Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by Ghanshyam Upadhyay, the petitioner in a pending writ petition (W.P. (Crl.) No. 177/2020) seeking a direction to initiate action regarding the destruction of the residential building of accused Vikas Dubey and to safeguard his life. The writ petition was filed as a public interest litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution. Before the petition could be heard, Vikas Dubey was killed by police in an alleged encounter. The State of Uttar Pradesh constituted a Special Investigation Team and a Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1951, headed by former Allahabad High Court Judge Justice Shashikant Agrawal. Subsequently, on the suggestion of the Supreme Court, the State expanded the Commission by appointing former Supreme Court Judge Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan as Chairman and former Director General of Police K.L. Gupta as a Member. The Court accepted this constitution on 22.07.2020 and directed the writ petition to be listed along with the Commission's report, granting the petitioners liberty to apply to the Commission to be heard. The petitioner then filed the present application seeking to scrap the Commission and constitute a new SIT, alleging bias and conflict of interest against Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan (claiming his brother and relative are BJP legislators) and K.L. Gupta (claiming he is related to IG Kanpur Zone Mohit Agarwal and had made pro-police comments). The sole basis for these allegations was an article published in 'The Wire' on 29.07.2020. The Court noted that the petitioner had earlier raised similar objections regarding K.L. Gupta's media comments, which were dismissed on 28.07.2020 as devoid of merit. The Court held that newspaper reports without further proof have no evidentiary value, citing Kushum Lata v. Union of India and Rohit Pandey v. Union of India. It observed that the Chairman and Member held high constitutional positions and the allegations based solely on a newspaper report were unacceptable. The Court further held that the alleged relationships were insufficient to establish bias or conflict of interest, as there was no indication of the nature of influence or dominant position. The Court distinguished the case of Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, noting that the present proceedings are fact-finding, not adversarial. The Court dismissed the application, finding no merit.
Headnote
A) Evidence Law - Evidentiary Value of Newspaper Reports - Newspaper reports without further proof have no evidentiary value - The Supreme Court reiterated that a petition based solely on unconfirmed newspaper reports, without verifying their authenticity, should not be entertained, citing Kushum Lata v. Union of India (2006) 6 SCC 180 and Rohit Pandey v. Union of India (2005) 13 SCC 702 (Paras 6-7). B) Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 - Nature and Powers - A Commission under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 is empowered merely to investigate, record findings, and make recommendations, which are not enforceable proprio vigore - The findings of such a Commission are not binding on courts, as held in Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar, 1959 SCR 279, State of Karnataka v. Union of India (1977) 4 SCC 608, and Sham Kant v. State of Maharashtra, 1992 Suppl. (2) SCC 521 (Paras 10-11). C) Administrative Law - Bias - Plea of Bias Against Inquiry Commission - To sustain a plea of reasonable apprehension of bias, there must be cogent, uncontroverted, and undisputed material; the court cannot go by vague, whimsical, and capricious suspicion - The Andhra Pradesh High Court in K. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1996 AP 62, applied strict standards even when the petitioner was the person against whom the inquiry was constituted (Paras 12-13). D) Public Interest Litigation - Allegations of Bias - The petitioner, a lawyer from Mumbai with no connection to the incident, made allegations of bias against the Commission members based solely on a newspaper article - The Supreme Court held that such allegations are liable to be rejected outright, especially when the petitioner has been granted liberty to participate in the inquiry and the report will be filed in court (Paras 14-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Judicial Commission constituted by the State of Uttar Pradesh to inquire into the killing of Vikas Dubey should be scrapped on grounds of alleged bias and conflict of interest of its Chairman and Member, based solely on newspaper reports.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition, holding that the allegations of bias based solely on a newspaper report without any further proof are not sufficient to scrap the Commission. The Court found no merit in the application.
Law Points
- Newspaper reports without further proof have no evidentiary value
- Commission of Inquiry under Commissions of Inquiry Act is fact-finding and not adversarial
- Allegations of bias must be based on cogent and uncontroverted material
- not vague suspicion
