After inviting representations through advertisements in newspapers, the Committee adopted a peculiarly crafted partisan method of inquiry by resorting to picking and considering only politically convenient representations, thereby wantonly infringing the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14, 15, 16, 21 and 25 of the Constitution. The partisan procedure adopted by the Committee was violative of the principle of natural justice in the sense that repetitive requests of the petitioners for a personal hearing were deliberately ignored by the Chairperson who invariably found enough time for meeting a number of groups and individuals, including some who had made no written submission. One such instance was the audience granted to Shri S.S. Gill (a retired civil servant just like many members of our Thinktank), as mentioned by Shri Gill in an article which appeared in the Times of India , New Delhi, on January 23, 2007, though he had made no written submission to Sachar Committee. There could be no rationale for handing down such discriminatory treatment to the petitioners, especially after a written assurance to consider their viewpoint had been given by the Committee’s Officer on Special Duty. The deliberate denial of opportunity to be heard, coupled with completely shutting out from their Report the data about important human development indicators furnished by the petitioners, shows that the report of the High Level Committee is biased and arbitrary. It is based on partisan considerations and abounds in a number of instances of suppresio veri, suggestio falsi, duly pointed out in the Rejoinder issued by our Thinktank, a copy of which was sent to Justice (Retd) Rajindar Sachar on January 29, 2007, seeking his clarifications and response and copies thereof were endorsed to the Hon’ble Prime Minister, the Minster for Minority Affairs, the Home Minister and several other government functionaries. Till date no reply has been received from any quarter to the aforesaid Rejoinder issued by the petitioners. Throughout the inquiry the Committee continued to function and act in an arbitrary manner, though after inviting representations through public advertisement it was duty bound to consider all representations and hear the relevant oral submissions of those who had responded to its advertisements. The Committee did not extend even the elementary courtesy of acknowledging the numerous reminders of lesser mortals like us, leave alone the hope of sparing a thought for truth. By giving audience only to selectively chosen partisan groups and individuals, the Committee not only violated the principle of natural justice, but also denied to the petitioners the right to equality and fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. In doing so the Committee acted in a manner prejudicial to the public interest despite this Hon’ble Court’s mandatory directions in Sarla Mudgal Vs. the Union of India 1995 (3) SCC 365 and National Textile Workers Union Vs. P.R. Rama Kishnan 1983(1) SCC 228.
Posted on: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 02:05:16 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015