People’s Commission - Committee for Information and Initiative on Punjab (CIIP)

B. People’s Commission

In his election manifesto, Chief Minister of Punjab Prakash Singh Badal promised to create a People’s Commission to examine complaints of human rights violations.[134] After he failed to deliver on his promise, in 1997 the CCDP organized a private panel of three retired justices to hear people’s petitions about abuses committed by the police. Justice D. S. Tewatia, a former Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, chaired the panel, accompanied by Justice H. Suresh, a retired judge of the Maharashtra High Court, and Justice Jaspal Singh, a retired judge of the Delhi High Court. According to Article 1(1) of its Rules, the Commission aimed to investigate complaints of

*** Top of Page 295 ***

summary executions, mass illegal cremations, illegal abductions, custodial torture, and enforced disappearances in light of national and international law. Ultimately, it hoped to suggest avenues of redress for victims.

Amidst great popular support, the Commission held its first sitting from August 8 to 10, 1998 in Chandigarh. The first and only sitting of the Commission drew a standing crowd. People who, despite influence, knowledge, emotional strength, and a desire for justice had not approached the judicial system, now eagerly submitted petitions for examination by the panel.

In the face of this popular support, advocate Sudershan Goel filed a petition in the High Court on September 3, 1998, accusing the Commission of creating havoc, diminishing police morale, inciting enmity, setting up a parallel judicial system, and serving as a front for foreign interests. To prove the Commission’s support for foreign interests, Goel attached letters from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, from Amnesty International, and from a member of Britain’s Parliament, among others, asking for the release of detained human rights activists Jaspal Singh Dhillon and Kulbir Kaur Dhami.[135]

Goel also named the Union of India, the State of Punjab, and the Daily Tribune as respondents, for failing to prevent the Commission from holding its hearings and “causing a feeling of loss of governance in the minds of the people.”[136] The State of Punjab replied that the Commission had not yet created a law and order problem. Thus, despite any desire the State may have had to stop the Commission, it could not proactively prevent the Commission from carrying out its activities.

The High Court, however, banned the People’s Commission for creating a parallel judicial system. The Court dissected the language used by the Commission, resting on dictionary definitions to support its decision. “Commission” implied a legal body, and “summons” implied a legal action; thus, the privately organized People’s Commission was attempting to usurp the powers of the judiciary.[137] The Court glossed over the Commission’s Rules where the Commission affirmed that no group had to recognize the Commission and all participation was voluntary.

The Court took issue with the Commission’s plan to reevaluate judgments passed by the High Court. Article 5(2) of the Commission’s Rules states: If it “can be established that the court proceedings were not impartial or independent, and were designed to shield the accused from criminal responsibility or the case was not diligently prosecuted,” the Commission reserved the option to reevaluate the judicial decision. Although Supreme Court opinions

*** Top of Page 296 ***

had affirmed the right of Indian citizens to criticize and analyze judicial decisions, the High Court balked at this transparency.

Goel’s petition and the High Court’s decision mirrored many of the problems petitioners faced with habeas corpus petitions. Neglecting to take note of the limitations imposed by the inefficiency, corruption, and inefficacy of the lower courts in handling police abuses, Justice Dutt of the High Court wrote in his opinion for the People’s Commission case: “The complaints of heinous nature like murder, abduction, rape etc. can be taken cognizance of in the Criminal Courts in India without any limitation standing in the way.”[138] He did not, however, subject Goel to the same recommendation. Instead, Justice Dutt ruled in favor of Goel’s petition before any law and order issue had occurred.