KOCHI: In the 65-page verdict, Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar held that the findings and recommendation of the commission, based on the letter, could not be legally sustained. That apart, the verbatim reproduction of the letter itself, in not less than four places in the commission report, which had since been laid before the legislative Assembly, makes it vulnerable to a discussion by the public and the media, and a consequent infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Article 21 of the Constitution, both in relation to privacy as well as his right to a fair trial.
“While it may be true that the report of the commission itself is not binding on the government or the petitioner, one cannot ignore the effect that the report could have on public perception of the findings and recommendations therein. It has to be borne in mind that it was a retired judge of the High Court that constituted the one-man commission and hence, notwithstanding the legal position with regard to binding nature, the public could well view the findings as legally sacrosanct. This could, in turn, entail public discussions, including in the media, based on an erroneous belief that the allegations stood proved through the inquiry that was held,” the court observed.
Oommen Chandy submitted that the commission erred in taking cognizance of a letter dated July 19, 2013, allegedly written by Saritha Nair, and devoting almost 800 pages of its report to the allegations with reference to the letter. There was no notice under Section-B served on Chandy while taking the letter as evidence in the proceedings. Making observations against him based on allegations drawn from the letter, was, therefore, in breach of the principles of natural justice and fairness. The allegation in the letter was not part of the Terms of Reference of the commission and there were conflicting versions as regards the genuineness of the letter itself as to whether it was of 21 pages, 25 pages, 31 pages or merely four pages. Hence, there could not be any finding without first establishing the veracity of the letter.
The state government contended that there was ample material, other than the letter, that was available before the commission to come to the conclusion that there was substance in the allegations raised against Chandy and Thiruvanchoor Radhakrishnan in the floor of the Assembly and outside. There was material to suggest that the then CM and his office staff knew the prime accused in the criminal case and that the denial by Chandy, of that fact was not acceptable.
Chandy submitted there was no notification by the government empowering the commission to look into a matter which was not a part of the original terms of reference. The alleged letter in relation to sexual exploitation and harassment were matters, which could only be probe under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not by a Commission of Inquiry. The court said the commission did not follow the statutorily prescribed procedure or otherwise violates any of the statutory or constitutional rights of a citizen.