UNION OF INDIA Vs. DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed by the Union of India, representing the Central Bureau of Investigation, against the order of the Judicial Committee (presided by Justice D.P. Wadhwa) on 21.8.1989, directing CBI "to produce on affidavit copies of statements of S.I. Jinder Singh and Mr. Rajesh Yadav, if any, recorded u/s 161 Criminal Procedure Code . or though not recorded u/s 161 Criminal Procedure Code . but recorded in the case diaries."

(2.) Mr. Jinder Singh, S.I., was in-charge of the police post Tis Hazari during the incidents on 21.1.1988 and 17.2.1988. Mr. Rajesh Yadav had admittedly led the mob of about 3000 to 4000 people and had allegedly stormed Tis Hazari Courts on 17.2.1988. It is important to note that these are the last two witnesses in what can loosely be called the prosecution story. Main witnesses such as Mrs. Kiran Bedi and some lawyers, who are described as "S8-B witnesses" are already examined and cross-examined. After the completion of the cross-examination of Mr. Jinder Singh S.I., and Mr. Rajesh Yadav the bulk of the evidence in regard to the said two incidents would come on record. What would remain would be the evidence by way of defence, if any, led by the two sides. The impugned order was passed by the Committee on an application (M.A. No. 21/89) filed on behalf of the Delhi Bar Association and also by the Advocates to whom notices u/s 8-B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, had been issued. The obvious purpose in summoning the said CBI record is the protection of the right to reputation of the lawyers through cross-examination of the said two witnesses. In the earlier round of litigation against the orders of the Committee, Smt. Kiran Bedi vs. The Committee of Enquiry, (Writ Petition No. 626 of 1988 decided on 4.1.1989), AIR 1989 SC 714 the Supreme Court has held that right to reputation is a personal right protected by Article 21 of the Constitution. Apart from the aid to the protection of fundamental right under Article 21, cross-examination is an entrenched judicial method to unearth truth in regard to an incident.

(3.) We think that the present round of litigation started by the CBI is unfortunate. CBI is only a special investigative agency. It has and should not have any stakes in the results of the said judicial inquiry. If the lawyers and the police officers feel apprehensive about an order of the Committee, however, misplaced it may be, it is understandable. In our judgment, Mrs. Kiran Bedi and Others vs. Delhi administration, (Civil Writ Petition No. 822 of 1989, decided on 4.5.1989), we had held that "frequent interruptions by applications or judicial proceedings in High Court or Supreme Court has serious effect of eroding the said parameters (of Commission of Inquiry) expeditious disposal of inquiry by a Commission is a legislative mandate and is in the public interest and in consonance with public policy. Public memory is short and, therefore, the life of the Commission should not be long." If the Central Govt. wants a certain investigation to be made by the CBI and also appoints a Commission under the Commissions of Inquiry Act to ascertain truth by public enquiry in a public case, the role of CBI, which is only an agency of the Government, would be to act in aid of the Commission of Inquiry. This is because we cannot expect that the Govt., which orders public enquiry on a democratic demand to be conducted by a Judge of a High Court, would permit its own agency like CBI to delay or thwart the judicial inquiry. The CBI, perhaps unwittingly, is trying to do the same claiming special powers, immunities and -protections under Cr. P.C. The immediate effect is to take the clock back and the proceedings before the Commission are postponed.