State of
Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ajay Singh & Ors [1992] INSC 221 (2 November 1992)
[J.S.
VERMA AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.]
ACT:
COMMISSIONS
OF INQUIRY ACT, 1952:
Sections
3, 7 and 8-A One-man commission- Replacement of the initial appointee with
another person-Whether permissible under the scheme of the Act-Whether
Permissible under the scheme of the Act-whether Section 21 of the General
Clauses Act, 1897 could be invoked to read such power into the Act.
HEAD NOTE:
General
Clauses Act, 1897:
Section
21-Power to add to amend or vary or rescind any notification-Whether could be
invoked to reconstitute the Commission of Inquiry by replacement of
substitution of the existing members, though not provided in the scheme of the
Act.
Pursuant
to the direction given by the State High Court, the appellant-State by a
Notification dated 24.2.1989, constituted a Commission of Inquiry under the
(Commission of Inquiry) Act, 1952, to investigate into the affairs of the
children's Welfare Society, of which Respondent No.1 was an office bearer and
appointed a sitting Judge of the High Court of another State as the sole member
of the Commission. The inquiry was to be completed within a period of six
months, but the period was extended from time to time. Meanwhile, the sole
member became due to retire as a Judge of the High Court on attaining the age
of superannuation and, therefore, he wrote a letter dated 19 3.1991 to the
Chief Secretary of the appellant-State drawing attention to this fact and
requesting that the necessary modalities be worked out well in time for his
continuance as Commission of Inquiry, in the light of the guidelines issued by
the Government of India for the benefits and emoluments payable to a Judge on
his retirement in such a situation.
The
Judge also mentioned some of the facilities he expected, to which be would not
be entitled from the State Government on his retirement. The Chief Secretary
sent a reply dated 9.4.1991 to the Judge promising to give an early reply and
requesting him to continue with the inquiry so that the same could be completed
early. However, without further reference to the Judge, the State Government
issued a notification dated 10.7.1991, replacing him by a retired Chief Justice
of another High Court. This appointment was challenged before the High Court,
which, by an interim order dated 30.7.1991 stayed the operation of the
notification. During the pendency of the writ petition, the new member tendered
his resignation. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous
on 5.9.1991. Thereafter, the Chief Secretary to the Government sent a letter
dated 12.9.1991 to the original appointee expressing the State Government's
inability to accept the terms and conditions of the Judge, and informing him of
the appointment of retired Chief Justice of another High Court, who had since
resigned.
Thereafter
the State Government issued another notification dated 9.1.1992 appointing a
retired Judge of another High Court as a single member of the Commission.
This
was challenged before the High Court on the ground that during the continuance
as the single member of the Commission of Inquiry of the original appointee,
there was no power in the State Government to replace him, and there being no
vacancy in the office, the power under Section 3(3) of the Commissions of
Inquiry Act, 1952, which was available only to fill any vacancy, could not be
invoked and there was no other source of power available to the State for the
purpose and, therefore, the appointment first of the retired Chief Justice and
then, on his refusal, of another retired Judge, being without any authority,
was invalid.
The
High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the notification dated
9.1.1992. It held that there was no vacancy in the office of the single member
of the Commission to empower the State Government to fill the vacancy under
Section 3(3) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act. It also held there was neither
any valid reason or ground nor any power available in the State Government to
replace the original member by another person as was purported to be done by
first appointing one member and then another member, both of whom were also
retired Judges .
In the
appeals, by special leave, on behalf of the State Government, it was contended
that aid of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act was available to the State
Government for exercising its powers under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 'to
add, to amend or vary' the notification issued initially appointing the sitting
Judge as the sole member of the Commission which enabled the State Government
to reconstitute the Commission by replacing that Judge with any other person in
the circumstances of the case, though the power to rescind any notification was
not available, since this was provided in Section 7 of the Commissions of
Inquiry Act. Reference was also made to Section 8-A of the Commissions of
Inquiry Act to support the Contention that Government's power to reconstitute
the Commission even during the availability of the person so appointed even
though it was submitted that Section 8-A was not the source of power for
reconstitution of the Commission. It was also contended that the Government's
power to extend the time specified in the initial notification for Completing
the work of the Commission was not to be found in any express provision in the
Commissions of Inquiry Act. but was exercised by amendment of the initial
notification only under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act. and that though
there was no express provision in the Commissions of Inquiry Act empowering the
Government to replace or substitute the sole member of a Commission with
another person during the continuance of the Commission. this was implicit in
the power to appoint a Commission and designate its personnel under Sub
sections (1) and (2) of Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act read the
power to amend or Vary any notification available under Section 21 of the
General Clauses Act.
It Was
submitted on behalf of the petitioner in the Public Interest Petition that
Sections 14 and 16 of the General Clauses Act were also available to support
the notifications under challenge issued by the State Government.
On
behalf of respondent No.1 it was submitted that the scheme of the Commissions
of Inquiry Act did not permit invoking Section 21 of the General Clauses Act
except for enlargement of the period for completion of the inquiry by amendment
of the notification only to that extent since the only situations in which
reconstitution of the Commissions could be made were provided in the Commissions
of Inquiry Act itself, that Section 8-A of the Commissions of Inquiry Act was
enacted for an entirely different purpose namely to ensure continuity of the
Commission's work and had nothing to do with its reconstitutions that the
scheme of the enactment showed that the appropriate Government could not
interfere provide expressly in the statute for the Government's power to fill
any vacancy after the initial constitution After its insertion the scheme of
the enactment excludes the power of reconstitution of the Commission in a
manner not expressly provided therein. In view of sub- section (3), it is not
permissible to construe sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 3 in any other
manner. If the scheme of the enactment gave such wide power to reconstitute a
Commission after its initial constitution and permitted replacement or
substitution of the existing member of a Commission with another person sans
sub-section (3) of Section 3 the power to fill any vacancy was not required to
be provided separately and expressly. It is also significant that in the
amendment so made the power is limited only to filling any vacancy without
conferring any power to reconstitute the Commission by replacement or
substitution of the existing member which indicates that no such power of
replacement or substitution of the existing member was contemplated in the
scheme of the Act or intended to be conferred on the Government even after the
amendment.
[298-H:
299-A-C; 300-A] 2 7. Section 8-A was simultaneously inserted by amendment to
provide that the procedure does not require interruption of the inquiry by
reason of change in the constitution of the Commission due to filling any
vacancy or decrease in the number of members. The expression 'or by any other
reason' in sub-section (2) of Section 8-A cannot be widened to include the
reason of reconstitution of the Commission by replacement or substitution of
the existing member since that power is not available to the Government in the
scheme of the Act and, therefore. this expression in Section 8-A(2) cannot be
read as conferring any additional power or giving any such indication. The
expression or by any other reason following `vacancy having been filled' in
Section 8-A(2) must therefore. mean any other reason such as decrease in the
number of members when the initial number is more than one and the vacancy
remains unfilled. It cannot mean substitution of the existing member with
another person, since no such power exists. Section 8-A(2) is not the source of
an additional power, but merely an indication of the power to reconstitute the
Commission. The indication is of the power of reconstitution being available
only in the manner indicated. The only situation in which the Government can
rescind the notification issued under Section 3 constituting the Commission is
laid down in Section 7 the Act, which provides that the Commission would cease
to exist when the appropriate Government by notification with the working of
the Commission after its constitution except in the manner expressly provided
in the Act and Section 7 was a clear indication that interference with the
functioning of the Commission was not permissible in any other manner, and,
therefore, Section 21 of the General Clauses Act was not available to support
the Government's action in the instant case.
Dismissing
the appeal, this court,
HELD:
1. The power under Section 3(3) of the Commissions of the Inquiry Act, 1952,
was not available to the State Government in the facts of the instant case to
appoint any other person replacing the original member as the sole member of
the Commission of Inquiry. The power under sub-sections (1) of (2) of Section 3
read with Section 21 of the General Clauses Act or even Section 14 or Section
16 thereof was also not available for the purpose.
Accordingly,
the notifications dated 10.7.1991 and 9.1.1992 issued by the State Government
appointing the retired Chief justice and another retired Judge were both
invalid. The high Court was, therefore, right in quashing the notifications
dated 10.7.1991 and 9.1.1992. The appellant- state should, in view of the
retirement of the original member as a judge of the High Court in the
meanwhile, take necessary action to finalise his terms and conditions in
accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government of India in this
behalf. Such action should be taken promptly to avoid any undue delay in
completion of the commission's task. [304-C-F] 2.1. The power of the Government
to appoint a Commission of Inquiry and name the person or persons constituting
it is in sub-section (1) of Section 3. It is not as if sub-section (1) deals
with the mere appointment of the Commission of Inquiry without clothing it with
its personnel and the power to appoint the member/members thereof is to be
found only in sub-section (20 That apart, there is nothing in any of these
provisions to suggest that the Government has the power to reconstitute the
commission after its appointment by replacing the existing sole member with
another person. Sub-Section (3) of Section 3, inserted by the Amendment Act of
1971, deals expressly with the Government's power to fill any vacancy which may
have arisen since the constitution of the Commission. The question of
replacement of a member appointed initially is beyond its scope. The insertion
of sub-section (3) became necessary to declares that 'the continued existence
of' the Commission is unnecessary'.
2.3.
The scheme of the enactment is that the appropriate Government should have no
control over the Commission after its constitution under Section 3 of the Act
except for the purpose of filling any vacancy which may have arisen in the
office of a member of the Commission apart from winding up the Commission by
issuance of a notification under section 7 of the Act if the continued
existence of the Commission is considered unnecessary. The vacancy in the
office of a member of the Commission may arise for several reasons, including
resignation by the member, when the Government power to fill the vacancy under
Section 3(3) of the Act can be exercised. [300-A-E & G] 2.4. The context as
well as the scheme of the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952 clearly indicate
that Section 21 of the General clauses Act 1897 cannot be invoked to enlarge
the Government's. power to reconstitute the Commission constituted under Section
3 of the Act in a manner other that that expressly provided in the Commissions
of Inquiry Act. There being no express power given by the Commissions of
inquiry Act to the appropriate Government to reconstitute the Commission of
Inquiry constituted under Section 3 of the Act by replacement or substitution
of its sole member and the existence of any such power being negatived by clear
implication, no such power can be exercised by the appropriate Government. [302-C-F]
2.5. Section 21 of the General Clauses Act can be invoked only if, and to the
extent. if any the context and the scheme of the Commissions of Inquiry Act so
permits. The general power in Section 21 of the General Clauses Act is 'to add,
to amend vary or rescind any notifications' etc. In the context of
reconstitution of the Commission the power to fill any vacancy in the office of
a manner of the Commission is expressly provided in sub-section (3) of Section
3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act Similarly the power to discontinue the
existence of the Commission when it becomes unnecessary can be exercised by
issue of a notification in accordance with Section 7 of the Act which results
in rescinding the notification issued under Section 3 constituting the
Commission. Thus the power to rescind any notification conferred generally in
Section 21 of the General Clauses Act is Clearly inapplicable in the scheme of
the Commissions of inquiry Act which expressly provides for the exercise of his
power in relation to Commission constituted under Section 3 of the Act. The
only other material general powers in Section 21 of the General Clauses Act are
the power to 'amend' or vary any notification. The extent to which the
constitution of the Commission can be amended or varied by filling any vacancy
in the office of a member as provided in the Commissions of Inquiry Act is also
obviously excluded from the purview of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act
which cannot be invoked for this purpose. In a case like the instant one where
the scheme of the Commissions of Inquiry Act does provide for amendment and
variation of the notification issued under Section 3 for the purpose of
reconstitution of the Commission in the manner indicated even that power to
amend or vary any notification by virtue of Section 21 of the General Clauses
Act must be taken as excluded by clear implication in the sphere of
reconstitution of the Commission. Moreover, the power to amend or vary cannot
include the power to replace or substitute the existing Composition of the
Commission with an entirely new composition. The aid of Section 21 of the
General Clauses Act for enlargement of time does not conflict with the context
or scheme of the Commissions of Inquiry Act.[301-A-E] 2.6. The rule of
Construction embodied in Section 21 of the General Clauses Act cannot apply to
the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952 relating to
reconstitution of a Commission constituted there under since the
Subject-matter. context and effect of such provisions are inconsistent with
such application. Moreover. this construction best harmonises with the subject
of the enactment and the object of the legislation. Restoring public Confidence
by constituting a Commission of Inquiry to investigate into a 'definite matter
of public importance' is the purpose of such an exercise. It is therefore, the
prime need that the Commission functions as an independent agency free from any
govern-mental control after its constitution.
It
follows that after appointment the tenure of members of the commission should
not be dependent on the will of the Government to secure their independence. A
body not so independent is not likely to enjoy the requisite public confidence
and may not attract men of quality and self- respect. In such a situation the
object of the enactment would be frustrated. [302-H. 303-A-C] Minerva Mills
Ltd. v, There Workers, [1954] S.C.R. 465 distinguished.
The
State of Bihar v. D. N. Ganguly.,[1959] S.C.R.
1191, relied on.
CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4734-35 of 1992.
From
the Judgment and Order dated 8.5.1992 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.
Petition Nos. 48] and 533 of 1992.
Shanti
Bhushan, N.C. Jain, S.K. Agnihotri and Ashok K. Singh for the
Appellant.
Kapil Sibal,
N.S. Kale, A.P. Dhamija, S.K. Jain, Manmohan, S. Atreya, Pradeep Agarwal, Basant
Bhai Mehta, Ravindra Srivastava, R.N. Srivastava, B.V. Desai and S.V.
Deshpande
for the Respondents.
The
Judgment of the Court was delivered by VERMA, J. The petitioner State of Madhya Pradesh in both these petitions seeks leave to
appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution against the common judgment and
order dated 8.5.1992 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Miscellaneous
Petition Nos. 481 of 1992 and 533 of 1992 under Article 226 of the
Constitution. The High Court has allowed both these writ petitions.
The
material facts are these. In Miscellaneous Petition No. 3909 of 1987 tiled in
public interest by Kailash Joshi, then Leader of the Opposition in Madhya
Pradesh Vidhan Sabha and now a Cabinet Minister in Madhya Pradesh, relating to
the affairs of the Churhat Children's Welfare Society and the lottery conducted
by it, the M.P. High Court by its judgment dated 20.1.1989 issued a direction
for setting up an independent high power agency to bold an inquiry into the
affairs of the said Society of which respondent 1 Ajay Singh was one of the
office bearers. In compliance of that direction, the State Government passed a
resolution on 24.2.1989 and also issued notification of the same date having
the effect of setting up a Commission of Inquiry consisting of Justice S.T. Ramalingam,
a Judge of the Madras High Court to investigate into the affairs of the said
Society and the lottery conducted by it. The resolution and notification are as
under :- "Bhopal, the 24th February, 1989 No. F. 1-3-89-l(i)-E.C. - Whereas the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh in its order dated the 20th January 1989 in M.P. No. 3909/87 Kailash
Joshi versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others has directed that an inquiry be
made by an independent high power agency into the affairs of the Churhat
Children's Welfare Society and how the share of its profits derived from all or
any other draws have been utilized and to take such action as may be required
under the law against the said Society and its organizing agent and that the
State Government is of the view that the said order of the High Court should be
implemented and carried out and whereas the State Government is also satisfied
that this is a definite matter of public importance which calls for an inquiry
to be made, the State Government hereby appoints an independent high power
agency presided over by Shri Justice S.T. Ramalingam, Judge of the Madras High
Court.
2. The
Headquarters of the Agency shall be at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh.
3. The
terms of reference for inquiry by the aforesaid Agency shall be as under:- (1)
How the affairs of the Churhat Children s Welfare Society are conducted and how
the share of the profit derived and the money collected through lottery has
been utilised ? (2) What is the amount collected draw-wise, by the agent and
the Society and what is the tax liability as per the Madhya Pradesh lottery (Niyantran
Tatha Kar) Adhiniyam, 1973 ? (3) Whether any irregularities, illegalities and
offences were committed in organizing the lottery, holding of draws of lottery,
distribution of prizes, and in that event, the person responsible for the same;
(4)
Any other matter incidental or connected with the above subject- matter of
enquiry.
(4)
The Agency may complete its enquiry and submit its report to the State
Government within a period of six months from the date of issue of this
Notification.
By
order and in the name of the Governor of Madhya Pradesh, R.C. Shrivastava, Secy"
"Bhopal, the 24th February, 1989 No. F.1-3-89-I(i) -E.C. - Whereas by Government of
Madhya Pradesh Resolution dated the 24th February 1989 and Notification No. F.1-3-89- I(i) -E.C., dated the
24thFebruary 1989 an independent High Power Agency presided over by Shri S.T.
Ramalingam,
Judge of the Madras High Court has been set up to hold an inquiry into the
affairs of the Churhat Children's Welfare Society;
And
whereas the State Government having regard to the nature of the inquiry to be
made and other circumstances of the case is of the opinion that provisions
contained in sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section 5 of the Commissions of Inquiry
Act, 1952, should be made applicable to the aforesaid Agency;
Now,therefore,
in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the
Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, the State Government hereby directs that the
provisions of sub-sections (2) to (5) of
Section 5 of the said Act shall apply to the above described Agency.
By
order and in the name of the Governor of Madhya Pradesh, R.C. Shrivastava, Secy".
According
to the terms of the above notification, the inquiry was to be completed within
a period of six months from the date of issue of the notification. As the
inquiry could not be completed within that period, by a notification dated
1.8.1990 the period for completing the inquiry was extended upto 22.8.1991;
then by another notification dated 16.8.1991 the period was extended upto
31.3.1992; and then by another notification dated 27.3.1992 the period for
completing the inquiry stands extended upto 31.3.1993.
In the
meantime, Justice S.T. Ramalingam became due to retire as a Judge of the Madras
High Court on 30.6.1991 on attaining the age of superannuation and, therefore,
he wrote a letter dated 19.3.1991 to the Chief Secretary of the State drawing
attention to this fact and requesting that necessary modalities be worked out
well in time for his continuance as Commission of Inquiry in the light of the
guidelines issued by the Government of India for the benefits and emoluments
payable to a Judge on his retirement in such a situation.
Just Ramalingam
mentioned in that letter some of the facilities he expected, to which he would
not be entitled from the Government of Tamil Nadu on his retirement. The Chief
Secretary R.P. Kapoor sent a reply to Justice Ramalingam by DO No. 504/CS/91
dated 9.4.1991 as under:- "My dear Hon'ble Justice Ramalingam, Thank your
very much for your letter No. 53 of 19th March, 1991.
The
issues raised in your letter regarding the tenure of the Commission and the
terms and conditions after your superannuation are under active consideration
of the Government and I will be in a position to inform your after a final view
is taken in this case. In the meanwhile may I request that the proceedings may
be continued so that the inquiry can be completed at the earliest possible.
With
very kind regards, Yours sincerely, Sd/- (R.P. Kapoor)" `This letter of
the Chief Secretary apart from promising to give an early reply also requested
Justice Ramalingam to continue with the inquiry so that the same could be
completed early. While the promised reply from the State Government Justice Ramalingam
was awaited, the State Government, without further reference to Justice Ramalingam,
issued a notification dated 10.7.1991 as under:- "Bhopal, the 10th July,
1991 No. F.1-6-91-I-(8-Ka). - Whereas, an independent high power agency
comprising of a single member namely Justice S.T. Ramalingam, Judge of the
Madras High Court was appointed under this Department Notification No.
F.1-3-89-I(i) E.C., dated the 24th February 1989;
And
whereas Justice S.T. Ramalingam has retired as Judge of the Madras High Court,
on 30th of June 1991;
And
whereas for continuing in the said agency after retirement Justice Shri S.T. Ramalingam
has placed certain terms and conditions which have not been found possible for
the Government to accept.
Now,
therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 3
of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (No. LX of 1952), the State Government
hereby appoint Justice Shri G.G. Sohani, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Patna
(Bihar) as single member of the said agency in place of Justice Shri S.T. Ramalingam.
Accordingly
this Department Notification Nos. (I)F.1-3- 89-I(i) - E.C. dated the 24th February 1989, (2) F.1-3 89-1(i) - E.C., dated
the 24th February 1989 and (3) F.1-3-89-I(i) - E.C. dated the 24th February 1989, shall stand amended to this
extent.
By
order and in the name of the Governor of Madhya Pradesh S.K. Misra, Secy.
Accordingly,
by this notification, the State Government replaced Justice S.T. Ramalingam
with Justice G.G. Sohani, retired Chief Justice of Patna High Court as the sole
member of the Commission of Inquiry. The appointment of Justice G.G. Sohani in
place of Justice S.T. Ramalingam was challenged in the M.P. High Court by a
writ petition - M.P.
No.
2359 of 1991- by respondent No. 1 Ajay Singh. By an interim order dated
30.7.1991 passed by the High Court, the operation of the above notification
dated 10.7.1991 was stayed. During the pendency of that writ petition, Justice
G.G. Sohani conveyed to the State Government his disinclination to continue
with the assignment and tendered his resignation. Consequently, the High Court
dismissed that writ petition as infructuous on 5.9.1991. It was only thereafter
that the Chief Secretary of the State Government sent a letter dated 12.9.1991
in continuation of his earlier letter dated 9.4.1991 to Justice Ramalingam
which is as under :
"This
is in continuation to my earlier letter No. 504/CS/91 dated 9th April, 1991 regarding the arrangement for the
Commission of Enquiry (Churhat Children Welfare Society and Lottery),
consequent to your superannuation as a Judge of the Madras High Court.
2. The
State Government have considered your communications about the inconveniences
you were facing in coming to Jabalpur for
want of Air-link between Madras and Jabalpur. The State Government have also considered the terms and
conditions mentioned in your letter of 19th March, 1991. On careful consideration of all
aspects mentioned in your communications it has not been possible for the State
Government to accept the terms and conditions set out in your letter of 19th
March for taking up the work of the above mentioned Enquiry Commission after
your superannuation. The State Government had accordingly appointed Justice Mr.
G.G. Sohani, retired Chief Justice of the Patna High Court to be the single
Member of the Commission. I am, however, happy to convey the deep appreciation
of the State Government for the services rendered by you in the Commission in spite
of all the personal inconvenience it has caused. The Hon'ble Chief Minister had
made a general mention of it in the Vidhan Sabha on the 4th July, 1991.
3.
Delay in reply to your letter is regretted. It was caused because of the
litigation arising out of the appointment of Justice Sohani which was since
been decided.
Wishing
you and your family a very happy life after your superannuation.
Yours
sincerely, R.P. Kapoor" The State Government thereafter issued another
notification dated 9.1.1992 as under:- "Bhopal, the
9th January 1992 No. F.1-6-91-I
(8 Ka). - Whereas in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of
Section 3 of the Commissions of Enquiry Act, 1952 (No. LX of 1952) Justice Shri
G.G. Sohani, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Patna (Bihar) was appointed as single member of an independent
high power agency constituted under this department notification No. F.1-3-89-I(i)-
E.C., dated 24th
February 1998 in place
of Justice Shri S.T.
Ramalingam
vide this department Notification No. F.1-6-91-I(8 Ka), dated the 10th July 1991;
And
whereas Justice Shri G.G. Sohani, retired Chief Justice, High Court of Patna (Bihar) has since withdrawn his consent to work as single
member of the said agency;
Now,
therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 3
of the Commissions of Enquiry Act, 1952 (No.LX of 1952), read with Section 21
of the General Clause Act, 1987 (No. 10 of 1897), the State Government hereby
appoint Justice Shri Kamlakar Choubey, retired Judge of the Allahabad High
Court as a single member of the said agency in place of Shri G.G. Sohani.
Accordingly
this department Notification Nos. (1) F.1 3-89- l(i)-E.C., dated 24th February,
1989, (2) F.1-3-89-I (i) E.C., dated 24th February, 1989, and (3) F.1-3-89-I (i)
E.C., dated the 24th February, 1989, shall stand amended to this extent.
By
order and in the make of the Governor of Madhya Pradesh In this manner, the
State Government after replacing Justice S.T. Ramalingam first by Justice G.G. Sohani,
thereafter replaced him by Justice Kamlakar Choubey, a retired Judge of the Allahabad
High Court, as the sole member of the Commission. It is unnecessary to refer to
the terms and conditions of appointment of Justice Kamlakar Choubey which were
detailed in the General Administration Department Memo. dated 23.3.1991 and are
referred in the High Court judgment, which include the facility of a Camp Office for him
at Varanasi and other facilities of vehicle,
telephone and staff etc.
The
appointment of Justice Kamlakar Choubey as the sole member constituting the
Commission of Inquiry in this manner resulting in the replacement of Justice
S.T. Ramalingam initially appointed for the purpose and to writ petitions -
M.P. Nos. 481 of 1992 and 533 of 1992 - for quashing the notification dated
9.1.1992 appointing Justice Kamlakar Choubey. Challenge to the notification
dated 10.7.1991 issued earlier appointing, Justice G.G. Sohani is academic in
view of Justice Sohani having resigned as indicated earlier. The remaining
significance of the validity of the notification dated 10.7.1991 appointing
Justice G.G. Sohani relates only to the State Government's power to appoint
another person in place of Justice S.T. Ramalingam in the above circumstances.
The
challenge of the writ petitioners before the High Court was that during the
continuance as the single member of the Commission of Inquiry of Justice S.T. Ramalingam,
there was no power in the State Government to replace him as the member of the
Commission and, therefore, the appointment first of Justice G.G. Sohani and on
his refusal, of Justice Kamlakar Choubey, being without any authority, was
invalid.
On
this basis, the relief of quashing the notification dated 9.1.1992 appointing
Justice Kamlakar Choubey was sought. In substance, the argument was that there
being no vacancy in the office, the power under Section 3(3) of the Commissions
of Inquiry Act, 1952, which is available only to fill any vacancy could not be
invoked and there was no other source of power available to the State Government
for this purpose.
The
argument of the learned Advocate General on behalf of the State Government was
that a vacancy had arisen in the membership of the Commission on account of
Justice Ramalinga's retirement from Madras High Court on 30.6.91, and there
being his implied resignation indicated by his inclination to continue on the
terms and conditions suggested by him, which the State (Government did not
consider feasible, the power of the State Government under Section 3(3) of the
Commissions of Inquiry Act to fill the implied vacancy was available. It was
also urged by the learned Advocate General that vacancy in the office of the
single member of the Commission was also implied from the fact that the
appointment of Justice S.T. Ramalingam as the Commission of Inquiry was also
his status as a sitting Judge of the Madras High Court and, therefore, his
retirement as a Judge resulted in creation of the vacancy. The learned Advocate
General also placed reliance on Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, in
aid of the State Government's power under Section 3(3) of the Commissions of
Inquiry Act.
Another
submission of the learned Advocate General was that the State Government was
the sole judge in this matter and was, therefore, competent to choose the
person for making or continuing the inquiry in view of the power available
under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act lead with Section 16 of the
General Clauses Act. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Kailash Joshi
placed reliance on Section 3(2) of the Commission of Inquiry Act read with
Section 14 of the General Clauses Act to support the State Government's action
appointing Justice Kamlakar Choubey contending that the State Government had
power to reconstitute the Commission replacing Justice S.T.
Ramalingam
by another person. An argument challenging the locus standi of the writ
petitioner was also faintly urged by counsel for Kailash Joshi.
The
High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the notification dated
9.1.1992 appointing Justice Kamlakar Choubey. It held that there was no vacancy
in the office of the single member of the Commission to empower the State
Government to fill the vacancy under Section 3(3) of the Commissions of Inquiry
Act. On a construction of the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act and
those of the General Clauses Act relied on in support of the rival contentions,
the High Court came to the conclusion that there was neither any valid reason
or ground nor any power available in the State Government to replace Justice
S.T.
Ramalingam
by another person as was purported to be done by First appointing Justice G.G. Sohani
and then Justice Kamlakar Choubey, both of whom were also retired Judges. The
objection to locus standi for the writ petitioners was also rejected. The
relevant part of the directions made by the High Court is as under:-
42. As
a result of the aforesaid discussion, the petition succeeds and is hereby
allowed. The notification dated 10.7.1991 (Annexure-H) and the consequent
notification based thereon dated 9.1.1992 (Annexure-M) are hereby quashed. It
is open to the State Government to propose to Hon'ble Shri Justice S.T. Ramalingam
the terms and conditions or his continuance as a member of the Commission
equivalent to, loss or more favourable than those offered and fixed for Hon'ble
Shri Justice Kamlakar Choubey. Thereafter depending on his reply the State
Government may continue or discontinue his appointment or substitute another
member in his place. It is also made clear that it would be open to Justice Ramalingam
to accept the terms and conditions offered by the State Government of Madhya
Pradesh or to resign from the office, by taking a decision in that behalf
early, so that the work of the Commission is not unduly hampered and it is
completed well within the extended period i.e. before 31st March, 1993 ....... "
Hence, these petitions for grant of special leave.
Leave
granted.
Shri Shanti
Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh, expressly gave
up the argument advanced before the High Court of the implied resignation of
Justice S.T. Ramalingam giving rise to a vacancy or any implied vacancy on
retirement of Justice Ramalingam as a Judge of the Madras High Court to enable
exercise of power under Section 3(3) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act for
first appointing Justice G.G. Sohani and then Justice Kamlakar Choubey in place
of Justice S.T. Ramalingam The case of the State of Madhya Pradesh in this
Court was confined by Shri Shanti Bhushan to only one point. The only
contention of Shri Shanti Bhushan is that the aid of Section 21 of the General
Clauses Act is available to the State Government for exercising its powers
under the Commissions of Inquiry Act `to add to, amend or vary' the
notification issued initially appointing Justice S.T. Ramalingam as the sole
member of the Commission which enables the State Government to reconstitute the
Commission by replacing Justice S.T. Ramalingam with any other person in the
circumstances of the case. He argued that it is in exercise of this power that
the period fixed initially for completion of the inquiry could be amended
since, to the extent the provisions in the Commissions of Inquiry Act are
silent, recourse can be had to Section 21 of the General Clauses Act for making
a suitable addition, amendment or variation of the initial notification.
According to learned counsel, the power to rescind any notification being
provided in Section 7 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, such a power in
Section 21 of the General Clauses Act was not available, but not so the power
given by Section 21 of the General Clauses Act to add to, amend or vary any
notification. Shri Shanti Bhushan also referred to Section 8-A of the
Commissions of Inquiry Act as an indication to support his submission of the
Government's power to reconstitute the Commission even during the availability
of the person so appointed even though, he stated, Section 8-A is not the
source of power for reconstitution of the Commission.
In
reply, Shri Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel for respondent No.1, submitted
that the scheme of the Commissions of Inquiry Act does not permit invoking
Section 21 of the General Clauses Act except for enlarge ment of the period for
completion of the inquiry by amendment of the notification only to that extent
since the only situations in which reconstitution of the Commission can be made
are provided in the Commissions of Inquiry Act itself and, therefore, the
context rules out the applicability of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act for
any such purpose.
Shri Sibal
also submitted that the construction suggested by Shri Shanti Bhushan is alien
to the scheme of the Commissions of Inquiry Act. Shri Sibal added that Section
8- A of the Commissions of Inquiry Act was enacted for an entirely different
purpose, to ensure continuity of the Commission's work and has nothing to do
with its reconstitution. Shri N.S. Kale, learned counsel for Kailash Joshi,
while supporting the submission of Shri Shanti Bhushan added that Sections 14
and 16 of the General Clauses Act are also available to support the impugned
notifications issued by the State Government.
In the
ultimate analysis, the controversy surviving before us on the rival contentions
is considerably narrowed.
In
substance, the only surviving controversy now is whether in the scheme of the
Commissions of Inquiry Act, the power `to add to, amend or vary' any
notification given by Section 21 of the General Clauses Act is available to
reconstitute a Commission of Inquiry constituted under Section 3 of the
Commissions of Inquiry Act by replacing the sole member appointed initially
with another person during the availability of the sole member initially
appointed. The validity of the aforesaid impugned notifications dated 10.7.1991
appointing Justice G.G. Sohani and dated 9.1.1992 appointing Justice Kamlakar Choubey
to replace Justice S.T.
Ramalingam
depends on the answer to this question which alone now survives for decision.
A
reference to the object and purpose of an enactment in the nature of the
Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 would be worthwhile before proceeding to
examine its scheme and the provisions therein. The object of the enactment, to
the extent it is relevant, while construing the meaning of its provisions may
be of assistance.
The Commissions
of Inquiry Act, 1955 is similar to and is modelled on the corresponding English
statute and provides this historical back ground for the Indian statute.
The
purpose of such an enactment is aptly summarised in the speech of Lord Salmon
on `Tribunals of Inquiry' as under :- "In all countries, certainly in
those which enjoy freedom of speech and a free Press, moments occur when
allegations and rumours circulate causing a nation-wide crisis of confidence in
the integrity of public life or about other matters of vital public importance.
No doubt this rarely happens, but when it does it is essential that public
confidence should be restored, for without it no democracy can long survive.
This confidence can be effectively restored only by thoroughly investigating
and probing the rumours and allegations so as to search out and establish the
truth.
The
truth may show that the evil exists, thus enabling it to he rooted out, or that
there is no foundation is the rumours and allegations by which the public has
been disturbed. In either case, confidence is restored. How, in such
circumstances, can the truth best be established ?" It is for the purpose
of ascertaining the truth in such circumstances that the Commissions of Inquiry
Act, 1952 has been enacted. While construing the provisions of the enactment,
it would be useful to bear in mind its object if occasion arises for
illumination of any grey areas with reference to the object of the enactment as
a permissible aid to construction. The Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 was
enacted to provide for the appointment of Commissions of Inquiry and for
vesting such Commissions with certain powers. Section 2 of the Act contains
definitions. Section 3 provides for appointment of a Commission of Inquiry.
Sub- section (1) of Section 3 lays down that a Commission of Inquiry for the
purpose of making an inquiry into any definite matter of public importance may
be appointed by the appropriate Government it is of opinion that it is
necessary so to do and shall make such an appointment if a resolution in this
behalf is passed by each House of Parliament or, as the case may be, the
Legislature of the State, by notification in the Official Gazette. Sub-section
(2) of Section 3 says that the Commission may consist of one or more members
appointed by the appropriate Government, and where the number is more than one,
one of them may be appointed as the Chairman. Sub-section (3) of Section 3
enables the appropriate Government to fill any vacancy which may arise in the
office of a member of the Commission whether consisting of one or more than one
member, at any stage of an inquiry. Sub-section (4) of Section 3 requires the
appropriate Government to cause to be laid before each House of Parliament or,
as the case may be, the Legislature of the State, the report, if any, of the
Commission of Inquiry together with a memorandum of the action taken thereon,
within a period of six months from the submission of the report by the
Commission to the appropriate Government. Section 4 prescribes that the
Commission shall have the powers or a civil court while trying a suit under the
Code of Civil Procedure in respect of the matters mentioned therein. Section 5
deals with the additional powers of the Commission. Section 5-A relates to the
power of the Commission for conducting investigation pertaining to inquiry.
Section 5-B deals with the power of the Commission to appoint assessors.
Section 6 provides for the manner of use of the statements made by persons to
the Commission.
Section
6-A provides that some persons are not obliged to disclose certain facts.
Section 7 deals with the manner in which a Commission of Inquiry appointed
Section 3 ceases to exist in case its continuance is unnecessary. It provides
for a notification in the Official Gazette by the appropriate Government
specifying the date from which the Commission shall cease to exist if it is of
the opinion that the continued existence of the Commission is unnecessary.
Where
a Commission is appointed in pursuance of a resolution passed by the Parliament
or as the case may be, the Legislature of the State, then a resolution for the
discontinuance of the Commission is also to be passed by it.
Section
8-A provides that the inquiry is not to be interrupted by reason of vacancy or
change in the constitution of the Commission and it shall not be necessary for
the Commission to commence the inquiry afresh and the inquiry may be continued
from the stage at which the change took place. Section 8-B prescribes that
persons likely to be prejudicially affected by the inquiry must be heard.
Section 8-C deals with the right of cross-examination and representation by
legal practitioner of the appropriate Government, every person referred to in
Section 8-B and, with the permission of the Commission, any other person whose
evidence is recorded by the Commission. Sections 9, 10 and 10-A relate to
ancillary matters while Section 12 contains the rule making power of the
appropriate Government. Section 11 provides that the Act is to apply to other inquirying
authorities in certain cases and where the Government directs that the said
provisions of this Act shall apply to that authority and issues such a
notification, that authority shall be deemed to be a Commission appointed under
Section 3 for the purposes of this Act. Admittedly, it is by virtue of Section
11 that the Commission of Inquiry appointed in the present case is deemed to be
a Commission appointed under Section 3 for the purposes of this Act because the
Commission was constituted by a resolution of the Government pursuant to the
direction of the M.P. High Court in the writ petition filed in public interest
by Kailash Joshi as indicated earlier. For the purposes of this case, the
material provisions of the enactment are Sections 3, 7 and 8-A apart from Section
21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 with reference to which the rival
contentions were made.
These
provisions are as under :- The Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 "3.
Appointment of Commission.- (1) The appropriate Government may, if it is of
opinion that it is necessary so to do, and shall, if a resolution in this
behalf is passed by each House of Parliament or, as the case may be, the
Legislature of the State, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint a
Commission of Inquiry for the purpose of making an inquiry into any definite
matter of public importance and performing such functions and within such time
as may he specified in the notifications and the commission so appointed shall
make the inquiry and perform the functions accordingly:
Provided
that where any such Commission has been appointed to inquire into any matter-
(a) by the Central Government, no State Government shall, except with the
approval of the Central Government, appoint another Commission to inquire into
the same matter for so long as the Commission appointed by the Central
Government is functioning;
(b) by
a State Government, the Central Government shall not appoint another Commission
to inquire into the same matter for so long as the Commission appointed by the
State Government is functioning, unless the Central Government is of opinion
that the scope of the inquiry should be extended to two or more States.
(2)
The Commission may consist of one or more members appointed by the appropriate
Government, and where the Commission consists of more than one member one of
them may be appointed as the Chairman thereof.
(3)
The appropriate Government may, at any stage of an inquiry by the Commission
fill any vacancy which may have arisen in the office of a member of the
Commission (whether consisting of one or more than one member).
(4)
The appropriate Government shall cause to be laid before each House of
Parliament or, as the case may be, the Legislature of the State, the report, if
any, of the Commission on the inquiry made by the Commission under sub-section
(1) together with a memorandum of the action taken thereon, within a period of
six months of the submission of the report by the Commission to the appropriate
Government.' "7. Commission to cease to exist when so notified.- (1) The
appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare
that- (a)a Commission (other than a Commission appointed in pursuance of a
resolution passed by each House of Parliament or, as the case may be, the
Legislature of the State) shall cease to exist, if it is of opinion that the
continued existence of the Commission is unnecesary;
(b) a
Commission appointed in pursuance of a resolution passed by each House of
Parliament or as the case may he, the Legislature of the State, shall cease to
exist if a resolution for the discontinuance of the Commission is passed by
each House of Parliament or, as the case may be, the Legislature of the State.
(2) Every
notification issued under sub-section (1) shall specify the date from which the
Commission shall cease to exist and on the issue of such notification, the
Commission shall cease to exist with effect from the date specified
therein." "8-A. Inquiry not to be interrupted by reason of vacancy or
change in the constitution of the Commission.- (1) Where the Commission
consists of two or more members, it may act notwithstanding the absence of the
Chairman or any other member or any vacancy among its members.
(2)
Where during the course of an inquiry before a Commission, a change has taken place
in the constitution of the Commission by reason of any vacancy having been
filed or by any other reason, it shall not be necessary for the Commission to
commence the inquiry afresh and the inquiry may be continued from the stage at
which the change took place." The General Clauses Act, 1897 "21.
Power to issue, to include power to add to, amend, vary or rescind,
notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws. Where, by any Central Act or
Regulation, a power to issue notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws is
conferred, then that power includes a power, exercisably in the like manner and
subject to the like sanction and conditions (if any) to and to, amend, vary or
rescind any notifications, orders, rule or bye- laws so issued." It may be
mentioned that sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 3 and Section 8-A were
inserted while Section 7 was substituted in the Commissions of Inquiry Act,
1952 by the Commissions of Inquiry (Amendment) Act, 1971 (No.79 of 1971) as a
result of the recommendations of the Law Commission of India made in paras 26
and 34 of its 24th Report. In para 26, the recommendation made was to amend
Section 3 of the Act `to provide expressly for the filling up of vacancy or for
an increase in the number of members whenever the Government thinks it
necessary or expedient to do so'. In para 34 of the Report, the recommendation
was to insert a new section 8-A in the light of the proposed amendment in
Section 3 to clarify that `it is not necessary for the Commission to recommence
its inquiry if a change takes place in the constitution of the Commission
during the pendency of an inquiry'. The legislative history of sub-section (3)
of Section 3 and Section 8-A inserted simultaneously by amendment of the Act
shows their interrelation and the object of enacting Section 8-A is to clarity
that the inquiry is not required to recommence or be interrupted by reason of
the filling of any vacancy or decrease in the number of members of the
Commission. Section 8-A along with Sections 8-B and 8-C inserted simultaneously
by amendment in the principal Act relate to the procedure of the Commission and
were inserted to provide for specific situations while Section 8 contains the
general power of the Commission to regulate its own procedure.
The
real question for decision in the present case is:
Whether
the appropriate Government after constituting the Commission under Section 3 of
the Act is empowered to reconstitute the Commission substituting another person
as the sole member in place of the initial appointee? In substance, it is this
power that the State Government claims to have exercised in the present case
and is attempted to be justified by the argument advanced by Shri Shanti Bhushan
to support the appointment first of Justice G.G. Sohani and then of Justice Kamlakar
Choubey in place of Justice S.T.
Ramalingam.
To recapitulate, the argument of Shri Shanti Bhushan is that the power of
reconstituting the Commission in this manner is available to the State
Government under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act which can be invoked in
aid of the power of the Government under Section 3 of the Commissions of
Inquiry Act. Section 8-A of the Commissions of Inquiry Act is referred to by Shri
Shanti Bhushan as an indication of the existence of this power in the State
Government even though he does not rely on it as a source of this power. Shri Kapil
Sibal, on the other hand, contends that the scheme of the enactment shows that
the appropriate Government cannot interfere with the working of the Commission
after its constitution except in the manner expressly provided in the Act and
Section 7 is a clear indication that interference with the functioning of the
Commission is not permissible in any other manner. Shri Sibal contends that
Section 21 of the General Clauses Act is not available to support the
Government's action in the present case.
Shri Shanti
Bhushan concedes that there is no express provision in the Commissions of
Inquiry Act, 1952 empowering the Government to replace or substitute the sole
member of a Commission with another person during the continuance of the
Commission, but he submits that this is implicit in the power to appoint a
Commission and designate its personnel under sub-sections (1) and (2) of
Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act read with the power to amend or
vary any notification available under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act. Shri
Shanti Bhushan also conceded that the aid of Section 21 of the General Clauses
Act is available only if the context and the scheme of the Commissions of Inquiry
Act so permits. He submitted that the Government's power to extend the time
specified in the initial notification for completing the work of the Commission
is not to be found in any express provision in the Commissions of Inquiry Act,
but is exercised by amendment of the initial notification only under Section 21
of the General Clauses Act. According to Shri Shanti Bhushan, the appointment
of a Commission is under sub- section (1) and it is under sub-section (2) of
Section 3 that the person constituting the Commission is appointed even though
it may be a simultaneous process. The replacement of the member initially
appointed to constitute the Commission, according to learned counsel, is by re-
exercise of the power under sub-section (2) of Section 3.
The
submission is that the Commission appointed under sub- section (1) of Section 3
continues while it may be reconstituted by replacement of the member which is
done under sub-section (2).
In our
opinion, the power of the Government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry and
name the person or persons constituting it is in sub-section (1) of Section 3
and is not an exercise divided between subsections (1) and (2) of Section 3 as
suggested by Shri Shanti Bhushan. Sub-section (2) merely confers the power in
the Government to appoint a Commission consisting of one or more members and
provides that if there be more than one member of the Commission, then one of
them may be appointed Chairman of the Commission. lt is not as if sub-section
(1) deals with mere appointment of a Commission of Inquiry without clothing it
with its personnel and the power to appoint the member/members thereof is to be
found only in sub-section (2). That apart, there is nothing in any of these
provisions to suggest that the Government has the power to reconstitute the
Commission after its appointment by replacing the existing sole member with
another person, Sub-section (3) deals expressly with the Government's power to
fill any vacancy which may have arisen since the constitution of the Commission.
The question of replacement of a member appointed initially is obviously beyond
its scope. Sub- section (3) inserted by amendment in Section 3 of the
Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 is a clear contra- indication to the
construction suggested by Shri Shanti Bhushan of sub-sections (1) and (2) of
Section 3 in the scheme of the Act. If the construction suggested by Shri Shanti
Bhushan be correct, there was no need to make this amendment and insert
sub-section (3) which is a clear indication of the limit and extent to which
the power of reconstitution of the Commission can be exercised by the
Government after the Commission has been constituted. As the Law Commission's
Report itself indicates, this amendment became necessary to provide expressly
in the statute for the Government's power to till any vacancy after the initial
constitution Whatever may have been the position prior to insertion of
sub-section (3) in Section 3, there can be no doubt that after its insertion,
the scheme of the enactment excludes the power of reconstitution of the
Commission in a manner not expressly provided therein. In view of sub- section
(3), it is not permissible to construe sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 3 in
any other manner. If the scheme of the enactment gave such wide power to
reconstitute a Commission after its initial constitution and permitted
replacement or substitution of the existing member of a Commission with another
person sans sub-section (3) of Section 3, the power to fill any vacancy was not
required to be provided separately ahat the Commission functions as an
independent a gency free from any govern-mental control after its constitution.
It
follows that after appointment the tenure of members of the commission should
not be dependent on the will of the Government to secure their independence. A
body not so independent is not likely to enjoy the requisite public confidence
and may not attract men of quality and self- respect. In such a situation the
object of the enactment would be frustrated. [302-H. 303-A-C] Minerva Mills
Ltd. v, There Workers, [1954] S.C.R. 465 distinguished.
The
State of Bihar v. D. N. Ganguly.,[1959] S.C.R. 1191, relied on.
in Rangachari
and Soshit Karamchari respectively reiterated in State of Punjab v. Hira Lal,
[1971] 3 SCR 267, and Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash v.
K.S. Jagannathan & Anr., [1986] 2 SCR 17. In Rangachari it was held, 'The
condition precedent may refer either to numerical inadequacy of representation
in the services or even to the qualitative inadequacy of representation'.3 In
the context the expression, 'adequately represented imports consideration of
size as well as values, numbers as well as the nature of appointments'.4 But,
inadequacy of representation is creative of jurisdiction only. It is not
measure of backwardness. That is why less rigorous test or lesser marks and
competition amongst the class of unequals at the point of entry has been
approved both this Court and American courts. But a student admitted to a
medical or engineering college is further not granted relaxation in passing the
examinations. In fact this has been explained as valid basis in American
decisions furnishing justification for racial admissions on lower percentage.
Rationale appears to be that every-one irrespective of the source of entry
being subjected to same test neither efficiency is effected nor the equality is
disturbed. After entry in service the class is one that of employees. If the
social scar of backwardness is carried even, thereafter the entire object of equalisation
stands frustrated. No further classification amongst employees would be
justified as is not done amongst students.
Constitutional,
legal or moral basis for protective discrimination is redressing identifiable
backward class for historical injustice. That is they are today, what they
would not have been but for the victimisation. Remedytuting the Comm ission.
The enactment, therefore, also provides in Section 7 the only situation in
which the Government can rescind the notification issued under Section 3
constituting the Commission. To the extent to which express provision is made
in the enactment, it is common ground, Section 21 of the General Clauses Act,
1897 cannot be invoked. These aspects have to be borne in mind while
considering the tenability of the submission made by Shri Shanti Bhushan with
the aid of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act.
It is
common ground before us that Section 21 of the General Clauses Act can be
invoked only if, and to the extent, if any, the context and the scheme of the
Commissions of Inquiry Act so permits. The general power in Section 21 of the
General Clauses Act is to add to, amend, vary or rescind any notification etc.
In the context of reconstitution of the Commission, the power to fill any
vacancy in the office of a member of the Commission is expressly provided in
sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Commission of Inquiry Act. Similarly, the
power to discontinue the existence of the Commission when it becomes
unnecessary can be exercised by issue of a notification in accordance with
Section 7 of the Act which results in rescinding the notification issued under
Section 3 constituting the Commission. Thus, the power to rescind any
notification conferred generally in Section 21 of the General Clauses Act is
clearly inapplicable in the scheme to the Commissions of Inquiry Act which
expressly provides for the exercise of this power in relation to a Commission
constituted under Section of the Act. The only material remaining general
powers in Section 21 of the General Clauses Act are the power to `amend ' or
`vary' any notification. The extent to which the constitution of the Commission
can be amended or varied by filling any vacancy in the office of a member as
provided in the Commissions of Inquiry Act is also obviously excluded from the
purview of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act which cannot be invoked for
this purpose.
The
surviving question, therefore, is: Whether there is power to reconstitute the
Commission by replacement or substitution of the existing member, though not
provided in the Commissions of Inquiry Act by invoking the residuary power to
amend or vary any notification under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act? In
the first place, in a case like the present where the scheme of the Commissions
of Inquiry Act does provide for amendment and variation of the notification
issued under Section 3 for the purpose of reconstitution of the Commission in
the manner indicated, even that power to amend or vary any notification by
virtue of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act must be taken as excluded by
clear implication in the sphere of reconstitution of the Commission. Moreover,
the power to amend or vary cannot include the power to replace or substitute
the existing composition of the Commission with an entirely new composition. Shri
Shanti Bhushan submitted that the time specified in the initial notification
for completing the task of the Commission is enlarged by subsequent
notification and this is done in exercise of the general power available under
the General Clauses Act to extend time. This submission does not support the argumentof
learned counsel that the general power under Section 21 of the General Clauses
Act is also available to reconstitute the Commission by replacement or
substitution of its sole member. The aid of Section 21 of the general Clauses
Act for enlargement of time does not conflict with the context or scheme of the
Commissions of Inquiry Act.
The
context as well as the scheme of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 clearly
indicate that Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 cannot be invoked to
enlarge the Government's power to reconstitute the Commission constituted under
Section 3 of the Act in a manner other than that expressly provided in the
Commissions of Inquiry Act. There being no express power given by the
Commissions of Inquiry Act to the appropriate Government to reconstitute the
Commission of Inquiry constituted under Section 3 of the Act by replacement or
substitution of its sole member and the existence of any such power being negatived
by clear implication, no such power can be exercised by the appropriate
Government. The scheme of the enactment is that the appropriate Government
should have no control over the Commission after its constitution under Section
3 of the Act except for the purpose of filling any vacancy which may have
arisen in the office of a member of the Commission apart from winding up the
Commission by issuance of a notification under Section 7 of the Act if the
continued existence of the Commission is considered unnecessary. The vacancy in
the office of a member of the Commission may arise for several reasons,
including resignation by the member, when the Government's power to fill the
vacancy under Section 3(3) of the Act can be exercised. Even though a case of
implied resignation creating an implied vacancy was set up by the State of Madhya Pradesh before the High Court, that stand
was rightly abandoned before us by Shri Shanti Bhushan.
We
have no doubt that the rule of construction embodied in Section 21 of the
General Clauses Act cannot apply to the provisions of the Commissions of
Inquiry Act 1952 relating to reconstitution of a Commission constituted thereunder
since the subject-matter, context and effect of such provisions are inconsistent
with such application. Moreover, the construction made by us best harmonises
with the subject of the enactment and the object of the legislation.
Restoring
public confidence by constituting a Commission of Inquiry to investigate into a
'definite matter of public importance' is the purpose of such an exercise. It
is, therefore, the prime need that the Commission functions as an independent
agency free from any governmental control after its constitution. It follows
that after appointment, the tenure of members of the commission should not be
dependent on the will of the Government, to secure their independence. A body
not so independent is not likely to enjoy the requisite public confidence any
may not attract men of quality and self-respect. In such a situation, the
object of the enactment would be frustrated. This aspect suggests that the
construction made by us, apart from harmonising the provisions of the statute,
also promotes the object of the enactment while the construction suggested by
the appellant frustrates both.
Shri Shanti
Bhushan placed reliance on the decision in Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Their Workers,
1-19541 S.C.R. 465. In that decision, the power of the appropriate Government
under Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to constitute an
industrial tribunal for a fixed period of time and to constitute a new tribunal
on the expiry of that period to hear and dispose of references made to the
previous tribunal which had not been disposed of by that tribunal was upheld.
Shri Shanti
Bhushan contended that the observations made in that decision are not confined
to the exercise of that power on the expiry of the tenure of the tribunal first
constituted. It was clearly indicated in that decision that 'when the life of
the first tribunal automatically came to end by efflux of time, no question of
vacancy in the office really arose and, therefore, it was not a case falling
under sub-clause (2) of Section 8 but the situation that arose fell within the
ambit of Section 7'. The observations made in that decision have to be read in
the context of the facts of that case. That decision is clearly
distinguishable.
On the
other hand, Shri Kapil Sibal placed reliance on The State of Bihar v. D.N. Ganguly
& Others, [1959] S.C.R.
1191.
This decision also related to the reference of a dispute under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. It was pointed out that 'it was well settled that the rule
of construction embodied in Section 21 of the General Clauses Act can apply to
the G provisions of a statute only where the subject-matter, context, and
effect of such provisions are in no way inconsistent with such application . On
this basis it was held that it did not apply to Section 10(1) of the Industrial
Disputes Act. On a construction of Section 10(1 ) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, it was held that it does not confer on the appropriate Government
the power to cancel or supersede a reference made thereunder in respect of an
industrial dispute pending adjudication by the tribunal constituted for that purpose.
Reliance placed on Section 21 of the General Clauses Act on behalf of the
Government to invoke such a power by necessary implication was clearly negatived.
The decision of this Court in Minerva Mills Ltd. (supra) was distinguished as
we have already indicated. In our opinion, the ratio in D.N. Ganguly (supra)
supports the view taken by us in the present case that Section 21 of the
General Clauses Act cannot be invoked to support the impugned action of the
State of Madhya Pradesh as contended by Shri Shanti Bhushan. The construction
suggested by Sri Shanti Bhushan is inconsistent with the provisions and the
scheme of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and must, therefore, be
rejected.
Admittedly,
the power under Section 3(3) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 was not
available to the State of Madhya Pradesh in the facts of the present case to
appoint any other person replacing Justice S.T. Ramalingam as the sole member
of the Commission of Inquiry. The power under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section
3 read with Section 21 of the General Clauses Act or even Sections 14 or 16
thereof was also not available for this purpose, for the reasons given earlier.
Accordingly, the notification dated 10.7.1991 appointing Justice G.G. Sohani
and the notification dated 9.1.1992 appointing Justice Kamlakar Choubey were
both invalid. It is not unlikely that Justice G.G. Sohani may have resigned
forming the same opinion when his appointment was challenged. However, the
State of Madhya Pradesh did not choose to reflect and reconsider the legality
of its action in spite of the resignation of Justice G.G. Sohani and it
continued to move in the wrong direction by making another invalid appointment
of Justice Kamlakar Choubey.
Consequently,
these appeals are dismissed and the impugned judgment of the High Court
quashing the notifications dated 10.7.1991 and 9.1.1992 is sustained for the
aforesaid reasons given by us. The State of Madhya Pradesh shall, in view of
the retirement of Justice S.T.
Ramalingam
as a Judge of the Madras High Court in the meanwhile, take necessary action to finalise
his terms and conditions in accordance with the guidelines issued by the
Government of India in this behalf. Such action be taken promptly to avoid any
undue delay in completion of the Commission's task. No costs.
N.P.V.
Appeal dismissed.
Back