Case Note & Summary
The litigation arose from a notification issued by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir appointing a Commission of Inquiry to investigate the assets and alleged abuse of official position by a former Prime Minister and his relatives. Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad had served as Deputy Prime Minister from 1947 to 1953 and Prime Minister from 1953 until his resignation in September 1963. After his resignation, political rivalry developed with the new Chief Minister G. M. Sadiq, leading to his arrest in September 1964 and subsequent release in December 1964. On January 30, 1965, the State Government issued a notification under Section 3 of the Jammu and Kashmir Commission of Inquiry Act, 1962, appointing N. Rajagopala Ayyangar as Commission to inquire into (i) the nature and extent of assets of Bakshi and his family members and relatives as on October 1947 and October 1963, and (ii) whether any such assets or advantages were obtained by abuse of official position with his knowledge, consent, or connivance. The Commission held sittings from February to August 1965. Bakshi challenged the notification and proceedings by a writ petition before the High Court under Sections 103 and 104 of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution. The High Court allowed the petition on December 27, 1965, setting aside the notification and quashing the proceedings. The State appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal issues were whether Section 37 of the State Constitution barred the executive from ordering such inquiry, whether the subject matter was of public importance and definite, whether Section 10 allowed direct inquiry into a person's conduct, whether the inquiry was mala fide, whether there was discrimination under Article 14, and whether denial of cross-examination of affidavit deponents violated natural justice. The State argued that Section 3 expressly empowered the Government and that no constitutional convention prohibited it. Bakshi argued that ministerial responsibility was exclusively to the legislature, that allegations were vague and politically motivated, and that natural justice required cross-examination. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous judgment by Chief Justice Sarkar, held that Section 37 only embodies collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers to the Legislative Assembly and does not bar inquiry into a former minister's conduct; that Section 3 confers power on the Government; that allegations of abuse of official position by a former minister are matters of public importance even after leaving office; that the allegations were sufficiently definite; that Section 10 does not limit inquiry into conduct to incidental matters; that on facts the inquiry was not mala fide; that the former minister was a class by himself and no discrimination arose; and that natural justice only requires a hearing, not an absolute right to cross-examine every affidavit deponent, and Sections 4(c) and 10 did not confer such right. The Court relied on Ram Krishan Dalmia v. Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar, Meenglas Tea Estate v. Their Workmen, and Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division & Appeals. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and upheld the notification and the commission's proceedings.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Ministerial Responsibility - Collective responsibility under Section 37 does not bar inquiry into ex-minister's conduct - Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, Section 37 - Section 37 only means Council of Ministers collectively responsible to Legislative Assembly, not individual responsibility; no British convention adopted; no bar to inquiry by Government - Held that appeal allowed on this ground (pp. 405C-E). B) Commission of Inquiry - Power to Appoint - Government can appoint Commission under Section 3 - Jammu and Kashmir Commission of Inquiry Act 1962, Section 3 - Section 3 expressly empowers Government and both Houses to initiate inquiry - Held that no constitutional bar exists (pp. 405F-G). C) Public Importance - Definition - Allegations of abuse of official position for acquiring wealth are matters of public importance - Jammu and Kashmir Commission of Inquiry Act 1962, Section 3 - Matters remain of public importance after leaving office; absence of public agitation irrelevant - Held that inquiry is justified (pp. 407E-G, 408-G). D) Definiteness - Allegations - Allegations are sufficiently definite for inquiry - Jammu and Kashmir Commission of Inquiry Act 1962, Section 3 - Held that allegations are not vague and inquiry contemplated (pp. 409E-F). E) Scope of Inquiry - Conduct of Person - Commission can directly inquire into conduct of a person - Jammu and Kashmir Commission of Inquiry Act 1962, Section 10 - No inference that inquiry only incidental; direct inquiry permissible - Held that inquiry not ultra vires (p. 411B). F) Mala Fides - Inquiry not mala fide on facts - Jammu and Kashmir Commission of Inquiry Act 1962, Section 3 - Political rivalry alone does not prove mala fides - Held that inquiry not mala fide (p. 412F). G) Equality - Article 14 - No discrimination because ex-minister is a class by himself - Constitution of India, Article 14 - Cabinet responsibility doctrine does not create discrimination - Held that classification justified (pp. 414A-B). H) Natural Justice - Fair Hearing - Non-cross-examination of affiants does not violate natural justice - Jammu and Kashmir Commission of Inquiry Act 1962, Sections 4(c), 10 - Rule only requires hearing; refusal to allow cross-examination of all affidavit deponents not violation - Held that no natural justice breach (p. 415G). I) Right to Cross-examine - Affidavit Evidence - Section 4(c) does not confer right to require affiant for cross-examination - Jammu and Kashmir Commission of Inquiry Act 1962, Sections 4(c), 10 - Section 10 right limited to viva voce evidence; Commission may permit cross-examination when necessary - Held that no right existed (pp. 416F, 417E).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a Commission of Inquiry under the Jammu and Kashmir Commission of Inquiry Act 1962 could be appointed by the State Government to inquire into the acts of a former Minister while in office, despite Section 37 of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution; and whether the Notification and inquiry proceedings violated principles of natural justice, equality, and other legal rights.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and upheld the Notification appointing the Commission of Inquiry. The Court held that Section 37 did not bar the inquiry, the matters were of public importance, the allegations were definite, the inquiry was not mala fide, no discrimination arose, and natural justice did not require cross-examination of affidavit deponents. The proceedings before the Commission were not quashed.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- The collective responsibility of Council of Ministers under Section 37 of Jammu and Kashmir Constitution does not bar an inquiry into a former Minister's conduct
- Government may appoint Commission of Inquiry under Section 3 of Jammu and Kashmir Commission of Inquiry Act 1962
- allegations of abuse of official position by an ex-Minister are matters of public importance
- inquiry not mala fide
- natural justice only requires hearing
- not cross-examination of all affiants.
