Fazalur Rehman and Others, Petitioners vs State of UP and Others, Respondents.

DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ, S. RAJENDRA BABU AND.R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.

Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 – Section 3 when in a matter of "definite public importance" a Commission appointed under the act, held, State Government should examine the report expeditiously and decide promptly what action, if any, is required to be taken on the party.

In September 1982 there were terrible riots in Meerut, UP, resulting in death, misery and loss of property affecting thousands of people. A Commission of Inquiry was appointed to enquire into the causes. The Commission (C.D. Parekh) Report was submitted in November 1988.

Ten years later, the UP Cabinet considered the Report and deciding not to take any action "in order to maintain the religious and political harmony established by the present Government in Meerut City and also to avert any flare up in any particular class or community", disapproved the Report and consigned it to records. This information was given to the Supreme Court by the Secretary, Home Department of UP on affidavit.

Find that the writ petition did not require further consideration and consigning it to records, the Supreme Court.

It has taken more than a decade for the State Government to take notice of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry headed by a former Judge of the High-Court. On account of such inaction for a long period of time. the very purpose of the constitution of a Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 gets frustrated and the argument that such Commissions are appointed under the Act only as an eyewash acquires credibility.

It is appropriate that when in a matter of "definite public importance", a Commission of Inquiry is appointed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, the State Government should examine the report expeditiously and decide what action, if any, is required to be taken on that report promptly. To keep a report pending for years together and, as in this case, for a decade, does no credit to anybody. Reports of Commissions of Inquiry should not be allowed to gather dust for years ...

In this particular case, between the period when the riots took place in September, 1982 and the final decision taken by the Cabinet in 1998, a number of Governments had changed in the State of UP ...

Order

... It transpires that the Parekh Commission Report, which was submitted as early as in 1988, relating to the riots. which took place in Meerut in September, 1982 was considered by the State Cabinet and the following decisions were taken by it:

i) The Report of the Commission be tabled on the floor of the House.

ii) The Report relating to the incident of 20.9.1982 was received by the State Government in November, 1988 Since then up till now no former Government considered it proper to take any decision. The Commission did not find any particular person responsible and in spite of expressing the opinion that the local administration did not apply proper discretion to control the riots in several paces; it did not recommend to punish any particular official. In order to maintain the religious and political harmony established by the present Government in Meerut city and also to avert any flare-up in any particular class or community any action on the Report of the Commission has not been found expedient in public interest.

iii) The Report of the Commission is disapproved and it be consigned to record".

... The State Government having considered the Report and taken a decision, this writ. petition does not require any further consideration and we direct that it be consigned to records.

.. However, before parting with this case, we would like to express our anguish at the manner in which reports of the Commissions of Inquiry are being treated by the .States. In this case, it has taken more than a decade for the State. Government to take notice of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry headed by a former Judge of the High Court. On account of such inaction for a long period of time, the very purpose of the constitution of a: Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 gets frustrated and the argument that such Commissions are appointed under the Act only as an eyewash acquires credibility.

It is appropriate that ... the State Government should examine the report expeditiously and decide what action, if any, is required to be taken on that report promptly. To keep a report pending for years together and, as in this case, for a decade, does no credit to anybody. Reports of Commissions of Inquiry should not be allowed to gather dust for years together as it reflects adversely on the utility of such Commissions and would affect the credibility of the entire exercise.

The fact remains that prompt notice of the Report which was expected to be taken was not taken. This is not a healthy trend and delay gives rise to avoidable suspicions about the motives for delay. It is best avoided ... A copy of this order shall be sent to the Home Secretary, Union of India, with a request to bring the above observations to the notice of all the State Governments/Union Territories. (Source: (1999) Supreme Court Cases 683).