4.1 After the constitution and setting up of the Commission, the Commission proceeded to act in accordance with the Rule: 5 (2) of the Commissions of Inquiry (Central ) Rule 9, 1972. Rule 5 (2) provides that the Commission shall, as soon as may be after its appointment: (a) issue a notice to every person who, in its opinion, should be given an opportunity of being heard in the inquiry, to furnish to the Commission a statement relating to such matters as may be specified in the notice; (b) issue a notification, to be published in such manner as it may deem fit, inviting all persons acquainted with the subject-matter of the inquiry to furnish to the Commission a statement relating to such matters as may be specified in the notification. Within three and a half months of its constitution, with almost no staff and without any infrastructure, the Commission published its notification dated 12.11.1991 under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Commissions of Inquiry (Central) Rules, 1972, inviting individuals, associations, organizations, institutions, authorities and all other persons acquainted with the subject matter of the inquiry detailed in the terms of reference of the Commission to furnish to the Commission a statement of facts on affidavit relating to the matters specified therein (Annexure 15).
Since there was no response to the Notification, the Commission by its Notification dated 12.12.1991, extended the last date for submission of statements of facts upto 31.12.1991. 4.3 One Mr. Baren De's affidavit dated 10.7.1991 filed before the Verma Commission of Inquiry and his letter dated 12.9.1991 sent to the Ministry of Home Affairs were received by the Commission and he also sent a letter dated 12.11.1991 to the Commission. Thereupon the Commission directed him on 2.1.1992 to file his affidavit under Rule 5(2)(b) upto 24.1.19g2. He then filed his affidavit dated 14.1.1992. 4.4 Section 8 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 and sub-rule(8) of Rule 5 of the Commissions of Inquiry (Central) Rules, 1972 confer powers on the Commission for framing its own regulations of procedure. In the exercise of that power the Commission framed its own Regulations of Procedure on 30.7.1992 and the same were published in the Gazette of India, part 3, section 4, dated 11.12.1993 in English as well as in Hindi versions (Annexure 16). 4.5 Simultaneously, during December 1991, the Commission started issuing notices under Rule 5 ( 2 ) ( a ) of the Commissions of Inquiry (Central) Rules, 1972 (Annexure 17). Notices were issued to top officials of the government of India, Government of Tamil Nadu, Government of Karnataka, political parties, Editors of leading dailies, magazines and weeklies, and certain prominent persons. The list of such notices is given in Annexure 18. 4.6 In response to these notices some affidavits were filed which are indicated in the charts (Annextures19 and l9A). 4.7 The Commission also issued 189 questionnaires (Annexure 82).
The list of those to whom questionnaires were sent and affidavits filed in response to the questionnaires is indicated in Annexure 20. 4.8 When the affidavits filed before the Commission, in response to the notice under Rule 5 ( 2 ) ( a ) and in response to the questionnaires, were examined by the Commission, it appeared to the Commission that some of the affidavits contained allegations, aspersions, imputations and insinuations which have been made and levelled against some persons. Such allegations and aspersions if taken into consideration then the averments in respect of them necessitated the Commission to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Sections 8-B and 8-C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. This matter came up for consideration before the Commission on a number of dates of hearings. The Commission considered it proper to afford opportunity to the parties making such allegations and aspersions to address the Commission as to whether such averments have to be inquired into. Sections 8-B and 8-C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, read as follows: 8-B: Persons likely to be prejudicially affected to be heard : If, at any stage of the inquiry the commission - (a) considers it necessary to inquire into the conduct of any person; (b) is of the opinion that the reputation of any person is likely to be prejudicially affected by the inquiry, the Commission shall give to that person a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the inquiry and to produce evidence in his defence: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply where the credit of a witness is being impeached. 8-C: Right of cross-examination and representation by legal practitioner: The appropriate government, every person referred to in section 8-B and, with the permission of the Commission, any other person whose evidence is recorded by the Commission - ( a ) may cross-examine a witness other than a witness produced by it or him; ( b ) may address the Commission: ( c ) may be represented before the commission by a legal practitioner or, with the permission of the Commission by; any other person. 4.9 Such averments were made in the affidavits of the All India Congress Committee (AICC), Tamil Nadu Congress Committee (TNCC).
Serious allegations were made against Shri V P Singh, Shri M. Karunanidhi; Shri V. Gopalsamy, Shri Jaffar Ali, Smt Subbalakshmi Jagdeesan, Shri R Nagarajan and Shri P Nedumaran. If the averments made against them were to be inquired into, their reputation was likely to be prejudicially affected.
The Commission therefore, proceeded to act under Section 8 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952. The notices under Section 8-B of the Act (Annexture 21) were issued pursuant to the Order passed om October 7, 1993 to the following persons: (1) Shri V.P. Singh, former Prime Minister of India (2) Shri M. Karunanidhi, former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu (3) Shri V. Gopalsamy, MP (4) Shri Jaffar Ali, former DIG of Police, Government of Tamil Nadu (5) Smt Subbalakshmi Jagdeesan, former Minister in DMK Government (6) Shri R Nagarajan, former Tamil Nadu Home Secretary (7) Shri P Nedumaran, President, Tamil National Front 4.10 Shri VP Singh, Shri M. Karunanidhi, Shri V Gopalsamy, Shri Jaffar Ali, Shri R. Nagarajan and Shri P. Nedumaran filed their affidavits in reply to the notice under Section 8-3 issued to them. But Smt. Subbalakshmi JagdeeAan did not respond to the notice despite service of notice on her. 4.11 Further notices under Section 8-8 of the Act were issued to five persons vide Commission's Order dated 16th February, l994, to eight persons vide Commission's Order dated 1st June 1994 and to the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Police vide Commission's Order dated 9th August, 1994, as indicated below: (1) Shri Aladi Aruna (2) Shri R. Veeramani ( 3 ) Shri K . Ramamurthy (4) Smt Maragatham Chandrashekhar (S) Ms Latha Priyakumar (6) Shri K. Ramakrishnan (7) Shri Aruchamy (8) Shri Ravi @ Ravindran (9) Shri Kutty @ Rrishnan @ Raju (10) Shri Somu @ Somasundaram(11) Shri B. Jagadeesan(12) Shri V. Ravichandran( 13 ) Shri Muruganandam(14) Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu on behalf of Tamil Nadu Police. 4.12: Of these 14 notices, Shri Aladi Aruna responded by filing a letter stating that he has already filed his affidavit 7 with available particulars (on 23.7.1992 in response to 5(2)(a) Notice), that his leader Shri M. Karunanidhi President of DMK Party has given detailed reply to the Commission (in response to 8-B Notice) and that he does not have any separate comments in addition to his reply.
While Shri K. Yeeramani, Shri K. Ramamurthy and the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu filed their respective affidavits, the remaining ten notices did not respond. Particulars of 21 8-B notices are given in (Annexure 22). 4.13 The Commission afforded full opportunity of hearing not only to the noticees under section 8-B but to others also. Whatever evidence appeared against the 8-B notices, opportunity of cross-examination was given and further opportunity was given to them to produce evidence in defence. Shri VP. Singh did not participate in the proceedings despite having filed his affidavit dated 11.12.1993.
However he joined the proceedings of the Commission on 20.2.1996. At his instance, certain witnesses, namely, Shri K. Ramamurthy, President, TNCC(I); Prof. K.K. Tewary, former Union Minister; Shri Ratnaker Pandey, M.P.; Shri Jitendra Prasada,M.P. and Dr B.L. Wadehra, Advocate, Supreme Court of India, were recalled, and he also examined certain witnesses in his defence. When he himself did not volunteer to examine himself in defence the Commission thought it necessary to examine him as a Commission's witness. Similarly, the DMK Party headed by Shri M Karunanidhi withdrew from the proceedings of the Commission on 9.8.1994 but subsequently rejoined the proceedings on 26.7.1996 and examined some witnesses in defence. 4.15
The Commission further, by its Order dated 2.1. 1997 afforded opportunity to all the noticees under Section 8 -B as well as under Rule 5(2) (a) to adduce evidence but none was examined by them pursuant to that Order of the Commission. 4.16 Some versions had come before the Commission for inquiry, like the version appearing in the authorised biography of Shri T N Seshan - ' Seshan - An Intimate Story', by Shri K. Govindan Kutty. Shri Vir Sanghvi, Editor of 'Sunday' demanded an inquiry into the version which appeared in that biography in respect of involvement of Some foreign agency in the assassination of Shri Rajiv Gandhi. In connection with that inquiry, the likely witnesses were Shri Vir Sanghvi, Shri K Govindan Kutty, author of Seshan's biography, Dr Subramanian Swamy and Shri Chandra Shekhar. Whenever these witnesses were summoned, an opportunity to others was given to remain present at the time of deposition of the witnesses.
4.17 As statements of 14 witnesses were recorded in the
absence of Shri Chandra Shekhar, they had deposed something in relation to him. So, vide
letter dated 26.3.1996, Shri Chandra Shekhar was asked as to whether he would like to
cross-examine all or any of the witnesses and adduce any evidence in the light of their
depositions. He was required to inform the Commission within two weeks. Copies of the
statements of 14 witnesses were forwarded to him. But there was no response from him. 4.18
Dr Subramanian Swamy was also informed by letter dated 13.3.1996 as to whether he wants to
adduce any evidence in the light of the statements of the witnesses recorded in his
presence or in the presence of his Counsel. He may inform the Commission within a week.
Dr. Swany sent his reply on 19.3.1996. Thereupon he was informed that his reply would be
listed for consideration on 22.3.1996. Instead of appearing on 22.3.1996, Dr. Swamy sent
his reply dated 21.3.1996 which was received on 22.3.1996 in the Commission. On 22.3.1996
at the time of hearing, an Order was passed in respect of his letter dated 19.3.1996 and
it was directed that the letter would be taken up for consideration on 29.3.1996. His
Counsel Shri Ashok Arora was also informed to communicete to Dr Subramanian Swamy and seek
instructions and a direct communication was also sent to Dr Swamy, informing him of the
date and time for consideration of his letter dated 19.3.1996. Dr Swamy again wrote on
26.3.l996 and he sought further opportunity of hearing after 15.5.1996. On the appointed
date that is on 29.3.1996, the matter was taken up. Both Dr Subramanian Swamy and his
Counsel Shri Ashok Arora were not present. A long date after 15.5.1996 was declined.
A copy of the order dated 29.3.1996 was directed to be sent to Dr
Subramanian Swamy as well as to his Counsel Shri Ashok Arora. Vide letter dated 30.3.1996,
a photocopy of the Commission's order dated 29.3.1996 was sent to Dr Subramanian Swamy as
well as to his Counsel Shri Ashok Arora. Thereafter, no communication was received from
them. 4.19 Shri V.C. Pande was also afforded opportunity vide Commission's letter dated
28.02.1996 as to whether he wants to examin himself or any witness in his defence. He may
inform the Commission the names of the witnesses with their addres within ten days. Shri
Pande submitted a reply dated 7.3.1996. He was then informed vide notice dated 12.3.1996
that his reply would be listed for consideration on 20.3.1996. A further reply dated
21.3.1996 was received in the Consideration on 22.3.1996 from his Counsel M/s Karanjawala
& Co, Advocates, to the Commission's communication dated 28.2.1996. The communication
was listed for hearing and an order was passed on 22.3.1996 and it was expressed that Shri
VC Pande does not want to examine himself as a witness nor does he want to produce any
witness in defence. Shri Chandraswami was also informed by the Commission vide its letter
dated 28.2.1996 as to whether he wants to examine himself and any witness in his defence.
He may inform the Commission the names of such witnesses with their addresses within ten
days. A reply dated 8.3.1996 was received from his Counsel. This reply was listed for
hearing on 20.3.1996. Shri Chandraswami vide his letter dated 10.4.1996 informed the
Commission that in view of the clarification made by the Commission during the course of
the hearing on Shri V.C. Pande's and Shri Chandraswami 's applications on 22.3.1996 that
since notices were not issued to them under Sections 8-B of the Commissions of Inquiry
Act, he does not consider it necessery to give any evidence in his defence at that stage.
4.21 Thus the Commission adopted a fair procedure in its proceedings giving opportunity
even to the witnesses when any version deposed by some other witness is likely to affect
them. 4.22 The Commission first of all called upon the Tamil Nadu Congress Committee (I)
to adduce evidence.
The TNCC(I) produced the following witnesses:¶ (1) Shri Chandra Shekhar, TWICC(I)/W-1
former Prime Minister of India. (2) Shri RA. Vi jayaraj, TNCC(I)/W-2 Assistant Collector
of Central Excise, Tanjore Distt. ( 3 ) Shri J Ramakrishnan, TNCC ( I ) /W-3 Principal
Collector of Customs & Central Excises, Madras ¶ (4) Shri EM. Ramamurthy, M.P.
TNCC(I)/W-4¶ 4.23 The following witnesses were examined on behalf of the Central
Government ( 1 ) Shri Vilidyanathan, Witness No .CGW-1 Joint Director,Intelligence Bureau,
New Delhi. : ( 2 ) Shri SA Subbaiah, Witness No . CGW-2 Joint Secretary (R ), Cabinet
Sucretariat New Delhi.
4.24 The following witnesses were examined on behalf of Shri Y.P. Singh, former Prime
Minister of India :¶ (1 ) Shri S.K. Mishra, Witness No VPS/Wl¶ former Principal
Secretary to Shri Chandra Shekhar, PM presently Member, U . P . S . C .¶ (2) Shri R.
Vasudevan, Witness No.VPS/W2 S-459 J 2nd Floor, Greater Railash-I, New Delhi (3) Shri VG
Vaidya, Witness No.VPS/W-3 Former Director, Intelligence Bureau (4) Shri KN Thakur,
Witness No.VPS/W-4 Ex Joint Director, (VIP Security ), Intelligence Bureau (5) Dr. B.L.
Wadehra, Witness No.VPS/W-5 Advocate, Supreme Court (6) Shri K.R. Venugopal, Witness
No.VPS/W-6¶ Former Additional Secretary, Prime Minister ' s Secretariat .¶ (7) Prof.
K-K- Tewary Witness No.VPS/W7 (8) Shri. Jitendra Prasada Witness No.VPS/W-8 (9) Shri
Ratnakar Pandey Witness No.VPS/W-9 (lO) Shri K, Ramamurthy, Witness NQ.YPS/W-1Q President,
TNCC ( I ) . (ll) Shri R. Nagarajan, Witness No.VPS/W-ll former Home Secretary, Government
of Tamil Nadu (12) Shri Naresh Chandra, Witness No.VPS/W-12 Ambassador of India to the
U.S.A.¶ 4.25 The following witnesses were examined on behalf of Dr. BL. Wadehra ( 1 )
Mahant Sewa Dass Singh Witness No .BLW/W-1 21, Mahadev Road, New De1hi (2) Shri Swatanter
Sheel, Witness No .BLW/W-2¶ A"21/1, Naraina Ind. Area, Phase I New Delhi .¶ (3)
Shri Ashwini Kumar Chopra, Witness No.BLW/W3 Resident Editor, Punjab Kesari ¶ (4) Dr.
B.L. Wadehra, Witness NoBLW/W-4 Advocate,¶ M-131, Greater Kailash-II New Delhi.¶ (5)
Shri Ratnakar Pandey, Witness No.BLW/W-5 16-C, Feroze Shah Road, New Delhi. (6 ) Shri VC
Pande, Witness No.BLW/W-6 former Cabinet Secretary, C-17/4 S.F.S. Flats, Saket, New Delhi.
(7) Shri R .R . Elhargava, Witness No .BLW/W-7 former Home Secretary, C-390, Defence
Colony, New Delhi (8) Shri M .B; . Narayanan, Witness No .BLW/W-8 former Director,
Intelligence Bureau. (9) Shri Aparajit B. Basakt Witness No.BLW/W-9 C J'O, Superitendent
Central Jail No,3, Tihar New Delhi. (10) Shri BG Deshmukh, Witness No.BLW/W-10 former
Cabinet Secretary Deshmukh Farm, Magarpatta, Pune - 411036 .¶ (11) Shri Hardip S. Puri,
Witness No.BLW/W-ll Joint Secretary (P&C) Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi.
(12) Shri JN Dixit, Witness No.BLW/W-12 former Foreign Secretary AJM 102-A, Arjun Marg,¶
DLF (2utab Enclave, Phase-I, Gurgaon-122 002 (Haryana).¶ 4.26 Shri. M.V. THomas examined
himself as Witness No.MVT/W-1 4.27 Prof. KK Tewary examined himself as Witness No.KKT/W-l
¶
4.28 The following witnesses were examined on behalf of Shri Jile Singh Chauhan:¶ (1)
Shri A . Raghvan, Witness No .JSC/W-l¶ Blitz Special Correispondent,¶ Room No .6, 3rd
Floor, INS Building Rafi Marg, New Delhi-ll0 001. (2) Shri San lay Kapoor Witness No
JSC/W-2 Chief of Bureau, Blitz 3/6, I.N.SF Building, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-11 0001. (3)
Shri Chandraswami, Witness No.JSC/W-3 R/0 C-18 . Special Institutional Area, New
Delhi-ll0016. R/0 Vishwa Dharmatayan,¶ 9/10, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi.¶ 4.29
The A11 India Congress Committee ( I ) examined only one witness on its behalf namely Shri
Janardhan Poojari as Witness No AICC (I)/ W-l . 4.30 The following witnesses were examined
on behalf of DMK Party:¶ (1) Shri S Guhan, Witness No.DMK/W-l¶ former Adviser to the
Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. ¶ (2) Shri M Karunanidhi, Wintess No.DMK/W-2¶ Chief
Minister of Tamil Nadu (3) Shri SB Chavan, Witness No.DMK/W-3 former Home Minister ¶ (4)
Shri S.I. Jaffar Ali, Witness No.DMK/W-4 DIG Intelligence (Retd.) Govt of Tamil Nadu.¶
4.31 The following witnesses were examined on behalf of the Commission ¶ (l) Shri Vir
Sanghvi, Witness No.CW-l Editor, Sunday Magazine (2) Shri K. Govindan Kutty, Witness
No.CW-2 Senior Editor, Financial Express, Kochi (Kerala ) (3) Dr. Subramanian Swamy,
Witness No.CW-3 President, Janata Party (4) Shri T.N Seshan, Witness No.CW-4 Chief
Election Commissioner (5) Shri Raini Ranjan Sahu Witness No.CW-5 Member of Parliament (6)
Shri Jitendra Prasada, Witness No.CW-6¶ Political Secretary to P.M. & President, UP
Congress ¶ (7) Shri Chandra Shekhar, Witness No.CW-7¶ former Prime Minister of India¶
(8) Shri Rajiv Shukla, Witness No.CW-8 Journalist Observer India Ltd (9) Dr. Subramanian
Swamyt Witness No.CW-9 Prerident, Janata Party. (10) Shri Arif Mohammad Khan, Witness
No.CW-10 B-10, Mayfair Gardens, New Delhi (11) Shri Ramesh Dalal, Witness No.CW-ll R/O
Prem Nagar, Najafgarh, New Delhi (12) Shri A. Chimanlal, Witness No.CW-12 Shiva Sadan,
Gidge Road, Malabar Hill, Bombay. (13) Shri S.S. Mahapatra, Witness No.CW-13 Ex-MP and
fortner General Secretary of AICC(I) (14) Smt S. Kumadavalli, Witness No.CW-14¶ 48/2,
Thirumalai Ra japuram, Avadi, Madras. (15) Shri M. Selvaraj, Witness No.CW-15¶ 48/2,
Thirumalai Rajapuram, Avadi, Madras.¶ (16) Ms. M Neelavathy, Wintess No CW-16 Madras (17)
MB. S. Rani Samuel, Witness No.CW-17 Madras (18) Maj. Gen. Yashwant Deva, Witness No.CW-18
House No 1115, Sector A Pocket A, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi¶ (19) Ms. Anita Pratap, Witness
No.CW-l9 'Times' Correspondent.¶ (20) Maj. Gen. Pran Nath(Retd.) Witness No.CW-20 R/0
673, Sector 29, Noida. ¶ (21) Shri S.CO Chandrahavan, Witness No.CW-21 Residing at
20/A1/B, Pycrofts Garden Road, Madras.¶ (22) Lt. Gen. Amarjit Singh Witness No.CW-22
Kalkat (Retd.), E-229, East of Kailash, New Delhi.¶ (23) Shri Kasi Anandan, Witness
No.CW-23 6A, 6th Floor, Silver Park Apartments, T Nagar, Madras.¶ (24) Shri Viswanath
Pratap Singh, Witness No.CW-24 former Prime Minister of India ¶ (25) Shri R. Suresh,
Witness No.CW-25 Door No 8 Chitrakulam Street, Mylapore, Madras.¶ (26) Shri P.
Manivannan, Witness No.CW-26 29, Salai Street, Mylapore, Madras (27) Shri P.Chidambaram,
Witness No.CW-27 Minister of Finance Government of India. (28) Ms J. Jayalalitha, Witness
No.CW-28 former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. ( 29) Shri Mani Shankar Aiyar, Witness
No.CW-29 Ex-M.P., Lok Sabha.(30) Shri Lakhuhhai Pathak, Witness No.CW-30 Room No.lll,
Ambassador Hotel New Delhi (31) Shri I.P. Khosla, Witness No.CW-31 former
Secretary,Ministry of External Affairs. (32) Smt. M. Chandrasekhar, Witness No.CW-32 R/0
2972, 14th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Madras.(33) Shri Zafar Saifullah, Witness No.CW-33
former Cabinet Secretary (34) Shri Muchkund Dubey, Witness No.CW-34 former Foreign
Secretary (35) Shri P.R. Sood, Witness No.CW-35 No,5F, Court Road, Delhi .(36) Shri Nikhil
Kumar, Witness No.CW-36 Commi ss ioner of Police, Delhi. (37) Shri N.V. Vathsan, Witness
No.CW-37 former Special Director, Intelligence Bureau . (38) Shri P.V Narasimha Rao,
Witness No.CW-38 former Prime Minister of India (39) Shri Shyamal Datta, Witness No.CW-39
Director, S.P.G.(40) Shri Sunil Chander Sharma, Witness No.CW-40 Assistant Commissioner,
Income Tax Circle 13(5). (41) Shri Laxman Singh, Witness No.CW-41 Asstt. Director
(Investigation) Income Tax Office. (42) Shri Vikram Singh, Witness No.CW-42 S/O Shri RK.S.
Sagar, Inmate in Jail No.3, Tihar Jail Complex, New Delhi.(43) Shri V. George, Witness
No.CW-43 former P.S. to Shri Rajiv Gandhi (44) Shri Chandraswami, Witness No.CW-44 R/o
Special Institutional Area, New Delhi110016. (45) Shri Ranian Roy, Witness No.CW-45
Secretary, Cabinet Secretriat. (46) Shri J.N. Dixit, Witness No.CW-46 former Foreign
Secretary, AJM 102 A,, Arrun Marg, DLF Outab Enclave/ Phase-I, Gurgaon-122 002 (47) Shri
R. Sri Sumar Witness No.CW-47 former DIG, SIT/CBI & now Director (Security &
Vigilance), Rarnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore.(48) Admiral L. Ramdas
(Retd) Witness No.CW-48 former Chief of Naval Staff.(49) Maj. Gen M. Bhatia, Witness
No.CW-49 Director, Signal Intelligence, Ministry of Defense. ( 50 ) Shri S .
Chandrasekhar, Witness No .CW-50 former Additional Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat (51 )
Shri A.S., Syali, Witness No.CW-51 former Secretary (R ), Cabinet Secretariat.(52) Shri
Gauri Shankar Baipair Witness No.CW-52 former Secretary (Security)(53 ) Commodre N .W .
Jorhi, Witness No .CW-53 Director, Naval Intelligence, Naval Headquarters, South Block,
New Delhi.(54) Rear Admiral JC DeSilva Witness No.CW-54 Assistant Chief of the Naval Staff
( IWOPS), Naval Headquarters, South Block, New Delhi.(55) Commodore P. Kaushiva, Witness
No.CW-55Director of Naval Operations Naval Headquarters, South Block, New Delhi (56)
Commodore M. Raza (M.R. Khan) Witness No.CW-56 Director of Naval Signals, Naval
Headquarters, 'C' Wing, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi.(57) Shri Buta Singh Witness No.CW-57
former Union Minister, C-l/6 E Lodhi Gardens, New Delhi
4.32 The witnesses who have been examined partly in camera are the folloiwng:(1) Shri R,
Vesudevan Witness No.VPS/W-2 (2) Shri VP. Singh Witness No.CW 24 (3) Shri P. Chidambaram
Witness No.CW 27 (4) Shri S B Chavan Witness No DMK/W-3 (5) Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao
Witness No CW-38 4.33 Witnesses who have been examined exclusively in camera are the
following: (1) Shri V . Vaidyanathan Witness No .CG/W-1 (2) Shri M .K . Narayanan Witness
No .BLW/W-8 (3) Shri S . Sripall Witness No .TNG /W-l (4) Shri K. Mohandas . Witness
No,TNG/W-2 (5) Shri J. Ramakrishnan Witness No.TNG/W-3 (6) Shri Nanchil Kumaran Witness
No.TNG/W-4 (7) Shri S.A. Subbaiah Witness No.CG/W-2 (8) Shri Aparajit B. Basak Witness
No.BLW/W-9 (9) Shri Hardip S. Puri Witness No.BLW/W-11 (10) Shri J.N. Dixit Witness
No.BLW/W-12 (11) Shri V.G . Vaidya Witness No .VPS/W-3 (12) Shri Et.N. Thakur Witness
No.VPS/W-4 (13) Shri KR. Venugopal Witness No.VPS/W-6 (14) Smt. S. Inumudasralli Witness
No.CW-14 (l5) Shri M . Selvaraj Witness No .CW-15 (16) Smt . M Neelavathy Witness No
.CW-16 (17) Smt S. Rani Samuel Witness No.CW-17 (18) Maj Gen Yashwant Deva Witness No
.CW-18 (19) Maj,Gen. Pran Nath Witness No.CW-20 (20) Shri S.CX Chandrahasan Witness
NoCW-21 (21) Lt Gen Amarjit Singh Witness No.CW-22 Kalkat (22) Shri Kasi Anandan Witness
NoCW-23 (23) Shri IP Khosla Witness No.CW-31 (24) Shri Zafar Saifullah Witness No.CW-33
(25) Shri Muchkund Dubey Witness No .CW-34 (26) Shri PR . Sood Witness No .CW-35 (27) Shri
Nikhil Kumar Witness No.CW-36 (28) Shri N.v. Vathsan Witness No.CW-37 (29) Shri Shyamal
Datta Witness No.CW-39 (30) Shri Sunil Chander Witness No.CW-40 Sharma (31) Shri Laxman
Singh Witness No.CW-41 (32) Shri Vikram Singh Witness No.CW-42 (33) Shri V. George Witness
No.CW-43 (34) Shri Chandlraswami Witness No. CW-44 (35) Shri Ranian Roy Witness No.CW-45
(36) Shri J N Dixit Witness No. CW-46 (37) Shri R Sri Kumar Witness No.CW-47 (38) Admiral
L . Ram Das Witness No .CW-48 (39) Maj. Gen. M. Bhatia Witness No.CW-49 (40) Shri S.
Chandrasekhar Witness No.CW-50 (41) Shri A.S . Syali Witness No.CW-51 (42) Shri Gauri
Shankar Bajpal. Witness No CW-52 (43) Commodore N.W. Joshi Witness No.CW-53 (44 ) Rear
Admiral J .C. DeSilva Witness No.CW-54 (45) Commodore P. Raushiva Witness No.CW-55 (46)
Commodore M.R. Rhan Witness No.CW-56 (47) Shri Buta Singh Witness No. CW-57
4.34 Though as per Notification S.0. No.545 (E) dated 23rd Auqust.r 1991 issued by the
Ministry of Home Affairs Government of India, the Commission was required to submit its
report to the Central Government as, soon as possible but no later than six months, the
term of the Commission was ,tended by the Ministry of Home Affairs from time to time on
six-monthly basis, upto 31st August, 1997, making a total Span of six years for the
Commission. The present extension was granted by the Ministry of Home Affairs vide its
Notification S.0. No.109 (E) dated 17.2.1997 (Annexure 23) How and why six years ' time
was taken by the Commission in the conduct of the inquiry and what were the factors which
were responsible for causing so much delay and hampering the progress of the inquiry get
automatically refleclted in the proceedings of the Commission held over this long period.
Some of the factors briefly stated are : Raising of the question of jurisdiction over
areas covered by the chargesheet by the then Attorney General of India from day one,
disputing the cut-off date fixed by the Commission as 1981 by the Advocate General of
Tamil Nadu, filing of the Public Interest Petition by way of Civil Writ Petition
No.1544/94 before the Delhi High Court. by Shri Mushtaq Ahmed, non-production of documents
summoned by the AICC (I) for a considerable time, raising of the question of privilege in
respect of documents, filing of two SLPs by the Central Government, i.e. one against the
Order of the Delhi High Court dated 16.11.1995 in CWP No. 1544/94 and the second, against
the Order of the Commisslion dated 28.12.1995, withdrawing by the DMK Party from the
proceedings of the Commission and after a lapse of more than a year rejoining the
proceedings, nonparticipation by Section 8-B and Rule 5(2) (a) noticees particularly Shri
VP Singh who started participating at a very late stage, non- making of the Crime File and
investigation record available by the Special investigation Team: (SIT) to the
Commission,and some administrative hurdles like Skeleton staff and lack of infrastructural
facilities at the initial stages of nonfilling of the post of Adviser (Security) for a
little over one year, non-filling of the post of S.P. and two posts of Inspector
throughout the term of the Commission and shortage of computers. In fact, the Commission
had to borrow a computer from one of the Central Agencies to feed the voluminous material,
received by it in the form of affidavits documents etc. 4.35 A separate chapter titled
"Proceedings of the Commission has been included in the Report which gives a step by
step account of the progress of the Inquiry as also the hurdles by way of legal and
procedural wrangles which the Commission had to resolve over the period.¶
Index
India Today News
Today
Related Stories
Feedback
To advertise on the Jain Commission pages, mail us