The Gauhati High Court has held that a Commission of Inquiry cannot record adverse findings prejudicially affecting a person's reputation without complying with the mandatory procedural safeguards prescribed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. Justice Kardak Ete, deciding two writ petitions filed by Sunayana Aidew and Kavita Das, quashed the observations and findings recorded against the petitioners at pages 505 and 509 of the report submitted by the One Man Commission headed by Justice (Retd.) B.K. Sarma.
Why Did The Court Set Aside The Commission's Adverse Findings?
The Court ruled that once the Commission's inquiry touched upon the conduct and reputation of the petitioners, the statutory rights under Sections 8-B and 8-C became attracted. The petitioners were denied an effective opportunity to respond to the statement of Dr. Mrigen Saikia, which was brought on record subsequently, and were not permitted to cross-examine him. Written responses submitted to earlier notices did not constitute sufficient compliance for material introduced later.
The Commission was constituted under Section 3 of the Act to inquire into allegations of anomalies and malpractices in the Combined Competitive Examination, 2013, conducted by the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC). Both petitioners had participated in the examination and were subsequently selected for government service. During the inquiry, notices were issued to them, and they submitted written responses. However, the petitioners contended that they were not afforded an opportunity to respond to the allegations contained in the statement of Dr. Mrigen Saikia, which was subsequently brought on record, or to cross-examine him.
Justice Ete observed that the subsequent material relied upon by the Commission could not have been used for recording adverse observations against the petitioners without affording them an effective opportunity to respond to such material and to exercise the rights available under Section 8-C. The written responses submitted to earlier notices could not be treated as sufficient compliance in respect of material subsequently brought on record and relied upon against them.
Statutory Framework: Sections 8-B And 8-C
Provision | Mandate |
|---|---|
Section 8-B | Grants a reasonable opportunity to be heard and produce evidence to any person whose conduct or reputation is likely to be prejudicially affected. |
Section 8-C | Extends the right to cross-examine witnesses, address the Commission, and be represented by a legal practitioner to persons covered under Section 8-B. |
The Court referred to a judgment dated April 1, 2026, passed by a coordinate Bench in WP(C) No. 1380/2025 and connected petitions arising from the same Commission's proceedings. That Bench had held that the statutory rights under Sections 8-B and 8-C are attracted where observations, findings, or recommendations prejudicially touch upon a person's reputation, though it did not set aside the Commission's reports in their entirety.
Applying those findings, the Court held that once the conduct of the petitioners was inquired into and the observations prejudicially touched upon their reputation, the statutory requirements stood attracted. The petitioners could not have been deprived of the rights flowing from those provisions. The Court clarified that the present petitions were confined to the adverse observations against the petitioners and did not require it to sit in appeal over the fact-finding exercise undertaken by the Commission as a whole.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents in Kiran Bedi and Lal Krishna Advani, alongside the coordinate Bench judgment, the Court concluded that the observations and findings recorded against the petitioners, insofar as they prejudicially touched upon their conduct and reputation, could not be sustained. The Court held that the findings were recorded in violation of Sections 8-B and 8-C of the Act and the principles of natural justice.
The operative part of the judgment directs the quashing, expunging, and deletion of the specific observations, findings, and recommendations recorded against the petitioners at the identified pages of the Commission's report dated April 2, 2022.