The Committee for the Protection of Democratic Rights v. the Chief Minister of the State of Maharashtra and Ors.
B.P. JEEV AN REDDY., J. Leave granted.
This appeal is preferred by the Committee for the Protection of
Democratic Righs against the order of the Bombay High Court summarily F
dismissing the writ petition. In the writ petition filed in the High Court
the appellant had asked for the following two reliefs:
"(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the
Commission of Inquiry appointed by the Government of G
Maharashtra by its Notification No. FIR/5693/Bombay-l/
Appointment/SPL-2, dated 25th January, 1993, is not a Court
of Law and there are no cases pending before the said
Commission concerning the riots on and after 6th December,
1992, and on and after 6th January, 1993, and therefore, the
question of subjudice does not arise in the way of the H
852 SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.
Government to launch prosecutions against the culprits
responsible for the said riots;
(b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of
Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other
appropriate Writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India directing the Respondents that they
should carry out investigation as required under the law
against the culprits responsible for the said riots which
occurred on and after December 6, 1992 and on and after
January 6, 1993, in the City of Bombay and its environs and
to launch prosecution against those found prima-facie
responsible for the said riots;"
The appellant had filed the writ petition with the following averments.
The appellants--0rganisation is formed for protecting the human rights
ofthe citizens of this country. It believes in Rule of Law and in upholding
it. There were widespread and violent riots in the city on Bombay and its
D environs on and after December 6, 1992 and again on and after January 6,
1993 in which a large number of people were killed and injured and
properties worth crores of rupees destroyed.· There were allegations that
the law and order machinery has either failed or was colluding with the
perpetrator's of violence and destruction. Though about 3,000 criminal
cases were registered in connection with the said riots, no effective
E investigation has been carried out into those cases, no one has been arrested
and no prosecution has been launched. The reason given by the respondents
for this inaction is that a Commission of Inquiry appointed under the
Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (Justice Sri Krishan Commission) is
enquiring into various aspects of the said riots and that they are awaiting
F the Commission's report. This is a totally unaccetable and impermissible
reason. Amnesty International has also submitted a report to the Hon 'ble
Chief Minister of Maharashtra stating that the appointment of the
Commission is not an impediment to the Government proceeding against
the guilty according to law. Jnspite of the said report, the respondents are
not taking any action in the matter. The appellants submitted that the
G aforesaid Commission is neither a criminal court nor can it punish the
guilty persons and that the respondents have been merely making an excuse
of the said Commission for not taking any steps against the guilty. It is on
the above allegations that the aforementioned two reliefs were asked for.
The High Court dismissed writ petition under a short order which
H reads:
COMMITTEE FOR OEMOCRATIC RIGHTS,., C. M OF STATE Of MAHARASHTRA IBP. JEEVAN REDDY. J.i 853
"Rejected. We are not inclined to exercise writ jurisdiction A
and give directions in a very sensitive matter."
When this SLP came up for orders before this Court, notice was
issued to the respondents under the following order:
"Exemption allowed.
Mr. Tarkunde says that though 3000 criminal cases were
registered in the different police stations in Bombay , none
of them has resulted in actual prosecution being launched in
a criminal court.
In view of the said averment and other allegations made in the writ
petition and special leave petition, notice shall go to the respondents.'
In response to the notice issued, a counter affidavit was filed by an
Inspector of Police on behalf of the 4th respondent (Commissioner of D
Police). On 26th February, 1996 we expressed our unhappiness that in a
matter of such gravity, the cotlnter affidavit has been filed by an Inspector
of Police and not by any responsible person on behalf of the Government
of Maharashtra. The Government of Maharashtra was directed to file an
affidavit of either the Home Secretary or the Additional Secretary in
charge of this matter with full particulars. Accordingly, Shri S.K. Iyengar, E
Secretary (Special), Home Department, Government of Maharashtra has
filed an affidavit stating the following facts:; the allegation that the
Government has evaded its responsibility to prosecute the persons involved
in the said riots is not correct. A total of 2,267 criminal cases were
registered and 8,673 persons were arrested in connection with the riots of
December 1992 and January 1993. A total of 892 cases have been charge- F
sheeted out of which 864 cases are. still pending trial before the various
courts. Alongwith the affidavit, two statements have been filed setting
out the particulars of the cases registered, persons arrested, cases pending
investigation, cases charge-sheeted, persons charge-sheeted, cases convicted,
cases acquitted and other relevant particulars. With respect to the report G
submitted by Amnesty International, it is stated that the Government had
ordered an inquiry into the allegations of violation of human rights
contained in the said report, to be held by a Special Inspector General of
Police. However, when the said Officer was in the midst of recording
statements of witnesses, some of them made applications before Justice
Srikrishna Commission objecting to the inquiry by the Special Inspector H
A General of Police contending that a parallel inquiry by Inspector General
of Police was not permissible in view of the pendency of the matter before
the Justice Sri krishna Commission. In the light of the said development,
the inquiry by Special Inspector General of Police was deferred. It is true
that the State Government has by its Notification dated 23rd January,
1996 discontinued the inquiry by Justice Sri Krishna Commission but the
B said Notification is under challenge in the Bombay High Court. Depending
upon the decision of the High Court, the State Government "might consider
revival of inquiry". This affidavit was sworn to on 3rd April, 1996.
In the light of the averments made by the Special Secretary to the
Government of Maharashtra it would not be correct to say that the
C Government of Maharashtra has not taken any action against the culprits.
A good, number of cases have been charge-sheeted after investigation.
Most of them are pending trial. A few have resulted in conviction and a
few have resulted in acquittal. It is also not correct to say that because of
the appointment of the Justice Srikrishna Commission, the Government
D and its authorities are not taking any action against the persons responsible
for the said riots. May be that in some cases no charge-sheets have been
filed so far but there is no material before us to say that this is on account
of any negligence or deliberate inaction on the part of the authorities.
There is also no material before us to say that the Government machinery
is deliberately refusing to investigate into the incidents which took place
E during those unfortunate riots or to prosecute the culprits identified as
responsible for any of the offences. We are sure that, if any, specific
evidence is brought to the notice of the investigating authorities about any
incident or against any person or persons, the authorities will look into the
same and take necessary action. If any person feels aggrieved that inspite
of bringing specific material to their notice, the authorities are not taking
F action according to law, it shall be open to him to approach the Bombay
High Court for necessary directions. We are sure that the High Court
would deal with any such grievance according to law.
So far as the inquiry by the Special Inspector General of Police into
G allegations of violation of human-rights is concerned, we see no justification
for deferring it on account of the proceeding before the Justice Srikrishna
Commission. The scope of inquiry before the said Commission and the
scope of inquiry before the Special Inspector General of Police is not
identical, though in some respects there may be an amount of over-lapping.
In the circumstances we direct that the said Inquiry should proceed. In
H fact, we think it more appropriate that the appellants should approach the
l"O~!MlfTEE FOR OE~H.J(RATIC RIGHTS• (" "1 OF ~IATE OF M>,HARASHTRA IBP. IEEVAN REUbY J) 855
National Human Rights Commission to look into the alleged violations of A
. human rights contained in the report of the Amnesty International. If the
appellants make such a request and if the National Human Rights
Commission agrees to undertake an inquiry into those allegations, it is
obvious that the inquiry by the Special Inspector General of Police would
be superfluous. It is also made clear that if the National Human Rights
Commission has already inquired into the said allegations and has arrived B
at a conclusion----0ne way or the other--the inquiry by Special Inspector
General of Police would equally be unnecessary. We, therefore, direct the
Special Inspector General of Police, who was appointed to inquire into
the said allegations (or his substitute, who may have been, or who may
be, appointed hereafter) to ascertain whether National Human Rights
Commission has already inquired into the allegations and proceed with his C
inquiry if he finds that it has not. It is equally obvious that if, in future,
the National Human Rights Commission. takes up the said inquiry before
the Special Inspector General of Police submits his report to the
Government, he shall defer his inquiry awaiting the report of the National
Human Rights Commission.
With the above observations the appeal is disposed of. No costs.
V.S.S. Appeal disposed of.
_,