2003 (9) TMI 806 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Ruling, Reinforces Natural Justice and Right to be Heard Under Article 21.

The SC dismissed the appeal, affirming the HC's judgment that the Commission's report's remarks against the respondent were inoperative. The Court ... Effect of non-compliance of all time tested and ancient principle of natural justice - Applicability of Section 8B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 ('the Act') - HELD THAT:- It may be noticed that the amendment was brought about, about 20 years after passing of the main Act itself. The experience during past two decades must have made the Legislature to realize that it would but be necessary to notice a person whose conduct the Commission considers it necessary to inquire into during the course of the inquiry or whose reputation is likely to be prejudicially affected by the inquiry. It is further provided that such a person would have a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to adduce evidence in his defence. Thus the principle of natural justice was got inducted in the shape of statutory provision. It is thus incumbent upon the Commission to give an opportunity to a person, before any comment is made or opinion is expressed which is likely to prejudicially affect that person. Needless to emphasise that failure to comply with principles of natural justice renders the action non-est as well as the consequences thereof. Shri Dinesh Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that since no action has been taken against the respondent no.1 so far, in pursuance of the report of the Inquiry Commission there was no occasion for him to move the Court in the matter. It was not the appropriate stage to raise any grievance by filing a petition challenging certain observations made by the Commission of Inquiry. The petition was thus premature. We feel that it may not be necessary for a person to wait till certain action is initiated by the Government considering the report of the Inquiry Commission where the observations made by the Commission are such which militate against the reputation of a person and particularly without giving any chance to such a person to explain his conduct. It would be open for him to move the Court for deletion of such remarks made against him violating the provisions of Section 8B of the Act. We have observed that had it been only a question of any adverse action being taken against the person against whom some adverse finding has been recorded, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant may perhaps would have been entertainable. The government actually takes action or it does not or the fact that the report is yet to be considered from that angle, cannot be a reason to submit that it won't be appropriate stage to approach the Court. There may be occasions where after consideration of report the government may not decide to take any action against the person concerned yet the observation and remarks may be such which may play upon the reputation of the person concerned and this aspect of the matter has been fully taken care of under clause (b) of Section 8B of the Act. It is not, therefore, necessary that one must wait till a decision is taken by the government to take action against the person after consideration of the report. We have already dealt with the point about the right to have and protect one's reputation. We, therefore, find no force in the submission that the respondent no.1 had approached the Court at pre-mature stage. No other point has been urged on behalf of the appellant. In our view, the judgment of the High Court calls for no interference. In view of the discussion held above, the appeal is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Issues Involved:1. Effect of non-compliance with the principles of natural justice.2. Applicability of Section 8B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.3. Right to reputation and its protection under Article 21 of the Constitution.Summary:1. Effect of Non-Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:The Supreme Court addressed the issue of non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, emphasizing that 'one cannot be condemned unheard.' This principle operates even in the absence of a written provision under the law. The High Court of Patna held that the State of Bihar failed to comply with Section 8B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, which mandates providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard to any person whose conduct is being inquired into or whose reputation is likely to be prejudicially affected by the inquiry.2. Applicability of Section 8B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952:Section 8B of the Act requires the Commission to give a person a reasonable opportunity of being heard if their conduct is being inquired into or their reputation is likely to be prejudicially affected. The respondent argued that the remarks made in the Commission's report adversely affected his reputation without giving him an opportunity to defend himself. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's view that the failure to provide such an opportunity violated the principles of natural justice, rendering the action non-est.3. Right to Reputation and Its Protection Under Article 21 of the Constitution:The Court reiterated that the right to reputation is a facet of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. It cited previous judgments, including the case of Smt. Kiran Bedi and Jinder Singh Vs. Committee of Inquiry & Anr., which emphasized that a good reputation is an element of personal security protected by the Constitution. The Court also referred to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1965 (ICCPR), which recognizes the right to hold opinions and freedom of expression subject to the right of reputation of others. The Court concluded that any authority affecting a person's reputation must provide an opportunity for the person to be heard, and failure to do so would be subject to judicial review.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment that the remarks made in the Commission's report against the respondent were inoperative and no action could be taken based on them. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and the statutory provisions under Section 8B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.