Bias challenge to a Commission of Inquiry fails without cogent material showing real and reasonable apprehension of bias.

A plea to scrap a Commission of Inquiry and replace it with a Special Investigation Team failed because the allegation of bias was unsupported by cogent material. Unverified newspaper reports, speculative assertions and claimed familial links of Commission members were held insufficient to establish a real and reasonable apprehension of bias or conflict of interest. The Court noted that a Commission of Inquiry is a fact-finding body and its report is not binding like an adjudicatory decision, and that the petitioner had already been allowed to participate before the Commission. The Commission was permitted to continue and the challenge was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prayer to scrap the Commission of Inquiry and constitute a Special Investigation Team on the ground of alleged bias and conflict of interest in the Commission members was sustainable.

Analysis: The challenge rested essentially on newspaper reports and unverified allegations. Such material was held insufficient to establish bias or conflict of interest. The alleged familial links of the Commission members, without cogent material showing any real influence or dominant position, did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias. The Court also noted that a Commission of Inquiry is a fact-finding body whose report is not binding in the same manner as an adjudicatory decision, and that the petitioner had already been given liberty to participate before the Commission. The standard for sustaining a plea of bias requires cogent and reliable material, not vague suspicion.

Conclusion: The challenge to the Commission of Inquiry failed, and the request to replace it with a Special Investigation Team was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Commission of Inquiry was allowed to continue, and the petition was dismissed as lacking merit.

Ratio Decidendi: A plea of bias against a Commission of Inquiry cannot succeed on the basis of unverified newspaper reports or speculative allegations; it must be supported by cogent material showing a real and reasonable apprehension of bias.

---