IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Click here to go back to the People's Commission's page

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATES OF
PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
In CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 14133 OF 1998

Sudershan Goel … ….. …. ….. ….. Petitioner

Versus

The Union of India & Others …………. Respondents

Written Statement on behalf of Union of India and Others.

1. At the outset, the Union of India which is Respondent No. 1 would like to submit that the matter concerns the State of Punjab which is Respondent No. 2 as public order is a State subject. Union of India has taken note of the activities of "The People's Commission", Respondent No. 3, and has sought a factual report and the views of the State Government of Punjab in the matter and would act appropriately if any action is warranted on its part on the basis of the report of the State Government.

2. Union of India has no specific comments to offer on various paragraphs of CWP No. 14133 of 1998 except that some of the activities of "The People's Commission" tend to encroach upon the judicial function of the State and have no force of law. India has a very strong and independent judicial system and institutions like the National Human Rights Commission who are seized of the various allegations that have arisen out of the situation that prevailed in Punjab during the period of trans-border terrorism in the State. Therefore, "The People's Commission" has absolutely no role to play other than assisting the judicial courts and the National Human Rights Commission in its capacity as a private initiative. It is also hereby submitted that the action of "The People's Commission" in issuing notices to public servants in the State of Punjab, to depose before it, is completely illegal and has no force of law, and after obtaining a report from the State Government of its views, Respondent No. 1 would have no hesitation in advising Respondent No. 2 to ask its officers to ignore these notices.

3. In view of the above submissions, Union of India also feels that the Hon'ble Court should also take cognisance of the extra constitutional nature of functions and activities of Respondent No. 3 and restrain it from doing anything which may amount to encroaching upon the judicial function of the State.

Respondent/Defendant

(ROHATASH SINGH)

Union of India, MHA
Through its Under Secretary
Shri Rohtash Singh son of Shri Prabhati Lal,
Age 43 years.
Through Counsel
Shri Ashutosh Mohunta, Advocate Sr.
Central Govt. Standing Counsel

Chandigarh.
26-10-98
VERIFICATION

Verified that the contents of paras 1 to 3 of the written statement are true and correct. Nothing has been concealed and no part of it is false.

Chandigarh: Respondent/Defendant

26-10-98. (ROHATASH SINGH)
Union of India, MHA
Through its Under Secretary Shri Rohtash Singh, son of Shri Prabhati Lal, Age 43 years.
Through Counsel
Shri Ashutosh Mohunta, Advocate Sr.
Central Govt. Standing Counsel

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH In CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 14133 OF 1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATES OF
PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
In CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 14133 OF 1998