- (1.) THE Central Bureau of Investigation, in pursuance of the order of the High Court dated 7 October, 1994, 12 January, 1995 and 12 January, 1995 and 28 February, 1995, had been required to file its final report by 30 March, 1995. THE subject-matter of the report is reflected in the, aforesaid, orders of the Court. In reference to the context, the orders are about appointing the C. B. I. as an investigating agency which even by law it hag the sanctioned authority to conduct. THE format of investigations was referenced in the order of the High Court of 7 October, 1994. "the investigation will be confined to (a) THE agitations in the regions of Garhwal and Kumaun, and to include the Muzaffarnagar incident, (b) THE matters connected with the agitations for Uttarakhand only, (c) Consequential detentions of the agitationists, (d) THE agitators detained, (e) details of injuries, deaths and molestation of women, and (f) damage to property, as a consequence of these agitations within the aforesaid regions. "
(2.) THE Supreme Court affirmed this order of the High Court when it was sought to be impugned by the State of U. P. whose appeal was rejected. THE C. B. I. also sought changes in the order ; the prayer was declined. THE cases before the Supreme Court, saw transfer to the High Court as writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. THE records as came on transfer had more facts, changed circumstances, spoke of more grievances and prayed for diverse reliefs. In the context of all the records the matters of Kumaun and Garhwal. Uttarakhand as politics determines it, the affirmation order of the Supreme Court. In the investigation which the C. B. I. was to conduct, aptly and appropriately summed it up as "an investigation in various allegation of human rights violations resulting in injuries, deaths and molestation of women". These cases, now either always were and now are becoming the story of the cause of disturbances and the ferment, to put it mildly, of the peoples of the regions of Kumaun and Garhwal whom the State of Uttar Pradesh in its legislative intention has preferred to let go and for the federal government to consequentially ponder over the situation, These are matters of regional aspirations where the paradox is that the State agrees with the political craving of the peoples of Uttarakhand and agrees to do so on record and yet is in difference with them, whatever be their content. The people of these areas seek the grant of this promise. A political claim on a political promise. These differences are before the Court, The spark from the differences have taken myraids of complaints, grievances, political, constitutional, humanitarian and legal. Some, within the constraints of the Court are before it.
(3.) THESE investigations of the C. B. I. , thus, are not a tooth combing operation of a solitary or isolated incidence of a financial scam, espionage, an arms sellers deal or a backwoods but tragic molestation of nuns in a nunnery. THESE are investigations of victims amongst peoples, who were aggressed by many. It is for this reason that the Court had given complete freedom to C. B. I. to set its style and priorities and had recorded it so in the order of 12-1-1995. "in so far as the investigation undertaken by the C. B. I. is concerned, this Court is not setting any priorities for this investigating agency as the style of its function during investigations ought not to be cramped by the High Court, and the C. B. I. is free to determine its own priorities". In the spirit of this standard set by the High Court, the C. B. I. has not been asked to file on record the case diaries nor the statements recorded during the course of investigations. The merits of investigations being conducted by the C. B. I. are and remain without comment by the Court. The C. B. I. was required to file its report initially by 5 December, 1994, which it did not, instead, a preliminary report was filed on 5 December, 1994. This preliminary report lay sealed with the Registrar, High Court. An extended time was sought by the C. B. I. The prayer was granted and the time was extended, for filing the report, until 28 February 1995. On that day another preliminary report was filed. This joined the first report and continued to lay sealed, as at the filing of both, first and the second report, there, apparently, were no issue between any party to the case, or even the C. B. I. suggesting that until the filing of the final report, the preliminary reports may remain sealed. At that time, even the petitioners had agreed that the disclosure may not be conclusive to anybody's interest. On 30 March 1995 the C. B. I. presented a report to the Court followed with an oral request or submission by its learned counsel Mr. P. K. Chaubey, that it may be perused by the Court, along with the two preliminary reports, filed earlier. This the Court did in the hope, faith and trust that what was filed on 30 March 1995 is the final report. The Court did permit the parties at the Bar to have access to reading the report. So far the state of the proceedings appeared to have been accepted without any demur from any quarter, C. B. I. not excluded. On reconvening of the Court, after the lunch, session, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the C. B. I. Mr. P. K. Chaubey, desired that the preliminary reports be sealed. In effect, be claimed secrecy. The arguments of counsel went even to this extent that he declared to the Court that if the reports were not kept confidential then the C. B. I. would call off the investigation. For a counsel to make such a submission, unsolicited, was neither fair nor appropriate, and in a case in which the C. B. I. has itself given out to the media that the matter under investigation by it is the largest former ever under investigation. Subsequently, learned counsel (or the C. B. I. retracted his submission that if it were made open, the C. B. I. may call off the investigation, but reiterated the submission that the reports, the two preliminary reports, should be kept sealed. Upon enquiries of him whether what he had contended was done upon instructions, he replied that there was no instructions, but he had done so as "apprehensions of counsel. ";