File on Gurdwara Act quot;amendmentquot; produced

The file had to be produced on March 2, but the counsel had sought two days8217; time stating that it had yet to be traced. The bench, it may be recalled, had reserved the orders after the conclusion of arguments on March 5. Today, the judges directed the taking up of the case in the chambers tomorrow for quot;further clarification, if anyquot;.

Earlier during the proceedings, the counsel for the respondents, while refuting the petitioner8217;s claim regarding the January 1978 notification not being valid, had stated that the Central government could issue directions pertaining to the Act governing the board as it was an inter-state body. The counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, reiterated that the notification was amending the basic Act. Rebutting the contention regarding the Judicial Commission being co-terminus with the SGPC, the counsel had also stated that the same was possible only if the members were the same or the tenure was the same.

People8217;s panel can be demoralising8217;
Chandigarh: Continuing with the arguments on the petition challenging the functioning of the People8217;s Commission, the counsel for an intervener today stated that the same was likely to have a demoralising effect on the police officials.

Arguing before a division bench, comprising Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice Amar Dutt, the counsel stated that the officials, including the intervener, had fought terrorism.

The counsel for the petitioner added that the antecedents of certain members of the Co-ordination Committee on Disappearances of People in Punjab, which was behind the Commission8217;s formation, was questionable. He added that criminal cases were pending against one of the members before the High Court.

Meanwhile, the counsel for the Co-ordination Committee stated that they were engaged in documentation work as large number of people were missing. Refuting the petitioner8217;s contention regarding the Commission subverting the the democratic structure of the country, the counsel said they were, in fact, strengthening it.

Claiming that a ban on their activities would amount to pre-censorship, the counsel stated that preventing them from making inquiries, even presenting opinion, was wrong. Regarding the petitioner8217;s submission about the Commission reopening decided cases, the counsel stated that there was no bar on criticising the already decided cases. A decision, the counsel stated, could be legal, but still unjust.

She also claimed that inquiring into sub-judice cases was not their objective even though it was permissible to discuss them, within certain limits, in public interest.

Challenging the commission8217;s functioning, a practising advocate of the High Court, Sudarshan Goel, had earlier sought directions for restraining the respondent from carrying out its activities. He had added that the Commission was an attempt to set up a parallel judicial system.