Holding

The petition was dismissed, with the Court directing the State to file a summary of the Parekh Commission’s report and an affidavit by the Home Secretary within two months, and warning of contempt for further non‑compliance.

Summary

The petitioners sought relief under Article 32 concerning the communal riots in Meerut (Sept‑Oct 1982) and the subsequent enquiry commission headed by Justice C.D. Parekh. The Supreme Court repeatedly directed the Uttar Pradesh government to file an affidavit detailing the action taken on the commission’s report, but the State failed to comply despite several orders between 1996 and 1998. The Court noted the State’s casual attitude, the prolonged delay in acting on the report, and warned that further non‑compliance could attract adverse comments and possibly contempt proceedings, even requiring the Home Secretary’s personal appearance. The Court finally ordered the State to submit a summary of the Parekh Commission’s report together with an affidavit by the Home Secretary within two months. As no substantive relief was obtained, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether the State of Uttar Pradesh complied with the Supreme Court's directions to file an affidavit detailing the action taken on the Justice C.D. Parekh enquiry commission report.
Whether the State's failure to comply amounts to contempt of the Supreme Court.
Whether the Supreme Court may direct the personal presence of the Home Secretary to explain the lapse.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 32

Subjects

Communal riotsEnquiry commissionSupreme Court directionsAffidavitContempt of courtArticle 32Writ petitionState compliance

Judgment

MR. FAZALUR REHMAN AND ORS. A
v.
THE STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

OCTOBER 14, 1998

[DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., K.T. THOMAS AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.] B

Constitution of India, 1950: Article 32:

Writ-Directions given by Supreme Court-Communal riots-Enquiry
Commission appointed by State Government-Report ofEnquiry Commission- C
Directions given by Supreme Court to file details of action taken-Casual
approach shown by State Government-Direction by Supreme Court to file
summary of Enquiry Commission's Report and the action taken report
alongwith an affidavit by home Secretary of State Government-Further
lapse or failure to do the needfal would require not only adverse comments D
but may also require personal presence of Home Secretary to explain the
lapses.

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) Nos. 11742-44
of 1984.
E
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

Krishan Mahajan, Ms .. MushrafChoudhary, P.H. Parekh, for the Petitioner.

A.B. Rohtagi, Karnlendra Misra and R.B. Misra for the Respondents.
F
The following Order of the Court was delivered by :

Through these writ petitions filed in 1984, attention of this Court was
drawn to various aspects arising out of the communal riots which took place
in Meerut between 6.9.1982 and 20.10.1982. There was loss of life and property.
It appears that the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh appointed an Enquiry Commission, G
headed by Justice C.D. Parekh of the Allahabad High Court on 21.1.1983. We
are informed that the Report was submitted by Justice Parekh Commission on
15.11.1988. Rule Nisi was issued by this court on 17.4.1984. 14 years have
gone by and the case remains still at the preliminary stages. After the issuance
of rule-nisi, an affidavit was filed by Shri Vijay Sharma, District Magistrate. H
319
320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A On 24.1.1996, the following order came to be made by this court:

"Learned counsel for the respondent-State of U.P. submits that the
report of the Enquiry Commission headed by Justice C.D. Parekh of
the Allahabad High Court has been submitted and according to the
additional counter-affidavit to the additional counter-affidavit (at pages
B 90A-92 of the paper-book) of Shri Vijay Sharma, District Magistrate,
that report has been acted upon. It does appear to us that at this
stage the scope of the writ petition may have to be confined to this
extent only.

c We consider it appropriate to peruse the report of Justice C.D. Parekh
in the light of the additional affidavit of the District Magistrate. The
report and the other material documents be produced before us on the
next date and in the meantime an affidavit containing the details of the
entire action taken by the Government pursuant to that report be also
filed.
D
List the matter on 12.3.1996."

Inspite of the clear directions given to the State of U.P. to file an
affidavit of a responsible officer containing the details of the entire action
E taken by the Government pursuant to that Report, the needful was not done.
On 11. 7.1996, an additional affidavit was filed by Shri Deepak Singhal, District
Magistrate, Meerut. Para 3(b) of the affidavit reads thus :

"It is respectfully stated that the details containing the entire actions
taken by the State Government in relation to the respect of the Justice
F C.D. Parekh, Commission of Enquiry shall be presented before this
Hon'ble Court by a separate affidavit by Government of U.P."

The affidavit containing the details of the action taken by the State
Government in relation to the action to be taken on Justice C.D. Parekh
G Commission of the Enquiry were, however, not filed. The case was adjourned
from time to time when on 12.2.1998, the State was once again directed by this
court to file an affidavit. The order dated 12.2.1998 reads thus:

"Let a responsible officer or the State of the Uttar Pradesh file an
affidavit as to the follow up action initiated on the basis of the Justice
H Parekh's report and that what is the latest position in respect thereto.
::.:
FAZALURREHMANv. STATE 321
List in the first half of April, 1998." A
No affidavit was filed even after this order and on 21.7.1998, the court
made the following order:

"As already conceded by the State of Uttar Pradesh Vide order dated
24th January, 1996, let an affidavit containing the details of the entire B
action taken by the Government pursuant to the report of Justice C.D.
• Parekh be filed so that it can be read alongwith additional affidavit of
the District Magistrate, already filed.

Two affidavits have been field, one by Shri V.K. Kharbanda, Joint
Secretary, State of U.P. dated 19.9.1998 and the other by Shri Pushyapati C
Saxena, Additional District Magistrate dated 23rd September, 1998. In para-3
of the affidavit filed by Shri Kharbanda on 19.9.1998, it is deposed as follows:

"That in the light of the above order, it is respectfully stated the report
of justice C.D. Parekh Committee, was placed before the cabinet of D
State of Uttar Pradesh on 12.8.1998. After deliberations, the cabinet
has required that some additional information be furnished alongwith
the proposal before the cabinet. The necessary information as expected
by the cabinet are in the process of collection and the same after
consulation with the Department of Law shall be placed again before E
the cabinet very shortly."

Thus, what appears is that though the court was informed before
24.1.1996, that Justice Parekh's report had been "acted upon" in 1998, we were
informed that the report of Justice Parekh is still under consideration of the
Cabinet.
F
Mr. Rohtagi, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of U.P.
submits that Justice C.D. Parekh Commission's Report has not so far been
acted upon and that the earlier statements made in this court were on account
of some communication gap between the counsel and the State functionaries.
It is submitted by him that the Report is under consideration of the Cabinet G
before which it was placed on 12.8.1998.

We are at a loss to understand why the State has been taking this
matter so casually and why we were not informed over all these years the
correct position. The Report of the Parekh Commission appears to have
gathered dust for ahnost ten years. We would refrain from making any comment H
r::
322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A at this stage regarding the inaction of the State Government, since were
assured by Mr. Rohtagi, learned senior counsel appearing for the State ofU.P.
that within two months from the date of the this order, a summary of the
Parekh Commission's Report. including the recommendations of the Commission
for remedial measures and the action taken on that Report, if any, would be
B communicated to this Court through an affidavit. Let the summary of the
Parekh Commission Report and the Action Taken Report be filed alongwith
an affidavit by the Home Secretary, State of U.P., within two months. We wish ..
to emphasise that any further lapse of failure to do the needful on the part
of the State would invite not only adverse comments from this court but may
require the personal presence of the Home Secretary in this court to explain
C the lapse with a view also to consider the question of taking proceedings for
contempt of the order of this court by the delinquents.

Post the matter after two months.

T.N.A. Petition dismissed.