STATE OF BIHAR versus LAL KRISHNA ADVANI AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 844 · Decided: 16-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BRIJESH KUMAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STA TE OF BIHAR 
V. 
LAL KRISHNA ADVANI AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 
[BRIJESH KUMAR AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952-Section BB-Persons likely to be 
prejudicially affected to be heard-Enquiry Report containing impinging 
remarks on respondent affecting his reputation and image-High Court, 
C in Writ Petition by respondent, ordering deletion of such remarks since it 
was made without following principles of natural justice-Right to be 
heard-Availability of-Held, one is entitled to have one's reputation and 
a right to protect it-Hence, impinging remarks made on respondent 
without following principles of natural justice is violative of Section 8B of 
D the Act and law. 
The appellant State appointed a Commission of Enquiry under 
Section 3 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 for inquiry into the 
Bhagalpur communal riots of 1989. The Commission was initially a 
Single Member Commission but later on in 1993, two others were also 
E notified as Members of the Commission. The members of the 
Commission were retired High Court Judges. The Commission gave 
two Reports-one by one member and the other by two other members. 
Respondent no. 1 filed a Writ Petition before High Court for 
p expunging certain remarks made in the Report submitted by two 
members contending that the remarks were made against him without 
issuing a notice under Section SB of the Act and thereby violating the 
principles of natural justice; that the remarks are such which impinge 
upon his reputation as a public man; and that his reputation and image 
was adversely affected in the eyes of the people. High Court, without 
G going into the recommendations of the Report, partly allowed the writ 
petition of respondent no. 1 ordering such parts of the report, which 
consists of the impinging remarks on respondent no. I, to be inoperative 
and no action be taken on the basis thereof. 
H 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant-State contended that the 
844 
STA TE v. L.K. ADVANI 
845 
Writ petition of respondent no. 1 before the High Court was premature A 
since no action was taken by the State against the respondent in 
pursuance of the report of the Enquiry Commission; that the terms of 
the Reference of the Commission were quite wide which included 
looking into the causes behind the riots and recommending preventive 
measures; and that the Commission was not inquiring into the conduct B 
of respondent no.I in particular. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. One is entitled to have and preserve one's reputation 
and one also has a right to protect it. In case any authority,. in C 
discharge of its duties fastened upon it under the law, traverses into 
the realm of personal reputation adversely affecting him, must provide 
a chance to him to have his say in the matter. In such circumstances, 
the right of an individual to have the safeguard of the principles of 
natural justice before being adversely commented upon by a Commission D 
of Inquiry is statutorily recognised and violation of the same will have 
to bear the scrutiny of judicial review. One cannot be condemned 
unheard is one of the attributes of the principles of natural justice, 
which operates even in the absence of a written provision under the 
law. [852-E-F, 847-C) 
The State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. v. Bakshi Gu/am Mohammad 
& Anr., AIR (1967) SC 122; Smt. Kiran Bedi & Jinder Singh v. Committee 
of Inquiry & Anr., AIR (1989) SC 714 and Board of Trustees of the Port 
of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni & Ors., [1983) 1 
sec 124, referred to. 
D.F. Marion v. Minnie Davis, [55 America.n LR 171) and Peter 
Thomas Mohan v. Air New Zealand Ltd. & Ors., (1984) A.C. 808, referred 
to. 
E 
F 
International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights, (1965) ICCPR, G 
referred to. 
1.2. Section 88 was brought into the Commission of Enquiry Act, 
1952 by Amending Act 79of1971 i.e. about 20 years after passing the 
main Act itself. The experience during the past two decades must have H 
846 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A made the Legislature to realise that it would be necessary to notice a 
person whose conduct the Commission considers necessary to inquire 
into during the course of the inquiry or whose reputation is likely to 
be prejudicially affected by the inquiry. It is further provided that such 
a person would have a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to 
B adduce evidence in his defence. Thus the principle of na

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