From News Dispatches
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court reserved its judgment over the legality of the JainBanerji Committee set up to investigate the November 1984 riots, in the wake of Indira Gandhi’s assassination. According to official figures over 2,733 people had lost their lives in the carnage.
The Division Bench hearing the arguments comprising Justice B.N Kirpal and Justice CL Chowdhary, did not fix any date for the pronouncement of the judgment, arguments for which concluded here on Wednesday.
Lala Ram Gupta senior counsel for the petitioner who had over the last few weeks exhaustively argued his case, said his final say by appealing to the court to quash the impugned Jain Banerji Committee set up in February 1987 to probe the November riots as it was “unconstitutional and bad in law.”
- Gupta who throughout the course of his arguments has raised “doubts” over the legality of the committee argued that the constitution of the committee was ultra wires. Because the committee had been given arbitrary and unfettered police powers contrary to all statutes and law.
Gupta argued that the appointment of the committee implied that the Government was treating the perpetrators of November 1984 riots differently from other riot offenders.
This, he said, was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution which lays down that “equals have to be treated equally.”
Those responsible for the riots following Indira Gandhi’s assassination could not form a different class, but with the appointment of the impugned committee, the offenders had been placed under a different class,
“The entire exercise of setting up a committee was nothing but to identify the accused of the 1984 riots and prosecute them without any proper authority,” Gupta said.
At this point Justice Chowdhary observed that offenders who committed a particular offense during a particular period affecting a Particular community could form a separate class.
Gupta further argued that there ‘were no proper consultations between the government and the Lt Governor while setting up the JainBanerji committee. Though the home secretary of the Delhi Administration had some discussions with the Government on the matter it was without any authority of law.
There were no provisions under the Delhi Administration Act or any other law authorizing the Home Secretary to hold consultations with the Government on behalf of the Lt Governor, Gupta said.
He also challenged the committee’s recommendation of registering a case against Brahmanand
Gupta, the petitioner, saying that this was against the Principles of natural justice and the petitioner should have been issued a notice apprising him of the same.
In his counter arguments the counsel for a voluntary organization, Citizens Justice Committee, S.C. Malik tried to refute Gupta’s Contention that the Lt Governor was not empowered to delegate police powers on the committee. Malik submitted that such an argument was erroneous as it would mean that Lt Governor could act only through the police and in circumstances where the law and order situation went out of the Administrator’s control he would not be empowered to call the army.
Malik said that in order to“ give efficacy to the Lt Governor’s Power his power of delegation needed to be taken as implicit as it was humanly Not possible for the Administrator to work Single handedly.
Article extracted from this publication >> September 29, 1989
