In keeping with its practice in the past, the Union government has used the adjournment of Parliament to promulgate an ordinance. This, as has been pointed out more than once in these columns, constitutes an abridgement of the powers of Parliament and is, therefore, contrary to the spirit of parliamentary democracy. When Parliament is not in session, the government can legitimately use its powers to issue an ordinance only in the event of an unexpected emergency. In the present case no emergency can be said to have arisen suddenly. Indeed, in question must be not only the manner in which the government has armed itself with certain powers but also the purpose for which it has done so. This purpose is to withhold from Parliament any report by a commission of inquiry which the government decides should not be publicized in the interest of the country’s security and integrity, friendly relations with foreign governments and so on. The government has, of course, not said which inquiry report or reports it might want to keep away from Parliament and the people. But it does not require much imagination to guess which it or these might be. It could be either the Thakkar Commission’s report on Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s assassination or the Mishra Commission’s on anti-Sikh riots in various towns in the first week of November 1984 or both.
Depending on the findings of the two commissions, the publication of their reports can be embarrassing to the government. Imagine, for instance, the Thakkar Commission concluding that a foreign agency was indeed involved in the assassination of Mrs. Gandhi or the Mishra Commission holding that the anti-Sikh riots were in fact engineered. In both cases, there is an additional danger. The finding may not be based on evidence which can be fully substantiated or sourced. So it is understandable that the government wishes to play safe. However it just cannot do so. Having set up the two commissions, it has no alternative but to make their reports public. The people want to know the truth in both cases; they cannot be fobbed off with the vague talk of public or national interests.
In the case of the Thakkar Commission, the government has been following a strangely contradictory course of action. Even before the commission had submitted an interim report or otherwise made its preliminary findings known to those in authority, the latter allowed the Indira Gandhi murder trial to begin. The trial meant either that the government had concluded that the assassination was wholly the handiwork of the three accused put up for trial and Beant Singh who had been shot dead, or that it was not interested in widening the scope of the inquiry. In plain terms, it should have either not initiated the trial or wound up the Thakkar Commission. It followed the reverse course. It went ahead with the trial and it kept the Thakkar Commission in being. Thus it took up the position that investigations were at once complete and incomplete. The trial court convicted the three accused – Satwant Singh, Kehar Singh and Balbir Singh – on the basis of its interpretation of the evidence before it. The interpretation is open to question. That is precisely why the matter is before the Delhi High Court. But what if the Thakkar Commission comes up with evidence which casts new light on the assassination? The suppression of such evidence can mean miscarriage of justice. No wonder, counsel for the accused have criticized the ordinance. But the issue is even more fundamental. How could the trial of the accused begin and be concluded before the investigations had been completed, not by the local police in this case but by the Thakkar Commission which is charged with the task and is assisted by a special team of ace police officers? And how can the Delhi High Court proceed with the appeal unless it is posted fully with the facts of the case? The government can argue that the crime of the accused has been established independently of the existence or non-existence of a large conspiracy only if it is satisfied that the second has no bearing on the first. But that is to anticipate the Thakkar Commission’s report. In any case, its non-publication will ensure that the issue of connection or lack of connection between the crime of the accused and the larger conspiracy, if any, will never be clinched in the public mind.
As for the Mishra Commission, it was set up by Mr. Rajiv Gandhi against his better judgment under pressure from the Sikh community which is by and large convinced that the riots were instigated by people in authority. This was part of his effort to reassure the Sikhs that he was not interested in suppressing the truth and protecting the guilty, however highly placed. Surely this purpose cannot be achieved if the impression spreads that the Commission’s own report may be suppressed. It may or may not be suppressed. But under the new ordinance, it can be, and that is enough to feed the suspicions of the Sikh community.