|
-
SC refuses Federal Government
permission to table Banerjee Report
-
Govt was unhappy with earlier
Gujarat High Court (GHC) verdict restraining publication of the report
-
SC was GHC to expedite hearing
and verdict
|
In a rebuke to hasty politicization of sensitive issues, the Supreme Court
(SC) refused to allow the Government to table the
controversial Justice UC Banerjee Commission report on the
Godhra carnage in Parliament supporting a restraining
verdict by the Gujarat High Court.
The Federal Government had asked the SC to throw out the Gujarat High Court (GHC)
order restraining the Railway Ministry it to file the document in the
Parliament and making the contents public as it may prejudice the pending trial
of criminal cases. The Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav had transgressed
Constitutional norms to appoint a Commission under Justice U C Banerjee to
investigate the causes and incidents leading to the death of 58 people inside
the burning coaches of a train in Godhra, Gujarat. The Gujarat Government had
earlier appointed a separate commission to investigate the riots that followed
the Godhra incident. Yadav’s aim was to subvert the Nanavati Commission with
his own which predictably quickly exonerated all theories of communal
motivation to the incident.
The GHC said that the Banerjee Commission was “illegal” as another Commission
was already investigating the same incident. The Centre took great umbrage to
the High Court's observations. Pointing out errors in the impugned order,
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Gopal Subramanium defended the Federal
Government’s decision to constitute an independent inquiry under Section 119 of
the Railways Act. ASG claimed that the doctrine of separation of powers allowed
by the Constitution and reiterated that the Justice Banerjee Commission was
charged to study safety aspects of railway, which were within the exclusive
legislative competence of Parliament. Since it involved various inter-State
aspects and therefore Federal in nature, the Federal Government is more
competent than the State Government to hold such an inquiry.
However, the SC simultaneously issued notices to the Gujarat Government,
Commissioner of Railway Safety, Justice Banerjee Commission, Justice Nanavati
Commission, Union Home Ministry, Law and Justice Ministry, and Nilkanth
Tulsidas Bhatia, the petitioner before the High Court, directing the High Court
to hear and dispose the matter expeditiously.
Interestingly, the Nanavati Commission itself is embroiled in a
controversy over privileged documents between the former President and Prime
Minister. After continuing debate, the Federal Government delivered a set
of these letters to the Justice Nanavati.
|
