A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment in Ghanshyam Upadhyay v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others examines the contours of judicial scrutiny over allegations of bias and conflict of interest raised against members of a Commission of Inquiry constituted under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. The petitioner, a practicing advocate, invoked Article 32 of the Constitution of India in public interest, seeking the scrapping of a judicial commission constituted to inquire into the alleged police encounter killing of Vikas Dubey. The challenge was founded exclusively on a newspaper article alleging political and relational proximity of commission members to the ruling establishment.

The Supreme Court emphatically rejected the petition, reiterating the settled position that newspaper reports, without corroborative material, possess no evidentiary value. The Court clarified that a Commission of Inquiry performs a fact-finding and recommendatory role, lacking adjudicatory or enforceable authority. It held that speculative apprehensions of bias, unsupported by cogent material, cannot displace persons who have held high constitutional offices. The judgment reinforces judicial discipline in public interest litigation, guards against abuse of PIL jurisdiction, and reaffirms the doctrinal distinction between investigative commissions and adjudicatory bodies. The decision further balances the principles of natural justice with institutional integrity, ensuring that inquiry mechanisms are not paralysed by conjectural challenges.

Keywords: Commission of Inquiry, Bias, Conflict of Interest, Newspaper Reports, Public Interest Litigation, Natural Justice

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case arose in the aftermath of the alleged police encounter killing of Vikas Dubey, which triggered nationwide concern and multiple public interest litigations. The petitioner initially approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, seeking protection of the accused and challenging the demolition of his property. Following the encounter, the State of Uttar Pradesh constituted a Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and also formed a Special Investigation Team.

Upon the Supreme Court’s suggestion, the State expanded the Commission by appointing Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan, former Judge of the Supreme Court, as Chairman, and Shri K.L. Gupta, former Director General of Police, as Member. This reconstituted Commission was accepted by the Court, and petitioners were granted liberty to participate in the inquiry.

Subsequently, the present miscellaneous application was filed seeking the scrapping of the Commission itself. The petitioner alleged bias and conflict of interest on the part of the Chairman and a Member, relying solely on a newspaper article published in The Wire. The allegations were premised on familial and political associations of the Commission members.

The background thus presented a tension between the public’s demand for impartial inquiry and the institutional safeguards inherent in inquiry commissions. The Court was called upon to examine whether speculative allegations, unsupported by evidence, could derail a judicially endorsed inquiry mechanism.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner, a practicing advocate from Mumbai, filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking judicial intervention regarding the alleged encounter killing of Vikas Dubey. During pendency, the State constituted a Commission of Inquiry headed initially by a former High Court judge. On judicial suggestion, the Commission was expanded to include a former Supreme Court judge as Chairman and a former DGP as Member.

After the constitution of the expanded Commission was approved by the Supreme Court on 22 July 2020, the petitioner filed multiple interlocutory applications objecting to the inclusion of Shri K.L. Gupta, alleging prior media comments favouring police action. These objections were rejected by the Court on 28 July 2020.

Persisting with objections, the petitioner filed the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking complete scrapping of the Commission. The allegations of bias were founded entirely on a newspaper article alleging that the Chairman’s relatives were legislators of the ruling party and that the Member was related to a senior police officer involved in the incident.

No independent material, affidavit, or documentary evidence was produced. The petitioner was not personally affected by the inquiry and was participating purely in public interest. The inquiry proceedings were to be conducted publicly, with liberty granted to the petitioner to participate, and the report was to be filed before the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether allegations of bias against members of a Commission of Inquiry can be sustained solely on the basis of newspaper reports?
ii. Whether familial or political associations, without demonstrable influence, constitute conflict of interest?
iii. Whether a Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 performs adjudicatory functions?
iv. Whether repeated PIL applications raising speculative apprehensions amount to abuse of process?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the Petitioner submitted that the presence of political affiliations and familial relationships of the Commission members created a reasonable apprehension of bias. It was argued that public confidence in the inquiry process would be eroded if the Commission continued in its present form. Reliance was placed on Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 611, asserting that even likelihood of bias is sufficient to vitiate proceedings.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the Respondent submitted that the allegations were speculative, unsupported by evidence, and based solely on a newspaper article. It was argued that the Commission’s role was purely fact-finding and recommendatory. Reliance was placed on Kushum Lata v. Union of India (2006) 6 SCC 180 and Rohit Pandey v. Union of India (2005) 13 SCC 702 to submit that newspaper reports have no evidentiary value.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Article 32 of the Constitution of India
ii. Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952

I) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that allegations founded solely on newspaper reports cannot be entertained. The Court reiterated that newspaper items, without verification, do not constitute evidence, relying on Kushum Lata and Rohit Pandey. The Bench emphasised that both the Chairman and Member had held high constitutional and statutory offices, and mere relational associations do not establish bias.

The Court explained that a Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 is empowered only to investigate, record findings, and make recommendations which are not enforceable proprio vigore. Reliance was placed on Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar [1959] SCR 279, State of Karnataka v. Union of India [1978] 2 SCR 1, and Sham Kant v. State of Maharashtra (1992) 2 Supp SCC 521.

The Court distinguished Ranjit Thakur, holding that the facts therein involved direct adjudicatory participation, unlike the present fact-finding inquiry. It further noted that the petitioner had already been granted liberty to participate in the inquiry and that repeated applications were hampering the process.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

Allegations of bias against members of a Commission of Inquiry must be supported by cogent, reliable material; newspaper reports alone have no evidentiary value, and a Commission under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 performs only a fact-finding and recommendatory function, not an adjudicatory one.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that public interest litigations must not be permitted to derail institutional processes through speculative apprehensions. Judicial restraint is necessary where high constitutional functionaries are involved, and fairness must be balanced with administrative efficacy.

c) GUIDELINES

i. Allegations of bias must be supported by concrete and verifiable material.
ii. Newspaper reports cannot form the sole basis of judicial interference.
iii. Inquiry Commissions must be allowed to function without unwarranted obstruction.
iv. Repeated frivolous applications in PILs may amount to abuse of process.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

1. Kushum Lata v. Union of India & Ors., (2006) 6 SCC 180
2. Rohit Pandey v. Union of India, (2005) 13 SCC 702
3. Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar, [1959] SCR 279
4. State of Karnataka v. Union of India, [1978] 2 SCR 1
5. Sham Kant v. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 2 Supp SCC 521
6. K. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1996 AP 62
7. Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611

b) Important Statutes Referred

1. Constitution of India
2. Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952