http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: THE COMMITTEE FOR THE PROTECTION OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE CHIEF MINISTER OF THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       20/11/1996

BENCH: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T      B.P.JEEVAN REDDY.J.      Leave granted.      This appeal  is preferred  by  the  Committee  for  the Protection of  Democratic Rights  against the  order of  the Bombay High Court summarily dismissing the writ petition. In the writ  petition filed in the High Court the appellant had asked for the following two relief:      "(a) that  this  Hon’ble  Court  be      pleased   to   declare   that   the      Commission of  Inquiry appointed by      the Government  of  Maharashtra  by      its        Notification         No.      FIR/5693/Bombay-1/Appointment/SPL-      2, dated 25th January, 1993, is not      a Court  of law  and there  are  no      cases  pending   before  the   said      Commission concerning  the riots on      and after  6th December,  1992, and      on and after 6th January, 1993, and      therefore,    the    question    of      subjudice does not arise in the way      of   the   Government   of   launch      prosecutions against  the  culprits      responsible for the said riots;      (b)  that  this  Hon’ble  Court  be      pleased is issue a writ of mandamus      or  a   Write  in   the  nature  of      Mandamus or  any other  appropriate      Writ,  direction   or  order  under      Article 226  of the Constitution of      India  directing   the  Respondents      that   they    should   carry   out      investigation as required under the      law    against     the     culprits      responsible  for   the  said  riots      which     occurred  on   the  after      December 6,  1992 and  on the after      January 6,  1993, in  the  City  of      Bombay  and  its  environs  and  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

    launch  prosecution  against  those      found prime-facie  responsible  for      the said riots;"      The appellant  had filed  the writ  petition  with  the following averments.  The appellant-organisation  is  formed for protecting  the human  rights of  the  citizens  of  the country. It  believes in  Rule of  Law and  in upholding it. There were  widespread and  violent riots  in  the  city  of Bombay and  its environs  on and  after December  6,1992 and again on and after January 6,1993 in which a large number of people were  killed and  injured and properties worth crores of rupees destroyed. There were allegations that the law and order machinery  has either failed or was colluding with the perpetrators of violence and destruction. Though about 3,000 criminal cases  were registered  in connection with the said riots, no  effective investigation has been carried out into those cases, no one has been arrested and no prosecution has been launched.  The reason given by the respondents for this inaction is that a Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (Justice Srikrishna Commission)  is enquiring into various aspects of the said  riots and  that they are awaiting the Commission’s report. This  is a  totally unacceptable  and  impermissible reason. Amnesty international has also submitted a report to the Hon’ble  Chief Minister  of Maharashtra stating that the appointment of  the Commission  is not  an impediment to the Government proceeding  against the  guilty according of law. Inspite of  the said  report, the respondents are not taking any action  in the matter. The appellants submitted that the aforesaid Commission  is neither a criminal court nor can it punish the  guilty persons and that the respondents has been merely making  an excuse  of the  said  Commission  for  not taking any  steps against  the guilty.  It is  on the  above allegations that  the aforementioned  two reliefs were asked for.      The High  Court dismissed  the writ  petition  under  a short order which reads:      "Rejected. We  are not  inclined to      exercise writ jurisdiction and give      directions  in   a  very  sensitive      matter."      When this  SLP came  up for  orders before  this Court, notice was  issued to  the respondents  under the  following order:      "Exemption allowed.      Mr. Tarkunde  says that though 3000      criminal cases  were registered  in      the different  police  stations  in      Bombay, none  of them  has resulted      in   actual    prosecution    being      launched in a criminal court.      In view  of the  said averment  and      other allegations  made in the writ      petition    and    special    leave      petition, notice  shall go  to  the      respondents".      In response  to the  notice issued, a counter affidavit was filed  by an  Inspector of  Police on  behalf of the 4th respondent (Commissioner  of Police). On 26th February, 1996 we expressed  our unhappiness  that  in  a  matter  of  such gravity,  the   counter  affidavit  has  been  filed  by  an inspector of  Police and  not by  any responsible persons on behalf of  the Government  of Maharashtra. The Government of Maharashtra was  directed to file an affidavit of either the Home Secretary or the Additional Secretary in-charge of this matter  with   full  particulars.   Accordingly,  Shri  S.K.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

Iyengar, Secretary (Special), Home Department, Government of Maharashtra has  filed an  affidavit stating  the  following facts: the  allegation that  the Government  has evaded  its responsibility to prosecute the persons involved in the said riots is  not correct.  A total of 2,267 criminal cases were registered and  8,673 persons  were arrested  in  connection with the riots of December 1992 and January 1993. A total of 864 cases are still pending trial before the various courts. Alongwith the  affidavit, two  statements  have  been  filed setting out the particulars of the cases registered, persons arrested, cases pending investigation, cases charge-sheeted, persons charge-sheeted, cases convicted, cases acquitted and other relevant  particulars.  With  respect  to  the  report submitted by  Amnesty International,  it is  stated that the Government had  ordered an  inquiry into  the allegations of violation of  human rights  contained in the said report, to be held  by a  Special Inspector General of Police. However, when  the  said  Officer  was  in  the  midst  of  recording statements of  witnesses, some  of  them  made  applications before  Justice   Srikrishna  Commission  objecting  to  the inquiry  by   the  Special   Inspector  General   of  Police contending that  a parallal  inquiry by Inspector General of Police was  not permissible  in view  of the pendency of the matter before  the Justice  Srikrishna  Commission.  In  the light of  the  said  development,  the  inquiry  by  Special Inspector General  of Police  was deferred.  It is true that the State  Government has  by its  Notification  dated  23rd January, 1996 discontinued the inquiry by Justice Srikrishna Commission but  High Court.  Depending upon  the decision of the High Court, the State Government "might consider revival of inquiry". This affidavit was sworn to on 3rd April, 1996.      In the  light of  the averments  made  by  the  special Secretary of  the Government  of Maharashtra it would not be correct to  say that  the Government  of Maharashtra has not taken any action against by culprits. A good number of cases have been  charge-sheeted after  investigation. Most of them are pending  trial. A  few have resulted in conviction and a few have  resulted in  acquittal. It  is also not correct to say  that   because  of   the  appointment  of  the  Justice Srikrishna Commission,  the Government  and its  authorities are not  taking any  action against  the persons responsible for the  said riots.  May be  that in  some cases no charge- sheets have  been filed  so far  but there  is  no  material before us  to say that this is on account of any  negligence or deliberate inaction on the part of the authorities. There is also  no material  before us  to say  that the Government machinery is  deliberately refusing  to investigate into the incidents which took place during those unfortunate riots or to prosecute  the culprits identified as responsible for any of the offences. We are sure that, if any, specific evidence is brought  to the  notice of  the investigating authorities about any  icident or  against any  person or  persons,  the authorities will  look into  the  same  and  take  necessary action. If  any  person  feels  aggrieved  that  inspite  of bringing specific  material to their notice, the authorities are not  taking action according to law, it shall be open to him  to   approach  the  Bombay  High  Court  for  necessary directions. We  are sure that the High Court would deal with any such grievance according to law.      So far  as the inquiry by the Special Inspector General of Police  into allegations  of violation of human-rights is concerned, we  see no  justification  for  deferring  it  on account of  the proceeding  before  the  Justice  Srikrishna Commission.  The   scope  of   inquiry  before  the  special Inspector General of Police is not identical, though in some

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

respects there  may be  an amount  of over-lapping.  In  the circumstances  we   direct  that  the  said  inquiry  should proceed. In  fact, we  think it  more appropriate  that  the appellants  should   approach  the   National  Human  Rights Commission to  look into  the alleged  violations  of  human contained in the report of the Amnesty International. If the appellants make  such a  request and  if the  National Human Rights Commission agrees to under take an inquiry into those allegations, it  is obvious  that  the  inquiry  into  those allegation, it  is obvious  that the  inquiry by the Special Inspector General  of Police would be superflous. It is also made clear  that if the National Human Rights Commission has already inquired  into the  said allegations and has arrived at a conclusion- one way or the other-the inquiry by Special Inspector General  of Police  would equally  be unnecessary. We, therefore,  direct  the  Special  Inspector  General  of Police,  who   was  appointed   to  inquiry  into  the  said allegations (or  his substitute,  who may  have been, or who may be,  appointed hereafter)  to ascertain whether National Human  Rights  Commission  has  already  inquired  into  the allegation and proceed with his  inquiry if he finds that it has not.  It is  equally obvious  that if,  in  future,  the National Human  Rights Commission  takes up the said inquiry before the  Special Inspector  General of  Police submit his report  to  the  Government,  he  shall  defer  his  inquiry awaiting the report of the National Human Rights Commission.      With the  above observations the appeal is disposed of. No costs.