Rajkot COVID Hospital Fire: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Single Judge Order Restraining Inquiry Commission From Submitting Report

The Bench comprised of Chief Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Bhargav D. Karia observed,

"When an incident, as shocking as this takes place, it is in the interest of the public at large, that the truth is ascertained as early as possible. Timely ascertainment of the truth is a part of the process of delivery of justice and is an important component for granting closure to the family members of the victims. Any delay in this regard and prolonging the entire process would only exacerbate their suffering."

The matter pertains to the fire which broke out at Shrey Hospital, a COVID-19 designated hospital in Gujarat's Rajkot, in the wee hours of the morning of November 27, 2020. The incident that took eight lives, gave rise to a debate on the fire safety measures available at public accessible buildings.

Whereas the Supreme Court and a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court are already seized with the larger issue of fire safety measures, the instant case pertains to an Inquiry Commission set up by the Gujarat Government to ascertain whether the said incident at Shrey Hospital was a result of negligence or breach of duty on part of any authority.

A Single Judge of the High Court, last month, restrained this Commission from pronouncing its report until disposal of a petition filed before it by the relatives of a few fire victims, seeking certified copies of the entire material collected by the Commission during enquiry. They had also sought permission to visit the concerned hospital (which was sealed by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation) with a private photographer to carry out their personal investigation.

As the Commission had refused the above request, the Petitioners approached the High Court. As the Single Bench was obliged to pass interim order restraining the Commission, the State preferred the instant intra-court appeal.

In its order, the Division Bench observed that as the "Guardians of Justice", the Court must do its best to remove obstacles and ward off any attempt to stall the truth-­seeking process.

"The Indian ethos accords the highest importance to truth and this is reflected from our National Emblem which is inscribed with the phrase "Satyamev Jayate". These words echo the sentiments of our society and form the very foundation of our way of life. In order to ensure that truth triumphs, it is the Judiciary that needs to play an active role, protecting those who seek the truth and ensuring that the truth­ seeking path is well ­lit and those who seek the truth can bravely push forward without any force to pulling them back. That truth is the soul of justice and is the only guiding star in the entire judicial process, is a fact ingrained in our souls," the Bench remarked.

It noted that the Single Judge erred in restraining the Commission from submitting its report on the following counts:

1. In the present case, the writ petitioners' conduct was neither being inquired into nor their reputation would be prejudicially affected by the inquiry.

"The petitioners' rights were not being adjudicated by the Commission. The Commission was inquiring into the sequence of events leading to the event of fire at the Shrey Hospital; the adequacy of the fire safety measures at the hospital; to find out the negligence or breach of duty on part of any one or more authorities or individuals and to recommend suitable measures. No loss was to be suffered by the petitioners on submission of the said report. All other rights of the petitioners with respect to the loss of lives of their relatives are still available to them."

2. The Petitioners could have challenged the Commission's report in appropriate proceedings instead of stalling the fact-fining process.

"Even if the petitioners had any right available to them, they could have challenged the report of the Commission in appropriate proceedings at an appropriate stage, if permissible in law. But they preferred to stall the Commission from proceeding further and by injuncting the Commission from submitting its report would be causing obstruction in the entire process at an interim stage which is otherwise not permissible in law when admittedly the petitioners do not fall in any of the two categories of Section 8B of the [Commission of Inquiry Act] 1952 Act."

3. A Division Bench of the High Court is already seized with the case.

"The learned Single Judge ought to have considered that a Division Bench hearing a Writ Petition (PIL) No.118 of 2020 and a connected Special Civil Application No.14157 of 2020 details of which we have already referred to above and also find place in the order of the learned Single Judge, dealing with similar issue of providing the material and also inspection of the Shrey Hospital, being seized of the matter, the learned Single Judge ought not to have overreached the said proceedings by restraining the Commission from submitting the report."

4. The learned Single Judge at such a stage ought not to have passed an injunction at the last hour when the inquiry was already complete and the report of the Commission was ready and hardly ten to twelve days were left for the term of the Commission to end.

5. The first and foremost principle of passing an interim order is as to whether the three basic ingredients required for passing a restraint order or an injunction are existing or not, namely, prima ­facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss.

"These are the three ingredients which need to be scrutinized and examined by a Court before granting an order of injunction. In the present case, the injunction granted is restraining Justice Mehta Commission from submitting its report. The learned Single Judge failed to record findings on the above three basic ingredients."

Case Title: State of Gujarat v. Kalpit Yogeshbhai Shah

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order