BANSI LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this petition are that the Central Government by a Notification dated May 28, 1977, constituted a Commission comprising Mr. Justice J. C. Shah, a former Chief Justice of India, under S. 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (hereinafter the Act). The terms of the Commission were broadly to inquire into the facts and circumstances relating to subversion of lawful conventions, processes and well-established administrative procedures and practices, abuse of authority, misuse of powers, excesses and malpractices, misuse of powers of arrest and detention, indiscriminate, high handed or unauthorised demolition of property during the emergency and into specific instances of mal-treatment of and atrocities on persons arrested or detained, their relatives and close associates and' of compulsion and use of force in the implementation of family planning programme. The inquiry was to cover the acts of public servants and also the conduct of other individuals who may have directed, instigated, sided or abetted or otherwise associated themselves with the commission of the aforesaid acts by public servants. The Commission was also required to consider other relevant matters and recommend measures to prevent recurrence of the aforesaid acts in future. The inquiry was to be in regard to complaints or allegations that may be made by any individual or association in such form and accompanied by such affidavits as may be prescribed by the Commission. The Central Government also made applicable all provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of S. 5 of the Act.

(2.) It appears that the following were the specific instances in which the Commission proceeded to inquire in regard to the conduct of the petitioner, Mr. Bansi Lal, who was at one time the Chief Minister of Haryana, namely; (1) detentions under MISA of Pritam Dutta of Rohtak, Ishwar Lal Choudhary of Bhiwani, Pitamber Lal Goyal of village Bapora, Bhiwani, Murlidhar Dalmia of Bhiwani, and (2) demolition of buildings in Hissar.

(3.) It further appears that besides but subject to the procedure provided in the Act specially Ss..8B and 8C thereof, and the Commissions of Inquiry Rules, 1972 (hereinafter the Rules), the Commission also evolved its own procedure and also made some regulations and. also retained freedom to modify its procedure to meet the requirements of any case. From its Interim Report, Part I, page 10, paras 3.7, 3.8 and 3.9, it transpires that it divided the inquiry into two stages; first, to ascertain primafacie whether on the materials before it, and the evidence of the person invited to appear and assist the Commission under Rule 5(2) of the Rules, there has been any excess and if so by whom; second, to issue notices under Rule 5 (2) (a) of the Rules and summons under S. 8B of the Act, if on a consideration of the evidence it appeared to the Commission necessary to inquire into the conduct of any person or the Commission was of the opinion that the reputation of any person was likely to be affected by the inquiry. After hearing the evidence of the persons to whom notices under S. 8B of the Act were issued and of the witnesses produced in support of the versions of those parties and also considering the evidence of the witnesses who had been examined for the Commission and whose presence was required by the partics to whom notices under S. 8B had been issued, the Commission was to give to the parties or their advocates opportunity to address the Commission on the evidence.