MR. FAZALUR REHMAN AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 654 · Decided: 16-09-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND, S. RAJENDRA BABU, R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
MR. FAZALUR REHMAN AND ORS. 
v. 
THE STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 16, 1999 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., S. RAJENDRA BABU AND 
R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.] 
Commissions of Inquily Act, 1952: 
S.3(4)-Parekh Commission Report on Meerut riots-Commission not 
identifying any particular person as responsible for riots nor did it fli 
responsibility for dereliction of duty on any official-Decision of State Cabinet 
not to take any further action, with a view to maintain religious and political 
harmony in the city and to avert any flare-up in any particular class or 
D community-Held, the Report be consigned to records. 
Commission of Inquiry Report-Inaction by State Government on for 
more than a decade-Held, prompt notice of the Report which was expected 
to be taken of the Report was not taken-This is not a healthy trend a~d 
E delay gives rise to avoidable suspicions about the motives for delay-On 
account of such inaction for a long period of time, the very purpose of 
constitution of a Commission of Inquiry gets frustrated-It would be 
appropriate that when in a matter of 'definite public importance' a 
Commission of Inquiry is app:Jinted, State Government should examine the 
Report expeditiously and take a decision about the action, if any, to be taken 
F on that Report promptly-Copy of order to be sent to Chief Secretary, Union 
of India to bring the observations to notice of all State Governments/Union 
Territories. 
G 
H 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) Nos. 11742-44 
of 1984. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
Musharaf Choudhary and P.H. Parekh for the Petitioners. 
A.B. Rohtagi and R.B. Misra for the Respondents. 
654 
order. 
FAZALUR REHMAN v. STATE 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
655 
Our order dated 14th October, 1998 shall be treated as a part of this 
A 
Mr. N. Ravi Shankar, Secretary, Home Department, Government ofUttar 
Pradesh has filed an affidavit dated 8th of December, 1998 in this Court on B 
I I th of December, 1998. Alongwith the affidavit, he has also filed summary 
of the Justice C.D. Parekh Commission Report. From the affidavit of Mr. Ravi 
Shankar it transpires that the Parekh Commission Report, which was submitted 
as early as in 1988, relating to the riots which took place in Meerut in 
September, 1982 wa5 considered by State Cabinet and the following decisions 
were taken by it. 
C 
(i) 
Report of the Commission be tabled on the floor of the House 
in accordance with the provisions of Section 3(4) of the 
Commissions of Inquiry Act,· t 952. 
(ii) Report relating to the incident of20.9.1982 was received by the D 
State Government in November, 1988. Since then up till now no 
former Government considered it proper to take any decision. 
The Commission did not find any particular person responsible 
and in spite of expressing the opinion that the Local 
Administration did not apply proper discretion to control the E 
riots on several places it did not recommend to punish any 
particular official. In order to maintain the religious and political 
harmony established by the present Government in Meerut City 
and also to avert any flare-up in any particular class of community 
and action on the report of the Commission has not been found 
expedient in public interest. 
F 
(iii) The Report of the Commission is disapproved and it be consigned 
to records. 
It appears that the State Cabinet with a view to 'maintain religious and 
political harmony in Meerut City and to avert any flare-up in any particular G 
class or community' has decided not to take any further action on the basis 
of the Parekh Commission Report, which itself did not identify any particular 
person as responsible for the riots nor fixed responsibility for dereliction of 
duty on any official. State Government having considered the report and 
taken a decision, this writ petition does not require any further consideration, 
and we direct that it be consigned to records. 
H 
656 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
However, before parting with this case, we would like to express our 
anguish at the manner in which reports of the Commissions of Inquiry are 
being treated by the States. In this case, it has taken more than a decade for 
the State Government to take notice of the Report of the Commission of 
Inquiry headed by a former Judge of the High Court. On account of such 
B inaction for a long period of time, the very purpose of the constitution of a 
Commission of Inqu

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.