UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRFTARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI Vs. SHIROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE, AMRITSAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar (hereinafter called the S.G.P.C.) and its President Gurcharan Singh, filed a suit on 2.2.1985 in forma pauperis to claim damages of rupees one thousand cores against Union of India through Home Secretary, Union of India through Finance Secretary and the State of Punjab for the loss caused to movable and immovable properties of various Gurdwaras including Golden Temple, Amritsar, during operation Bluestar in June, 1984 and thereafter ; and for mandatory injunction directing the Defendants and their principal functionaries to tender unqualified apology before the Sikh Sangat for causing mental, sentimental, social and spiritual set back and deep sense of injury to the honour and self -respect of the Sikhs and for a declaration that the attack on various Gurdwaras mentioned in Annexure 'P -1' by the Armed Forces, Para -Military Forces of the Union of India and Police Force of the State of Punjab was wholly unwarranted, unprovoked, malicious and designed by the then Ruling Party for gaining political advantage by dubious, questionable and unlawful methods.

(2.) The suit was contested by the Defendants and it was pleaded that the action taken during the operation Bluestar was under the sovereign powers of the Government and, therefore, suit for damages was not maintainable. Various other pleas were also raised for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) While the suit was pending, on 30.11.1985 the Plaintiffs made an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to seek amendment of the plaint so as to add 34 more persons detailed in para 2(i) of the application. Out of the 34 persons sought to be added, nineteen are the central ministers, five are police officers and Deputy Commissioners working in the State of Punjab and the rest are four Army Generals in charge of the operation Bluestar ; the then Director General of C.R.P ; the then Inspector General of Border Security Force and the four Advisers to the then Governor of Punjab. These persons were sought to be added on the plea that they were personally responsible for carrying out wanton, illegal and motivated attack, destruction and damage to the movable and immovable properties of the Gurdwaras and had acted in conspiracy with each other and to further the illegal and unlawful, political ambitions of the ruling party and, therefore, they were also jointly and severally liable with the Union of India and the State of Punjab. On the added persons, notice under Sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been served now and that is why they were being added after service of notice. The application was opposed by the Union of India and a written reply was filed. It was highlighted that the suit as originally brought was incompetent and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the same and unless it was held that the main suit was maintainable, the question of allowing the amendment did not arise. It was also the stand in the reply that under the Armed Forces Punjab and Chandigarh) Special Powers Act, 1983, Punjab had been declared a disturbed area and the Armed Force Officers were authorised to enter the various hideouts and search the persons who were involved in the crimes and they were further authorised to use force even to the extent of causing death in certain circumstances and in view of Sec. 7 thereof no suit or other legal proceedings could be instituted, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government, against any person in respect of anything done or purported to be done in exercise of the powers conferred by the Act. It was also the stand of the replying Defendants that similar powers were given to the Punjab Police Officers under the Punjab Disturbed Areas Act, 1983, and no suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings against the Punjab Officers could be instituted except with the previous sanction of the State Government as provided in Sec. 6 thereof, and since sanction had not been obtained, they could not be added as Defendants One of the additional points raised which deserves to be noticed, is that the suit against the added persons was time barred on the date the application for amendment was filed and on this account also, they could not be added as parties to the suit.