- (1.) These three writ petitions present common grievance, of the petitioners on points of law and hence have been heard together. This common order shall dispose of the same. The State Government, vide a notification dated November 4, 2012, appointed a Commission of Inquiry consisting of Hon'ble Justice Susanta Chatterjee (since retired) (hereafter the Commission) to inquire into an incident of police firing on July 21, 1993 at Central Calcutta during a "Mahakaran Abidjan", resulting in the death of 13 (thirteen) persons and injury to several others. The terms of reference of the Commission read as follows: a) To inquire into the events leading to killing of 13 (thirteen) persons in police firing and injury of several others on the 21st date of July, 1993 during the said Mahakaran Abhijan Programme held in Kolkata. b) To inquire into the people involved and/or responsible for the incident. c) To inquire into the details of the victim and/or persons affected. d) To inquire into the result of the complaints lodged on behalf of the victims, if any. e) To inquire into the role of the police and/or other authorities. f) To inquire into the present condition of the families of the victims. g) To inquire into the status of the police cases registered on the incident. h) To assess and recommended compensation if any, required to be paid to the victims. i) To examine any other matters relevant to or incidental thereto above questions which the Commission may deem fit and proper to investigate.
(2.) Mr. Dinesh Chandra Vajpai (hereafter Mr. Vajpai), Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh (hereafter Mr. Singh) and Mr. Raj Kamal Johri (hereafter Mr. Johri), the three petitioners were Additional Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police (South Division) and Joint Commissioner of Police, Calcutta Police, respectively on the date the incident of firing occurred. All these officers, however, have since retired from service.
(3.) Since Mr. Singh and Mr. Johri were holding responsible positions on the relevant date, the Commission was of the view that their versions in respect of such incident would be material and relevant for deciding the terms of reference. Accordingly, a summons dated October 10, 2012 under section 4 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (hereafter the Act) was issued to Mr. Singh directing him to appear in person before the Commission on November 20, 2012. By a notice dated February 27, 2013 issued under section 4 read with section 8B of the Act, Mr. Johri was called upon "to appear and to depose on or before the Commission" on March 26, 2013. Mr. Singh and Mr. Johri presented separate writ petitions before this Court feeling aggrieved by such summons/notice. The basic point, among other points, that was canvassed before the Court was that the Commission erred in the exercise of its jurisdiction in calling upon the noticees to bare their defence even before statements of the private witnesses (having knowledge about the incident of firing) were received. They had also challenged the very constitution of the Commission by the Government. The writ petition of Mr. Singh was disposed of on November 21, 2012 whereas that of Mr. Johri was disposed of on March 25, 2013. Limited relief was granted to Mr. Singh and Mr. Johri on the authority of the decision of the Supreme Court Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry, 1989 1 SCC 494. The challenge to the constitution of the Committee was not examined, being premature and liberty was granted to raise such point in future proceedings, if required. One particular paragraph from the order dated November 21, 2012 passed on the writ petition filed by Mr. Singh, which was also directed to apply mutatis mutandis to Mr. Johri by the order dated March 25, 2013 passed on his writ petition, reads as follows: In view thereof, it is observed that the petitioner shall present himself before the Commission on 04.12.2012, which I am told has been fixed as the next date, along with his lawyer only for the purpose of examination-in-chief to the extent he would like to have his version placed on record. The petitioner shall not be cross-examined and, in particular, he shall not be under any obligation to disclose his defence at this stage. It is only after the oral evidence of the statement makers is received and the Commission is of the prima facie view on the basis of the materials on record that the petitioner's conduct is required to be inquired into or that its recommendation is likely to prejudicially affect the petitioner's reputation that he shall be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and to produce evidence in his defence, which necessarily would include the opportunity to produce witnesses in support of his version. The petitioner shall also have the right to cross-examine the statement makers who have deposed and would depose in future, and also to cross-examine any other witness who might depose in course of the inquiry.;