Selective application under Commission of Inquiry Act excludes procedural safeguards unless specifically notified.

Section 11 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 permits the government to apply only selected provisions to an existing inquiry body, and the deeming fiction does not automatically import Sections 8B and 8C when they are omitted by notification. The noticee therefore cannot an independent right to copies of documents, legal representation, or cross-examination unless those safeguards are specifically applied. The general principle of audi alteram partem also yields where the statutory scheme reflects a deliberate exclusion of those procedural protections.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether resort to Section 11 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 necessarily attracts Sections 8B and 8C of that Act to proceedings before an inquiry authority or commission. (ii) Whether, in the absence of the application of Sections 8B and 8C, a noticee before such an inquiry authority has an independent right to copies of documents and affidavits, representation by a legal practitioner, and cross-examination of witnesses. (iii) Whether the doctrine of audi alteram partem survives where the competent government has deliberately excluded Sections 8B and 8C while applying Section 11 of the Act.

Issue (i): Whether resort to Section 11 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 necessarily attracts Sections 8B and 8C of that Act to proceedings before an inquiry authority or commission.

Analysis: Section 11 permits the appropriate government to apply only such provisions of the Act as it considers necessary to an authority already set up for inquiry into a matter of public importance, and the resulting legal fiction that the authority is deemed to be a Commission is confined to the purpose for which the notification is issued. The use of the word "deemed" does not override the government's express choice to apply some provisions and exclude others. Since the notification did not include Sections 8B and 8C, those provisions did not automatically follow from Section 11.

Conclusion: Section 11 does not necessarily bring Sections 8B and 8C into play.

Issue (ii): Whether, in the absence of the application of Sections 8B and 8C, a noticee before such an inquiry authority has an independent right to copies of documents and affidavits, representation by a legal practitioner, and cross-examination of witnesses.

Analysis: The statutory rights of hearing, cross-examination, and legal representation are specifically created by Sections 8B and 8C. Once those provisions are excluded by the notification under Section 11, the noticee cannot claim the same rights as an independent entitlement. The inquiry in question was also treated as a fact-finding or preliminary inquiry, which does not, by itself, confer those procedural rights.

Conclusion: The noticee had no independent right to demand those procedural safeguards.

Issue (iii): Whether the doctrine of audi alteram partem survives where the competent government has deliberately excluded Sections 8B and 8C while applying Section 11 of the Act.

Analysis: The principles of natural justice ordinarily apply unless excluded expressly or by necessary implication, but they can be displaced by statute where the legislative scheme so indicates. Here, the Act itself provides a mechanism for selective application of provisions, and the omission of Sections 8B and 8C reflected a deliberate exclusion. In that situation, the general doctrine of audi alteram partem could not be invoked to resurrect rights that the notification had withheld.

Conclusion: The doctrine of audi alteram partem stood excluded in the circumstances.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the petitioner on the substantive questions, and the matter was left to be taken up further by the Division Bench in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where Section 11 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 is invoked, only those provisions specifically applied by notification govern the inquiry, and excluded procedural safeguards under Sections 8B and 8C cannot be claimed through the general doctrine of natural justice.

---