Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 150
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 151
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | SC cites overreach on quiz-Modi plea-Samanwaya Rautray

SC cites overreach on quiz-Modi plea-Samanwaya Rautray

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Mar 27, 2012   modified Modified on Mar 27, 2012

The Supreme Court today refused to direct the Nanavati Commission to summon and question Narendra Modi about his alleged role in the 2002 riots, saying that doing so would amount to “judicial overreach”.

The court’s decision followed an embarrassing gaffe it had made in the case a week ago, and would come as a relief to the Gujarat chief minister.

Ironically enough, the two-judge bench had sought to issue notices on the plea on March 19 — before withdrawing the notices four days later, realising they had been issued against the wrong petition. Today, the court refused to countenance any of petitioner Amrish N. Patel’s arguments.

It declined to interfere in the functioning of a commission of inquiry and dismissed as withdrawn Patel’s appeal against a high court order that had rejected the same demand.

“Tell us, under which law (can) this court direct the commission to probe the role of somebody?” Justice D.K. Jain asked Patel’s counsel Colin Gonsalves.

“It is for the commission to determine its own procedure and decide whom it should summon as a witness and what probe it should conduct.”

Gonsalves insisted that the court had the power to do it but the bench rejected his argument.

“A probe is not decided on the basis of personalities. If after submission of the final (commission) report, you find it arbitrary, we can understand. But you are asking us to judge a report even before it is submitted. How can the court say that somebody should be a witness and (that) the commission is proceeding in an arbitrary manner when it has not given its report?” Justice Jain said.

“The commission has not closed the inquiry. We can’t judge the correctness of the order till the final report is submitted. If the court starts interfering at every stage in the inquiry commission’s functioning, then no inquiry commission can submit its report.”

Gonsalves complained that Nanavati had been conducting the probe for 10 years.

Justice Jain replied: “We have instances where it has taken 15 years for (an) inquiry commission to complete a probe. Once the final report is submitted, it is for the (state) legislature or Parliament to accept or reject the recommendations. What happened to reports of high-profile inquiry commissions? How many buckets are full with reports of inquiry commissions?”

The bench of Justices Jain and Anil R. Dave also cited the oft-stated criticism of judicial overreach.

“We hear about judicial overreach. If we start monitoring the functioning of inquiry commissions, will it not be judicial overreach?” Justice Jain asked.

Gonsalves said the court had earlier intervened in similar instances, and pointed out that the chief minister’s role fell within the ambit of the commission’s terms of reference. But the court would have none of it. Instead, it permitted him to withdraw the appeal.

“It (the 2002 riots) is an unfortunate event, very difficult to erase from our mind. We have reopened the cases. Can a judicial body be subjected to judicial review? In this case, if we interfere, it will be a clear case of judicial overreach,” Justice Jain said.

The Gujarat government had set up a commission of inquiry under retired high court judge K.G. Shah on March 6, 2002. It was to probe the Godhra train fire and the riots that followed and hand in a report within three months. On May 22 the same year, the state reconstituted the commission under retired Supreme Court judge G.T. Nanavati.

The Telegraph, 27 March, 2012, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1120327/jsp/nation/story_15300095.jsp#.T3Fdv8WO0fU


Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close