2017 Mandsaur Firing: Madhya Pradesh HC Declines Plea To Table Inquiry Commission's Report Before Assembly Noting 6-7 Years Had Gone By
The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a plea seeking tabling of the Jain Commission report on the 2017 Mandsaur farmer shooting incident before the legislative assembly, after noting that 6-7 years had lapsed since the report was submitted by the Commission to the state government. The court noted that there was no consequence provided in the Commission of Inquiry Act if the commission's...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a plea seeking tabling of the Jain Commission report on the 2017 Mandsaur farmer shooting incident before the legislative assembly, after noting that 6-7 years had lapsed since the report was submitted by the Commission to the state government.
The court noted that there was no consequence provided in the Commission of Inquiry Act if the commission's report was not placed before the assembly within the 6 month time period as mentioned.
The case pertained to whether State Government was required under Section 3(4) of the Commission of Inquiry Act, to submit the Inquiry Commission's report to the legislative assembly within the time frame specified, and whether failure of this timeline would amount to violation of legal duties under the Act.
Section 3 pertains to appointment of a commission which can inquire into any definite matter of public importance. Subsection 4 states that the appropriate Government "shall cause to be laid before" each House of Parliament or Legislature of the State (as the case maybe), the report if any, of the Commission on the inquiry made by it along with a memorandum of the action taken thereon, within "six months" of the submission of the report by the Commission to the appropriate Government.
A division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi in its order noted that word 'shall' has been mentioned in the provision yet there is no consequence given for non compliance of the timeline. The court stated:
“It is correct that in Section 3(4) of Act, 1952 the word “shall” is there which is mandatory in nature. It is also correct that there is a provision of laying the report submitted by the Commission before the Parliament or the Legislature as the case may be, by an appropriate Government within a period of 6 months with a memorandum of action taken therein as far as possible… It is also correct that no consequence has been given in the Act if the report is not placed within a period of 6 months from the date of submission of the report".
The court said that if the inquiry report was not laid before the Legislature, any of the members of the Legislature could have demanded by raising a question before the floor of the Legislature of the State.
The court noted that in the Act, the outer limit of 6 months has been fixed for placing the report before each house of the Parliament or the Legislature of the State (as the case may be). It said that in the present case 6 months had expired long back and the "purpose of constitution" of inquiry was only to know the circumstances under which the incident took place and to invite the suggestions to stop such incident in future.
"So far as the action taken by the police or the counter-action taken by the farmers are concerned, those are the subject matter of the FIR in which the criminal cases which have been registered by the police," the high court said.
Background
The order was passed in the petitioner's plea seeking direction to the State to submit the report of “Justice Jain Commission” before the Principal Secretary of Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha and desired form before the next session of the Assembly.
The plea said that in 2017, the farmers of the Mandsaur District started protesting against the price hike and the policies of the Government unfavourable to them. During the agitation on June 6, 2017, police used force to control the farmers which resulted in the death of 5 farmers and injuries in the firing of several others". According to the petitioner, at 12:45 pm, 12 km away from the Mandsaur City at Parasnath Choupaty, police officials opened fire on the protesting farmers in which two of them died.In another place, the firing took place in which 3 farmers died, the plea claimed. The Police claimed that it had fire in self defence.
In response, the state established the "Jain Commission" chaired by Justice J.K. Jain to investigate the circumstances surrounding the firing and whether the force used by the police was reasonable under the prevailing circumstances or not. The Commission delivered its findings to the government on June 13, 2018, but despite the six-year gap, the report was not presented to the Legislative Assembly, and no action was taken.
The petitioner contended that under Section 3(4) of the Commission of Inquiry Act of 1952, the State Government was required to present the findings to the legislative assembly within six months. The petition asked for a writ of mandamus, directing the state to table the report promptly.
The State said that there is no vesting of right prescribed, whereby the enforcement of Section 3 can be asked as a right enforceable under the law.
Findings
The high court referred to Supreme Court's decision in Sudesh Dogra v. Union of India (2014) where the apex court had said that,"The reports of such commissions, in our considered view, should be objectively viewed by the State Governments and necessary corrective steps and action should be initiated to further good governance".
The high court concluded that since more than six years had passed since the submission of the Jain Commission report, it would not be appropriate to issue a writ for tabling the report at this stage. "In view of the above, now after the lapse of 6 – 7 years, we do not find any ground to issue a writ for placing the aforesaid report before respondent No.4," the court said while dismissing the plea.
Case title: Paras Saklecha Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No. 10626 of 2022
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 272