http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: MR.  FAZALUR REHMAN & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THF STATE OF U.P.  & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       16/09/1999

BENCH: S.  RAJENDRA BABU, R.C.  LAHOTI.

JUDGMENT:

DER       Our order dated 14th October, 1998 shall be treated as a part of this oraer.

     Mr.   N.   Ravi Shankar, Secretary,  Home  Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh has filed an affidavit dated 8th of  December, 1998 in this Court on 11th of December,  1998. Alongwith  the  affidavit, he has also filed summary of  the Justice  C.D.  Parekh Commission Report.  From the affidavit of  Mr.   Ravi  Shankar  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 State Cabinet  and  the following decisions were taken by it.

     i)  Report of the Commission be tabled on the floor of the  House in accordance with the provisions of Section 3(4) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.

     ii)  Report relating to the incident of 20.9.1982  was received  by the State Government in November, 1968.   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 on several places 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 of community and 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 records.  It appears  that  the  State Cabinet  with  a view to ’maintain religious  and  political harmony  in  Meerut  City and to avert any flare-up  in  any particular  class or community* has decided not to take  any further action on the basis of the Parekh Commission Report, which  itself  did  not identify any  particular  person  as responsible  for  the  riots nor  fixed  responsibility  for dereliction  of  duty  on any  official.   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

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

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  Commission of.  Inquiries Act, 1952 gets frustrated and the  argument that such Commissions are appointed under- the Act only as an eye-wash acquires credibility.

     It  is appropriate that when in a matter of  ’definite public  importance’,  a Commission of Inquiry  is  appointed under  the  Commission  of Inquiries Act,  1952,  the  State Government  should  examine  the  Report  expeditiously  and decide  what action, if any, 1s 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.

     We  are conscious of the fact that 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 Uttar  Pradesh.   But  be that as it may,  the  fact,  still remains that prompt notice of r.he Report which was expected to  be  taken  of the Report was not taken.  This is  not  a healthy  trend and delay gives ris^ to avoidable  suspicions about  the motives for delay.  It 1s best avoided.  We  hope we  shall  not  have any other occasion to say this  in  any other case.

     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.