news reports, speaks to its commitment to procedural correctness and the best evidence rule.

---

Delhi Court Lambasts Police for "False Report" and "Supervisory Lapse"

In a striking rebuke of law enforcement, a Delhi court has ordered the Joint Commissioner of Police to take appropriate action against an Investigating Officer (IO) for filing a false report and against the Station House Officer (SHO) and Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) for "supervisory lapse."

The order, issued by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Tushar Gupta of Karkardooma Courts, came during the bail hearing of an accused, Mustakeem, charged with firing a bullet outside a complainant's house. While the court ultimately denied bail due to the gravity of the offence, its observations on the police investigation were scathing and have significant implications for police accountability.

The court found major discrepancies and apparent misconduct in the police's handling of the case:

• Contradictory Arrest Narrative: The IO claimed in his report that Mustakeem was arrested based on a tip-off from a secret informer. However, CCTV footage from the police station, confirmed by the police official on duty, clearly showed that Mustakeem had surrendered voluntarily. The court unequivocally stated, “Thus, it can be very well said that the IO has filed a false report in this matter to mislead the court.”
• Failure to Investigate Cross-Complaint: The accused and his family alleged they were attacked by the complainant's party while preparing for a burial, resulting in grievous injuries to Mustakeem's father. Despite a written complaint, the court noted that the police failed to add appropriate sections to the FIR lodged by the father and did not arrest the complainant, merely "binding them down."
• Disparate Treatment: The court highlighted the stark contrast in police action: the complainant and his associates, accused of causing grievous head injuries, were not arrested, while the accused, who voluntarily came to the police station, was immediately taken into custody.

The magistrate concluded, "Therefore, it can be said that IO is not investigating the case properly." The direction to take action against the IO for the false report and against the SHO and ACP for supervisory failures is a significant step towards enforcing hierarchical accountability within the police force.

The Bail Conundrum: Balancing Misconduct and Offence Gravity

Despite the damning findings against the police, the court denied bail to the accused. The judge's reasoning provides a crucial insight into the delicate balance courts must strike. The decision was based on CCTV footage that allegedly showed the accused "running with the katta [a country-made pistol] in his hand" and the presence of an armed, unidentified accomplice who remains at large.

The court observed, “Firing a bullet shot outside a house is a serious offense. Undoubtedly, the fact is yet to be established and proved in the investigation, however the gravity and seriousness of the act of the accused/applicant cannot be ignored.”

This decision illustrates a fundamental principle of bail jurisprudence: even when an investigation is tainted by police misconduct, the court must still independently assess the prima facie case against the accused and the seriousness of the alleged crime. While the police's actions were condemned and will be subject to departmental inquiry, they did not automatically entitle the accused to bail when confronted with separate, potent evidence of his involvement in a serious offence.

For defence counsel, this case serves as a reminder that exposing police misconduct, while vital for the overall justice of the case and potential quashing of proceedings at a later stage, may not be a silver bullet for securing bail if the underlying allegations are grave and supported by independent evidence. Conversely, for the prosecution and police, it is a stark warning that attempts to mislead the court or conduct biased investigations will not go unnoticed and can have severe professional consequences.