Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The Supreme Court also observed that it is for this reason that the Supreme Court has evolved the practice of appointing commissions for the purpose of gathering facts and data in regard to a complaint of breach of a fundamental right made on behalf the weaker sections of the society. The report of the commissioner would furnish prima facie evi-dence of the facts and data gathered by the commissioner and that is why the Supreme Court is careful to appoint a responsible person as commissioner to make an enquiry or investigation into the facts relating to the complaint. The Court also observed that it is interesting to note that in the past the Supreme Court has appointed sometime a district Magistrate, sometimes a District Judge, some time a professor of law, sometimes a journalist, sometime an officer in the Court and sometimes an advocate practising in the Court for the purpose of carrying out an enquiry or investigation and making report to the court because the commissioner appointed by it must be a responsible person, who enjoys the confidence of the court and who is expected to carry out his assignment objectively and impartially without any predilection or prejudice. Once the report of the commissioner is received, copies of it would be supplied to the parties so that either party if it wants to dispute any of the facts or data stated in the report may do so by filing an affidavit and the court then consider the report of the commissioner and the affidavaits which may have been filed and proceed to adjudicate upon the issue arising in the writ petition. It would be entirely for the court to consider what weight to attach to the facts and data stated in the report of the commissioner and to what extent to act upon such facts and data. But it would not be correct to say that the report of the commissioner has no evidentiary value at all, since the statements made in it are not tested by cross-examination. To accept this contention would be to introduce the adversial procedure in a proceeding where in the given situation, it is totally inapposite. It may be said that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is similar as that of the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court in para 15 of the judgment in the case of Bandhu Mukti Morcha (AIR 1984 SC 802) (supra) said that what it had said in regard to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Supreme Court under Article 32 must apply equally in relation to the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for the latter jurisdiction is also a new constitutional jurisdiction and it is conferred in the same wide terms as the jurisdiction under Article 32 and the same powers can and must therefore be exercised by the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226. The Supreme Court also said that in fact, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is much wider, because the High Courts are required to exercise this jurisdiction not only for enforcement of a fundamental right but also for enforcement of any legal right and there are many rights conferred on the poor and the disadvantaged which are the creation of statute and they need to be enforced as urgently and vigorously as fundamental rights. In view of the aforesaid dictum of the Apex Court, it can hardly be disputed that in the exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution this court in the matter of public interest litigation, like the present one, can appoint commissioner to make investigation and furnish the complete facts before this Court.