Recommendations of Commissions set up under Commission of Inquiry Act not binding on govt, P&H HC

Commissions set up under Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 (1952 Act) do not have adjudicatory powers and their recommendations are not binding on the State, held Punjab & Haryana High Court..It is open to the Government to accept or reject such recommendations or simply ignore them, a single judge Bench of Justice Rajan Gupta held in a case relating to certain incidents of sacrilege of religious scriptures and violence that ensued as a result..By way of background, there were three incidents of sacrilege. This led to mass protests at Kotakpura and Behbal Kalan due to the incidents of sacrilege and perceived inaction of the police. The protest snowballed into a major agitation and led to the firing by police. Certain persons were injured in the firing and two of them died..FIR were registered by the State Police in relation to the incidents of sacrilege as well as police firing. Subsequently, investigation pertaining to some of the FIRs were handed over to the CBI by the State government by invoking Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act..Further, the State government also appointed retired judge, Justice Zora Singh to enquire into the incidents of sacrilege and police firing. The Justice Zora commission was conferred powers under the 1952 Act to probe into the death of two persons who had died in the police firing..Zora Singh Commission submitted its report to the government in June 2016. There is no record to show whether the said report was accepted by the government or not..Meanwhile elections to the State Assembly were held and a new government was formed in the State in March 2017. The new government, after looking into the Zora Singh report, concluded that the Commission has not answered certain key questions. Hence, it rejected the report as inconclusive and issued another notification constituting a Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice (retd.) Ranjit Singh..The second Commission completed the proceedings and submitted its report on June 30, 2018. The report dealt with circumstances leading to the Faridkot incidents of sacrilege as well as police firing at Kotkapura and Behbal Kalan. It also identified the role of certain police officials. Based on the recommendations of Commission, the Govt. took series of steps outlined in action taken report (ATR)..Further, the State Assembly passed a resolution to withdraw the investigation of all matters entrusted to CBI..The petitioners then approached the High Court challenging the recommendations made by the two commissions and seeking quashing of the reports submitted by the two commissions..Some of the petitioners also challenged the resolution passed by State Assembly in withdrawing the investigation from CBI..The Court proceeded to deal with the scope of the powers of the commissions and the nature of the recommendations made by commissions..Placing reliance on the judgment in Sanjiv Kumar v. State of Haryana, it observed that Commissions constituted under the 1952 Act do not have any teeth for their functioning and have to depend on State’s assistance..They are more suited for inquiring into matters of public importance where the purpose is to find out the truth so as to learn lessons for future and devise policies. Such commissions do not serve the purpose of punishing the guilty, it held..The Court also made it clear that recommendations of such Commissions which are set up under the 1952 Act are recommendatory in nature. The Commission has no adjudicatory power and has no means to execute its recommendations. It is open to the Government to accept or reject such recommendations or simply ignore them..Further, one of the contentions raised by the petitioner was that they were not afforded opportunity to defend themselves and cross-examine witnesses before the Commission. The Court, however, held that though the rules of natural justice would be reasonably applicable to proceedings before the commission, it cannot be equated to a regular trial and failure to allow cross-examination will not vitiate the process..The Court, however, went on to note that when criminal investigation had already been initiated, the necessity to set up parallel commissions with similar terms of reference is a matter of concern..Regarding the challenge to the withdrawal of probe from the CBI’s ambit, the Court held that the CBI had not been given general powers to probe into all such cases as the instant one. FIRs had already been registered by the State police and State government had issued notifications handing over some of those cases to the CBI. It did not give a general power to the CBI to register cases apart from the FIRs specified by the State government..Hence, it upheld the resolution passed by the State Assembly in withdrawing the cases from CBI..The petitions were, consequently, dismissed..Read the judgment below.