Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. These four petitions raise common questions of facts and law and are being dealt with and disposed of together at the instance of the learned counsel of the parties.

2. The petitioners, in all these matters, have sought to challenge the action of the Lokayukta in summoning them to remain present as witnesses along with documents mentioned in the summons on the ground that they cannot be so summoned without being disclosed the identity of the complainant, the public functionaries involved and the nature of allegations made against such public functionaries. The petitioners have also challenged the legislative competence of the State Legislature in enacting 'The Gujarat Likayukta Act, 1986' as also the provisions of Sections 11 read with Sections 2(2), 15, 16 and 18 of the said Act as ultra vires the Constitution. It is also contended that, if the provisions of Section 10(2) of the said Act are so construed as to bar the disclosure of the identity of the complainant and the public functionary to the witness who is to be called than the provision must be struck down as unconstitutional.

5. The Preamble of the Act records that it is an Act to make provision for the appointment of Lokayukta for the investigation of the allegations against public functionaries in the State of Gujarat, and also for safeguarding the dignity and prestige of public functionaries against false and frivolous allegations and for matters connected therewith. The Statement of Objects and Reasons narrates that the main object of the Bill was to provide for appointment of Lokayukta to enquire into the complaints in respect of actions taken by the public functionaries. The expression 'public functionary' is defined in Section 2(7) of the said Act so as to mean a person who holds or has held an office of a Minister, Chairman or Vice-Chairman of a Government Company or a Corporation as are mentioned in Clauses (b) and (c) of subsection (7) and Vice-Chancellor of a University established by law in the State of Gujarat. The allegations which are required to be investigated are as to whether such public functionary is guilty of corruption or lack of integrity or was actuated in the discharge of his functions by personal interest or improper or corrupt motives or has abused his position to obtain any gain or favour to himself or to any other person or to cause undue harm or hardship to any other person. It will be noticed that in pith and substance the said enactment relates to enquiry or investigation into the allegations made against public functionaries in respect of their actions in their capacity as such public functionaries. Entry 45 of the Concurrent List - List III of the Seventh Schedule to the- Constitution enumerates the following matter in respect of which the Parliament and the State Legislature have concurrent powers to make law, -"Entry No. 45 - the enquiry and statistics for the purposes of any of the matters specified in List II or List-III". The said enactment in pith and substance, in our opinion, is law enacted with a view to make investigations or enquiries into the actions of public functionaries in respect of the allegations made against them. Having regard to the nature of allegations which can be investigated, it is clear to us that they would amount to enquiries into the matters which would fall within the domain of Criminal Law including matters in the Indian Penal Code and might also amount to. actionable wrongs. In this connection, we may notice Entries I and 8 of the Concurrent List, which read as under:

6. It was then contended by the Learned Counsel, Mr. Soli Sohrabji that the stand taken up by the Respondent No. 2 that the identity of the complainant and the public functionary cannot be disclosed to the witness who is to be summoned, was not justified on a proper construction of the provisions of Section 10(2) of the said Act. He submitted that, if such a narrow construction is put upon the provisions of Section 10(2), a witness may not be able to exercise his constitutional rights under Article 20(3) in a given case where in respect of some allegations the witness is facing prosecution as an accused. He also submitted that the statutory form prescribed under Rule 29 of the Gujarat Lokayukta Rules, 1989, clearly shows that names of the complainant and public functionaries were required to be mentioned in the witness summons. He submitted that the provision that the identity of the complainant and the public functionary concerned shall not be disclosed to the public or the press or published in any manner would only mean that it is intended to guard against the disclosure to the public at large and could not include the witnesses who are to be examined in the investigation. He also submitted that there was intrinsic evidence in- sub-section (2) of Section JO showing that there was no blanket bar of disclosure of such names for, under the proviso contained therein, the Lokayukta may conduct any investigation in public for reasons to be recorded in writing. Mr. K. S. Nanavati, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners added one more contention to the effect that if the witnesses are not to be disclosed the identity of the complainant and the public functionary during the investigation, it would be impossible for the Lokayukta to conduct the investigation without making such disclosure. The learned Advocate General and the learned counsel Mr. G. N. Desai appearing, for the Respondent No. 2 on the other hand contended that the words "published in any manner" occurring in sub-section (2) of Section 10 are of wide amplitude and therefore disclosure of such identity even to a person who is summoned as witness was not warranted by the said provision. It was also contended that a witness summons can be shown to anybody and therefore the very purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 10 would be frustrated if the identity is disclosed to a witness who is summoned by mentioning the names in the witness summons.

8. We may now proceed to examine the provisions of Section 10(2) of the said Act, which read as under:

10(2) "Every such investigation shall be conducted in private and, in particular the identity of the complainant and of the public functionary affected by the investigation shall not be disclosed to the public or the press or published in any manner whether before, during or after the investigation:

Provided that, the Lokayukta may conduct any investigation relating to a matter of definite public importance in public, if he, for reasons to be recorded in writing, thinks fit to do so." On a plain reading of the above provision, it is clear that the investigation which the Lokayukta decides to conduct has to be conducted in private except when for reasons to be recorded in writing the Lokayukta thinks it fit to conduct it in public in respect of a matter of public importance. Therefore, in matters which have no definite public importance even the Lokayukta will have no option but to conduct the investigation in private. From the Preamble, it can be seen that the Act is also intended to safeguard the dignity and prestige of public functionaries against false and frivolous accusations. It will be seen in sub-section (6) of S. 10 that the conduct of an investigation under the said Act does not affect the action or power or duty of any public functionary to take further action with respect to any matter subjected to investigation. Even during., the investigation if the Lokayukta decides not to continue it any further, he can discontinue the same under sub-section (5) of S. 10. Thus, having regard to the nature of the investigation and to the need of safeguarding the dignity and prestige of public functionaries against false and frivolous allegations, it is clear that the provision, requiring the investigation to be conducted in private, cannot be said to be an unreasonable provision. As a necessary corollary to the .confidentiality of the investigation, the provision is made against disclosure of the identity of the complainant and the public functionary affected by the investigation before, during or after the investigation. Sub-section (7) of S. 10 makes disclosure to the public or to the press any information or publication of such information in contravention of the provisions of S. 10, an offence. As provided under S. 11(1), for the purpose of the investigation including the preliminary enquiry, the Lokayukta may require a public servant or any other person to furnish information or produce document. Therefore, when investigation has to be conducted in private under sub-section (2) of S. 10, the information obtained for the purpose of such investigation has to be kept confidential. The Legislature refers particularly to the identity of the complainant and the public functionary affected by the investigation for not being disclosed as they constitute core of the investigation which is to be conducted in private and also because public functionaries are required to be safeguarded against false and frivolous allegations If a person who is to be called as a witness is to be informed about the identity of the complainant and the public functionary the provisions regarding safeguarding the identity of the complainant and the public functionary would become redundant, for all .the witnesses will have to be informed about such identity and who as in the present case may be required to inform others about their having received their summons. To illustrate: in the present case itself, the petitioner who is the Chairman of the Society had turned over his summons to the Society which in its letter had asked the respondent to furnish particulars of the complaint so that the matter may be kept before the General Meeting of the society. The summons issued to the witnesses are required to be served as per R. 29 of the said Rules through the Police Station within the jurisdiction of which. the witness resides, Therefore, if the identity is disclosed in the summons, even such police media would come to know about the complainant and the public functionary involved in the investigation. Under S. 11(2), while recording evidence, the Lokayukta has powers of a Civil Court under the Civil Procedure Code, inter alia, of summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath. Therefore, in a given case, a question may arise of substituted service including publication of summons in newspapers for enforcing attendance of a person as witness if he cannot be served in the manner provided in R. 29 through the police station. The resultant disclosure of identity of the complainant and public functionary would fly in the face of the mandatory provisions of sub-section (2) of S. 10. Much reliance was placed on the Form G prescribed in R. 29 of the said Rules which indicate that the names of the complainant and the public functionary are required to be mentioned. It will be noticed from R. 28 that if either party wants his witness to be summoned he can do so on payment of the prescribed fee. Under R. 25 of the said Rules, during the course of hearing each party has a right to examine himself and his witness and to cross-examine the opposite party and the witness of that party. Thus, when a party wants to summon his witnesses, such witness would normally, know the party for whom he is required to give evidence. Therefore, when the complainant or as the case may be public functionary wants to examine his witness, mentioning of name in such a summons may not amount to any disclosure since such witness knows or ought to know for whom he is called. In any event, the provisions of R. 29 are not mandatory and they are subject to any other provision or specific order in the matter of issuance of summons. The expression that, 'the summons may be issued in Form G' also indicate that it is not a mandatory statutory form. Under sub-section (3) of S. 10, the procedure for conducting any investigation shall be such as the Lokayukta considers appropriate in the circumstances of the case save as laid down in Ss. 10(1) and 10(2) of the Act. Therefore, Lakayukta in an appropriate case can withhold disclosure of identity of the complaint or the public functionary while issuing summons in Form 'G' under R. 29. In the present case, however, it appears, and it was not controverter at the time of the arguments, that the Lokayukta has suo motu summoned these petitioners as witnesses. Thus, when they are not cited as witnesses and summoned suo motu by the Lokayukta, it cannot be said that the Lakayukta was not justified in withholding the identity of the complainant and the public functionary affected by the investigation from these petitioners. The words "published in any manner" if are construed so as to mean that publication to the public is intended, that expression will overlap with the earlier word "published". It would, therefore, appear that the expression "to the effect that the identity shall not be "published in any manner" would mean that it may not be announced in any manner. If the identity is announced to a witness who is to be called and if there are more than one, to all of them then the very purpose of the provision would be frustrated.