2020 (8) TMI 883 - SC - Indian Laws

High Court dismisses petition challenging Inquiry Commission, stresses need for concrete evidence to prove bias.

Ghanshyam Upadhyay Versus State of U.P. and Ors.

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking to scrap a Commission of Inquiry and establish a Special Investigation Team. The ... Seeking for issue of Writ of Mandamus - initiation of action with regard to the destruction of residential building and other properties of Accused-Vikas Dubey and to safeguard the life of the Accused - conflict of interest - HELD THAT:- The entire basis for making the allegations as contained in the miscellaneous petition is an Article relied on by the Petitioner said to have been published in the newspaper. There is no other material on record to confirm the truth or otherwise of the statement made in the newspaper. In our view this Court will have to be very circumspect while accepting such contentions based only on certain newspaper reports. This Court in a series of decisions has repeatedly held that the newspaper item without any further proof is of no evidentiary value. The said principle laid down has thereafter been taken note in several public interest litigations to reject the allegations contained in the petition supported by newspaper report. In the case on hand, the Petitioner is a lawyer by profession who practices in Mumbai and has come up by way of Public Interest Litigation. Therefore, the allegations of bias made by him against the members of the Commission merely on the basis of newspaper reports and nothing more, are liable to be rejected outright. The Petitioner herein is an advocate who practices law in Mumbai, Maharashtra and is in no way connected to the incident in question which took place in U.P. However, the petition filed by him in public interest was accepted and the Commission of Inquiry consisting of persons who had held high position has been constituted. The enquiry held would be in public domain and the Petitioner has already been granted the liberty of participating therein. The report of the enquiry is ordered to be filed in the petitions which were filed before this Court. Therefore, there would be sufficient safeguard to the manner in which the inquiry would be held - the Petitioner has been raising unnecessary apprehensions and repeated applications are being filed which in fact is hampering the process of inquiry. The instant petition/application is without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. Issues:1. Constitution of a Commission of Inquiry under the Commission of Inquiries Act, 1951.2. Allegations of bias and conflict of interest against the Chairman and Member of the Commission.3. Reliance on newspaper reports as the basis for allegations.4. Applicability of principles of bias in the context of Inquiry Commissions.5. Petitioner's standing in the case and the nature of the proceedings.Analysis:1. The judgment pertains to a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed seeking the scrapping of a Judicial Commission and the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate issues related to the destruction of a residential building and properties of an accused individual. The State Government had constituted a Commission of Inquiry under the Commission of Inquiries Act, 1951, which was expanded based on a suggestion by the Court. The Petitioner sought the scrapping of the Commission citing conflict of interest and bias concerns regarding the Chairman and Member of the Commission.2. The Petitioner raised objections based on newspaper reports, alleging bias and conflict of interest against the Chairman and Member of the Commission. Despite previous applications being dismissed for lack of merit, the Petitioner persisted with similar contentions. The Court emphasized the need for concrete evidence beyond newspaper reports to establish allegations of bias. The judgment referenced legal precedents highlighting that newspaper reports alone hold no evidentiary value.3. The Court discussed the role and limitations of Inquiry Commissions under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, emphasizing that their findings are not binding and enforceable. The judgment cited cases where the Court refused to rely on Commission findings to overturn convictions. The Court also referred to a case where the Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the right to raise bias concerns against a Commission appointee, emphasizing the need for substantial and uncontroverted evidence to establish bias.4. Given the Petitioner's legal background and the fact that the proceedings were based on public interest, the Court rejected the allegations of bias solely relying on newspaper reports. The Court highlighted that the inquiry's findings would be in the public domain, and the Petitioner had the opportunity to participate in the process. The Court concluded that the repeated applications filed by the Petitioner were unnecessary and hampered the inquiry process.5. Ultimately, the Court found the petition without merit and dismissed it, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence to substantiate allegations of bias or conflict of interest in the context of Inquiry Commissions. The judgment underscored the importance of upholding fair and impartial inquiry processes while addressing concerns of bias.