PARALLEL INQUIRY COMMISSIONS: Approval of simultaneous inquiry

commissions for one and the same event- A good thing in the interest of upholding the
truth.

The human being is made to commit mistakes. So, to give proper just to the accused,
more than one simultaneous inquiry commissions can be beneficial. If there are different
judgments, the reports recorded by the commissions should be studied thoroughly and the
errors committed should be found out by the appeal court or study committee. In this
way, the truth will be upheld.

The reference can be taken from the fact of two separate inquiry commissions for the
Godhara Kand, the incident of burning of passenger train in Gujarat which created
communal riots. The Gujarat Government set Nanavati Panch (commission) whereas the
Indian Railway set Beneraji commission.

As far as sacred intention to find out the truth is concerned, the idea of parallel
commissions running simultaneously is a good thing. But the parallel commission may be
intentionally set up to derail the truth also. In employing Nanavati commission by
Gujarat Government, the suspicion of intention of diverting the truth cannot be neglected.
In the past, during any accident within railway properties, no such inquiry commission
was employed by any state government. Only railway authority inquired into its matter.
But in Godhara Kand, why the same tradition was not employed?

It has been experienced so many times that the decision of lower court is cancelled by
superior court in an appeal. Looking to this fact, we can conclude that there are always
possible chances for errors to happen in an inquiry commission. So, there is no harm if
simultaneous or parallel inquiry commissions are set. The precious time in appealing a
decision can be saved by studying the reports of parallel inquiry commissions and the
mistakes committed can be found out easily. The study committee can only be appointed
if the decisions by parallel inquiry commissions differ. The members of the commission
will be more agile and competent due to parallel inquiry commission set. The court must
permit and adopt such a system in the interest of the public so that the truth can be
upheld.

The issue of TADA court ruling against bollywood hero Sanjay Datt and subsequent
signature campaign by bollywood stars is an example that the people are losing faith from
the judicial systems. The judicial system is working like a dictator when the news was
heard in the media that public prosecutor Mr. Ujwal Nikam openly threatened the
bollywood (Indian film industry) people that they would be trialed under the contempt of
court if signature campaign continued! Can such a thing happen in a democracy? Why
was Mr. Public prosecutor so afraid of signature campaign? His open threatening can be
definitely leading the suspicion that he might have worked in a prejudicial manner. In
USA, before a court trial, the jury decision is heard. The jury is made of common citizens
presided by a magistrate. If the jury takes the decision in favour of the accused with a
consensus, the accused is released. This is called a democracy.
In India, most recently, the Nanavati Commission report is released. The Nanavati
commission report and Banerji commission report, both are contradictory to each other
giving their judgments quite opposite for the one and the same Godhara Kand event.
Banerji commission concluded that Godhara Kand was simply an accident whereas
Nanavati commission concluded that Godhara Kand was not an accident but a plot!

Looking to the above, one thing is clear that the judiciary systems in India have been
influenced by politics of the politicians. The commissions are seemed to be obliged to
their employers.

The incident of Godhara Kand occurred in Railway premises so Railway authority can
employ inquiry commission quite understandably as is happened at the time of police
case of train robbery, murder or theft within the railway premises during which state
government never interfered in railway inquiry. But during Godhara Kand which took
place within railway premises, the Gujarat Government immediately declared to
employed Nanavati commission was seemed to be malicious policy of the Government to
act against the Muslims. The supreme court must take note of this.

Looking this thing, the Supreme Court must set a study committee to see the errors
committed. The Supreme Court must set a directive that in any such cases where two or
more separate communities are involved, the commission must include different
communities’ persons as its members to avoid any possible discrimination.