People's Commission
and its Subsequent Banning

On 10 December 1997, the Committee for Coordination on Disappearances in Punjab (CCDP) called on the Punjab government to set up a Truth Commission to investigate all complaints of human rights violations, as promised by the Akali Dal's February 1997 Election Manifesto. The importance of initiating a public discourse on past abuses, accountability and the culture of impunity was evident to the victims and activists. Besides the State's failure to acknowledge the scale of State violence in Punjab from 1984 to 1994, it had excluded an extraordinarily large number of people from the protections of law on the basis of their collective identity. An equally large number of people, in an antithetical stance in relation to that identity, participated in the perpetration of violence, directly, in auxiliary roles and as silent supporters.

After Chief Minister of Punjab Prakash Singh Badal failed to deliver on his election promise, on 26 April 1998, CCDP announced the formation of a three-judge panel to constitute a People's Commission on Human Rights Violations in Punjab. 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 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-room-only crowd. People who, despite influence, knowledge, emotional strength, and a desire for justice had not approached the judicial system from fear of the police and the dismal record of the judiciary, 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. Ironically, Goel invoked Article 226 of the Indian Constitution which gives the High Court wide powers to reach injustice wherever it is found, especially for the enforcement of fundamental rights. Before invoking Article 226 for any writ, however, it is necessary to show the real or imminent infringement of a vested right which Goel had not done. [See intervenor Ram Narayan Kumar's petition]. To prove the Commission's support from foreign interests, Goel attached letters from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Amnesty International, and a member of Britain's Parliament, among others, asking for the release of detained human rights activists.

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." 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.

Despite India's long tradition of People's Commissions and Citizens Tribunals that investigate and report on human rights violations, the High Court 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. The Court ignored the Commission's Rules where the Commission affirmed that no group had to recognize the Commission and all participation was voluntary.

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." 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.

People's Commission and its Subsequent Banning

People's Commission
and its Subsequent Banning