The question of issuance of notices under Section¶ 8-B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (the Act) and persons to whom opportunity of being heard in the Inquiry was first listed before the Commission on 27th August, 1992. The matter came up next on 25.9.1992, but was adjourned to 31.5.1993. It was further adjourned to 1.6.1993. The Commission in its Order dated 1st June, 1993 while determining the scope and parameters of the terms of reference of the Commission held in the matter as under:
"This Commission thinks that at this stage it would be appropriate to confine the inquiry to the first part of the first term of reference, that is the sequence of events leading to the assassination of Shri Rajiv Gandhi" and in order to hold an inquiry into this part of the term of reference, it would be reasonable and proper to give time to the parties to summon any document/record or to produce any evidence or file additional affidavits to make out a Prima facie case for issuance of notices under section 8-B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. ¶ They may move the Commission in this regard by 2nd July, 1993 as agreed to by the learned counsels for the parties. The question of issuance of notices under section 8-B in respect of first part of the first term of reference shall be taken up for consideration on that date".
When the matter came up on 2nd July, 1993, it was adjourned to 16th August, 1993. On 16.8.1993, Mr. B. Datta, Counsel for the Central Government moved an application (No.l/93-JCI) (Annexure -24) seeking clarification/amendment and/or suspension of this Commission's Orders dated 1st June, 1993 and 2nd July, 1993 and praying that pending consideration of the application, further proceedings before the Commission may be stayed in regard to the matters stated in the application. In view of the submissions made by the Counsel, the Commission considered it proper to adjourn the hearing and fixed the next date of hearing for 6th October, 1993 as mutually agreed to by the parties. The matter regarding the issuance of notices under Section 8B of the Act was also directed to be taken up for consideration on 6th October, 1993.¶
6.2 On 6.10.1993, Shri R.N. Mittal, Counsel of AICC(I) made submissions in the light of affidavits Nos.36/92 and 95/93 filed by the General Secretaries of the AICC(I) for issuance of Notices under Section 8-B of the Act. An application (No.3/93-JCI) (Annexure 35) was also filed on 6.10.1993 by the Counsel for Shri R. Ramamurthy, President of TNCC(I), for issuance of Notices under Section 8-B of the Act to 15 individuals on the basis of allegations made in the affidavits listed in the application. However, Shri M.N. Rrishnamani, Counsel for Smt. Jayanthi Natarajan and others and Shri R.G. James, Counsel for Shri V. Gopalsamy, submitted that no Notices under Section 8-B of the Act were required to be issued on the basis of affidavits filed by their respective parties. For consideration of other affidavits for purposes of issuance of notices under Section 8-B of the Act and also for fixing dates for hearing other matters, the Commission fixed 7th October, 1993. On 7.10.1993, the Commission by its Short Order dated 7.10.1993 directed that on the basis of the averments made in the affidavit No.36/92 of Smt. Rajendra Kumari Bajpai, General Secretary, AICC(I) and affidavit No.95/93 of Shri Ahmed Patel, General Secretary, AICC(I) and the affidavits mentioned in the application submitted by the counsel for Shri R. Ramamurthy, President, TNCC(I), Notices under Section 8-S of the Act be issued 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, M.P.¶ (4) Shri Jaffar Ali, former DIG of Police, Government of Tamil Nadu.¶ (5) Smt. Subbalakshmi Jagadeesan, former Minister in DMK Government, Tamil Nadu.¶ (6) Shri R. Nagarajan, former Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu.¶ (7) Shri P. Nedumaran, President, Tamil National Front.
The Commission separately pronounced its detailed Order on 7.10.1993 (Annexure 36) on the question of issuance of notices under Section 8-B of the Act in respect of the first part of the first term of reference of the Inquiry, i.e. "the sequence of events leading to the assassination of Shri Rajiv Gandhi". The Commission inter alia held in that order as under:
"Looking to the averments made in the affidavits referred to by Shri R.N. Mittal, learned Counsel for the AICC(I) and Shri R. Muthukrishnan, Learned Counsel for the TNCC(I), it would appear that serious allegations have been made against Shri Viswanath Pratap Singh, Shri M. Karunanidhi, Shri V. Gopalasamy, Shri Jaffar Ali, Mrr. Subbalakshmi Jagadeesan, Mr. R. Nagarajan and Shri P. Nedumaran. These allegations can only be inquired into after opportunity of being heard is given to these persons. The Commission is of the opinion that ¶ their reputation is likely to be prejudicially affected in the inquiry into such allegations. Notices under Section 8-B therefore should go to them so that they may appear and participate in the proceedings, safeguard their interests and defend themselves. The Commission may add here that issuance of notices under Section 8-B does not in any way reflect on the noticee's conduct or their reputation. It is essential to give fair and full opportunity to the noticees so that they may be in a position to protect their interests by full representation.
It may be mentioned in the notices that the noticees may appear on the 16th November, 1993 either in person or through a legal practitioner.
As regards Shri M.M. Rajendran, it is noteworthy that there are no allegations against him in the affidavit of Shri T.V. Venkatraman. I am, therefore, of the opinion that no case for issuance of notice under Section 8-B is made out and so I decline to accede to the prayer made by him in his application for issuance of notice to Shri M.M. Rajendran".
6.3 Shri B. Datta, Counsel for the Central Government as well as Shri K. Subramanian, Advocate General for the State of Tamil Nadu, submitted on 7.10.1993 that before notices under section 8-B of the Act are issued to any officers or agencies of the Central Government or the State Government, the question of privilege which has been raised on behalf of the Central Government and the Government of Tamil Nadu may be considered. In view of this submission, it was directed that the question of issuance of notices to the officials and the agencies of the Central Government and the State Government will be taken up for consideration after hearing on the question of privilege.
6.4 On 16.11.1993, time upto 14th December, l993 was granted to the following noticees to reply to the notices issued to them under Section 8-B of the Act pursuant to tht Commission's Order dated 7.10.1993:
(1) Shri V.P. Singh, former Prime Minister of India.¶ (2) Shri M. Karunanidhi, former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.¶ (3) Shri V. Gopalsamy, M.P.¶ (4) Shri S.I. Jaffar Ali, former DIG of Police, Government of Tamil Nadu.¶ (5) Shri R. Nagarajan, former Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu. ¶ (6) Shri P. Nedumaran, President, Tamil National Front.
Also fresh notice under Section 8-B of the Act was directed to be issued to Smt. Subbalakshmi Jagadeesan former Minister, Government of Tamil Nadu, returnable on 14th Docember, 1993. Futher, the parties were directed to file their applications for issuance of fresh notices under section 8-B of the Act by 14th December, 1993. On 4th January, 1994 the Commission ordered that the replies filed by the undermentioned noticees be circulated to the concerned parties:
(1) Shri Viswanath Pratap Singh, former Prime Minister of India: (2) Shri M. Karunanidhi, former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu (3) Shri R. Nagaraian, former Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu (4) Shri P. Nedumaran, President, Tamil National Front
Shri R.G. James, Advocate on behalf of Shri V. Gopalsamy, MP and Shri S.I. Jaffar Ali, former Deputy Inspector General of Police, Government of Tamil Nadu, sought time to file replies. They were allowed to file replies by 25th January, 1994. None was present on behalf of Smt. Subbalakshmi Jagadeesan, former Minister, Government of Tamil Nadu, and no reply was filed by her although notice had already been served on her.
6.5 No one else had filed any application for issuance of fresh notices under Section 8-B of the Act. However, Shri K.L. Arora, Counsel for the Commission submitted that he would file a list of persons by 25th January, 1994 along with accusations levelled against them to whom notices under Section 8-B of the Act may be issued. ¶ 6.6 On 16th February t 1994, Shri R. Subramanian, Advocate General of Tamil Nadu appearing on behalf of Shri Jaffar Ali prayed for two weeks' time for filing reply by Shri Jaffar Ali to the 8-B notice dated 14.10.1993 issued to him which was granted. Also on 16.2.1994 an application (No.ll/94-JCI) dated 5.1.1994 (Annexure 37) filed by Shri K. Ramamurthy, President, TNCC(I) for issuance of notices under Section 8-B of the Act to the following persons in view of the allegations and accussations made against them as stated in the application came up for consideration:
(1) Shri Ramakrishnan, General Secretary, Dravida Razhagam (Ramakrishna Group) (2) Shri Aruchamy (3) Shri Ravindran (4) Shri Kutty Krishnan¶ (5) Shri Somu @ Somasundaram (6) Shri Jagadeesan (7) Shri V. Ravichandran Shri R. Muthukrishnan, Advocate for Shri R. Ramamurthy, submitted that the name of Shri Muruganandam has been wrongly omitted from the application and orally prayed for issuance of notice to Shri Muruganandam also. The relavant paragraph was perused and his name found a mention therein. In view of the accusations made against the aforesaid persons and Shri Muruganandan, notices under Section 8-B were directed to be issued to them returnable within four weeks. Shri R. Muthukrishnan undertook to file their latest postal addresses within ten days.
6.7 The list dated 24.1.1994 of persons with accustions based on the affidavits of Shri T.R. Balu (4/91-JCI), Shri Aladi Aruna (62/9;2-JCI), Shri S. Guhan (71/92-JCI) , Shri R. Nagarajan (85/93-JCI) and Shri P Nedumaran (87/93-JCI) and Lt. Gen. Dipender Singh (Retd) (No. 86/93-JCI) which was filed by Shri R.L. Arora, Counael for the Commisaion pursuant to the Commission's Order dated 4.1.1994 also came up for consideration on 16.2.1994. Shri B. Datta, Counsel for the Central Government prayed for time to seek introductions from the Director, Intelligence Bureau: Secretary (R) including RAW Officers; Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs; Cabinet Secretary, and the Customs with regard to issuance of notices to them on behalf of their respective Departments/Agencies on the basis of the aforesaid list. Time upto 4.4.1994 was granted as prayed for. The Commission further directed that notices under Section 8B of the Act be issued to the following persons returnable on 22.3.1994 on the basis of the list dated 24.1.1994 filed by the Counsel for the Commission in view of the allegations made against them in the affidavits as shown below against their respective names:
(1) Shri Aladi Aruna Affidavit No.66/92-JCI of Spokesman of Shri DMK Party R.Ramamurthy, President, TNCC(I) (Page 8, para 10, page 2 paras 3 and 4 and page 5, para 8)
(2) Shri R. Veeramani General Secretary, Dravida Kazhagam: Affidavit No.66/92-JCI of Shri K. Ramamurthy, President, TNCC(I) (Page 8 para 11).
(3) Shri K. Ramamurthy, MP President of TNCC(I): Affidavit No 32/92-JCI of Shri K Veeramani, President, Gen. Secretary, D.K. (Page 2, para 5(a) & (b). Affidavit No. 62/92-JCI of Shri Aladi Aruna (page 4, para 13a). Affidavit No.4/91-JCI of Shri T R Balu (Page 4, para 5)
(4) Mrs. MarigathamChandrashekhar MP: Affidavit No.4/91-JCI of Shri T.R. Balu, Madras District Secretary of DMK Party (Page 5, para 8 and page 4, para 6)
(5) Mrs. Latha Priyakumar: Affidavit No.62/92-JCI of Shri Aladi Aruna, Spokesman of the DMK Party [Page 5, para 13(g)]
6.8 The Commission clarified that issuance of notices to the persons whom notices under Section 8-B were being issued, as considered above, was no reflection on the conduct or reputation of the noticees. It was in their interest that an opportunity of being heard was given to them as their reputation was likely to be prejudicially affected in view of the allegations and accusations made against them by the deponents noted above.
NOTICE UNDER SECTION 8-B OF THE ACT TO SHRI SURESH PACHOURI. 6.9 Shri R.N. Mittal, Advocate, who appeared on behalf of Shri Suresh Pachouri, on 16.2.1994 submitted that copies of the affidavits of Shri Anirudha Prasad Shastri and all other accompanying affidavits may be supplied to him and consideration of these affidavits may be deferred go that the question as to whether on the basis of the material before the Commission a notice under Section 8-B of the Act could be issued to Shri Suresh Pachouri, may be examined. The Commission granted Shri Mittal 's prayer and fixed the matter for 24.3.1994. The Commission while holding that in view of Shri Mittal's submission it would be better if a notice was issued to Shri Anirudha Prasad Shastri for 24.3.1994 for hearing the matter in his presence directed that notice be issued to Shri Anirudha Prasad Shastri for 24.3.1994. On 28.4.1994 the Commission passed the folIowing Order:¶
"Shri Anirudha Prasad Shastri has filed an application dated 15.3.1994 for withdrawal of his affidavit No.84/93-JCI and the accompanying affidavits. It appears that in view of the affidavits of the four ladies filed by Shri Atul Sharma, their Attorney, the application for withdrawal has been filed and it is stated at the Bar that Shri Anirudha Prasad Shastri was misinformed. In view of the application, the Commission directed that the affidavit of Shri Anirudha Prasad Shastri and the accompanying affidavits stand withdrawn. As such, the question of issuance of Notice under Section 8-B of the Act to Shri Suresh Pachouri does not arise" .
6.10 The question regarding filing of replies by persons to whom notices under Section 8-B of the Act were issued vide Commission'^ Order dated 16.2.1994 came up for consideration on 26th ApriI, I994. The Commission noticed that nobody was present on behalf of Smt. Maragatham Chandrasekhar and Smt. Latha Priyakumar. Replies on behalf of Shri Aladi Aruna and Shri R. Veeramani had already been received and taken on record. Shri R. Muthukrishnan stated that reply by Shri K. Ramamurthy was ready which he would file that day. Shri R. Muthukrishnan also furnished complete postal addresses in respect of the following seven persons to whom notices under Section 8-B of the Act were to be issued pursuant to Commission's Order dated 16.2.1994:
(1) Shri Ramakrishnan
(2) Shri Aruchamy
(3) Shri Ravindran
(4)Shri Kutty Rrishnan
(5) Shri Somu @ Somasundaram
(6) Shri Jagadeesan
(7) Shri V. Ravichandran
Notices under Section 8-8 of the Act could not be issued to them earlier for want of postal addresses. Notices were directed to be issued to them returnable within four weeks. As regards Shri Muruganandam, Shri Muthukrishnan prayed for two weeks' time for furnishing his complete postal address. Time as prayed for was granted.
6.11 On 1.6.1994, the question of issuance of notices under Section 8-B of the Act to the following seven persons pursuant to Commission's Order dated 26.4.1994 came up for further consideration in view of the interim stay order dated 2.5.1994 passed by the High Court of Delhi in CMP No.2827/94 arising out of Civil Writ Petition No.1544/94 (Mushtaq Ahmed vs. Union of India and others):
(1) Shri Ramakrishnan (2)Shri Aruchamy¶ (3) Shri Ravindran (4) Shri Rutty Rrishnan (5) Shri Somu @ Somasundram (6) Shri Jagadeesan¶ (7) Shri V. Ravichandran
Shri Muthukrishnan submitted that noticees Nos.l to 5 were connected with the events which occurred on 14.5.1990 when manufacturing of arms was unearthed and a case was registered against them. Insofar as persons at serial Nos.6 and 7 were concerned, notices were sought to be issued on account of their involvement as accused in Padmanabha murder case which had taken place after 29th July, 1987. The Commission thereupon directed that notices to all the seven persons could go under Section 8-B(b) of the Act. It was however made clear that if any accusation was made against them prior to 29th July, 1987, that would not be enquired into in view of the interim stay order dated 2nd May, 1994 passed by the High Court of Delhi. Shri Muthukrishnan also filed the postal address of Shri Muruganandam. It was then directed that notices to all the above eight persons be issued returnable within four weeks.
6.12 The question of filing of replies by eight persons to whom notices under Section 8-B(b) of the Act were issued in pursuance of Commission's Order dated 1.6.1994 came up for consideration on 30.6.1994. It was ordered as under:
"Notices under Section 8-B(b) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952 were sent to eight persons on the basis of the application dated 5.1.1994 moved by Shri K. Ramamurthy, President TNCC(I) Shri R. Ramakrishnan and Shri V. Aruchamy were served with notices through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore. They have sought time to file affidavits. Time upto 25th July, 1994 was granted to them. Shri Rutty @ Krishnan @ Raju, Shri Somu @ Somasundran, Shri B. Jagadeesan and Shri V. Ravichandran have already been served with notices. On behalf of Shri Ravichandran, a power has been filed by Shri R.G. James, Advocate, who prays for time to file reply to the notice. Prayer I9 allowed and reply be filed before 8.8.1994. Other three noticees have not filed any reply. The matter would proceed ex-parte against them.¶ Shri Ravi @ Ravindran and Shri Muruganandam have not been served with notices and the notices have been returned with the postal remarks "no such addressee at the given address" and "incorrect address" respectively. Shri R. Muthukrishnan, Advocate for Shri K. Ramamurthy states that these persons are proclaimed offenders. Correct addresses were furnished to the Commission and no other address is available. Fresh notices be issued and let those notices be pasted at the conspicuous part of their residences by way of substituted service. Notices be given Dasti to Shri R. Muthukrishnan who will get the substituted service effected".
6.13 The affidavit dated 2.6.1994 of Shri M.V. Thomas regarding issuance of notices under Section 8-B of the Act to certain persons and also summoning certain witnesses for evidence came up for consideration on 30.6.1994. The Commission passed the following Order:- "Dr. Jose P. Verghese, Advocate for Shri M.V. Thomas states that he does not press his affidavit dated 2.6.1994 regarding issuance of notices under Section 8-B(b) of the Act to persons mentioned in the affidavit and also for summoning of certain witnesses for evidence. In view thereof, no order is called for. However, it would be open to him to move fresh application accompanied with an affidavit for issuance of notices under Section 8-B(b) specifying accusations against the proposed noticees and also for summoning of witnesses which he wants to get examined for substantiating those accusations. It would also be open to him to summon witnesses in connection with the second part of the first term of reference and the second term of reference".
6.14 On 8th August, 1994, the filing of reply by Shri V. Ravichandran to whom notice under Section 8-B(b) of the Act was issued and who was granted time upto 8.8.1994, came up for consideration. The following Order was passed on 8.8.1994: ¶ "Shri R.G. James. Advocate for Shri V. Ravichandran, prayed for further time to file reply to the Notice under Section 8-B(b) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. He submitted that the noticee wants to file a writ petition in the Madras High Court challenging the issuance of Notice under Section 8-B(b). It is open to him to resort to any remedy which may be available to him in law and it is also open to him to raise all objections against the issuance of Notice before this Commission. In the interest of justice, I am allowing further four weeks' time to file reply to the Notice under Section 8-B(b) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.
On the question of substituted service on Shri Ravi @ Ravindran and Shri Muruganandam in respect of whom fresh notices under Section 8-B(b) were given 'DASTI' to Shri R. Muthukrishnan purusant to Commission's Order dated 30.6.1994, the following Order was passed:
"Shri Thananjayan, Advocate on behalf of Shri R. Muthukrishnan, Advocate, submitted that Shri R Muthukrishnan is unwell and, as such, he has instructed him to seek adjournment. Substituted service was to be effecttd on Shri Ravi @ Ravindran and Shri Muruganandam and for which Notices under Section 8-3(b) of the Act were given Dacti to him. Shri Thananjayan stated that he hao no instructions as to whether substituted service has been effected or not. Compliance of the earlier Order he would make known to the Commission by filing an affidavit of effecting substituted service, on or before 24.8.1994".
6.15 On 23rd September, 1994, an application No.25/94-JCI) dated 30.8.1994 and the accompanying affidavit dated 25.8.1994 filed by Shri V. Ravichandran in response to notice dated 2.6.1994 issued to him under Section 8-B(b) of the Act came up for consideration. The Commission ordered as under: "Heard Shri R.G. James. The Commission cannot wait till the trial is over. If Mr. Ravichandran wants to participate in the proceedings, it is open to him to participate and avail his right under the law. The application is diposed of accordingly". Tha affidavit of service filed by Shri R. Muthukrishnan, Advocate to whom fresh notices under Section 8-B(b) of the Act were given 'DASTI' for effecting substituted service on Ravi @ Ravindran and Shri Muruganandam pursuant to Commission's Orders dated 30.6.1994 and 8.8.1994, was taken on record.
6.16 On 20.10.1994, the question of filing of replies by Shri Muruganandam and Shri Ravi @ Ravindran to whom notices under Section 8-B(b) of the Act were served by way of substituted service on 29.6.1994 and 21.9.1994 respectively pursuant to Commission's Orders dated 30.6.1944 and 23.8.1994 came up for consideration. While observing that no replies have been filed by Shri Muruganandam and Shri Ravi @ Ravindran the Commission directed that the matter shall proceed ex-parte.
NOTICE UNDER SECTION 8-3 OF THE ACT TO THE DIRECTOR GENBRAL OP POLICE, TAMIL NADU ON BEHALF OF THE TAMIL NADU POLICE
6.17 The question of issuance of notice under Section 8-B of the Act to the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Police came up for consideration on 16.2.1994. Shri R. Subramanian, Advocate General of Tamil Nadu prayed for time to look into the affidavits of Shri T.R. Balu (No.4/91-JCI) and Shri R. Nagarajan (No.85/93-JCI) since copies of those affidavits were received by him only two days back. Time was granted till 24.3.1994, as prayed for.
6.18 The matter came up for further consideration on 28th April, 1994. Shri P.R. Seetharaman, Advocate for the Government of Tamil Nadu submitted that the affidavit of Shri T.R. Balu could not be relied upon as it was based on a press report and that unless specific evidence was made available to the Commission, the general allegation made against the State Police based on a press report was not available for issuance of Notice under S-ction 8-B of the Act. He also submitted that Notice under Section 8-B of the Act could not be issued in the personal name of the Director General of Police as the general conduct of the State Police was alone to be taken into account. Shri R.L. Arora, Counsel for the Commission, on the other hand, submitted that for issuance of Notice under Section 8-B of the Act the Commission has to satisfy itself on the basis of the material which was available with the Commission and it was not necessary to record evidence at that stage before issuance of the Notice under Section 8-B of the Act. No hearing was required to be given to the proposed noticee. Reliance was placed by him on the contents of the affidavit of Shri R. Nagarajan who was Home Secretary in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Commission held as under:
I have considered the rival submissions and, in my opinion, on the basis of the material available with the Commission, particularly the affidavit of Shri R. Nagarajan, a Notice under Section 8-B of the Act can go to the State Police headed by the Director General of Police and not in his personal name. Let notice, therefore, be issued under Section 8-B(b) of the Act, to the Director General of Police, State of Tamil Nadu, returnable within four weeks".
6.19 The matter came up for further hearing on 1.6.1994. Shri R.V. Vijayakumar, Advocate, who appeared on behalf of Shri P.R. Seetharaman, Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu, submitted that an application had already been filed by Shri P.R. Seetharaman for adjournment for personal reasons as stated in the application. He further submitted that the matter may be taken up on the next date of hearing. The matter was accordingly adjourned to the next date of hearing. On 30.6.1994, this question again came up for further consideration in view of the interim stay Order dated 2.5.1994 passed by the High Court of Delhi in C.M.P. Nov2827/94 in C.W.P No.1544/94 (Mushtaq Ahmed vs. Union of India and others). Shri P.C. Pant, I.G. (Police), Special Investigating Team, Tamil Nadu who appeared on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Government and prayed for time on the ground that the question of appointment of a Senior Advocate for the Tamil Nadu Government, was under active consideration of the State government and that he himself was not in a position to argue the legal aspects of the matter. He submitted that time may be allowed to the State Governcent to state its case on that issue. Time was granted and the matter was fixed for 9th August, 1994.
6.20 On 9.8.1994 the Commission passed the following Order:
On 28.4.1994, the Commission had passed an order directing issuance of notice under Section 8- B(b) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 to the Tamil Nadu Police headed by the Director General (Police), State of Tamil Nadu. Thereafter, on 2.5.1994, an interim stay order was passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court restraining the Commission to enquire into matters prior to 29.7.1987. This Commission, in view of the Order of the Hon'ble High Court, can only go into questions or matters which have arisen after 28.7.1987. Any accusations, allegations and aspersions against the Tamil Nadu Police in general or against any officers cannot be enquired into by this Commission if they pertain to the period prior to 29.7.1987 The cut-off date which was fixed by the Commission earlier was the year 1981. Accusations against the Tamil Nadu Police could have been looked into from the year 1981 to 28.7.1987 had there been no order by the Hon'ble High Court but this cannot be done at present in view of the interim stay order of the Hon'ble High Court. Notice under Section 8-B(b) of the Act be issued to the Tamil Nadu Police headed by the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, confining reply to the period from 29.7.1987 to 21.5.1991.
Parties will now, therefore, confine the evidence in respect of the allegations against the Tamil Nadu Police for the period from 29.7.1987 to 21.5.1991'. Notice under Section 8-B(b) of the Act was issued to the Director General of Police on behalf of Tamil Nadu Police on 16.8.1994. The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu filed an affidavit (No.252/94-JCI) dated 12.9.1994 in response to the said notice.
ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 8-B¶ OF THE ACT TO THE SENIOR FUNCTIONARIES OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ON BEHALF OF THEIR RESPECTIVE DEPARTMENTS.
6.21 The question regarding issuance of notices under section 8-B of the Act to the Director, IB, Secretary (R), including RAW officers, Ministry of Home Affairs, Cabinet Secretary and the Customs on behalf of their respective departments came up for consideration on 28.4.1994. The Counsel for the Central Government submitted an application seeking eight weeks' time which was granted and it was directed that the matter shall be listed on 30th June, 1994. On 30.6.1994 the Counsel for tho Central Government submitted an application seeking further time for the reasons stated in the application. It was pointed out that sufficient time was allowed to the Central Government. For reasons stated in the application and in the interest of justice, it was thought proper to allow some more time to the Counsels for the Central Government who shall see that no further time was sought for the purpose and on these issues it was expected that they would produce all the required docurents and state their case on privilege and issuance of notices under Section 8-B(b) to various agencies and Ministries etc. of the Central Government. The Counsel for the Central Government prayed that time for production of documents may be allowed upto 18.8.1994 and arguments on these issues may be heard on 25.8.1994. Time was allowed as prayed.
6.22 On 25th August, 1994, the question of issuance of Notices under Section 8-B(b) of the Act to the Director, I.B., Secretary (R) including RAW officers, Ministry of Home Affairs, Cabinet Secretary and the Customs on behalf of their respective departments confined to the period 29.7.1987 to 21.5.1991 in terms of the interim Order dated 2.5.1994 passed by the High Court of Delhi in CMP No.2827/94 arising out of Civil Writ Petition No.1544/94 (Mushtaq Ahmed vs. UOI & ors.) came up for further contideration. The Counsel for the Central Government submitted that this item may be taken up after production of records and after segregating the records and affidavits in relation to item Nos.3 and 4 on the agenda, namely, the question of privilege in respect of documents and affidavits filed by the Central Government and the Government of Tamil Nadu pursuant to AICC(I)'s application dated 28.10.1993 and the larger question of privilege in respect of the documents and affidavits filed by the Ministries, Departments and Agencies of the Central Government. The Commission directed that this quesiton shall be examined after the time which has been allowed in respect of the aforesaid two items.
6.23 On 2nd January, 1997, the Commission passed the following Order :
"Parties to whom notices under Section 8-B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, and under Rule 5(2)(a) of the Commissions of Inquiry (Central) ¶ Rules, 1972 have been issued and who have not led evidence so far, if they want to lead evidence or examine themselves, may submit the list of witnesses within a week from today. If such list of witnesses is not filed and if they do not avail the opportunity, it will be taken that they do not intend to lead any evidence and rest their submissions on their affidavits filed by them". ¶
Index
India Today News
Today
Related Stories
Feedback
To advertise on the Jain Commission pages, mail us