MEMORANDUM OF ACTION TAKEN ON THE REPORT OF JUSTICE G.T. NANAVATI COMMISSION OF INQUIRY SET UP TO INQUIRE INTO RIOTS OF 1984.
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952(60 of 1952), the Government had appointed a Commission of Inquiry under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice G. T. Nanavati, a retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India vice the Ministry of Home Affairs Notification No. 441(E) dated 8th May, 2000 to inquire into certain matters connected win riots which took place in the National Capital Territory of Delhi and other parts of the country on and after 31st October, 1984 in the wake of assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India.
2. The terms of reference assigned to the Commission were as follows:
(a) to enquire into the causes and course of the criminal violence and riots targeting members of the Sikh community which took place in the NCT of Delhi and other parts of the country on 31St October, 1984 and thereafter;
(b) the sequence of the events leading to and all the facts relating to such violence and riots;
(c) whether these heinous crimes could have been averted and whether there were any lapses or dereliction of duty in this regard on the part of any of the responsible authorities/individuals;
(d) to enquire into the adequacy of the administrative measures taken to prevent and to deal with the said violence and riots;
(e) to recommend measures which may be adopted to meet the ends of the justice;
(f) to consider such matters as may be found relevant in the course of the inquiry.
3. The Commission was required to submit its report to the Union Government as soon as possible but not later than six months from the date of its first sitting. However, since the Commission was not in a position to complete the inquiry within the prescribed time limit, its tenure was extended from time to time.
4) Justice G. T. Nanavati presented the Report of the Commission to the Union Home Minister on 9th February, 2005. The Report of the Commission is in two volumes - Volume I consisting of the main report and Volume II consisting of annexures. The main report is in four parts as indicated below:
Part I - Introduction
Part II - Proceedings
Part III- Evidence
Part IV - Assessment of Evidence and Recommendations for Action
5. The Commission has made a number of general observations about the role of Delhi Police. It has been mentioned that the Police personnel remained passive and did not provide protection to the people. The Commission has also stated that if timely action had been taken by the police against the persons indulging in riots, probably many lives could have been saved. The Government has noted all such general observations for taking appropriate remedial action and to advise Delhi Police (and State Governments) to ensure that the police personnel perform their duties properly in such situations in future.
6. The Commission has, inter alia, also observed that (a) such riots should be controlled effectively, (b) the Police should function independently; and (c) all complaints should be registered and investigated by independent agencies. The Government endorses these observations and it has decided to advise the State Governments, Union Territories and Delhi Police to take necessary action accordingly.
7.The Commission has also recommended that the Government should take steps to see that all the affected persons throughout the country are paid compensation uniformly at an early date and one member of the family, which has lost all its earning male members and which has no other sufficient means of livelihood, is provided employment.The Government has accepted these recommendations.Necessary follow up action will be taken to implement these recommendations.
8. The Commission has made specific recommendations against some individuals and recommended re-examination or re-investigation of some of the cases relating to them. Similarly, the Commission has also made specific recommendations against some Police personnel for their failure to perform their duties properly. The Government has considered all such recommendations and decided to look into such cases and take appropriate action as mentioned below:
Observations/recommendations of Justice Nanavati Commission of Enquiry
1. It appears to the Commission that Hoshiar Singh and his men did not take effective steps to protect the Gurudwara and to disperse the mob which had gathered there. Not a single person from the mob which had entered the Gurudwara or was trying to enter the Gurudwara was apprehended by him or by his team. No force appears to have been used by them to check the riotous crowd. The fact that the mob was big cannot justify inaction on his part and the other policemen. It is a clear case of dereliction of duty on the part of Shri Hoshiar Singh and the policemen who were posted there and therefore the Commission recommends that the Government should initiate appropriate action against him and those policemen who were with him. (Page 143-144 of the Report).
Action Taken:
The Government has noted with concern the conduct of the Police officials mentioned by the Commission. However, since these officials have retired from service, there are legal difficulties in initiating any departmental proceedings at this point of time. Shri Hoshiar Singh, Sub-Inspector retired from service on 31.1.1998. The two Constables, who were on duty with him, have also retired. Disciplinary action under the CCS (CC&A) Rules,1965 can be taken only against a serving government servant. Further, action under Pension Rules is possible only in respect of an event which took place within 4 years before institution of the proceeding. However, Government would examine this matter further in consultation with the Ministry of Law for appropriate action.
Nanavati Commission:
2. The Commission is of the view that there is credible evidence against Shri Dharam Das Shastri who was a Congress (I) leader of the locality, that he had instigated his men Shri Tek Chand Sharmna and Shri Rajinder Singh to organize attack on Sikhs. The Commission recommends to the Government that it should examine the relevant material and direct investigation or further investigation as may be found necessary with respect to the aforesaid allegations. (Page146-147 of the Report)
Action Taken:
It may be mentioned that then incident was earlier investigated in connection with FIR No.867/84 PS Karol Bagh and charge sheet was filed in the court against 10 persons. On completion of trial, the Court of Shri S.S.Bal, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi vice judgment dated 19.12.1992 had convicted two of the accused,namely, Shri Tek Chand Sharma and Shri Rajinder and acquitted; the rest. Shri Dharamdas Shastri was not named as an accused in this case.
However, as recommended by the Commission, the Government would examine the factual position for appropriate action.
Nanavati Commission:
3. The Commission considers it safe to record a finding that there is credible evidence against Shri Jagdish Tytler to the effect that very probably he had a hand in organizing attacks on Sikhs.The Commission, therefore, recommends to the Government to look into this aspect and take further action as may be found necessary. (Page 153 of the Report)
Action Taken:
The Commission has stated that "very probably" he had a hand in organizing attacks on Sikhs. It is clear from this observation that the Commission itself was not absolutely sure about his involvement in such attacks. It may be pointed out that in criminal cases, a person cannot be prosecuted simply on the basis of "probability."
The incidents regarding arson and looting in the area of PS Bara Hindu Rao, burning of Gurudwara Pul Bangash and killing of Shri Thakur Singh and Shri Badal Singh on 31.10.1984 and 1.11.1984 were investigated in connection with FIR No. 315/84 and FIR No. 316/84 PS Bara Hindu Rao. On completion of investigation in FIR No. 315/84, 9 challans were filed in which 14 persons were accused and 10 persons were cited as prosecution witnesses. After completion of trial, 13 of the accused persons were convicted and one person was declared as proclaimed offender by the court of Shri R.P. Tiwari, Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari vice judgment dated 17.7.1997. Similarly, in FIR No. 316184 PS Bara Hindu Rao, 31 persons were arrested and challaned and 21 persons were cited as prosecution witnesses. On completion of trial, the Court of Shri J.B. Goel, Addl Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari, acquitted all the 31 accused persons vice judgement dated 10.4.1992. Shri Jagdish Tytler was not named as an accused in these cases.
In view of the fact that the Commission itself is not certain that Shri Tytler had a role in organizing the attacks on Sikhs and in the context of the judicial verdicts on the incidents mentioned in the Commission's report, any further action will not be justified.
Nanavati Commission:
4. The Commission observed that in view of the statements of the witnesses, departmental inquiry ought to have been initiated against Sub-Inspector Mange Ram to find out whether there was any dereliction of duty on his part. The Commission, therefore, recommends that the Government should direct an inquiry to be held against him. (Page 154 of the Report)
Action Taken:
The Government is concerned to note the conduct of the Police officer. However, since he has retired from service, there are legal hurdles in initiating any departmental action at this point of time. This has been explained in response to the recommendation at serial No.1. However, the Government would examine this matter further in consultation with Ministry of Law for appropriate action.
Nanavati Commission:
5. On the basis of the material on record with respect to the incidents which happened in South District, it appeared to the Commission that Dr. Chander Prakash who was the DCP of the area, Shri O.P. Yadav, Station House Officer of Police Station Srinivaspuri, Shri Rohtash Singh, Station House Officer of Police Station Delhi Cantt., Shri Ram Phal, Station House Officer of Police Station Hazrat Nizamuddin, SI Ved Prakash of Police Station Srinivaspuri, SI Ishwar Singh of Police Station Srinivaspuri, Head Constable Shakti Singh of Jangpura Police Post and Head Constable Mahinder Singh of Police Station Sriniwaspuri had not performed their duties properly. If all the relevant material is taken into consideration there can be no doubt in the mind of any reasonable person that they and other police officers and policemen in charge of areas where these incidents had happened were negligent in performance of their duties. The Commission recommends that the Government should consider even now if any action can be taken against them. (Page 157-158 of the Report)
Action Taken:
The Government has noted with concern the conduct of the Police officers mentioned by the Commission.Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Shri O.P.Yadav, S.H.O.; Shri Ved Prakash, SubInspector; Shri Ishwar Singh, Sub-Inspector; Shri Shakti Singh, Sub-Inspector and Shri Mahinder Singh, Head Constable on the charge that they did not perform their duties properly. On conclusion of the proceedings, Shri O.P.Yadav and Shri Ved Prakash were exonerated and the cases against Shri Ishwar Singh, Shri Shakti Singh and Shri Mahinder Singh were dropped/closed by the competent disciplinary authority, as the charges against them could not be proved.
Dr. Chander Prakash, Shri Rohtas Singh and Shri Ram Phal have retired from service on 30.11.2001, 31.3.2003 and 31.1 1.93 respectively. As mentioned in response to point No. 1 above, there are some legal difficulties in taking departmental action against retired government servants.
However the Government would further examine this matter in consultation with the Ministry of Law for appropriate action.
Nanavati Commission:
6. The Commission thereon recommends to the Government to examine only those cases where the witnesses have accused Shri Sajjan Kumar specifically and yet no charge sheets were filed against him and the cases were terminated as untraced and if there is justification for the same take further action as is permitted by law. Those cases which were closed as untraced and which still deserve to be reexamined are those which would arise from FIR Nos. 250/84, 307/94 and 347/91 of police station Sultanpuri, FIR Nos. 325/193, 329/193, 178/84 of police station Mangolpuri and FIR No. 416/94 of police station Delhi Cantt. (Page 162-163 of the Report)
Action Taken:
As recommended by the Commission, Government has examined the seven FIRs mentioned in the Report. Out of the seven cases mentioned by the Commission, two cases (FIR No. 325/1993 and FIR No. 329/1993 P. S. Mangolpuri) do not relate to 1984 riots. The factual position about these cases is indicated below:
(1) FIR No. 250/84 PS Sultanpuri
FIR No. 250/84 PS Sultanpuri was not closed as untraced as mentioned by the Commission. On completion of investigation, charge sheets were filed against 27 persons. Three of the accused persons were convicted and the remaining 24 were acquitted by the competent courts. The name of Shri Sajjan Kumar did not figure in the list of accused. It has further been observed that:
(i) FIR No. 25Q/84 PS Sultanpuri was registered against unknown persons and Shri Sajjan Kumar was not named as an accused in the case.
(ii) The name of Shri Sajjan Kumar was also not mentioned by any of the 118 witnesses whose statements were recorded during investigation of this case.
(iii) None of the 96 prosecution witnesses, who deposed before the court, named Shri Sajjan Kumar as an accused.
(iv) Shri Sajjan Kumar was acquitted by the Court of Smt.Manju Goel, Additional Session Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi vide her judgment dated 23.12.2002 in case RC No.1 (S)/90-SIU-II-CBI/SIU/ND registered by the CBI on the basis of the affidavit filed by Smt. Anwar Kaur before Justice Jain- Banerjee Committee.
(v) No fresh material evidence has been produced before Justice Nanavati Commission against Shri Sajjan Kumar in connection with the incidents of riot covered under FIR No. 250/84 PS Sultanpuri. Therefore, it will not be just to reopen this case.
2) FIR No. 307/94 P. S. Sultanpuri
This case was registered on the basis of an affidavit filed on 09.09.1985 by Smt.Anek Kaur, wife of Shri Vakil Singh, r/o F-4/2, Sultanpuri. However, in her statement dated 21.7.1994 she denied the allegation against Shri Sajjan Kumar.The case was sent as untraced for want of evidence and the same was accepted by the Court of Balwan Singh Chumbuk, Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari vice his judgment dated 15.1.99. Smt. Anek Kaur did not file any affidavit before Justice Nanavati Commission and no fresh evidence has been brought forward in connection with the incidents covered under this case. Under the circumstances, it will not be just to reopen this case.
(3) FIR No. 347/91 PS Sultanpuri
This case was registered on the basis of the affidavit of Shri Joginder Singh s/o Shri Rur Singh, r/o B-2/301, Sultanpuri affidavit dated 23rd July, l9B7 filed before Justice Jain- Banerjee Committee. In his statement recorded on 14.5.92, he totally denied the Allegation against Shri Sajjan Kumar. Other witnesses also did not accuse Shri Sajjan Kumar. In the absence of any evidence, an untraced report was filed which was accepted by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari vice judgment dated 2B.2.2004. No fresh affidavit was filed before Justice Nanavati Commission in connection with the incident covered under FIR No.347/91 P.S. Sultanpuri to provide any new or additional evidence. Therefore, there is no justification to reopen this case.
This case was registered on the basis of the statement of Shri Hazari Lal s/o Sh. Jethu Ram r/o H.No.862, Mangolpuri, Delhi. It has been found that this case relates to theft, which occurred in 1993, and it is not connected with the incidents of riots of 1984.
(5) FIR No. 329/93 - P.S. Mangolpuri
This case was registered on the written report of the SI Om Prakash, P.S. Mangolpuri. It has been found that this case relates to unauthorized possession of arms during the year 1993 and it is not connected with the incidents of riots of 1984.
(6) FIR 178/84, P. S. Mongolpuri
This case was registered on the written report of Smt. Harvinder Kaur, widow of late Shri Iqbal Singh r/o A-119, L.I.G. Mayapuri, Delhi regarding the murder of her husband, Dr. Iqbal Singh Chadha. In her report she did not name any person as she had not seen the incident. The witnesses, who were questioned during investigation, also did not name any body as accused. No eye-witness came forward to give any specific evidence or clue about the incidents. Therefore, the case was sent as untraced which was accepted by the competent Court.
Shri Sajjan Kumar has not been accused by any of the persons who filed affidavits before Justice Nanavati Commission in connection win this incident except Shri. Surender Singh. The Government would look into the factual position in regard to the affidavit of Shri Surender Singh for appropriate action.