COMMUNAL VIOLENCE

A.G. Noorani on Aborting Bombay Riots Probe

In response to a national clamor the Maharashtra Government appointed, on January 25, 1993, a Commission of Inquiry to probe into the riots, headed by a highly respected Judge of the Bombay High Court, factice IN. Srikrishna nominated by the Chief Justice. Scope

 No sooner had the Shiv Sena-BJP coalition came into power in the State last March, than it began to make noises about the futility of the probe. On July 6, 1993, six Sena leaders led by Manohar Joshi had demanded expansion of the scope of the inquiry to cover the bomb blasts in Bombay, on March 12, 1993. By then the Commission had begun recording evidence. On July 7, 1993, the Sena itself filed an affidavit before the Commission. So did the then leader of the Opposition in the State Assembly, Mr. Gopinath Munde, the BJP on October 28, 1993. He is now Deputy Chief Minister.

 On April 6, 1995, the Commission very fairly adjourned the proceedings till April 28 in order to give me to the new Sena-BJP Government to decide on its stand on the inquiry... On May 15, 1995, the Government expanded the terms of reference of the Commission by adding three terms: "the circumstances and the immediate cause of the bomb blasts, whether they had "any common link" with the riots, and whether "the circumstances, events and immediate causes" of the riots "were part of common design".

 These were the Sena and the BJP's charges. Their incorporation in the terms of reference as late as last May implied that they were prepared to back them up in a judicial forum. The Commission's dissolution implies that these charges were groundless while those against the Sena and the BJP could not be defended.

 "Matters relating to the investigation and trial of serial bomb-blasts cases pending before the TADA designated Court" were explicitly excluded from the amended terms of reference. In June 1995 the Commission promptly invited statements on the additional matters. On the riots' part, it had finished 23 of the 32 police station areas... The Government cites its own wrongs in support of its decision. It first stalled the Commission's proceedings and, next, imposed additional tasks only to argue now, as Mr. Joshi does, that "it would have needed more time to probe the circumstances that led to the blast".

 The malafides are apparent. The Judge's opinion was not sought. He would have replied.

 The reasons Mr. Joshi cites are cognizable by the Courts in determining the malafides of his decision "to scrap the Commission under Section 7 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act". It was no mere refusal of extension of time. It was a resolve to "scrap" the body for four reasons delay; usefulness of delayed findings;  

pending cases concerning the riots and the bomb blasts and media coverage of the proceedings. Not one of them is new or relevant. All were known when the body was set up. Mr. Joshi's elaborations make matters worse for him. "I feel the Commission's existence is unlikely to expedite the judicial process or the pending cases". This alone suffices to vitiate the action... No Commission works to "expedite.

pending cases" but for ascertainment of the whole truth of the matter beyond individual culpability. Everyone knows that a Commission's findings do not bind a court of law as the Supreme Court ruled in Shan Kant's case in 1992.

Since the action has been taken avowedly under Section 7 of the Act, its provisions are relevant. A Commission appointed in pursuance of a resolution of the legislature can be dissolved by a resolution for its "discontinuance" Section 7(b). The reasons will become apparent in the debates. The provision does not stipulate the grounds. In contrast, one appointed by the Government can be dissolved by it only "if is of opinion that the continued existence of the Commission is unnecessary" Section 7(a) and on no other ground.

Mr. Joshi's party is very much under a cloud for something worse than corruption. It is for participation in the taking of human lives.

Justice P.B. Sawant rightly observed in S.R. Bommai's case: "Secularism is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The acts of a State Government which are calculated to subvert or sabotage secularism in our Constitution, can lawfully be deemed to give rise to a situation in which the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution" and thus justify imposition of President's rule.

(Source: The Statesman, 31 January, 1996)

Government Statement on Bombay Riots

The National Human Rights Commission has revived the cases relating to December 1992 Bombay riots which are pending before it. The Commission had decided not to proceed with these cases earlier since the Maharashtra Government had constituted the Srikrishna Commission of Inquiry into these incidents, in view of the bar provided in Section 36(1) of the Protection of Human Rights Act 1993. As the Srikrishna Commission has now been wound up, the National Human Rights Commission has revived these cases and decided to dispose them of The National Human Rights Commission has informed that no definite time frame can be fixed for conducting the inquiry at this stage.

(Source: LSUQ No. 372 dated 29 February, 1996 by P.D.S. Patel)