http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: KIRAN BEDI & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT18/08/1988

BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) DUTT, M.M. (J) OJHA, N.D. (J)

CITATION:  1988 AIR 2252            1988 SCR  Supl. (2) 518  1988 SCC  (4)  49        JT 1988 (3)   372  1988 SCALE  (2)272  CITATOR INFO :  R          1989 SC 714  (6,16,26,41,46,TO 49)

ACT:     Commissions   of  Inquiry  Act,   l952/Commissions    of Inquiry  (Central)  Rules, 1972: Sections 8B,  8C/Rule  5(5) (a)-Committee  of  lnquiry-Examination  of   witnesses-Delhi Administration directed to examine its witnesses first-Right of cross-examination-Some of the similarly placed persons to be cross-examined in the beginning and others at the end  of the  inquiry  is discriminatory-Non-issuance  of  notice  by Committee  to  a person makes no difference if  that  person satisfies the statutory conditions.

HEADNOTE:     A  Committee consisting of Goswamy and Wadhwa,  JJ.  was constituted  on 23rd February, 1988 to inquire into  certain incidents involving lawyers and police officers, which  took place in January, 1988.     Pursuant   to  this  Court’s  order  dated   2.6.88   to reconsider the whole question relating to the order in which the  witnesses had to be examined, the Committee  issued  an order on 29.6.88 on the basis of which notices under Sec. 8B were  issued  to  three  other  officers,  but  not  to  the petitioners.  It  was  directed by the  Committee  that  the petitioners  be  cross-examined  at  the  beginning  of  the inquiry. On their refusal, the Committee directed the filing of a complaint against them for an offence punishable  under Section 178 IPC. Pursuant to the complaints filed on  behalf of  the  Committee,  criminal  proceedings  were   initiated against the petitioners before the Metropolitan Magistrate.     Against  the  above  directions and  complaints  by  the Committee, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petitions/Special Leave Petitions.     The petitioners submitted that they did not either  wish to  delay  the  proceedings or to  show  disrespect  to  the Committee, but  only wanted to protect their own interest in making the submission before the Committee as per the  legal advice given to them.     Quashing  the  orders  of the  Committee  directing  the filing of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

                                                 PG NO 518                                                   PG NO 519 complaints  and the criminal proceedings  initiated  against the petitioners before the Metropolitan Magistrate  pursuant to the complaints, this Court,     HELD:  1. The Delhi Administration has to examine  first all  its  witnesses  as_required  by  Rule  5(5)(a)  of  the Commissions  of Inquiry (Central) Rules, 1972  framed  under the  Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. Even those  witnesses who may have filed affidavits already may first be  examined in  chief  before  they  are  cross-examined.  The  question whether  a party hair the right of cross-examination or  not shall be decided by the Committee in accordance with Sec. 8C of the Act. This direction does not apply to those witnesses falling under Sec. 8B of the Act, who have to be examined at the  end of the inquiry as opined by the  Committee  itself. [520F-H]     2.1. The petitioners are persons who fall under Sec.  8B of the Act and have to be dealt with accordingly. [522A-B]     2.2  If the three persons to whom notices under Sec.  8B have  been issued are to be examined even according  to  the Committee at the end or  the inquiry there is no justifiable reason to deny the same treatment to the petitioners who are in  the same posit˜on as those three persons. The action  of the  Committee  in asking them to be cross-examined  at  the beginning of the inquiry appears to be discriminatory.  Mere non-issue of notices to them under Sec.8B ought not to  make any  difference  if they  otherwise satisfy  the  conditions mentioned  in  Sec. 8B. The issue of such a  notice  is  not contemplated  under Sec. 8B of the Act. It is enough  if  at any  stage the Commission considers it necessary to  inquire into the conduct of any person. Such person would thereafter he governed by Sec. 8B of the Act. [522E-G]     3.  The Committee should not have, in the  circumstances of  the  case, directed the filing of  a  complaint  against either  of the petitioners for an offense  punishable  under Sec. 178 IPC. [523C, D]     [For  Judgment  containing the reasons for  this  order, please Sec (1989) 1 SCR p. 20.]

JUDGMENT:     ORIGINAL/CIVIL   APPELLATE JURISDICTION:  Writ  Petition No. 626 of 1988 etc. etc.     (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)     G.Ramaswamy,    Additional   Solicitor    General,    S. Murlidharan,  A.D.N. A. Subba Rao and and Krishan Kumar  for the Petitioners.                                                   PG NO 520     Kuldip   Singh,  Additional  Solicitor   General,   K.K. Venugopal, Kapil Sibbal, Lal Chand, C.S. Vaidyanathan,  H,S. Phoolka,  N.S.  Das,  Rajiv  Khosla,  P.  Tripathi,  Kailash Vasdev, Miss A. Subhashini, Harish Salve and Ravinder  Sethi for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered:                                  ORDER     VENKATARAMIAH,  J. It is unfortunate that this case  has arisen between lawyers and police who are both guardians  of law and who constitute two important segments of society  on whom the stability of the country depends. It is hoped  that cordiality between the two sections will be restored soon.     In  order to avoid any further delay in the  proceedings before the Committee consisting of Goswamy and Wadhwa,  JJ., constituted  by Order dated 23rd February, 1988  to  enquire

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

into certain incidents which took place on the 15th January, 1988,  2lst January, 1988 and 17th February, 1988,  we  pass the  following order now but we shall give detailed  reasons in support of this order in due course. The order is as under:     1.  This  order is passed on the basis of  the  material available on record, the various steps already taken  before the Committee and other peculiar features of the case.     2. The Delhi Administration has to examine first all its witnesses as required by Rule 5(5)(a) of the Commissions  of Inquiry  (Central) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred  to  as ’the  Rules’) framed under the Commissions of  Inquiry  Act, 1952  (hereinafter  referred to as "the  Act’).  Even  those witnesses who may have filed affidavits already may first be examined-in-chief  before they are cross-examined, since  it is stated that when the affidavits were filed the  deponents did  not  know what the other parties who  have  also  filed affidavits  had  stated in their  affidavits.  The  question whether  a party has the right of cross-examination  or  not shall be decided by the Committee in accordance with section 8-C  of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of the  case to  which  reference will be made hereafter  this  direction issued to the Delhi Administration to examine its  witnesses first  as provided by rule 5(5)(a) of the Rules referred  to above  does  not  apply to  those  witnesses  falling  under section  8-B of the Act, who have to be examined at the  end of the inquiry as opined by the Committee itself.                                                   PG NO 521     3. We have gone through the several,affidavits and other material  placed before the Committee and also the  -Interim Report  dated 9.4.88 passed by the Committee. In para 13  of the Interim Report the Committee has observed thus:     "During  the course of the inquiry, we have to   examine the  conduct  of  various police  officers  and  others  and particularly,  as the record .shows, of the D.C.P.  (North), Addl. D.C.P. (North), S.H.O., P.S. Samepur (Badli) and  S.I. Incharge Police Post, Tis Hazari and S.I.,Samepur (Badli)." In para 14 of the Interim report it is observed:     "Lawyers have seriously urged that this Committee should send a report recommending suspension of the D.C.P.  (North) Ms. Kiran Bedi"     Ultimately the Committee recommended the transfer of the petitioners  in these cases, namely, Ms. Kiran Bedi,  D.C.P. (North)  and Jinder Singh S.I. Incharge, ’Police  Post,  Tis Hazari. Section 8-B of the Act reads :     "8-B. If, at any stage of the inquiry, the Commission-     (a)  considers it necessary to inquire into the  conduct of any person ; or     (b)  is of opinion that the reputation of any person  is likely to be prejudicial affected by the inquiry,     the  Commission shall give to that person  a  reasonable opportunity  of  being heard in the inquiry and  to  produce evidence in his defence :     Provided that nothing in this section shall apply  where the credit-of a witness is being impeached."     In  its Interim Report the Committee  has  unequivocally observed  that  it  had to examine the  conduct  of  various police  officers, and in particular among others  Ms.  Kiran Bedi,  D.C.P.  (North) and Jinder Singh ,  S.  I.,  Incharge Police Post, Tis Hazari.                                                   PG NO 522     Having  given  our  anxious  consideration  to  all  the aspects  of the case we hold that the petitioners Ms.  Kiran Bedi and Jinder Singh are persons who fall under section 8-B

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

of the Act and have to be dealt with accordingly.     4.  According to the Committee’s own opinion  formed  in the  light of the facts and circumstances of the  case,  all those  persons to whom notices under section 8-B of the  Act are  issued have to be examined at the end of  the  inquiry. This  is obvious from the order of the Committee  passed  on 29.6.88 after it was asked by this Court by its order  dated June  2, 1988 to reconsider the whole question  relating  to the  order in which the witnesses had to be examined in  the case. In its order dated 29.6.88 the Committee has  observed thus:     "Without  going into the controversy if Rule 5(5) is  an independent  Rule or is governed by section 8-B and  8-C  of the  Act, we would direct that in the circumstances  of  the case  three persons namely, the Additional  Commissioner  of Police (Special Branch), D.C.P. (Traffic) and Mr. Gopal  Das Kalra, SI to whom notices under section 13-B of the Act have been issued be examined at the end of the inquiry."     If three persons referred to above to whom notices under section  8-B  have  been  issued are  to  be  examined  even according  to the Committee at the end of the inquiry  there is  no-justifiable reason to deny the same treatment to  the petitioners  Ms. Kiran Bedi and Jinder Singh who are in  the same  position  as those three persons. The  action  of  the Committee  in  asking  them  to  be  cross-examined  at  the beginning of the inquiry appears to us to be discriminatory. Mere  non issue of notices to them under section  8-B  ought not  to  make any difference if they otherwise  satisfy  the conditions  mentioned  in section 8-B. The issue of  such  a notice is not contemplated under section 8-B of the Act.  It is  enough  if  at any stage  the  Commission  considers  it necessary  to inquire into the conduct of any  person.  Such person  would thereafter be governed by section 8-B  of  the Act.  The  Committee  should  have  considered  whether  the petitioners were entitled to be treated as persons  governed by section 8-B of the Act before asking them to get into the witness  box for being cross-examined. If the Committee  had found  that the petitioners were covered under  section  8-B then perhaps they would not have been asked to get into  the witness  box for  being cross-examined till the end  of  the inquiry.  The Committee would have then asked them  to  give                                                   PG NO 523 evidence along with others who were similarly placed at  the end of the inquiry.     On  behalf of both the petitioners it is submitted  that they did not either wish to delay the proceedings or to show disrespect to the Committee but only wanted to protect their own interest by making the submission which they made before the Committee as per legal advice given to them.     This is not a case where the circumstances in which  the several  incidents  that had taken place were not  known  to anybody  else. The affidavits and other material before  the Committee show that there were a large number of persons who were  eye-witnesses  to  the incidents and  why  could  give evidence before the Committee.     Taking into consideration all the aspects of the case we feel that the Committee should not have in the circumstances of  the  case  directed the filing of  a  complaint  against either  of the petitioners for an offence  punishable  under section 178 I.P.C.     In view of the foregoing we feel that the orders of  the Committee  directing  the filing of the complaints  and  the criminal  proceedings  initiated  against  the   petitioners before   the   Metropolitan  Magistrate  pursuant   to   the complaints  filed  on  behalf of  the  Committee  should  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

quashed  and  we accordingly quash the said  orders  of  the Committee and also the criminal proceedings.     A  judgment containing the reasons for this  order  will follow.     Before  concluding  this order we record  the  statement made  by  Shri Kuldip Singh,  learned  Additional  Solicitor General  appearing  for the Delhi  Administration  that  the Delhi  Administration  and its police  officers  will  fully cooperate  with  the  Committee so that  the  Committee  may complete  its work as early as possible. We also record  the statement  made  by Shri G.  Ramaswamy,  learned  Additional Solicitor  General that he and his clients, the  petitioners in  this case hold the Committee in great respect  and  that they  never intended to show any kind of discourtsey to  the Committee.  He also expresses apology for using one  or  two strong  words  against the Committee in the  course  of  the arguments in this Court.