9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Notification under the Jammu & Kashmir Commission of Inquiry Act, 1962. 2. Public Importance of the Matters under Inquiry. 3. Application of Section 10 of the Act. 4. Allegation of Mala Fide Intent. 5. Violation of Article 14 (Equality before the Law). 6. Conduct of the Commission's Proceedings. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Notification under the Jammu & Kashmir Commission of Inquiry Act, 1962: The first contention was that the Notification was not justified by the Act because under the Jammu & Kashmir Constitution, a Minister was responsible for his acts only to the Legislature and no action could be taken against him except for criminal and tortious acts in ordinary courts of law unless the Legislature by a resolution demanded it. This argument was based on Section 37 of the Jammu & Kashmir Constitution, which states that the Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly. The court rejected this contention, stating that Section 37 talks of collective responsibility and does not preclude an inquiry into the actions of a Minister by the Government. Section 3 of the Inquiry Act allows the Government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry, which was upheld by the High Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court. 2. Public Importance of the Matters under Inquiry: The second issue was whether the matters the Commission was set up to inquire into were of public importance. The High Court had found that they were not, but the Supreme Court disagreed. The court noted that the inquiry was into the assets possessed by Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad and whether he had acquired wealth by abusing his official position. The court held that such matters were indeed of public importance, regardless of whether Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad was in office at the time of the Notification. The court also rejected the argument that there was no public agitation over these matters, stating that public importance is determined by the intrinsic nature of the issues, not by public agitation. 3. Application of Section 10 of the Act: The next point was whether Section 10 of the Act, which provides for a person to be heard if their conduct is inquired into, applied only incidentally or directly. The court held that Section 10 applies to both direct and incidental inquiries into a person's conduct. The court rejected the argument that the Act did not provide for the right to be heard, cross-examine, and lead evidence in direct inquiries, affirming that Section 10's provisions apply broadly. 4. Allegation of Mala Fide Intent: The court examined the claim that the Notification was issued mala fide due to political rivalry. The High Court had rejected this contention, and the Supreme Court found no reason to disagree. The court noted that the arrest of Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad and subsequent events were based on allegations of abuse of power and breaches of law and order, and there was no sufficient evidence to prove mala fide intent. The court also dismissed the argument that the Commission was set up to prevent Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad from disturbing public safety and law and order. 5. Violation of Article 14 (Equality before the Law): It was contended that the Notification violated Article 14 because it singled out Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad while other Cabinet members were equally responsible. The court rejected this argument, stating that the inquiry was specifically about wealth acquired by Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad and his associates through misuse of his official position. Thus, he was in a class by himself, justifying the classification and the inquiry. 6. Conduct of the Commission's Proceedings: The final issue was whether the Commission's proceedings violated natural justice and statutory provisions. The court noted that Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad had been given inspection of documents and the opportunity to file affidavits. The court also rejected the claim that he had a right to cross-examine all deponents of affidavits, stating that the right to cross-examine is limited to witnesses giving viva voce evidence, as per Section 10 of the Act. The court emphasized that the Commission's procedure should be flexible and aimed at a speedy disposal of the inquiry. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court, upholding the validity of the Notification and the proceedings of the Commission of Inquiry. The appeal was allowed.
|
