Judgement The Union of India and three others have filed the present writ petition for quashing the order of the State Government dated 12-3-98 (Annexure-A/2) constituting a Commission of Inquiry u/S. 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act and also to quash the public notice dated 31-6-1998 (Annexure-A/3) issued by the Secretary, SANAMACHA INQUIRY COMMISSION (Respondent No. 3). The petitioners have challenged the power of the State Government in constituting the said Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 for the purpose of making inquiry to the alleged disappearance of one Shri Y. Sanamacha Singh of Thoubal District, Manipur in and around the midnight of 12-2-1998 from his house. 2. It is stated in the petition that 17 Raj Rifles have been deployed in the State of Manipur for counter insurgency operation. The area has been declared as disturbed area and Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 has been made applicable in the State of Manipur by a notification dated 8-9-1980. On 13-2-98 in the midnight an Army column rushed to Angtha village on receiving an information that some underground (sic) are operating in the said area. The Army column proceeded to the house of one Y. Binakumar Singh and apprehended four persons. Due to the interference and attack by the women folk Meira Paibi of Angtha village, two persons, namely Shri Y. Binakumar Singh and Y. Sanamacha Singh managed to escape and the remaining two persons who were detained by the Army were handed over to Yairipok Police Station on 13-2-98 along with a written report. The officer-in-charge, Yairipok P. S., on the basis of the said report, registered a case being FIR Case No. 15(2) 98 YPK P.S. u/S. 13 U.A. (P.) Act, and 25(I-B) Arms Act. In the said report the Army also requested the police to take appropriate action against the women folk of Angtha village. 3. The Government of Manipur by an order dated 12-3-1998 appointed a Commission of Inquiry, namely, SANAMACHA INQUIRY COMMISSION under the Commissions of Enquiry Act for the purpose of inquiring into the aforesaid incident. In the said report the Army also requested the police to take appropriate action against the women folk of Angtha village. 3. The Government of Manipur by an order dated 12-3-1998 appointed a Commission of Inquiry, namely, SANAMACHA INQUIRY COMMISSION under the Commissions of Enquiry Act for the purpose of inquiring into the aforesaid incident. The terms of reference of the Inquiry Commission are as follows :- (a) the sequence of events leading to the disappearance of Shri Y. Sanamacha Singh; (b) to find out whether the Army picked up Shri Y. Sanamacha Singh around the midnight of February 12, 1998 from his house and if affirmative, to find out the whereabout of Shri Y. Sanamacha Singh since then; (c) to find out the persons who are responsible for the disappearance of Shri Y. Sanamacha Singh; and (d) to recommend the corrective remedies and measures needed to be taken to prevent recurrence to such incident in future. In pursuance of the order of the Government dated 12-3-98, the respondent No. 3, Secretary, Sanamacha Inquiry Commission, issued a Public Notice on 31-3-98 inviting affidavits, information, written statement relating to the aforesaid incident. It is further stated that the Commission of Inquiry, according to the term of reference, will investigate into the action of the armed forces of the Union for an act performed by them during the course of performing their duties in aid of civil power. It is also stated that an inquiry by a Commission in pursuance of the aforesaid terms of reference will relate to Entries 2 and 2-A of List I of the Seven Schedule of the Constitution of India in respect of which the Central Government alone is the competent and appropriate authority to appoint the Commission of Inquiry. It is further stated that the State Govt. can appoint Commissions of Inquiry only in matters relatable to any of the Entries enumerated in Lists II and III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Public order has been included in Entry I of List II, but from that entry the use of armed forces of the Union in aid of civil power has been excluded from that entry. Public order has been included in Entry I of List II, but from that entry the use of armed forces of the Union in aid of civil power has been excluded from that entry. Therefore, Entry I of List II does not confer any power on the State Government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry to inquire into the powers and functions of the Armed Forces of the Union when they are operating in the State in aid of civil power. The subject-matter of the present inquiry, as per term of reference, falls under Entry 2 and 2-A of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and the Central Government is the only appropriate authority to constitute a Commission of Inquiry and not the State Government. It is also stated in the petition that the present inquiry the action or conduct of the members of the 17 Raj Rifles operating in Manipur in aid of civil power will be investigated by the Commission of Inquiry which is not included in Entry I of List II and as such the matter falls within the ambit of Entry 2 and 2-A of List I of the Seven Schedule of the Constitution. It is further stated that two Habeas Corpus writ petitions are pending before the Honble High Court and these two writ petitions are still pending and in view of the pendency of the two writ petitions, the State Govt. should not have constituted the Commission of Inquiry. Having felt aggrieved by the Constitution of Commission of Inquiry by the State Government, the Union of India and three others have filed the present writ petition. 4. The State Government has filed counter-affidavit in which they have denied all the allegations made by the petitioners. It is stated that the Govt. of Nagaland constituted a Commission of Inquiry to inquire into certain allegations against the security personnel of the Union of India and on the Constitution of such a Commission of Inquiry by the Govt. of Nagaland the Union of India challenged the order of the Govt., but the Honble Supreme Court did not grant any stay and in the meantime the Commission completed its inquiry and submitted its report. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the present Commission of Inquiry constituted by the State Govt. of Nagaland the Union of India challenged the order of the Govt., but the Honble Supreme Court did not grant any stay and in the meantime the Commission completed its inquiry and submitted its report. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the present Commission of Inquiry constituted by the State Govt. is exclusively on matter of public importance which relates to public order relatable to Entry I of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that in the midnight of 12-2-98 Shri Y. Sanamacha Singh was picked up by the Army and thereafter said Sanamacha Singh disappeared. The Commission of Inquiry has been set up with a view to find out the facts relating to the disappearance of Shri Y. Sanamacha Singh. It is further stated that the object and purpose of constituting the Commission of Inquiry is not to inquire into the powers, function, liabilities and jurisdiction of the Armed Forces of the Union who are in aid of civil administration in the State, but the purpose of constituting the Commission is to make an inquiry about the disappearance of Shri Y. Sanamacha Singh and to find out his whereabouts. It is further stated that the disappearance of Shri Y. Sanamacha Singh has created a serious law and order problem in the State and it is has assumed the character of definite matter of public importance relating to public order and therefore the Govt. has constituted the said Commission of Inquiry. It is also stated that the Commissioner is a fact finding body and it is for the appropriate authority and the Govt. to accept or reject the report and recommendations of the Commission. It is, therefore, submitted that the Union of India should not have any grievance for constituting such a Commission of Inquiry. It is also stated that it is a settled law that a Commission of Inquiry can be set up even if there are cases pending in the Courts on the same subject-matter. It is, therefore, submitted that there is no merit in the petition and it should be dismissed. 5. Mr. N. Ibotombi Singh, ld. C.G.S.C. appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the State of Manipur has no power to appoint the said Commission to inquire as to the occurrence of 13-2-98 at Angtha village, because no authority other than the Central Govt. 5. Mr. N. Ibotombi Singh, ld. C.G.S.C. appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the State of Manipur has no power to appoint the said Commission to inquire as to the occurrence of 13-2-98 at Angtha village, because no authority other than the Central Govt. can inquire into the action of the 17 Raj Rifles which is a force under the Union. Mr. N. Ibotombi Singh, further submits that no State including Manipur in the Republic of India, in any contingency, can review the action of the armed forces including 17 Raj Rifles. It is further argued that the said Army column rushed to the village on receiving an information that some undergrounds were seen moving with weapons and Radio set, etc. The Army has been deployed in the State to help the civil administration and the Army column in exercise of their power and to restore peace in the area tried to arrest U.Gs. and therefore, it cannot be said that the armed personnel who took part in the operation are guilty of any impropriety. On the other hand, it is asserted that if such actions are not taken, peace cannot be restored in the disturbed area of Manipur. Mr. N. Ibotombi Singh further argued that the 17 Raj Rifles is an armed force subject to the control of the Union. When forces is deployed in aid of civil power, it is urged, the State Govt. has no power to inquire into the conduct of the officers as it is an armed force. This plea is sought to be supported with reference to what is contained in Item I and Item 2 of List II which clearly provides that the field of inquiry under the said two entries are subject to the provisions of Entry 2-A of List I. Mr. N. Ibotombi Singh, consequently, submits that if the SANAMACHA INQUIRY COMMISSION constituted by the State Govt. is allowed to function, then they will make an inquiry about the Armed Forces which is not contemplated in Entry 1 and Entry 2 of List II of the Seven Schedule of the Constitution. It is further argued that when the armed forces deployed their force in aid of civil power, then their jurisdiction, privileges and liabilities of any member of such force cannot be questioned by the State, Mr. It is further argued that when the armed forces deployed their force in aid of civil power, then their jurisdiction, privileges and liabilities of any member of such force cannot be questioned by the State, Mr. N. Ibotombi Singh, further, argued that Section 2 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 do not contemplate for setting up of any Commission of Inquiry against the members of the force under the control of the Union. Section 2 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act reads as under :- "2. Definitions- In this Act, unless the context requires :- (a) appropriate Government means- (i) the Central Government, in relation to a Commission appointed by it to make an inquiry into any matter relatable to any of the entries enumerated in List I or List II or List III in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution; and (2) the State Government in relation to a Commission appointed by it to make an enquiry into any matter relatable to any of the entries enumerated in List II or List III in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution." Under Clause (2) of S. 2 the State Govt. can appoint a Commission in regard to any of the matters enumerated in Lists II and III in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Relevant to that enumeration no item in List III is called for consideration. Items 1 and 2 of List II of the Seventh Schedule are the two relevant items. They read as follows :- 1. Public order but not including the use of any naval, military or air force or any other armed force of the Union or of any other force subject to the control of the Union or of any contingent or unit thereof in aid of the civil power. 2. Police (including railway and village police) subject to the provisions of Entry 2-A of List 1. Having regard to the reference to in the latter we extract Items 2 and 2-A of List I which read as under - 2. Naval, military and air forces; any other armed forces of the Union. 2-A. Deployment of any armed force of the Union or any other force subject to the control of the Union or any contingent or unit thereof in any State in aid of the civil power; powers, jurisdiction, privileges and liabilities of the members of such forces while on such deployment. 2-A. Deployment of any armed force of the Union or any other force subject to the control of the Union or any contingent or unit thereof in any State in aid of the civil power; powers, jurisdiction, privileges and liabilities of the members of such forces while on such deployment. 6. Relying on the aforesaid provisions Mr. N. Ibotombi Singh, ld. C.G.S.C. submits that the State Govt. is competent to set up a Commission of Inquiry in respect of matters relatable to Entries I and 2 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Mr. N. Ibotombi Singh, further, submits that the powers, function and liabilities of the forces under the control of the Union cannot be inquired into by a Commission set up by the State Government, because that power is vested only with the Central Govt. under Entries 2, 2-A of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. Mr. Ibotombi Singh, consequently, submits that any inquiry in respect of the forces under control of the Central Govt. lies with the Central Govt. only, and State Govt. by taking the aid of Entries 1 and 2 of List II cannot set up any Commission of Inquiry to inquire into the functions of (sic) the force which is under control of the Union. 7. It is also argued that two habeas corpus petitions are pending regarding the same matter and therefore, no Commission of Inquiry can be set up regarding the same subject-matter. The ld. C.G.S.C., therefore, submits that the SANAMACHA INQUIRY COMMISSION set up by the State Govt. is required to be quashed. 8. Mr. T. Nandakumar Singh, ld. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State Manipur submits that the law and order in the territory of the State is the responsibility of the State Government. The occurrence that took place on 13-2-98 at Angtha village is the responsibility of the State Government. It is submitted by the ld. Advocate General that the State is, therefore, desired to prove into the occurrence. It is, further, submitted by the learned Advocate General that admittedly the 17 Raj Rifles tried to arrest Shri Y. Sanamacha Singh on the night of 12-2-98 and thereafter said Sanamacha Singh disappeared. It is submitted by the ld. Advocate General that the State is, therefore, desired to prove into the occurrence. It is, further, submitted by the learned Advocate General that admittedly the 17 Raj Rifles tried to arrest Shri Y. Sanamacha Singh on the night of 12-2-98 and thereafter said Sanamacha Singh disappeared. In the writ petition, a plea has been taken by the petitioners that when the Army column apprehended four persons, two of them including Y. Sanamacha managed to escape due to interference and attack by the women folk (Meira Paibee) of Angtha village. The learned Advocate General, further, submits that after the aforesaid incident Shri Y. Sanamacha Singh could not be traced out and there is vide spread violence and disturbances by public in the State to find out said Y. Sanamacha Singh. It is, further, argued that law and order situation in the State has been deteriorated because of the continued strikes and agitations for finding out said Y. Sanamacha Singh. Keeping the aforesaid incident in view and having regard to the public importance in the matter, the State Govt. has set up the SANAMACHA INQUIRY COMMISSION to unfold the story behind the disappearance of said Y. Sanamacha Singh. It is argued by the learned Advocate General that disappearance of Y. Sanamacha Singh has reached such a magnitude that it has assumed the character of serious public importance and therefore the State Govt. is under obligation to set up the said Commission to find out the truth behind disappearance of Y. Sanamacha Singh. Mr. T. Nandakumar Singh, further submitted that Sanamatha Inquiry Commission will not make any inquiry into the power, function, jurisdiction, privilege and liabilities of the members of the Central forces. The Commission will simply conduct an inquiry into the disappearance of Y. Sanamacha Singh and matters connected therewith. The learned Advocate General, consequently, submits that the field of inquiry is relatable to Entry I of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and therefore the State Govt. is competent to constitute such an Inquiry Commission. It is further submitted by the learned Advocate General that there is no bar for continuing with the present Commission of Inquiry even though two habeas corpus writ petitions are pending over the same subject-matter. It is argued by the ld. is competent to constitute such an Inquiry Commission. It is further submitted by the learned Advocate General that there is no bar for continuing with the present Commission of Inquiry even though two habeas corpus writ petitions are pending over the same subject-matter. It is argued by the ld. Advocate General that the purpose and power of the Commission are different from that of the Courts. There is sufficient force in the submission of the learned Advocate General. On plain reading of the notification of the Govt. constituting SANAMACHA INQUIRY COMMISSION, it appears that the terms of reference of the Commission is to inquire the sequence of events leading to the disappearance of Shri Y. Sanamacha Singh and also to find out whether Army picked up Shri Y. Sanamacha Singh from his house and also to recommend the corrective measures and remedies needed to be taken to prevent recurrence of such incident in future. It is well settled that the Commission is not a Court nor its proceedings are judicial. They differ in their nature and manner of functioning, in their purpose and result. The Commission is the investigator, prosecutor, defender and Judge of facts all rolled into one. Evidence or materials collected by or before the Commission is its own responsibility unlike Courts who have to decide only on the materials produced by the parties or the police. Like Public Interest Litigation, proceedings before the Commission cannot be withdrawn or dismissed for default nor the absence of respondent is material. The Commission must proceed to decide on the materials available even in the absence of either party or their Advocates. It must give assessment of facts found in the form of a report with or without recommendations for future course of action which may or may not be acceptable to the Government who may refuse to take action. The absence of any authority to give definite judgment which can be enforced decisively distinguishes the Commission from Court. While Courts project their decisions on legal truths on dressed up materials projected on the screen for viewing by the parties to the litigation, the Commission tear the veil of mystery and secrecy by projecting raw materials behind the screen for viewing by public for their information. Therefore, it is evident that the Commission can only recommend future course of action. 9. Therefore, it is evident that the Commission can only recommend future course of action. 9. In the instant case also it appears from the term of reference that the Commission will inquire about the disappearance of Shri Y. Sanamacha Singh and whether he was arrested by the forces of the Union and if so how he has disappeared on that night in Angtha village. If possible, the Commission will also ascertain the facts about the whereabouts of Y. Sanamacha Singh. From the term of reference, it does not appear that the Commission will make any inquiry about the powers and functions of the members of the force of the Union or it will inquire about the jurisdictions and privileges of such members. Consequently, I am of the view that the present, Sanamacha Inquiry Commission set up by the State of Manipur falls within the purview of public order as enumerated in Item I of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. Since the disappearance of Y. Sanamacha Singh on the night of 12-2-98 has assumed the character of great importance and it has created deterioration in the law and order of the State, I am of the view that no illegality or error has been committed by the State Government by setting up the Sanamacha Inquiry Commission. Further, I am of the view that there cannot be any bar for any inquiry by the Commission even in the face of the pendency of two habeas corpus petitions. It is true that question of prejudice may be raised by a party, but there can be no legal prejudice in view of the provisions of Section 6 of the Commission of Inquiry Act as the evidence before the Commission cannot be used in any civil or criminal proceedings for any purpose. 10. Mr. N. Ibotombi Singh, ld. C.G.S.C. appearing on behalf of the petitioners lastly argued that the armed forces of the Union are doing extremely difficult functions in the disturbed areas and if they are subjected to harassment and humiliation at the hands of the State authority, the morale and confidence of the armed forces will get shattered. In the interest of the Nation and in the interest of the discipline and morale of the armed forces of the Union, it would be highly improper and inappropriate if the State Govt. In the interest of the Nation and in the interest of the discipline and morale of the armed forces of the Union, it would be highly improper and inappropriate if the State Govt. is allowed to inquire into their functioning or the manner in which they are discharging their duties. 11. While appreciating the argument of Mr. N. Ibotombi Singh, ld. C.G.S.C., I am of the view that in the Sanamacha Inquiry Commission the Commission will not inquire into the duties and functions of the armed forces of the Union and therefore the petitioners should not have any apprehension that they will be harassed or humiliated. In the present case the constitutional power of the State of Manipur has been challenged regarding the setting up of the Sanamacha Inquiry Commission. The State of Manipur desires to have a report as to the disappearance of Y. Sanamacha Singh and such disappearance has caused disturbance in the peace and tranquillity in the State. The subject of law and order is the allotted sphere of the State which relates to Entry I of the List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Consequently, I am of the view that the impugned notification suffers no constitutional vice whatever. 12. Before parting with the case, I must mention a submission made by Mr. N. Ibotombi Singh, learned C.G.S.C. appearing on behalf of the petitioners that in the event the writ petition is not allowed, the petitioners may be given some time to file their affidavit before the Commission as the last date for filing such affidavit has already expired. Having regard to the submission made by the learned Central Govt. Standing Counsel, I am of the view that if the petitioners desire to participate in the proceedings of the Commission they should be given a scope to file their affidavit before the Commission and take part of the proceedings thereof. Accordingly, Sanamacha Inquiry Commission may give reasonable time to the petitioners for filing affidavit etc. and to produce their witnesses if they so desire before the Commission. 13. Under the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition and it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the present writ petition is dismissed, but under the facts and circumstances, I make no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.