1989 (1) TMI 366 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of the procedure adopted by the Committee regarding the sequence of witness examination.
2. Applicability of Section 8-B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act to Smt. Kiran Bedi and Jinder Singh.
3. Justification of calling the petitioners to the witness box for cross-examination at the initial stage.
4. Legality of the orders directing prosecution under Section 178 IPC.
5. Maintainability of an appeal against the filing of the complaint.
6. Challenge to the filing of the complaint being infructuous due to non-challenge of the Magistrate's order issuing summons.
7. Appropriateness of interference by the Court at the stage of filing the complaint.

Summary:

1. Legality of the Procedure Adopted by the Committee:
The Supreme Court held that it was unnecessary to lay down a rigid procedure for the sequence of witness examination by the Committee apart from the directions already given in its order dated 18th August 1988.

2. Applicability of Section 8-B:
The Court concluded that Smt. Kiran Bedi and Jinder Singh fell within the category of persons contemplated by Section 8-B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act. The Committee's own interim report stated that the conduct of these petitioners was to be examined, thereby attracting Section 8-B. The Court emphasized that the statutory protection of Section 8-B should have been extended to the petitioners.

3. Justification of Calling Petitioners for Cross-Examination:
The Court held that the Committee was not justified in calling upon the petitioners to stand in the witness box for cross-examination at the very initial stage of the inquiry. Section 8-B contemplates an opportunity for the person governed by the section to produce evidence in their defense, which would be compromised if required to testify at the beginning.

4. Legality of Orders Directing Prosecution:
The Court found that the orders directing the filing of complaints against the petitioners for an offense punishable under Section 178 IPC were illegal. The petitioners had valid justification for refusing to take an oath for cross-examination at the initial stage, based on their belief that they were covered by Section 8-B.

5. Maintainability of Appeal Against Filing of Complaint:
The Court held that since the petitioners had also filed writ petitions challenging the same orders, the power of the Court to pass an appropriate order under Articles 32 and 142 of the Constitution could not be seriously doubted.

6. Challenge to Filing of Complaint Being Infructuous:
The Court decided that since the orders directing the filing of complaints were held invalid, the consequential complaints and proceedings, including the Magistrate's orders issuing summons, could not survive.

7. Appropriateness of Interference by the Court:
The Court concluded that compelling the petitioners to face prosecution despite the finding that the orders directing complaints were illegal would cause prejudice to them. Thus, interference by the Court was justified.

These points, along with those stated in the order dated 18th August 1988, formed the basis for the Supreme Court's judgment.