The
Committee for The Protection of Democratic Rights Vs. The Chief Minister of The
State of Maharashtra & Ors [1996] INSC 1470 (20 November 1996)
B.P.
Jeevan Reddy, K.S. Paripoornan B.P. Jeevan Reddy. J.
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
Leave
granted.
This
appeal is preferred by the Committee for the Protection of Democratic Rights
against the order of the Bombay High Court summarily dismissing the writ
petition. In the writ petition filed in the High Court the appellant had asked
for the following two relief:
"(a)
that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the
Commission of Inquiry appointed by the Government of Maharashtra by its
Notification No.
FIR/5693/Bombay-1/Appointment/SPL-
2, dated 25th January, 1993, is not a Court of law and there are no cases pending
before the said Commission concerning the riots on and after 6th December,
1992, and on and after 6th January, 1993, and therefore, the question of subjudice
does not arise in the way of the Government of launch prosecutions against the
culprits responsible for the said riots;
(b)
that this Hon'ble Court be pleased is issue a writ of mandamus or a Write in
the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the Respondents that they
should carry out investigation as required under the law against the culprits
responsible for the said riots which occurred on the after December 6, 1992 and
on the after January 6, 1993, in the City of Bombay and its environs and of
launch prosecution against those found prime-facie responsible for the said
riots;" The appellant had filed the writ petition with the following
averments. The appellant-organisation is formed for protecting the human rights
of the citizens of the country. It believes in Rule of Law and in upholding it.
There
were widespread and violent riots in the city of Bombay and its environs on and after December 6,1992 and again on and after January 6,1993 in which a large number of people
were killed and injured and properties worth crores of rupees destroyed. There
were allegations that the law and order machinery has either failed or was
colluding with the perpetrators of violence and destruction. Though about 3,000
criminal cases were registered in connection with the said riots, no effective
investigation has been carried out into those cases, no one has been arrested
and no prosecution has been launched. The reason given by the respondents for
this inaction is that a Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (Justice Srikrishna
Commission) is enquiring into various aspects of the said riots and that they
are awaiting the Commission's report. This is a totally unacceptable and
impermissible reason. Amnesty international has also submitted a report to the Hon'ble
Chief Minister of Maharashtra stating that the appointment of the
Commission is not an impediment to the Government proceeding against the guilty
according of law.
In spite
of the said report, the respondents are not taking any action in the matter.
The appellants submitted that the aforesaid Commission is neither a criminal
court nor can it punish the guilty persons and that the respondents has been
merely making an excuse of the said Commission for not taking any steps against
the guilty. It is on the above allegations that the aforementioned two reliefs
were asked for.
The
High Court dismissed the writ petition under a short order which reads:
"Rejected.
We are not inclined to exercise writ jurisdiction and give directions in a very
sensitive matter." When this SLP came up for orders before this Court,
notice was issued to the respondents under the following order:
"Exemption
allowed.
Mr. Tarkunde
says that though 3000 criminal cases were registered in the different police
stations in Bombay, none of them has resulted in actual
prosecution being launched in a criminal court.
In
view of the said averment and other allegations made in the writ petition and
special leave petition, notice shall go to the respondents".
In
response to the notice issued, a counter affidavit was filed by an Inspector of
Police on behalf of the 4th respondent (Commissioner of Police). On 26th February, 1996 we expressed our unhappiness that
in a matter of such gravity, the counter affidavit has been filed by an
inspector of Police and not by any responsible persons on behalf of the
Government of Maharashtra. The Government of Maharashtra was directed to file
an affidavit of either the Home Secretary or the Additional Secretary in-charge
of this matter with full particulars. Accordingly, Shri S.K. Iyengar, Secretary
(Special), Home Department, Government of Maharashtra has filed an affidavit stating the following facts: the allegation that
the Government has evaded its responsibility to prosecute the persons involved
in the said riots is not correct. A total of 2,267 criminal cases were
registered and 8,673 persons were arrested in connection with the riots of
December 1992 and January 1993. A total of 864 cases are still pending trial
before the various courts.
Along with
the affidavit, two statements have been filed setting out the particulars of
the cases registered, persons arrested, cases pending investigation, cases
charge-sheeted, persons charge-sheeted, cases convicted, cases acquitted and
other relevant particulars. With respect to the report submitted by Amnesty
International, it is stated that the Government had ordered an inquiry into the
allegations of violation of human rights contained in the said report, to be
held by a Special Inspector General of Police. However, when the said Officer was
in the midst of recording statements of witnesses, some of them made
applications before Justice Srikrishna Commission objecting to the inquiry by
the Special Inspector General of Police contending that a parallal inquiry by
Inspector General of Police was not permissible in view of the pendency of the
matter before the Justice Srikrishna Commission. In the light of the said
development, the inquiry by Special Inspector General of Police was deferred.
It is true that the State Government has by its Notification dated 23rd January, 1996 discontinued the inquiry by Justice
Srikrishna Commission but High Court. Depending upon the decision of the High
Court, the State Government "might consider revival of inquiry". This
affidavit was sworn to on 3rd April, 1996.
In the
light of the averments made by the special Secretary of the Government of Maharashtra
it would not be correct to say that the Government of Maharashtra has not taken
any action against by culprits. A good number of cases have been charge-sheeted
after investigation. Most of them are pending trial. A few have resulted in
conviction and a few have resulted in acquittal. It is also not correct to say
that because of the appointment of the Justice Srikrishna Commission, the
Government and its authorities are not taking any action against the persons
responsible for the said riots. May be that in some cases no charge- sheets
have been filed so far but there is no material before us to say that this is
on account of any negligence or deliberate inaction on the part of the
authorities. There is also no material before us to say that the Government
machinery is deliberately refusing to investigate into the incidents which took
place during those unfortunate riots or to prosecute the culprits identified as
responsible for any of the offences. We are sure that, if any, specific
evidence is brought to the notice of the investigating authorities about any icident
or against any person or persons, the authorities will look into the same and
take necessary action. If any person feels aggrieved that inspite of bringing
specific material to their notice, the authorities are not taking action
according to law, it shall be open to him to approach the Bombay High Court for
necessary directions. We are sure that the High Court would deal with any such
grievance according to law.
So far
as the inquiry by the Special Inspector General of Police into allegations of
violation of human-rights is concerned, we see no justification for deferring
it on account of the proceeding before the Justice Srikrishna Commission. The
scope of inquiry before the special Inspector General of Police is not
identical, though in some respects there may be an amount of over-lapping. In
the circumstances we direct that the said inquiry should proceed. In fact, we
think it more appropriate that the appellants should approach the National
Human Rights Commission to look into the alleged violations of human contained
in the report of the Amnesty International. If the appellants make such a
request and if the National Human Rights Commission agrees to under take an
inquiry into those allegations, it is obvious that the inquiry into those
allegation, it is obvious that the inquiry by the Special Inspector General of
Police would be superflous. It is also made clear that if the National Human
Rights Commission has already inquired into the said allegations and has
arrived at a conclusion- one way or the other-the inquiry by Special Inspector
General of Police would equally be unnecessary.
We,
therefore, direct the Special Inspector General of Police, who was appointed to
inquiry into the said allegations (or his substitute, who may have been, or who
may be, appointed hereafter) to ascertain whether National Human Rights
Commission has already inquired into the allegation and proceed with his
inquiry if he finds that it has not. It is equally obvious that if, in future,
the National Human Rights Commission takes up the said inquiry before the
Special Inspector General of Police submit his report to the Government, he
shall defer his inquiry awaiting the report of the National Human Rights
Commission.
With
the above observations the appeal is disposed of.
No
costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2