KIRAN BEDI & ORS. versus COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY & ANR.

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 20 · Decided: 04-01-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Rejected
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KIRAN BEDI & ORS. 
v. 
COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY & ANR. 
JANUARY 4, 1989 
B 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, M.M. DUTT AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.] 
Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952/Commissions of Inquiry 
(Central) Rules, 1972: Sections 4 and 8-B/Rule 5(5)(a)-Commission 
of Inquiry-Examination of witnesses-Sequence of-Issuance of 
formal notice under s. 8-B-When arises-Holding persons not entitled 
C to be covered bys. 8-B, and compelling them to enter witness box at the 
inception while directing similarly placed persons to whom notice issued 
to be examined at the end-Whether justified-Whether discrimi-
natory-Persons whose conduct being inquired into called upon for 
being cross-examined at the inception of the inquiry while persons 
similarly placed directed to be enquired at the end-Refuse to bind 
D themselves by oath and affirmation believing to be covered bys. 8-B-
Whether can avoid consequences-Refusal-When justified. 
Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 178---Commission of lnquiry-
Directing filing of complaint for prosecution for failure to enter witness 
box~Whether complaint liable to be quashed for infringement of 
E fundamental right. 
r-
~
I 
-·cl 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14, 21, 32, 136 & 142-
Commission of Inquiry-Holding persons not covered by s. 8-B of 
Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and compelling them to enter witness 
box, while directing issue of notice to similarly placed persons- 1c 
F Whether discriminatory-On refusal-Directing filing of complaints 
\ 
under s. 178 I PC-Whether infringement of fundamental rights-Writ 
Petition/Special Leave Petition filed challenging order for filing 
complaints-Summons by Magistrate not challenged-Maintainability 
of-Interference by Supreme Court-Whether called for. 
G 
A Committee consisting of two Judges of the High Court was 
constituted hy Delhi Administration to enquire into certain incidents in 
January 1988, involving the lawyers and the police sequel to an alleged 
-~
incident of a lawyer, being apprehended hy the students of a College, 
and handed over to the police on the accusation of committing an off-
ence within the campns of the said College and his subsequently being 
H 
brought in handcuffs by the police for production before a Magistrate, 
20 
,•.' 
~·· 
., 
., -+·· 
-
KIRAN BED! v. COMMITIEE OF INQUIRY 
21 
who ultimately discharged him with direction to the Commissioner of A 
Police to take action against the guilty police officials. 
In its interim report, the Committee observed that it had to 
examine the conduct of various police officers, and, in particular, 
among others, the petitioners and recommended the transfer of the 
petitioners from t"eir posts. 
In pursu& 1ce of a notice issued by the Committee under Rule 
5(2)(a) of the Rules, statements of cases on behalf of the Higb Court Bar 
Association and the Commissioner of Police together with the support· 
ing affidavits were tiled before the Committee. The Police were 
required to be ready for examination froin May 16, 1988 onwards but 
the counter affidavit and the list of witnesses had not been tiled till 17th 
May, 1988, on which date the Commissioner of Police submitted two 
applications praying for postponement of hearing and for calling upon 
the Bar Association to start their evidence first and to call upon the 
Commissioner of Police to adduce the evidence thereafter. Rejecting 
these applications, the Committee passed an order saying that since the 
Police had failed to file their counter affidavit or list of witnesses, the 
petitioners should be present in Court on May 19, 1988 for cross. 
examination. 
011 the· petitioners' refusing to enter the witness-box for taking 
oath for cross-examination, the Committee decided to file complaints 
against the petitioners for an offence under s. 178 of the Indian Penal 
Code and in pursuance of which complaints were tiled against the 
petitioners in the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's Court under sub-s. 
(4) of s. 5 of the Commissions of Enquiry Act, 1952 read withs. 346 of 
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 
The petitioners challenged these orders in this Court by way of 
writ petitions and Special Leave Petitions. This Court passed an order 
on June 2, 1988 directing the Committee to reconsider the whole ques-
tion relating to the order in which the witnesses had to be examined in 
the case. 
In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the Committee passed an 
order on 29th June, 1988 holding that the concept of burden of proof 
was not
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.