THE COMMITTEE FOR THE PROTECTION OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS versus THE CHIEF MINISTER OF THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 849 · Decided: 20-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

THE COMMITTEE FOR THE PROTECTION OF 
A 
DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS 
• 
v. 
THE CHIEF MINISTER OF THE STATE OF 
MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 20, 1996 
B 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 226 & 136: 
Mumbai riot case-Allegation of Government's in action against c 
culprits-Held: it would not be correct to say that Government had not 
taken any action against culprits-If any person fell aggrieved that inspite 
of bringing specific material about any incident or against any person in 
connection with the riot to the notice of the investigating authorities, the 
authorities were not taking action according to law, it would be open to D 
him to approach the High Court for necessary directions-Further, inquiry 
by the Special Inspector General of Police, appointed by the Government 
to inquire into allegation of violations of human rights contained in report 
of Amnesty International, need not be deferred on account of pendency of 
proceedings before Justice Sri Krishna Commission (appointed under 
Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952), scope of inquiry by the two not being E 
identical-Appellant could approach National Human Rights Commission 
to look into alleged violation of human rights-Special Inspector General 
of Police directed to ascertain whether the National Human Rights 
Commission had already inquired into allegations and proceed with his 
inquiry if he found that it has not- If, in fature, National Human Rights 
Commission took up the said inquiry before Special Inspector General of F 
Police submitted his report to Government, he should defer his inquiry 
awaiting report of National Human Rights Commission-Human Rights 
Violation. 
The appellant-Organisation was formed for protecting the G 
human rights of the citizens of this country. It believed in Rule of 
-
Law and in upholding it. There were widespread and violent riots in 
the city ofMumhai and its environs in which a large number of people 
were killed and injured and properties worth crores of rupees 
destroyed. There were allegations that the law and order machinery 
had either failed or was colluding with perpetrators of violence and H 
849 
850 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A destruction. Though about 3,000 criminal cases were registered in 
connection with the said riots, no effective investigation had been 
carried out into those cases, no one had been arrested a!ld no 
prosecution launched. The reason given by the respondents for this 
inacton was that a Commission of Inquiry appointed under the 
Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (,Justice Sri Krishna Commission) 
B was enquiring into various aspects of the said riots and that )hey 
were awaiting the Commission's report. In spite of the report 
submitted by Amnesty International, the respondents were not taking 
any action in the matter. The appellant filed a writ petition before 
the High Court for a direction to the respondents to launch prosecution 
against those found prima-facie responsible for the said riots. The 
C High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that it was not 
inclined to exercise its writ jurisdiction and give directions in a sensitive 
matter. Hence this appeal. 
D 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the State 
Government had not evaded its responsibility to prosecute the persons 
involved in the said riots; that the State Government had appointed 
a Special Inspector General of Police to inquire into the allegations of 
violations of human rights contained in the report submitted by 
Amnesty International; and that in view of the pendency of the matter 
before the Justice Sri Krishna Commission the said inquiry was 
E deferred. 
Disposing of the appeal, this court 
HELD: 1.1. It would not be correct to say that the Government 
has not taken any action against the culprits. It is also not correct to 
F say that because of the appointment of the Justice Sri Krishna 
Commission, appointed under .the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 
the Government and its authorities are not taking any action against 
the persons responsible for the riots. [85.4 CDJ 
G 
1.2. If any person feels aggrieved that inspite of bringing specific 
material about any incident or against any person in connection with 
the riot to the notice of the investigating authorities, the authorities 
are not taking action according to law, it shall be open to him to 
approach the High Court for necessary direction. Further, inquiry
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.