INQUIRY COMMISSION
(Grave to justice and heaven for Judges)
The first part of report of Justice G.T. Nanavati Commission, which was constituted in 2001 to probe into the Godhara incident, in which one bogey of Sabarmati express was burnt carrying kar sevaks led to communal violence across many parts of Gujarat state, has sparked the chain of political reactions around Godhara again. The report has given clean chit to the Narendra Modi Government and supported the theory of conspiracy. Many call it ‘eye wash’ and other call it ‘sponsored report’. Communists have termed it a ‘piecemeal’ and fabricated report, whereas; NDA naturally, calls it ‘triumph of truth’. On the other hand, Justice U.C Banerjee Committee had indicted Narendra Modi Government for the same incident. The question is which report is true and which is not, because both reports cannot be true. Interestingly even the NHRC has pointed needle towards this report. Justice (retired) J.S.Verma has serious reservation about the report.
Keeping apart from such allegations and counter allegations, the issue has again come to fore that ‘Is Inquiry Commission a substitute of criminal prosecution? Do these Commissions serve any purpose? Is it not an eye wash? Are these Commissions able to bring culprits to book? Etc. After all, they are putting in enormous cost on public exchequer, the hard earned money of ours.
To understand the entire issue, one has to discuss the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 itself. Before this Act came into being, the Government used to order an inquiry by executive notifications under Public Service Inquiry Act, 1850. Sometimes, they used to enact adhoc and temporary legislations also. To meet the public demand for impartial and judicial inquiries, the Government thought to come out with a comprehensive legislation, which resulted into passage of this Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 in 1952.
Since its enactment, the constitution of Inquiry Commissions has become a tool for the Government to white wash the public anger and delay and diverts the attention of both public as well as media.
Since Independence, more than a hundred Inquiry Commissions have been set up, but a very few have served the purpose. Reasons are obvious. First, the provisions enshrined in this Act are not of deterrent in nature and secondly, most of the time the Commissions are set up under retired Judges for obvious reasons. Section 4 the Act provides for powers and it is clear that the Commission has no power to compel a person to adduce before it and give evidence. It cannot pass verdicts or judgements which could be enforceable. The helplessness is such that when any offence is committed in view of or presence of Commission, the Commission shall forward the case to the Magistrate for trial as provided in Criminal Procedure code.
The appointment of retired Judges, as head of the Commission is very much suitable for the Government. It is not merely a chance that one Judge has headed more than one Commission. The public perception is such that these Inquiry Commissions are becoming post retirement placement schemes for the favourite retired Judges.
We have a long list of such Commissions, which have made inordinate delay in submitting their reports. Many of them have taken decades in so called’ conducting inquiries’ and even then the report which was submitted were so voluminous that we required another committee to find out ways to implement the recommendations. For example, as many as ten Commissions or committees have so far been set up with regard to the anti-Sikh riots in Delhi after the assassination of Mrs Gandhi. First of all, Marvah Commission (Ved Marvah, Addl C.P.) was set up in November, 1984. The Commission was about to finish the assigned task, but it was abruptly wounded up in May, 1985 and a new Commission headed by Justice Rangnath Misra was constituted and was asked to carry out the further inquiry hitherto done by Marvah Commission. But surprisingly the terms of reference was, to find out whether this was an organised riot only? This Commission submitted its recommendations in August, 1986 and recommended for setting up of three committees to do further work. Therefore; Kapur-Mittal Committee in February, 1987, Jain-Banerjee Committee in November, 1987, Potti-Rosa Committee in March, 1990, Jain and Agarwal Committee in December, 1990, and finally Justice G.T. Nanavati Commission in 2000 were set up. Incidentally, the same Judge was made in charge to inquire into Godhara incident.
It is needless to mention that what has happened to reports and how much amount have been spent on these exercises. Has any prominent leader been punished so far? Many persons, against whom levelled charges were being inquired into, have died. Such are the frustrating results of these Commissions and Committees.
So far as the time and money aspect of these Commissions are concerned, one or two Commissions find special mention in this regard. One Liberhan Commission was set up under retired Justice M.S. Liberhan on 16th December, 1992 to probe into Babri mosque demolition. This Commission has so far been given more than 41 extensions and about 90 million rupees have been spent on this single man inquiry Commission. What a joke and what a mockery of this legal provision. Who cares and who dares to put a question mark on such legal exercise.
Similarly, Justice B.N. Kripal Commission of inquiry was set up on 13th July, 1985 to probe into the bombing of Air India Flight 182 Boeing 747 on 23rd June 1985 which led to crash of this plane into Atlantic Ocean leaving 329 passengers including crew dead. The Commission submitted its report after extensive tours of countries like Canada, USA etc, but when the prosecution began, nothing could be proved and none could be punished. The entire ‘investigation and inquiry’ went in vain. It is needless again, to calculate the amount which was spent on such inquiries.
After ‘tehelka’ expose, one Phukan Commission was set up to look into it. Everyone saw the tape on television and the then Government just to avoid immediate legal course, set up this Commission. In May, 2005 the Newsweek reported that Justice Phukan along with his wife and eight officials used IAF plane and went to Pune- Mumbai and Shirdi. The Ministry later said that the Judge was not entitled to use the military plane and it was made available to him by the then government in order to influence the Judge. Such allegations and incidents definitely erode public faith in such Commissions. The situation is such every Government in power use this provision to oblige the retired judges.
In Bihar for example, one Justice Amir Das Commission was set up to probe into the alleged connections of political leaders with a banned outfit called Ranveer sena in 1997. After elapse of more than eight years, the Commission could hardly do anything except for some tours and recording of statements some leaders. It was finally wounded up in 2006. Similarly one Justice Ali Ahmed Commission was set up to look into excess withdrawal in 1996. What recommendations did it submit or what actions had been taken, hardly anyone knows.
Commission under Justice RCP Sinha and Justice Samsul was set up on Bhagalpur communal riot in 1989. Reports were submitted in 1995. But when the new Government came to power it set up NN Singh (retired Justice) Commission to re-investigate the matter again. In 2008 one Commission under retired judge Sadanand Mukherjee was set up to probe into the Kahalgaon police firing. This commission is still a non starter vis-a-vis investigation of the incidence.
When Kosi eastern embankment was breached on 18th August, 2008, there were lot of allegations and counter allegations. The Government constituted a Commission under Rajesh Walia, again a retired Judge to probe into it.
The question that every sensible citizen would like to ask is that, whether Commission is a substitute of criminal investigation? How can a Judge be better equipped to do forensic test, do scientific investigations than a professionally trained police officer? Has the Commission power to make arrests to the persons likely to tamper evidences? The effectiveness of the Commission or for that matter the Commission of Inquiry Act was looked into by two Judge commission, which was constituted in 1987, it gave its observations and said the Act as ‘ ineffective and toothless’.
Ours is the criminal justice system, which is based on the twin pillars of investigation and dispensation of justice. How can the Judiciary be asked to do the work of investigation, which is the work of the State as enshrined the law of the land? The Criminal Procedure Code and for that matter entire Criminal Justice System is erected on this principle and perhaps it is due to this principle, that the Judiciary and Executive have been completely separated in 1973, when the Code of Criminal Procedure was amended. After almost every police firing or so called fake encounters, the government sets up Commissions of Inquiry and tends to defer the problem so years. The list of such commissions is long and still names are being added to it. Once the commission is set up, public tends to forget the real issue and Commission embarks on an unending process of investigation, inquiry and facts finding. It took years and years in submitting the reports, which are so voluminous that it again requires some committees to suggest measures to implements the recommendations. What is the use of such reports, which themselves are not obligatory and mandatory for the Government to implement. Millions and millions of rupees have so far been spent on these nearly futile exercises, but the investigating agencies are languishing in the same state for years. Instead of modernising and equipping the investigating agencies, we go on doing cosmetic make ups. Public perception is therefore that, if the Government wants to bury the truth, it sets up a Commission. Public memory is short and it tends to forget everything. In the mean time these Commissions are becoming a post retirement engagement for Judges. Ours is an independent Judiciary and that is why Article 220 provides for restriction on practise by the retired Judges. The idea is that there should not be any scope whatsoever, of favour or disfavour by the serving Judges. By appointing the retired Judges in these Commissions or for that matter in any other body is a clear cut violation of the spirit of the Constitution itself. This type of public perception is detrimental for our democracy as well as Judiciary also. Judges should perform the duty of dispensing judgments only and not do the work of investigation; otherwise the entire edifice of our institutions would start eroding and crumbling.
