High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:27315-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 363 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vijay Pratap Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Pratap Singh,Arun Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Goyal, AAG, A.K. Goyal, A.C.S.C.,Kartikeya Saran Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. This petition purportedly in public interest has been filed by a practising Advocate of this Court seeking quashing of appointment of Commission of Inquiry made vide notification dated 29.01.2025 in relation to the stampede, which took place on 29.01.2025 during Mahakumbh at Prayagraj. 2. Challenge inter-alia has been laid on the ground that under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 ('the Act'), the appointment of an Inquiry Commission can only be made if a resolution in this behalf is passed by the Legislature of the State and in absence of such resolution, the constitution of the Commission by order dated 29.01.2025 is bad. 3. Further challenge has been laid that in terms of provisions of Section 12(2) of the Act, the appropriate government is required to frame Rules for carrying out the purpose of the Act and as the State of Uttar Pradesh has not framed any Rules under the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Act, the appointment of the Commission is bad. 4. In the supplementary affidavit, additional challenge has been laid that the requirements, which have been indicated in Section 12(2) of the Act, have not been indicated in the notification dated 29.01.2025 and on that count also, the appointment is bad. 5. Counsel for the petitioner made submissions in terms of the challenge laid in the petition emphasizing non framing of the Rules under Section 12(2) of the Act and asserting that for lack of Rules, the Commission cannot function appropriately. 6. Learned Additional Advocate General, refuted the submissions made. Attention of the Court has been drawn to the Commissions of Inquiry (Uttar Pradesh) Rules, 1985 ('the Rules'), which were published in the gazette dated 07.06.1986 that the requisite Rules, as required under Section 12(2) of the Act, have been framed dealing with the requirements of the said Section. 7. Submission has been made that the challenge laid based on the lack of resolution of the State Legislature is misreading of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act as the same provides for two modes i.e. the opinion of the appropriate government and a resolution passed by the Legislature of the State and as the former mode has been adopted, there is no necessity of resolution of the State Legislature. 8. Further submission has been made that there is no need to indicate the requirements as enumerated under Section 12(2) of the Act in the notification as the same would be governed by the Rules and therefore, the petition deserves dismissal. 9. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2/Prayagraj Mela Authority submits that though the respondent no. 2 has been impleaded as a party respondent, none of the reliefs claimed in the petition relate to the said respondent no. 2. 10. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. The foundational ground raised in the petition, pertains to non framing of Rules, as required under Section 12(2) of the Act by the appropriate government i.e. the State of Uttar Pradesh. 12. The ground has been raised apparently without looking at the available Statute wherein, it is apparent that the Rules have been framed by the State Government vide notification dated 27.09.1985 and published in the U.P. Gazette on 07.06.1986. 13. The Rules are very much available in the published books and therefore, filing of the petition making non framing of the Rules as the basis that also by a practicing Advocate of this Court, cannot be countenanced. 14. Provisions of Section 3 of the Act read as under : "3. Appointment of Commission. (1) The appropriate Government may, if it is of opinion that it is necessary so to do, and shall, if a resolution in this behalf is passed by [each House of parliament or, as the case may be, the Legislature of the State] by notification in the official gazette, appoint a Commission of Inquiry for the purpose of making an inquiry into any definite matter of public importance and performing such function and within such time as may be specified in the notification, and the commission so appointed shall make the enquiry and perform the functions accordingly: Provided that where any such commission has been appointed to inquire into any matter- (a) by the Central Government, no State Government shall, except with the approval of the Central Government appoint another commission to inquire into the same matter for so long as the commission appointed by the Central Government is functioning; (b) by a State Government, the Central Government shall not appoint another commission to inquire into the same matter for so long as the commission appointed by the State Government is functioning, unless the Central Government is of opinion that the scope of the inquiry should be extended to two or more States. (2) The commission may consist of one or more members appointed by the appropriate Government and where the com mission consists of more than one member one of them may be appointed as the Chairman thereof. (3) The appropriate Government may at any stage of an inquiry by the commission fill any vacancy which may have arisen in the office of a member of the commission whether consisting of one or more than one member. (4) The appropriate Government shall cause to be laid before [each House of the Parliament or as the case may be the Legislature of the State], the report, if any, of the commission on the inquiry made by the Commission under sub-section (1) together with a memorandum of the action taken thereon, within a period of six months of the submission of the report by the Commission to the appropriate Government. (5) and (6) [xxx]" (emphasis supplied) 15. A perusal of the above provisions would reveal that the appointment of Commission can take place (i) if the appropriate government is of the opinion that it is necessary to do so and (ii) if a resolution in this behalf is passed by the Legislature of the State. The said provisions, provide for two separate modes, while the appointment by the appropriate government itself contains 'may', the provision pertaining to appointment based on the resolution in this behalf by the Legislature of the State contains 'shall'. As the two provisions are independent of each other it is not required that in every case the State is to appoint a Commission, the same can only be based on the resolution of the State Legislature. In that view of the matter, the plea raised in this regard also apparently has no substance. 16. Coming to the plea raised by the supplementary affidavit that the notification dated 29.01.2025 does not contain the particulars, as required under Section 12(2) of the Act, the said plea apparently have been raised in ignorance of existence of the Rules to claim that at least the requirement of Section 12(2) of the Act could have been indicated in the notification. However, as the Rules are in existence, the plea raised in this regard also apparently is without any basis. 17. In view of above discussions, the petition purportedly filed in public interest has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 nd (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)
Legal Reasoning
Digitally signed by :- NISITH DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad