Cyriac Joseph, J. ( 1 ) THE Petitioner Dr. b. L. Wadehra is a practising advocate. He has filed this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in public interest. The provocation for filing this Petition is the situation arising out of the lawyers strike which has been going on for more than one month demanding an enquiry by a Sitting Judge of the Supreme Court into the circumstances leading to the use of force and the lathicharge by the police on the lawyers during their parliament March on 24th February, 2000 and also the immediate suspension of the police officials responsible for the lathi-charge. The Petitioner states that though he is a. part of the lawyers fraternity and is a participant in the strike, he has approached this Court with a disturbed feeling that the continued stalemate can lead to further unhealthy developments. According to him, in order to avoid further complications and to ensure resolution of the disputes in an orderly, civilised and constitutional manner the problem needs to be tackled al this stage, instead of allowing the partics to continue their Fight with hardened and inflexible attitudes. The petitioner feels that the best course to be adopted by the disput ing parties is to articulate the disputed issues and to leave them for determination by this Court and that in the meanwhile the Government should be directed by this Court to suspend the police officials responsible for the lathi-charge and simultaneously the lawyers also should be directed by this Court to suspend their strike and agitation. ( 2 ) THE State (NCT of Delhi); the Commissioner of Police, Delhi; the President, Delhi High Court Bar Association; the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, Govt. of India; the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India and the Chairman, Delhi Bar Council are the Respondents in this Petition. ( 3 ) THE first prayer in the Petition is to pass appropriate writ, direction or order determining and adjudicating in a final and binding manner all the points in dispute between and amongst the Respondents. The Petitioner has also prayed that in the meanwhile the Government authorities concerned may be directed to suspend from service the police officials whose suspension has been demanded by the striking lawyers for the alleged excesses committed by police on the lawyers on 24th February, 2000. The Petitioner has also prayed that in the meanwhile the Government authorities concerned may be directed to suspend from service the police officials whose suspension has been demanded by the striking lawyers for the alleged excesses committed by police on the lawyers on 24th February, 2000. The Petitioner has further prayed that simultaneously the striking lawyers may be directed to suspend their strike and agitation till the disputed matters are decided by this Court. ( 4 ) CONSIDERING the circumstances which prompted the lawyers to continue the strike and also in view of the grave situation arising out of the continuous strike for a long period and the consequential disruption of work in Courts and the difficulties caused to the litigants, this Court felt obliged to intervene in public interest and issued notice to the Respondents. From the submissions made on behalf of the parties, we found that the main hurdles for solving the problem were (i) the delay in a appointing a Commission of Inquiry as promised by the Government, (ii) the demand of the striking lawyers for immediate suspension of the police officers who were responsible for the lathi charge and the alleged assaults on lawyers on 24. 2. 2000 and (iii) the refusal of the Government to concede the said demand. ( 5 ) IN a Press Release issued by the Home Department of the Government of NCT of Delhi on 15. 3. 2000 it was stated that the incident of 24. 2. 2000 in which a number of lawyers and police officials received injuries had been reviewed as recorded on the various video tapes available and that the exact sequence of events, the disputes and the propriety of use of force and every related issued would be determined by the judicial enquiry announced by the Central Government. According to the said Press Release, it was seen from the video tapes that at the dispersal stage some police officials used force against some individual lawyers, including a lady lawyer, which was unwarranted and should ha. ve been avoided. It was also stated that the three erring officials had been identified and Were being placed under suspension. It was further stated in the Press Release that the two Assistant Commissioners of Police managing the events were being transferred to facilitate a fair enquiry. ve been avoided. It was also stated that the three erring officials had been identified and Were being placed under suspension. It was further stated in the Press Release that the two Assistant Commissioners of Police managing the events were being transferred to facilitate a fair enquiry. However, the lawyers were not satisfied with the suspension of three policemen and the transfer of the two Assistant Commissioners of Police. They wanted the suspension of all the police officers who were responsible for the incident on 24. 2. 2000. The above mentioned Press Release indicated that the Government itself was satisfied that some police officials had used force which was unwarranted and should have been avoided and that the Government found it necessary to place them under suspension. The senior police officers, including the two Assistant Commissioners of Police, managing the event had allegedly failed to exercise proper control and supervision over the policemen under their charge and to prevent them from using force which admittedly was unwarranted and should have been avoided. But the Government found it necessary only to transfer the two Assistant Commissioners of Police from their respective posts in order to facilitate a fair enquiry. Under such circumstances we asked the learned Solicitor General Mr. Harish Salve whether the transfer of the two Assistant Commissioners to the Traffic Division and the Defence Colony Sub-Division would adequately serve the avowed purpose of facilitate a fair enquiry and whether the Government would consider any further action in respect of the senior police officers to facilitate a fair enquiry. We also asked the learned Solicitor General about the fate of the proposed enquiry since Hon ble Mr. Justice S. Saghir Ahmad, Judge, Supreme Court had reportedly refused to preside over the proposed Commission of Inquiry. The learned Solicitor General sought time for further consultations with the Government and accordingly the case was adjourned to 27th March, 2000. ( 6 ) WHEN the case came up for further consideration on 27. 3. 2000, the learned Solicitor General informed us that the Government had decided to appoint Mr. Justice N. C. Kochhar, a retired Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, to preside over the proposed Commission of Inquiry and that the notification was being issued. He stated that the leaders of the Bar had no objection to the appointment of Mr. 3. 2000, the learned Solicitor General informed us that the Government had decided to appoint Mr. Justice N. C. Kochhar, a retired Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, to preside over the proposed Commission of Inquiry and that the notification was being issued. He stated that the leaders of the Bar had no objection to the appointment of Mr. Justice N. C. Kochhar and it was not disputed by Respondents 3 and 6. He also stated that even after a further review of the matter the Government was not inclined to suspend any of the police officers at this stage and that the question of such suspension could be left to be decided by the Commission of Inquiry. But Respondents 3 and 6 submitted t hat in view of the serious allegations against the police officers and in order to facilitate a fair enquiry, all the officers who were responsible for the lathicharge should be suspended from service immediately and that the question of their suspension could not be left to the decision of the Commission of Inquiry. In view of the conflicting stand of the Respondents with regard to the demand for suspension of the police officers, it appeared that only the intervention of this Court would break the impaste which required to be broken at the earliest in public interest. Mr. P. N. Lekhi claiming to appear not only for Respondents 3 and 6 but also for the Co-ordination Committee of the striking lawyers and the learned Solicitor General appearing for the Government submitted that the parties represented by them had full faith in this Court and that they would abide by any decision taken by this Court to end the stalemate. But we felt that the first prayer in the Petition could not be entertained by this Court since a final determination of the points in dispute (i. e. justifiability of the lathi charge and use of force and the culpability of the police officers) called for adjudication of disputed questions of fact relating to the incident on 24-2-2000. Moreover we also felt that it was not in fact necessary or proper for this Court to embark on such an adjudication when a Commission of Inquiry was being constituted to enquire into all aspects of the incident as demanded by the lawyers. Moreover we also felt that it was not in fact necessary or proper for this Court to embark on such an adjudication when a Commission of Inquiry was being constituted to enquire into all aspects of the incident as demanded by the lawyers. Hence we made it clear to the parties that we would consider only the prayer for a direction to the Government to suspend the Police Officials from service pending the inquiry by the Commission and the prayer for a direction to the striking lawyers to suspend their strike. On request of the parties, the Respondents were given time to file reply/written submissions. ( 7 ) RESPONDENT No. 3 filed an affidavit explaining the stand of the striking lawyers, Separate affidavits have been filed on behalf of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs and the Commissioner of Police, Delhi. On 29-3-2000 the. learned Additional Solicitor General made available to the Court a copy of the Notification dated 28th March, 2000 issued by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, appointing a Commission of Inquiry to be presided over by Hon ble Mr. Justice N. C. Kochhar, a retired Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, with the following terms of reference:- " (I) to inquire, into the facts, circumstances and events leading to the use of force by the police that is lathi charge and use of tear-gas etc. on the lawyers demonstration held at Parliament Street, New Delhi on 24th February, 2000; (ii) to examine and report whether the force used by the police was excessive and disproportionate and, if so , fix the responsibility on the erring police officials; and (iii) to recommend and measures that need to betaken to avoid occurrence of such incidents in future. "as per the Notification, the Commission shall submit its report to the Central Government as soon as may be but not later than three months from the date of its first sitting. It is also provided that the Commission may, if it deems fit, make interim reports to be Central Government before the expiry of the said period on any of the matters specified in the Notification. It is also provided that the Commission may, if it deems fit, make interim reports to be Central Government before the expiry of the said period on any of the matters specified in the Notification. ( 8 ) SINCE the strike was going on for a long period and since this Court decided to consider the above mentioned prayers in this Petition filed in public interest and since the parties proclaimed full faith in this Court and agreed to abide by its decision and since we felt that it would be better to decide the case in a more conducive and congenial atmosphere, we requested Mr. P. N. Lekhi and Respondents 3 and 6 to consider whether the strike could be suspended pending final decision in this case. Though they agreed to consider the suggestion of the Court, we were later informed by Mr. P. N. Lekhi that the suggestion was not accepted by the Co-ordination Committee of the striking lawyers and that the strike would continue. However we were informed that the Delhi High Court Bar Association decided to suspend the strike from 6th April 2000. But it was clarified by Mr. P. N. Lekhi that such a decision was taken by the Delhi High Court Bar Association on its own and not in response to the suggestion made by the Court. It is a matter of deep regret that in spite of the repeated proclamation of their faith in this Court, the Co-ordination Committee of the striking lawyers rejected the suggestion of the Court to suspend the strike till final orders are passed in this case. By doing so they failed to show grace and to reciprocate the endeavour of this Court to end the stalemate. They also missed the opportunity to dispel any possible impression that the Court was passing orders under threat and pressure due to the strike by lawyers. However, totally uninfluenced by the strike and unaffected by the lack of grace on the part of the Co-ordination Committee of striking lawyers, we proceeded to hear and decide the case with an anxiety to uphold the rule of law, to protect public interest and to strengthen the system of administration of justice. In addition to clearing arguments made on behalf of the parties we also saw the video films on the incident of 24-2-2000 in the presence of the parties/counsel.