Jayalalithaa's Death : Inquiry Commission Violating Natural Justice Principles, Appolo Hospital Tells Supreme Court

Senior Advocate C Aryama Sundaram appearing for Apollo Hospitals argued before the Supreme Court on Wednesday that the proceedings before the Justice (retired) A. Arumughaswamy Commission of Inquiry, which has been constitute to probe the circumstances relating to the death of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, was in violation of the principles of natural justice and that the CoI was only a fact finding body.The bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari was hearing a special leave petition filed by Apollo Hospitals against Madras High Court's order which had rejected Apollo Hospital's objections to an inquiry commission set up to probe the death of Jayalalithaa looking into aspects of treatment given to her. The petition before the Top Court was filed alleging that the functioning before the CoI was "replete with bias".The State had appointed the inquiry commission headed by Justice Arumughaswamy, a retired Madras High Court judge, on September 25, 2017. The Commission's reference was to examine the circumstances which led to the hospitalisation of Jayalalithaa on September 22, 2016 and the nature of treatment given to determine the cause of hospitalisation.The Supreme Court bench headed by the then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had stayed proceedings of an inquiry commission set up to probe the death of then Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa at Apollo Hospitals in Chennai in 2016.Submissions By Senior Advocate C Aryama Sundaram for Apollo HospitalsAppearing for Apollo Hospitals, Senior Advocate C Aryama Sundaram commenced his submissions by contending that the proceedings before the Justice (retired) A. Arumughaswamy Commission of Inquiry was in violation of the principles of natural justice namely nemo judex in causa sua and right to fair hearing.Referring to Section 8B of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 ("Act") which deals with Persons likely to be prejudicially affected to be heard, Senior Counsel submitted that although the commission commenced its proceedings and issued notice to MD of Apollo Hospitals to Dr Reddy but notice lacked material particulars and no material was furnished to the hospital to enable him to prepare his defence."Even Today, my friends would say that 90% of the inquiry is over but even today after this also I've not been furnished the documents. How can I have faith in the Commission?," Senior Counsel submitted.Commission Of Inquiry Has Misread All Its Functions; It Is Just A Fact Finding BodyTo elucidate his submission that the approach and the procedure adopted by the Commission was wrong, Senior Counsel referred to the judgements in TT Antony v State of Kerala 2001 6 SCC 181 and Kehar Singh & Ors vs State (Delhi Admn.) 1988 3 SCC 609 to highlight on the nature of proceedings before the Commission."What is the purpose of the commission of inquiry? It carries a weight and in the decision making process it has to be considered. There are no accused, accuser, no specific charges. The Commission misread all its functions by comparing itself with the National Adjudication Forum and the Commission calls itself a court," Senior Counsel further added.Justice Nazeer at this juncture asked Senior Counsel if there were any Rules framed under the Commission of Inquiry Act to regulate the procedure of the Commission of Inquiry."Regulations were framed u/s 8 of the Commission of Enquiry Act," submitted Senior Advocate C Aryama Sundaram."There are 1972 rules that have been framed under the Tamil Nadu Act. After the Commission of Inquiry was formulated, rules were notified u/s 8 of the Act," Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar for the Commission of Inquiry submitted.While Senior Counsel for Apollo Hospitals was making his submissions, Justice Abdul Nazeer, presiding judge of the bench posed a question to Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu,"Now the government has changed, do you still have the same stand or is there any change of thinking?""So far as inquiry is concerned, it must go on. There's no issue at all. If there's any other suggestion, I may put it to the government. The Government is bound by the law," submitted Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave."We want to be very frank with you. We may have to criticise the judge," remarked Justice Nazeer."I understand your lordship's anxiety. I don't want the inquiry to be stopped. I will be able to show that there's no apprehension," Senior Advocate Dave replied."Ultimately we'll have to deal with the substance of the matter and the technical aspects. What we suggest is let Mr Sundaram complete his arguments and in the meantime, you take instructions, make up your mind," Justice Nazeer said to Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave while expressing its inclination for the State Government to consider the CoI's reconstitution.At this juncture, Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar appearing for the CoI entered appearance and remarked that, "For reconstitution. I have a right to get that view dispelled....

Jayalalithaa's Death : Inquiry Commission Violating Natural Justice Principles, Appolo Hospital Tells Supreme Court

Shruti Kakkar

Proceedings Before Commission Of Inquiry In Violation Of Principle Of Natural Justice; Commission Is Only A Fact Finding Body: Apollo Hospital Tells Supreme Court

Tags