Commission of Inquiry Reports

The rationale for appointing a Commission of Inquiry is for making an inquiry into a ‘‘definite matter of public importance’&...

The rationale for appointing a Commission of Inquiry is for making an inquiry into a ‘‘definite matter of public importance’’. Hence the report of a Commission necessarily relates to a matter of public importance. Therefore the public has a right to know about the contents of the Report. Why? Because our Supreme Court by a creative interpretation of the guarantee of freedom of speech and expression in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, ruled in S P Gupta’s case way back in 1980, that people have the fundamental right to know, to have information about matters of public interest and importance. Thus by judicial interpretation, freedom of information is guaranteed to an Indian citizen irrespective of Freedom of Information legislation. The Right to Information is not absolute and in a given case, disclosure of some parts of the Report which could adversely affect national security or the working of intelligence agencies may be withheld. But the government cannot keep people in the dark about the findings and report of the Commission in respect of a matter of public importance for which it was appointed to inquire.

Atrocities were committed on the Sikh community during the anti-Sikh riots of 1984. About 4,000 Sikhs lost their lives and thousands were injured. On account of shoddy police investigations, deliberate in some cases, majority of the culprits were acquitted by Courts because of lack of evidence. This generated a deep sense of injustice in the Sikh community. The Ranganath Mishra Commission Report was unsatisfactory. After persistent demands, Nanavati Commission was appointed in May 2000. After several sittings the Commission gave its report in February 2005. In this background, the delay on the part of the government to disclose the Nanavati Commission report is scandalous.

It is reported that the government has now agreed to table the Phukan Commission Report in Parliament. The contents of the report should have been disclosed much earlier. The reluctance to do so is incomprehensible particularly because it has a material bearing on the alleged wrongdoing by the former Defence Minister, George Fernandes, who has been the subject of relentless unsubstantiated allegations. If the Phukan Commission’s Report has found no lapse on the part of the former Defence Minister, respect for the people’s Right to Know and basic fairness to George Fernandes compels disclosure of the Report.

Lawyers’ Reluctance for the Bench

There was a time when a lawyer was elated on being requested by the Chief Justice to join the Bench. Lawyers have accepted judgeship in the past out of a spirit of public service even when the carry-home packet of a High Court judge was Rs 2,100. Today, the scene is different. A lawyer puts forward several excuses for declining judgeship. Today, the allure of the Bench has faded in India and elsewhere. In England, the waning attraction of judicial office is partly attributable to the fabulous income of leading silks. The leader of the London Bar, Lord Grabiner QC, is believed to have an annual income of œ3 million. Some of our leading lawyers, especially those practicing on the criminal side and specialising in bail applications, are not far behind. Chief Justice Murray Gleeson of Australia recently lamented that some of the reasons for not accepting offers of judicial appointment are the declining public standing of the judiciary and the increasing workload at many courts.

In our country, the workload on judges is tremendous. The view that judges work for only four-and-half hours in the Supreme Court or five hours in High Courts is a misconception. Our Supreme Court judges work after Court hours and most arduously during weekends. The same is the position with High Court judges, some of whom work beyond Court hours. The frequent criticism about judges having long vacations overlooks that during vacation, judgments in important matters have to be prepared after proper research and deliberation. True, there are some judges who are sluggards and some whose judgments are inordinately delayed. But remember that the overwhelming majority of our judges conscientiously discharge their duties under a punishing workload.

Frisking the Speaker

Renowned constitutional jurist, late H M Seervai, invariably consulted dictionaries to resolve legal issues. If Seervai’s practice were adopted, the controversy surrounding our Speaker’s refusal to participate in a Commonwealth meeting in Australia could have been avoided because the word ‘‘frisk’’ signifies ‘‘running of hands rapidly over another’s person’’, as distinguished from ‘‘search’’ which is ‘‘to strip and examine contents’’. Thus there is a basic distinction between frisking and searching. There was no question of searching the Speaker. And in view of the high stature and size of Somnathda, there is no doubt that the hands of the Australian immigration authorities would have rapidly and gently glided over his formidable person without intrusively breaching his privacy or affronting his dignity.