Structures of Legal Restraint, Oh Police Powers in India

The Ibakkar Natarajan complaint Part wiz of the Nanawti bearing overcompensate, investigate into the Godhara incident in Gujarat, released last month has once over again opened the Pandoras niche over logic of arrangeting up question explosive charges in the country. The report darn giving clean chit to the N arndra Modi judicature has supported the theory of conspiracy, leading to a widespread criticism across the country. approximately(prenominal) call option it eye wash and other call it sponsored report. Communists extradite termed it a piecemeal and fabricated report, w presentas case Democratic Alliance (NDA) calls it triumph of truth. nicety Nanawati report in fact contradicts the UC Banerjee report which in any case analysed the Godhara incident. How a single incident draws both extreme conclusions? The two reports throw away raised(a) a very debat fitting issue. What do judicial com turn a lossions, constitute by the discordant giving medications t o examine issues ranging from riots, s weeddals and assassinations to inter- earth disputes actually achieve? Critics of commissions grade that their recent history has been extremely spotty. unconnected from taking inordinately dour to sustain reports, they seldom achieve anything.Keeping apart from much(prenominal)(prenominal) allegations and counter allegations, the issue that has again love to fore is whether an interrogative commission rotter substitute illegal pursuit? Do these kicks serve any purpose? Is it non an eye wash? Are these charges able to bring culprits to book? Are non boots of inquiry a waste of time and m adepty? To belowstand the entire issue, i has to discuss the fit of Inquiry exemplify, 1952 itself. ahead this kick the bucket came into being, the regimens ingestiond to order an inquiry by executive notifications under globe Service Inquiry Act, 1850.Sometimes, they used to consecrate adhoc and temporary legislations too. To meet th e all(prenominal)day guide for impartial and judicial inquiries, the Government of India came step up with a comprehensive legislation, which resulted into passage of this Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952. Since its enactment, the constitution of Inquiry Commissions has blend a tool for the various governments to pass the public anger. Since Independence, more than than a speed of light Inquiry Commissions have been stiff up, solely a very few have served the purpose. And the reasons argon obvious.First, the furnishs enshrined in this Act be not of deterrent in nature and secondly, intimately of the time the Commissions argon crop up under retired decide for obvious reasons. Section 4 the Act provides for authors and it is clear that the Commission has no power to compel a person to assign before it and give evidence. It offernot pass verdicts or judgments which could be enforceable. The helplessness is such that even up if an offence has been committed in catch of or in presence of Commission, the Commission involve to forward the case to the Magistrate for tribulation as provided in Criminal procedure code.The appointment of retired arbitrators, as head of the Commission is very much suitable for the government. It is not undefiledly a chance that virtuoso hear has headed more than one Commission. The public perception is such that these Inquiry Commissions be becoming post retirement transcription schemes for the favourite retired Judges. We have a long list of such Commissions, which have do inordinate delay in stirting their reports. many a(prenominal) of them have taken decades in so called conducting inquiries and even then the report which was submitted were so voluminous that we required another citizens committee to find go forth ays to implement the recommendations. For example, as many as ten Commissions or committees have so farther been focalise up with regard to the anti-Sikh riots in Delhi after(prenominal) the assassination of former Prime minister of religion Indira Gandhi. First of all it was the Marvah Commission headed by Additional Commissioner of Police Ved Marvah, that was set up in November, 1984. The Commission was about to exhaust the assigned task when it was abruptly maimed up in May 1985 and a new Commission headed by rightness Rangnath Misra was constituted. The new Commission was asked to carry out further inquiry hitherto through with(p) by the Marvah Commission.The justice Ranganath Mishra Commission which was appointed under Section 3 of The Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, was asked to question into allegations of violence and not to inquire into the nature of violence, a departure from the equipment casualty of reference of over a cardinal other commissions on communal disturbances since Independence. It is uncalled-for to mention that what has happened to reports and how much amount have been worn-out(a) on these exercises. Has any boastful leader been p unished so far? Many persons, against whom leveled charges were being inquired into, have died.Such are the frustrating results of these Commissions and Committees. As far as time and money aspect of these Commissions are concerned, its enough to aim into the expenses of honourable orthodontic braces of Commissions to understand the quantum of impactboth in terms of the amount and time spent. The one that tops the chart is the Liberhan Commission. Set up under retired Justice M S Liberhan on 16 December, 1992 to essay into Babri mosque demolition, the Commission has so far been given more than 41 extensions. Overall the government has already spent Rs 90 million on this single man inquiry Commission, which is nevertheless to come out with its report.Similarly, Justice B N Kripal Commission of inquiry was set up on 13 July, 1985 to probe into the bombing of the Air India Flight 182 on 23 June, 1985 which led to the crash of this bland into the Atlantic Ocean leaving 329 passeng ers including conclave dead. The Commission submitted its report after ample tours of countries like Canada and USA but when the prosecution began, nothing could be proved and no(prenominal) could be punished. The entire investigation and inquiry went in vain. It is gratis(p) again, to calculate the amount which was spent on such inquiries.Phukan Commission was set up to probe the Tehelka expose into delusive defence deals. Everyone saw the tape on television and the then Government just to avoid immediate legal course, set up this Commission. In May 2005 the Newsweek report that Justice Phukan along with his wife and octad officials used IAF plane and went to Pune, Mumbai and Shirdi. The Ministry later verbalise that the Judge was not entitled to use the military plane and it was made obtainable to him by the then government in order to influence the Judge. Such allegations and incidents unquestionably erode public faith in such Commissions.The situation is such that every Government in power uses this provision to oblige the retired judges. In Bihar for example, Justice amir Das Commission was set up to probe into the alleged connections of political leadership with a banned outfit called Ranveer Sena in 1997. The Commission was finally wounded up in 2006 as it could hardly do anything except for some tours and recording the statements some leaders in over 8 years of its existence. Similar is the case of Justice Ali Ahmed Commission that was set up to look into excess withdrawal in 1996.In fact, very little is known about the force of the Commission, including the recommendations that it submited or the actions taken by it. Commission under Justice R C P Sinha and Justice Samsul was set up on Bhagalpur communal riot in 1989. Reports were submitted in 1995. But when the new government came to power it set up N N Singh (retired Justice) Commission to investigate the involvement again. In 2008 a Commission under retired judge Sadanand Mukherjee was set up to probe into the Kahalgaon police firing. This commission is still a non starter vis-a-vis investigation of the incidence.Not to miss the fact that when the recent breach in Kosi embankment that caused a major flood in Bihar led to lot of allegations and counter allegations, the state government was quick to constitute a Commission under Rajesh Walia, again a retired Judge to probe into it. And while thither is no bias against the judiciary or the retired judges, who are a national down payment of knowledge as far as judicial nationals are concerned, the question needs to be examined is whether a Commission can substitute the countrys criminal investigation corpse.How can a Judge be better equipped to do forensic test, do scientific investigations than a professionally trained police ships officer? Has the Commission power to make arrests to the persons belike to tamper evidences? The answer to these and many such questions has been provided by a two Judge commission i tself. Set up by in 1987 to investigate the Fairfax Deal, the Justice Thakkar and Natarajan Commission in its report have say that the Commission of Inquiry Act was toothless and toothless. They two, in fact, devoted one full chapter on the inadequacies of this Act.It is important to differentiate that India has a criminal justice system, which is base on the twin pillars of investigation and dispensation of justice. How can the Judiciary be asked to do the work of investigation, which is the work of the subject as enshrined the integrity of the land? The Criminal Procedure enrol and for that matter entire Criminal Justice System is erected on this principle ( term 50 of Chapter IV on Directive Principles of State Policy) and perhaps it is due to this principle, that the judiciary and executive have been completely separated in 1973, when the Code of Criminal Procedure was amended.Besides, most of these Commissions, after years of its investigation, usually submit reports tha t are so voluminous that it again requires some committees to suggest measures to implements the recommendations. Not to call on the carpet about the fact that such reports are not obligatory and mandatory for the government to implement. It is also worthwhile to mention here that the Judiciary in India is an independent system and that is precisely the reason why Article 220 restricts practise by retired Judges. The idea is that thither should not be any scope, whatsoever, of favour or disfavour by the suffice Judges.By appointing the retired Judges in these Commissions or for that matter in any other remains tends to clearly violate the spirit of the genius itself. What is more shocking is that instead of modernising and equip the investigating agencies to probe into such serious issues of national shame, the country has been a mere spectator to the cosmetic make ups. In India, every one knows about the normal gait of the court proceedings, and so all these commissions, need less to say have virtually give out black holes.