Rehman & Ors Vs. Thf State of U.P. & Ors  INSC 348 (16 September
RAJENDRA BABU, R.C. LAHOTI.
order dated 14th
October, 1998 shall be
treated as a part of this oraer.
Ravi Shankar, Secretary, Home Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh has filed
an affidavit dated 8th of December, 1998 in this Court on 11th of December,
the affidavit, he has also filed summary of the Justice C.D. Parekh Commission
Report. From the affidavit of Mr. Ravi Shankar it transpires that the Parekh
Commission Report, which was submitted as early as in 1988, relating to the
riots which took place in Meerut in
September, 1982 was considered by State Cabinet and the following decisions
were taken by it.
Report of the Commission be tabled on the floor of the House in accordance with
the provisions of Section 3(4) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.
Report relating to the incident of 20.9.1982 was received by the State
Government in November, 1968. Since then up till now no former "Government
considered it proper to take any decision. The Commission did not find any
particular person responsible and in spite of expressing the opinion that the
Local Administration did not apply proper discretion to control the riots on several
places it did not recommend to punish any particular official. In order to
maintain the religious and political harmony established by the present
Government in Meerut City and also to avert any flare-up in any particular class of
community and action on the report of the Commission has not been found
expedient in public interest.
The Report of the Commission is disapproved and it be consigned to records. It
appears that the State Cabinet with a view to 'maintain religious and political
harmony in Meerut City and to avert any flare-up in any particular class or
community* has decided not to take any further action on the basis of the Parekh
Commission Report, which itself did not identify any particular person as
responsible for the riots nor fixed responsibility for dereliction of duty on
any official. State Government having considered the report and taken a
decision, this writ petition does not require any further consideration, and we
direct that it be consigned to records.
before parting with this case, we would like to express our anguish at the
manner in which reports of the Commissions of Inquiry are being treated by the
States. In this case, it has taken more than a decade for the State Government
to take notice of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry headed by a former
Judge of the High Court. On account of such inaction for a long period of time,
the very purpose of the constitution of a Commission of Inquiry under the
Commission of. Inquiries Act, 1952 gets frustrated and the argument that such
Commissions are appointed under- the Act only as an eye-wash acquires
appropriate that when in a matter of 'definite public importance', a Commission
of Inquiry is appointed under the Commission of Inquiries Act, 1952, the State
Government should examine the Report expeditiously and decide what action, if
any, 1s required to be taken on that Report promptly. To keep a report pending
for years together and, as, in this case, for a decade, does no credit to
anybody. Reports of Commissions of Inquiry should not be allowed to gather dust
for years together as it reflects adversely on the utility of such commissions
. and would affect the credibility of the entire exercise.
conscious of the fact that in this particular case, between the period when the
riots took place in September, 1982 and the final decision taken by the Cabinet
in 1998, a number of Governments had changed in the State of Uttar Pradesh. But be that as it may, the fact,
still remains that prompt notice of r.he Report which was expected to be taken
of the Report was not taken. This is not a healthy trend and delay gives ris^
to avoidable suspicions about the motives for delay. It 1s best avoided. We
hope we shall not have any other occasion to say this in any other case.
of this order shall be sent to the Home Secretary, Union of India, with a
request to bring the above observations to the notice of all the State