KIRAN BEDI & ORS.versusCOMMITIEE OF INQUIRY & ANR.

                       KIRAN BEDI & ORS.
A                               v.
                   COMMITIEE OF INQUIRY & ANR.

                              AUGUST 18, 1988

           [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, M.M. DUTT AND N.D.
                          OJHA, JJ.l

           Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952/Commissions of Inquiry
    (Central) Rules, 1972: Sections 8B, BC/Rule 5(5)(a)-Committee of
    Inquiry-Examination of witnesses-DelhiAdministraJion directed to
G   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.

D         A Committee consisting of Goswamy and Wadhwa, JJ. was con-
    stituted on 23rd February, 1988 to inquire into certain incidents involv-
    ing 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
ij examined, the Committee issned an order on 29.6.88 on the basis of
    which notices under Sec. SB were issued to three other officers, bot not
    to the petitioners. It was directed by the Committee that the petitioners
    be cross-examined at the beginning of the inqnlry. On their refusal, the
    Committee directed the nting of a complaint against them for an offence
    punishable under Section 178 IPC. PursuantJo the complaints med on
p behalf of the Committee, criminal proceedings were Initiated against
   ·the petitfoners hefpre 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.

H          Quashing the orders of the Committee directing the Ollng of1!.ie
                                        518
               k-IRAN BED! v, COMMITIEE OF INQUIRY                 519
                           I

-complaints- and the cril1)lnal proceedings Initiated against the peti- A
 tioners 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 S(S)(a) of the Commissions of Inquiry
(Central) Rules, 1972 framed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, B
1952. Even those witnesses who may have filed affidavits afready may
first be examined in chief before they are cross-examined. The question
whether a party bas the right of cross-examination or not shall be
decided by the Committee in accordance with Sec. SC of the' Act. This
direction does not apply to those witnesses falling under Sec. SB ofthe
Act, who have to be examined at the end of the inquiry as opined by the C
Committee itself, [520F-HI
     2.1. The petitioners are persons who fall under Sec. SB of the Act
and have to be dealt with accordingly~ [522A-BJ
      2.2 If the three persons to whom notices under Sec. SB have been .
issued are to be examined even according to the Committee at the end of D
the inquiry there is no justifiable reason to deny the same treatment to
the petitioners 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 be discriminatory. Mere non-Issue
of notices to them under Sec.SB ought not to make any difference if they
otherwise satisfy the conditions mentioned In Sec. SB. The Issue of such E
a notice Is not contemplated under Sec. SB of the Act. It ls enough lfat
any stage the Commission considers it necessary to inquire Into the
conduct of any person. Such person would thereafter be governed by
Sec. SB oftbe Act. [522E·Gl

      3. The Committee should not have, in the circumstances onbe F
case, directed the filing of a complaint against either of the petitioners
for an offence punishable under Sec. 178 IPC. [523C, D]
     . [For Judgment containing the rea.sons' for this 'order, please
~c (1989) 1·scR p. zlf.T       ·
      ORIGINAL/CIVIL APPELLATE                 JURISDICT-ION: Writ G
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. :Rao, A. Sobba Rao and KrishairKumar for the Petitioners. H
    520          SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A        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:
B
                                     ORDER
    • ·.J

          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 stabil-
    ity of the country depends. It is hoped that cordiality between the two
c   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 into certain incidents
    which took place on the 15th January, 1988, 21st January, 1988 and
D   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
E   record, the various steps already taken before the Committ~e and
    other peculiar features ofthe 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
F Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
  Act'). Even those witnesses wbo 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-
G 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 witnes-
  se~1falling under section 8-B of the Act, who have to be examined at
H the end of the inquiry as opined by the Committee itself.
'•




      KIRAN BED! v. COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY IVENKATARAMIAH, J.]               521

             3. ·We have gone through the. several affidavits and other mate-
     . rial placed before the Ci>mm1ttee ·and also the lnte"tim 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       e'
                  and particularly, as the record .shows, of the D. C :P.
                  (North), Addi. D.C.P. (North), S.H.O., P.S. Samepur
                  (Badli) and S.I. Incharge Pdlice Post, TisHazari and S.I.,
                . Samepur (Badli)."

            In para 14 of the Interim report it is observed:
                                                                                  c
                       "Lawyers liave seriously urged that, this Committee
                  should send a report recommending suspension of the
                  D.eP. (Nortli) Ms. KiranBedi"

            Ultimately the Committee ·recommended the transfer of the             D
      petitioners in these cases, namely, Ms. Kiran Bedi, D.C.P. (North)
      and Jinder SinghS.I. Incharge, "Police Post, Tis Hazari.

            Section 8~B elf the Act reads:

                      "8-B. If, at any stage of the inquiry, the Commis~          E
                  sion-

                        (a) considers it necessary t\) inquire into the conduct
                  of any person; or                         .

                        {b) is of opinion that the reputation of any person is    E
                  likely!\> be prejudicially affected by the inquiry,

                  the Commission· shall give to that person a reasonable_
                  oppdrtunitv of being heard in the inquiry and to produce
                  evidence in his-defence:               ·
                                                                                  G
                       Provided that nothing in this section shall apP,IY
                  where the credit.of a witness is being impeached."

            lnits 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           H
    522        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A Singh, S.I., lncharge Police Post, TisHazari.

         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 of the Act and have to be dealt with
    accordingly.
B
        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 ii\quiry. This is obvious from the order of
  the Committee passed on 29.6.88 after it was asked by this Court by its
C Orde"r 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
D              the Act, we would direct that in the circumstances of the
               case three persons namely 1 the Additional Commissioner
               of Police (Special Branch), D.Q:.P. (Traffic) and Mr. Gopal
               Das Kalra, SI to whom notices under section 8-B of the Act
               have been issued be examin'ed at the end of the inquiry."

E       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 beg-
F inning 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
G would thereafter be governed by section 8-B of the Act. The Commit-
  tee 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
H witness box for being cross-examined till the end of the inquiry. '[he
KIRAN BED! v. COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY [VENKATARAMIAH, J.]                 523

Committee would have then asked them to give evidence along with
                                                                              A
others who were similarly placed at the end of the inquiry.

      On behalf ofboth the petitioners it is submitted that they did not
either wish to delay the proceedings or to show disrespect to the Com-
mittee but only wanted to protect their own interest by making the
submission which they made before the Cmµmittee as per legal advice           B
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 th_\:re
·were a large number of persons who were eye-witn'esses to the i.nci-
dents and who could-give evidence before the Committee.                       c
      Taking into consideration all the aspects of the-$se 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.                                   D

       In view of the foregoing we feel that the orders of the Committee
direciing 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
quashed and we accordingly quash the said orders of the Committee             E
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         F
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 state-
ment made by Shri G. Ramaswamy, learned Additional Solicitor
General that he and his clients, the petitioners in this case hold the
Committee in great respe(\t and that they never intended to show any          G
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.

G.N.