JANAMOHAN DAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 7/05/1992. Cuttack was calm when the day dawned. Who had known that a "disaster of unprecedented proportion" was going to strike and disturb placid waters of the Mahanadi and Kathajodi ? But it took place. A man-made tragedy took a great Toll (124 deaths, according to the State), and it was our well known hooch tragedy. Not that the people of this State have not known about such tragedies taking place in the past, but then, it was the great dimension of the tragedy which stunned the people, so much so that they almost lost faith in all instrumentalities of the State. People started thinking whether they had been left to the wolves to be killed. The question with which we are seized is about the responsibility of the State to find out why spurious liquor took the toll of 124 lives, and what steps are required to be taken to stop recurrence of such a heinous crime, at the root of which lies the naked greed for money and nothing else. Ours is a "socialist democratic republic" and its people have been promised by the Constitution a right to live and not to be killed except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Do the instrumentalities of the State owe no obligation to enforce Article 21 of the Constitution ? But then, how can they do so unless they know what they are required to do in this regard ? And, how would they know about it unless they find out who are the evil-doers and how they conjointly act to fulfill their evil designs ? To inform the mind of the Government in this regard, should it not try to find out all the relevant facts to enable it to tailor its laws, to gear up its machinery, to plug the loop-holes and take other required steps ? Why should the Government feel shy to know full facts necessary for the aforesaid purpose ? And if it feels shy, does not discharge its legal obligations, remains inactive to serve an alien purpose, can this Court not direct it to discharge its duty ? These are some of the questions with which we are seized in these petitions, whose ramifications are too wide and too serious to soft-pedal in any way our constitutional obligation.

(2.) We may state at thhe threshold itself that we are conscious of the position that our Constitution has meticulously defined the functions of the various organs of the State, although the doctrine of separation of powers has not been recognised in its absolute rigidity. So, the legislature, the executive and the judiciary have to function within their respective spheres demarcated by the Constitution. No organ can usurp the function assigned to another. Indeed, the functioning of democracy depends upon the strength and independence of each of its organs. It is for this reason that the power of judicial review given to this Court is exercised by it with restraint and within self-imposed limits. It would not fetter the power of the other wings of the State, nor would it exercise its power in a matter which relates to the policies of Government or the making of the laws, nor also when a matter lies within the "unfettered" discretion of the other wings of the State. While exercising the power of judicial review, the Court does not function as an appellate authority. It springs into action as the upholder of the rule of law and sentinel of democracy when it is satisfied that the executive has either transgressed the law or has by its inaction permitted others to transgress the law.

(3.) The occasion to approach this Court is non-appointment of a Commission of Inquiry (colloquially called, 'Judicial Inquiry' and it is this expression which we shall use hereinafter) as visualised by the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act'). Another reason is non-payment of compensation to the kith and kin of the victims of the tragedy. The petitioners seeks a. direction of the State Government to do both. Let us see whether the law permits this Court to do so. JUDICIAL INQUIRY