Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.26 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 3 in The Commissions Of Inquiry Act, 1952 [Entire Act]
Shri Dinesh Trivedi, M.P. & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 20 March, 1997
14. Another argument that was advanced by the learned Counsel representing the petitioners was that public have a right to know about the circumstances which led to the riots in 1992. This right is emanated from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. That right has been interfered with by the Government in not extending the term of the Commission. So, the action of the Government is open to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This argument is quite attractive. But we do not find any reason to uphold the same on the facts and circumstances of this case. As stated by the Apex Court in Dinesh Trivedi, M.P. v. Union of India, (1997) 4 SCC 306, the right of the citizen to know about the affairs of the State should be subject to limitations. It is not absolute. Certain unhappy situations arose in December 1992 following the demolition of Babri Masjid. Riots took place. People belonging to different communities fought each other. It was more than seven years back. People have forgotten those instances. Peace has been established. Time being the best healer, by influx (sic) of time people have forgotten those black days. Now at this distance of time if circumstances which led to the riots are brought to light, according to the Government, it will affect communal harmony and peace. This consideration can under no circumstance be termed irrelevant. On relevant considerations the Government decided not to extend the term of the Commission. The discretionary power that has been exercised by the Government can under no circumstances be treated as mala fide. So, the right of the public to know, which is not absolute, is subject to the restriction which is now imposed by the Government, which according to us is reasonable.
The Commissions Of Inquiry Act, 1952
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Misbah Alam Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 10 February, 1997
The circumstances which led the Government for not extending the term of the Commission can never be stated to be an collateral consideration. No ground of mala fides against the Government has been even alleged by the petitioners in these petitions. On the facts and circumstances of this case we are not in a position to spell out mala fides or collateral consideration in Government in not giving extension to the term of the Commission. The Apex Court in Misbah Alam Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1997 SC 1409, while considering the propriety of abolition of Minority Commission in the State of Maharashtra observed "It may be that perception of political parties differ from one another. But when the Government found, after the political party was voted to power and the decision taken by the Cabinet to abolish the Minority Commission, it cannot be characterised as a mala fide decision. May be the perception may not be correct in view of another political party. The decision may or may not be right, but it cannot be characterised as a mala fide decision." This observation applies on all fours to the facts on hand.
1