UNIVERSITY OF KERALA versus COUNCIL, PRINCIPALS COLLEGES, KERALA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 989 · Decided: 09-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

y 
1 
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA 
A 
v. 
COUNCIL, PRINCIPALS' COLLEGES, KERALA AND ORS. 
APRIL 9, 2007 
[DR. ARIJITPASAYAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
B 
Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952: 
s.3 r/w s.5(1)-Commission of Inquiry-Appointment of sitting Judge of 
High Court-Direction of Supreme Court that no sitting Judge of any High C 
Court would continue as a Commission-IA by State Government for 
modification of the order-Held, considerations have to be of several aspects 
including the determinative "paramount national interest" angle-On facts, 
the issues being inquired into by the Commission have not been shown to 
be of "paramount national interest" IA rejected-Judiciary-Sitting Judge D 
of High Court-When can be appointed as Commission of Inquiry. 
-( 
State of Orissa filed the present IA for modification of the order dated 
27.11.1996 passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (c) No. 
24295 of2004, whereby the Court had directed that in no case a sittil!g Judge 
of any High Court would continue as a Commission of Inquiry except where E 
the inquiry was at the fag end. It was contended for the appellant-State that in 
view of para 16(1) of the judgment in T. Fenn Walter's case1, appointment ofa 
sitting Judge as Commission was possible. 
Dismissing the application, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1. For appointment of a sitting Judge of a High Court as 
Commission of Inquiry, the considerations have to be of several aspects 
including the determinative "paramount national interest". It could not be 
shown as to how the issues being enquired into by the Commission are of 
paramount national interest. From a reading of the letters of the Chief 
Minister and the Chief Justice it nowhere appears that either the State G 
Government or the Chief Justice considered the matter to be of "paramount 
national interest" to warrant appointment of a sitti11g Judge of a High Court 
as Commission. All that has been stated by the Chief Minister and the Chief . 
Justice is about the "seriousness of the problem". Even the notification dated 
989 
II 
990 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 4 S.C.R. 
A 4th February, 2006 does not indicate it to be of paramount national interest 
(Para 5 and 6) (944-C-D; 992-E] 
-< 
T. Fenn Walter and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (2002] Supp 1 SCR 
134 200(6) sec 184, relied on. 
B 
1.2. Though the case of the applicant - State is that the Commission 
was only permitted to work on holidays, that really is of no consequence. That 
does not appear to be a factor considered when the request was made for 
appointment of a sitting Judge as the commission and the reply of the Chief 
Justice of the High Court accepting the prayer. Further, the stand that the 
Commission was required to give recommendation on various other aspects 
C like industrialization de. is really of no consequence. It is not known as to 
on what basis a sitting Judge appointed as a Commission, can throw light on 
the broader issues like industrialization etc. In any event, the parameters of 
enquiry do not include these aspects. (Para 7) (994-C-E] 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: I.A. No. 6 
IN 
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 24295 of2004. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.06.04 of the High Court of Kerala 
at Emakulam in W.P. (C.) No. 30845 of2003 (S). 
R. Sathish, Dr. Sushi! Balwada and Pooja Dhar (for AP & J Chambers) 
for the Appellant. 
F 
Gopal Subramanium, ASG., Sushma Suri, Abhishek Tewari, E.M.S. Anam, 
K.R. Sasiprabhu, M.K. Michael, M.K.D. Namboodiri, V.G. Pragasam, Shivaji M. 
-1· 
Jadhav, Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, Kadha Shyam Jena, T.V. George and Sunil 
~-
G 
Kumar Dwive&i"for the Respondents. 
"" 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. I. The State ofOrissa has filed this I.A. for 
modification of the Order dated 27.11.2006. By the said order, thi.s Court h~d 
directed that in no case a sitting Judge of any High Court shall continue as 
a Commission. It was however made clear that the order shall not operate in 
cases where the inquiry is at the fag end, i.e. only where the report is to be 
H submitted. 
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA v. COUNCIL, PRINCIPALS' COLLEGES, KERALA [PASAYAT, J.] 
991 
2. In support of the application, learned counsel for the State submitted A 
that a sitting Judge was appointed at the request of the State Government 
considering the "serious problem" highlighted in the letter of the Chief Minister 
addressed to the Chief Justice of the High Court. Though initially Chief 
Justice
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.