1992 (11) TMI 285 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the State Government's power to replace the sole member of a Commission of Inquiry.
2. Validity of the notifications appointing new members to the Commission of Inquiry.
3. Applicability of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act to the Commissions of Inquiry Act.

Summary:

1. Legality of the State Government's Power to Replace the Sole Member of a Commission of Inquiry:
The Supreme Court examined whether the State Government had the authority to replace Justice S.T. Ramalingam with another person during his tenure as the sole member of the Commission of Inquiry. The Court concluded that the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, does not confer any express power on the State Government to reconstitute the Commission by replacing its sole member. The power to fill any vacancy is provided under Section 3(3) of the Act, but this does not extend to replacing an existing member.

2. Validity of the Notifications Appointing New Members to the Commission of Inquiry:
The Court reviewed the notifications dated 10.7.1991 and 9.1.1992, which appointed Justice G.G. Sohani and Justice Kamlakar Choubey respectively, replacing Justice S.T. Ramalingam. It was held that these notifications were invalid as they were issued without any legal authority. The Court emphasized that the scheme of the Commissions of Inquiry Act does not permit such reconstitution of the Commission.

3. Applicability of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act:
The State Government argued that Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, which allows the power to "add to, amend, vary or rescind" notifications, could be invoked to reconstitute the Commission. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the context and scheme of the Commissions of Inquiry Act exclude the application of Section 21 for such purposes. The Act provides specific provisions for filling vacancies and discontinuing the Commission, and these provisions do not support the reconstitution of the Commission by replacing its existing member.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to quash the notifications dated 10.7.1991 and 9.1.1992. The Court directed the State of Madhya Pradesh to finalize the terms and conditions for Justice S.T. Ramalingam's continuance as the sole member of the Commission in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government of India. The appeals were dismissed, and no costs were awarded.