Library
|
Introduction
A) Setting Up Of The Commission On April 26, 1985, the Central Government announced in Parliament then in session, the appointment of a Commission under section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, and by Notification in the Gazette of India Extraordinary of the same date this Commission was duly constituted with the following terms of reference:
Following the accord between the Prime Minister of India and the late Shri Harchand Singh Longowal, the Akali leader, on July 24, 1985, the Commission's sphere of inquiry was extended to Kanpur in the State of Uttar Pradesh and Bokaro in the State of Bihar by Notification dated September 3, 1985. After the Commission visited Bokaro for a preliminary inquiry, it transpired that the major part of the incidents took place within the Chas area which was outside Bokaro Tehsil and on a reference made by the Commission indicating this fact, the Central Government modified the terms of reference by Notification dated October 10, 1985, to cover the incidents within the Bokaro Tehsil as also the Chas Tehsil. The first aspect referred to the Commission now reads thus:
Following the assassination of the late Prime Minister, there was riotous upsurge at Delhi and several other places in the country. Hundreds of Sikhs were killed; several others were injured and manhandled ; their houses and other properties were burnt down as a result of arson ; many of them were rendered homeless. The Home Minister made a statement on the floor of the Rajya Sabha that the number of Sikhs killed in Delhi during November 1984 riots was 2146; 586 persons were said to have been killed in other parts of the country during that period. From the terms of reference it is clear that so far as Delhi riots are concerned the commission has to inquire into the allegations in regard to incidents of "organised violence" while in regard to the other named places the inquiry is into the disturbance following the assassination of the late Prime Minister, Smt. Indira Gandhi. The effect of the distinction would be appropriately dealt with at the relevant place. B) Functioning Of The Commission On June 1, 1985, Shri R L. Gupta, a member of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, reported to duty as Secretary to the Commission. On July 6, 1985, the building at 5, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road was placed at the disposal of the Commission for housing the Commission's establishment. Provision for furniture and furnishing the building in order to make the rooms suitable took some more time. On July 9, 1985, the Notification by the Commission inviting all persons acquainted with the subject-matter of inquiry to furnish to the Commission information in the form of affidavits relating to the allegation in regard to the incidents of organised violence which took place in Delhi following the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi and the measures that may be adopted to prevent recurrence of such incidents was duly published in 25 newspapers with wide circulation of which 6 were English, 7 Hindi, 5 Urdu and 7 Punjabi. A month's time was allowed for filing of such affidavits. One of the first groups which came before the Commission was styled as "Citizen Justice' Committee". It maintained that several well-placed public spirited persons, including Mr. Justice S.M. Sikri, a retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India, Mr. V.M. Tarkunde, a former Judge of the Bombay High Court and now a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court, Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court, Air Chief Marshal Arjan Singh (Retd.) and Lt. Gen. J.S. Aurora (Retd.) were, among others, members of the Committee and the object of the Committee was to protect the interests of the riot victims belonging to the Sikh community. By Order dated July 29, 1985, the Commission accorded recognition to the Committee as the representative body of the riot victims. Since the conduct of the Delhi Police was under cloud and as in the inquiry that was to follow investigation into allegations of dereliction of duty on their part was likely to be inquired into, the Commission directed that an independent Investigation Agency be constituted excluding Delhi Police and accordingly made an order for the setting up of such an Agency. Grievance was made that the victims were afraid of filing affidavits disclosing the true state of affairs as such disclosure was bound to be against people in the party in power, officers of Government and mainly the police as also influential persons of the respective localities. Initially the Commission was of the view that unless concrete incidents were placed before it, it would be difficult to assume genuine basis for such apprehension. By August 9, 1985, which as the last date for receipt of affidavits in terms of the Commission's Notification, a solitary affidavit had been received. The Commission , therefore, extended the time for receipt of affidavits by one further month and issued fresh Notification in several newspapers publicising the fact of such extension. The information was also duly given out through the All India Radio and Doordarshan. Within the extended time, 2905 affidavits were received by he Commission in regard to the incidents of Delhi. With the inclusion of Kanpur, Bokaro and Chas, public notice relating the Kanpur was directed to be issued on September 9, 1985, requiring affidavits to be filed by October 29, 1985. The said Notification was issued in 5 newspapers having circulation in Kanpur area of which 4 were English, 5 Hindi and 6 Urdu. Kanpur was subjected to unusual floods in October 1985 and on that ground the Commission allowed extension till November 14, 1985. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of Kanpur was authorised to receive affidavits that may be presented before him. Parties were given the liberty to personally file or send their affidavits by post to the office of the Commission at Delhi. Within the extended period a total number of 675 affidavits were received from Kanpur. With the amended Notification with reference to Bokaro and Chas, public notice was ordered to be issued on October 11, 1985, and was actually published in 11 newspapers of which 4 were English and 7 Hindi, requiring affidavits to be filed within 30 days there from. Time was extended up to December 5, 1985. Option was given to the persons intending to file affidavits before the Commission either to send them by post or have the same filed in person at Delhi or to file them before the Judicial Magistrate Chas. In all, 172 affidavits relating to incidents in Bokaro and Chas were filed before the Commission. Appropriate consent had been taken from the High Courts of Patna and Allahabad for availing the services of the respective Judicial Officers. Though the CJC wanted the inquiry for all the four places to be conducted at Delhi , the Commission found that there were locally based parties who had come forward to participate in the inquiry in response to its Notifications and to have the inquiry conducted at Delhi would not be convenient to them . Several affidavits had been filed by inhabitants of these areas who also wanted the inquiry to be conducted locally. The Commission , therefore , directed that the inquiry would be separately done at the respective places. On account of proximity and on the representation of parties inquiry for Chas was directed to be also done at Bokaro. The State Governments of Bihar and Uttar Pardesh were accordingly requested to provide suitable accommodation at the two places for the sittings of the Commission and without much delay appropriate accommodation was placed at the disposal of the Commission at both the places. C) Representation Of Parties Different groups and parties applied to the Commission at the three places for being allowed to participate in the inquiry . These applications were made at different times and were disposed of as and when made . On October 18, 1985, the Commission directed a consolidated list of individuals and / or societies permitted to participate before the Commission in respect of the inquiry at Delhi to be drawn up and notified. The Commission did not intend to shut out the inflow of information and , therefore , accepted all the requests . The following were the groups or societies which were permitted so far as the inquiry at Delhi is concerned:
Apart from these , the Union of India and the Delhi Administration were to participate in the inquiry. An application was filed on behalf of Nagrik Ekta Manch for being permitted to participate in the inquiry . The Commission did not agree to accede to the request but gave limited leave to the Manch to appear before it and participate in the inquiry confined to cross-examination of deponents from whom the Manch claimed to have obtained some affidavits and filed the same before the Commission. On January 10, 1986, two applications were filed , one on behalf of People's Union for Democratic Rights and the other on behalf of People's Union for Civil Liberties. The Commission refused to accept these applications by order dated January 21, 1986. At the inquiry at Kanpur, the Citizens' Justice Committee, the Kanpur Riots Inquiry Co-ordination Committee, All India Motor Transport Congress, U.P. Motor Transport Association, City Lok Dal, Akali Dal (Master Tara Singh Group), National Integration Central Peace Committee and Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, appeared and asked for permission to be represented in the inquiry. By order dated December 12 ,1985, the Commission accorded permission to each of them. The Kanpur Youth Bar Association agreed to get represented by an Advocate during the hearing when the prayer on its behalf was not accepted. On that day the Commission directed that no further request for being impleaded/represented in the inquiry would be accepted. The Union of India and the Government of Uttar Pradesh were duly represented before the Commission at the Kanpur inquiry. On January 13, 1986, an application was made by the Secretary-General , All India Quami Ekta Committee, Kanpur, for being impleaded as a party before the Commission. By an order of that date, after hearing the applicant through its Advocate, the application was rejected. The Commission has been informed that a writ petition was filed in the Allahabad High Court challenging the order and when the High Court declined to interfere an unsuccessful attempt was made before the Supreme Court. In the inquiry at Bokaro, the CJC, the Guru Singh Sabha, Bokaro Riot Victims Rehabilitation Committee, apart from the Government of Bihar and Union of India, appeared. Twenty local groups filed applications on December 13, 1985, for being impleaded. By then the last date for filing of affidavits had expired and by an order made on that day, the Commission indicated that no opportunity would be available to the parties to file any affidavit but leave was granted to them to watch the proceedings, if they so liked, with liberty to suggest questions to the Commission in course of cross examination of witnesses, if any Parties appearing before the Commission for the Delhi inquiry were called upon to disclose their stand in writing in regard to the first aspect referred to it. The CJC adopted the following stand:-
The Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee adopted an allied stand by stating:
The Shiromani Akali Dal (L) adopted this stand. The Nagrik Suraksha Samiti (Arya Samaj) adopted the following stand:
Some other parties took a similar stand. The Union of India did not adopt any stand and informed the Commission that the question has to be inquired into and decided by the Commission and Central Government had no view to express. It assured all co-operation in the inquiry and said that the Report was awaited. The Delhi Administration denied the allegation of organised violence and stated that all possible steps were taken to quell the riots at shortest time possible. At Kanpur, the Kanpur Riots Inquiry Co-ordination Committee which emerged as the spokesman of the victims implicated the District Administration -- the District Magistrate and the Police in the main -- for what happened and also contended that the riots were organized. The State Government, on the other hand, denied all that and maintained that every possible steps had been taken to meet the riotous situation and restore normalcy. At Bokaro, on behalf of the victims the stand taken was of negligence of the local administration and the lead and help extended by local leaders. The State of Bihar denied the allegations and maintained that prompt steps were taken by the Administration as a result of which the situation was brought under full control within a few hours. D) Collection Of Facts Applications were moved before the Commission in the Delhi inquiry by the CJC for direction for production of documents. A long list thereof was given. After the list was scanned the Commission was of the view that it would be more expedient to allow interrogatories on specific aspects than calling for the documents. The suggestion of the Commission was accepted by the CJC and two applications were filed for leave to put interrogatories to the Delhi Administration , the Union of India and certain other parties. Agreeing with the objections of the Delhi Administration and the Union of India, the Commission found that a few of the interrogatories were on irrelevant aspects and certain information in public interest could not be required to be disclosed. On these two grounds a few of the interrogatories were not permitted to be put but the Commission accorded leave for most of them. The interrogatories were duly answered and the answers were supplied to the parties. Similar procedure was followed at Kanpur and Bokaro. Certain documents were called from non-governmental agencies and wherever available the same were also produced and made available to parties. Before the Commission, for the inquiry at the respective places, the Commission directed some of the deponents to be cross-examined. It may be stated that most of these deponents were picked up at the instance of the victims. Their affidavits were taken as evidence-in-chief and cross-examination was allowed to be done by the Union of India and the respective State Governments/Administration as was necessary and on behalf of victims where the stand taken in the affidavit was in support of the Administration. The persons so examined were : Delhi 128, Kanpur 97, Bokaro 45. At the instance of some of the other parties questions were suggested to the Commission and wherever it was satisfied, the said questions were put and answers were obtained. Wherever such deponents wanted to make any further statement, the Commission made a separate record of it for its purpose. These statements usually related to problems of rehabilitation. E) Interference With The Working Of The Commission Representation of victims: While deponents were being cross-examined, constant complaints used to be received of interference and harassment at all the three places. Some of the victims stated that they were threatened by the local police, rioters of the locality as also others and were told not to appear before the Commission . In view of the grievance made and the multiplying complaints, the Commission had to send its officers from the Investigating Team to different areas with a view to generating confidence in the victims and the summoned deponents in the main. On several occasions the Commission had even to direct police protection to be provided to persons who had been or were about to be examined before it. The Commission indicated to the parties appearing before it that while it would look into all the affidavits filed before it - whether the deponent was cross-examined or not - and if the deponent was cross-examined , take the evidence also into consideration, it suggested that some of the events covered by the affidavits could also be investigated by its Agency. On behalf of the victims a good number of incidents were given covering Delhi, Kanpur and Bokaro and the Investigating Agency made thorough inquiries and submitted reports, the conclusions whereof have been supplied to the parties. Reference to the reports of the Investigating Agency is made in another part of this Report. F) Camera Proceedings The inquiry was a sensitive one. Wrong reports started featuring in the Press relating to the proceedings before the Commission. When evidence came to be taken, tainted news appeared with greater frequency. In periodicals writings appeared based upon wrong premises. Even though the CJC was appearing before the Commission through Advocates, some of the persons connected with the said Committee started giving wrong versions of events to the Press. The Commission was, therefore obliged to direct that the inquiry would be in camera and made an order requiring the Press not to publish news and particulars about the proceedings before the Commission. The Commission places on record that the Press has mostly behaved responsibly and was co-operative after the direction was given. The Illustrated Weekly published from Bombay, however, exhibited scanty regard to the direction and in its issue dated May 25- 31, 1986, published a write-up said to be by Harji Malik. The Commission has noticed that the write-up is contrary to facts and is a total misrepresentation of the situation. G) Citizen's Justice Committee Notifies Its Withdrawal From The Inquiry By March 31, 1986, substantial progress had been made in the inquiry by the Commission. So far as the inquiry at Bokaro was concerned, it was over and written submissions remained to be filed. Relating to the inquiry at Kanpur, the Commission had finished examination of witnesses and the date for oral arguments had been fixed. The last lap of oral evidence remained to be taken at Delhi and that had been scheduled to begin from April 2, 1986. At this juncture, on March 31, 1986, a long statement was filed in the office of the Commission by the CJC notifying its withdrawal from the proceedings and in the statement the action was sought to be justified. On April 1 , 1986, Mr. Phoolka, counsel for the Committee was sent for and when questioned, disclosed that the Committee was his client and as the client had asked him not to appear he had nothing more to say. It was explained to Mr. Phoolka that the Committee had taken a special responsibility to represent the riot victims and in case the Commission had previous notice of the Committee's non-co-operation, other steps could have been taken. The inquiry was posted for the next day and there was hardly time to make any alternative arrangements. Besides, it was also pointed out that most of the facts placed in the statement were either irrelevant or were assumptions without foundation. Mr. Phoolka wanted time saying that he would contact the senior counsel and request them to appear. They, however, did not turn up. Next day Mr. Phoolka came with a letter from Mr.Justice Sikri who happens to be the President of the Committee wherein it was stated:
Full text of the letter is at Appendix '1' in Vol. II It is a fact that the CJC was the premier group representing the victims at Delhi. Its sudden withdrawal from the proceedings, particularly when the inquiry had been posted on April 2, 1986 did create some amount of embarrassment in the working of the Commission. The Commission places on record its disapproval of the manner in which CJC withdrew from the proceedings. Having persuaded the Commission to accept the position that it was a public spirited organisation consisting of socially oriented and highly placed citizens capable of effectively representing the victims and their cause the Committee had taken upon itself the onerous duty of a trustee and when it suddenly backed out it did fail to discharge the responsibility it had voluntarily undertaken. Surprisingly, Mr. Tarkunde thought it appropriate to justify the stand of the Committee by going to the Press and made a statement on the basis of which there appeared a publication in one of the fortnightly magazines soon after the withdrawal from the proceedings. The Commission did not consider it appropriate to join issue through the Press. The Committee perhaps did not want the situation to become quiet and disclosed materials not being facts to form the basis of a write-up in yet another magazines--- this time a weekly. Having withdrawn from the proceedings, the Committee should not have helped a debate to be raised in the Press. The Press was aware of the position that the proceedings were in camera and publication was not to be made. When the matter was before the Commission and the Report was yet to be drawn up, the magazines should not have made the publication prompting to the Commission what it should do. In the opinion of the Commission, this is an irresponsible act. The DSGMC which was already appearing before the Commission started representing the victims during the remainder of the proceedings. H) Examination Of Persons Other Than Deponents The Commission examined some of the public officers - civil as also defence personnel - who held offices in the administration hierarchy during the riots. In respect of the inquiry at Delhi the following were examined:
Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao, then the Minister of Home Affairs of the Central Government was asked to explain certain aspects relevant to the inquiry. Director General of Doordarshan and Director-General of All India Radio also appeared before the Commission when requested and filed a written statement which has been kept on record and taken into consideration. In regard to the inquiry at Kanpur, Brig. R.K. Kohli, the then Station Commander of Kanpur, Shri Brijendra, a member of the Indian Administrative Service and then Distt. Magistrate of Kanpur, Shri Nirmalendu Basu, Works Manager at the Small Arms Factory at Kanpur, Shri D.K. Gupta, then City Magistrate of Kanpur, and Capt. Bareth of the Maratha Light Infantry on duty at Kanpur during the riots, were examined. The Commission was asked to permit cross-examination of these witnesses on more than one occasion but it was of the view that it would not be expedient to allow cross-examination. The request has, therefore, not been entertained. The Commission visited certain affected areas and a Relief Camp at Delhi without any formal program. It made a visit to Panki Railway Station in Kanpur area. It also made a local inspection of an area within Dashmesh Nagar at Bokaro. A memorandum of local inspection was drawn up which is available in Vol. II at p. 2, Appendix 2. |
