The Gauhati High Court has held that adverse findings recorded by a Commission of Inquiry against a person, without affording an opportunity to respond to the material relied upon, cannot be sustained where the statutory requirements under Sections 8-B and 8-C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, have not been complied with.

Section 8-B mandates a reasonable opportunity to be heard and produce evidence for anyone whose conduct or reputation is likely to be affected.

Section 8-C extends the right to cross-examine witnesses, address the Commission, and be represented by a legal practitioner to persons under Section 8-B.

Justice Kardak Ete observed, "The subsequent material relied upon by the Commission could not, therefore, have been used for recording adverse observations against the petitioners without affording them an effective opportunity to respond to such material and to exercise the rights available to them under Section 8-C of the Act. The written responses submitted by the petitioners to the earlier notices cannot be treated as sufficient compliance in respect of material which was subsequently brought on record and relied upon against them."

The observation came in two writ petitions filed by Sunayana Aidew and Kavita Das, seeking quashing, expunging and deletion of the observations, findings and recommendations recorded against them at pages 505 and 509 of the report dated April 2, 2022, submitted by the One Man Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice (Retd.) B.K. Sarma.

The Commission was constituted under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, to inquire into allegations of anomalies and malpractices in the Combined Competitive Examination, 2013, conducted by the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC). Both petitioners had participated in the examination and were subsequently selected for government service. During the inquiry, notices were issued to them, pursuant to which they submitted written responses.

The petitioners contended that they were not thereafter afforded an opportunity to respond to the allegations contained in the statement of Dr. Mrigen Saikia, which was subsequently brought on record before the Commission, or to cross-examine him. They submitted that the observations and findings recorded against them without complying with Sections 8-B and 8-C of the Act were in violation of the principles of natural justice.

The High Court referred to the judgment dated April 1, 2026, passed by a coordinate Bench in WP(C) No. 1380/2025 and connected petitions arising out of the proceedings of the same Commission. The coordinate Bench had held that the statutory rights under Sections 8-B and 8-C were attracted where the observations, findings or recommendations of the Commission prejudicially touched upon a person's reputation. However, it had not set aside the Commission's reports in their entirety.

Applying the said findings to the present petitions, the Court observed, "Once the conduct of the petitioners was inquired into and the observations and findings recorded by the Commission prejudicially touched upon their reputation, the statutory requirements contained in Sections 8-B and 8-C of the Act stood attracted. The petitioners could not have been deprived of the rights flowing from the said provisions."

The Court further noted that the present petitions were confined to the adverse observations and findings recorded against the petitioners and did not require it to sit in appeal over the fact-finding exercise undertaken by the Commission as a whole.

The Court held, "In view of the aforesaid, and having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kiran Bedi (supra) and Lal Krishna Advani (supra), and also the judgment and order dated 01.04.2026 passed by the coordinate Bench in W.P.(C) No. 1380/2025 and the connected writ petitions, this Court is of the view that the observations and findings recorded against the petitioners at pages 505 and 509 of the Report dated 02.04.2022, insofar as they prejudicially touch upon their conduct and reputation, cannot be sustained."

The Court held that the observations and findings had been recorded in violation of Sections 8-B and 8-C of the Act and the principles of natural justice and were liable to be expunged.

Accordingly, the Court expunged the observations, findings and recommendations recorded against the petitioners, particularly those at pages 505 and 509 of the Commission's report, insofar as they prejudicially touched upon their conduct and reputation.

The Court directed, "Such observations, findings and recommendations shall not be used or relied upon against the petitioners in any proceedings or before any forum."

The writ petitions were accordingly disposed of.

Click Here To Read Judgment