On January 26, 1957, a new Constitution was framed for Jammu Kashmir.
On behalf of Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad it was stated that G. M. Sadiq had made a statement that he would be released after a Commission of Inquiry was set up and this would show that the detention was mala fide and that would indicate that the Notification had also been issued mala fide.
In the first elections held under the Constitution, a party called the National Conference got the majority of votes.
Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad and Sadiq were members of this party.
A Ministry was then formed with Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad as the Prime Minister.
At 8.30 a.m. on the same day the numberice of the motion of numberconfi dence with the signatures of some members was handed over to the Secretary of the Legislative Assembly.
It appears that G. M. Sadiq left the party sometime after 1957 and rejoined it along with D. P. Dhar in December 1960 and they were taken into the Cabinet.
What the affidavit really said was that the Government were prima facie satisfied.
The appeal is companytested by respondent No.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated December 27, 1965 of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in W. P. No.
All this, it was said, would indicate that the action had number been prompted by malice.
Again, the National Conference Party came into power.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sarkar C.J. This is an appeal by the State of Jammu and Kashmir, G. M. Sadiq, Chief Minister of that State and D. Dhar its Home Minister.
The other respondent, N., Rajagopala Ayyangar, a retired Judge of this Court, has number appeared in this Court or in the companyrt below.
The next General Elections were held in 1962.
This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court.
Another point taken was that the affidavits filed on behalf of the appellants showed that the Government were satisfied about the companyrectness of the allegations into which the inquiry was directed.
In the Government that was formed, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad became the Prime Minister and G. M. Sadiq and D. P. Dhar were taken in the Ministry.
In September 1963, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad resigned from the Ministry under what is called the Kamraj Plan and Shamsudd in became the Prime Minister in his place.
The petition was heard by a Bench of three learned Judges of the High Court.
In 1953 Sheikh Mohammad Abdulla was dismissed from office and a new Government was formed with Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad as the Prime Minister and G. M. Sadiq and D. P. Dhar were included in the Cabinet.
1, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad.
103 and 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, which companyrespond to Arts.
It was further said by Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad that the statement showed that the Commission was set up to prevent him from disturbing public safety and law and order and that, therefore, it was outside the scope of the Inquiry Act.
It will be numbericed that Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad was the Deputy Prime Minister of the State from 1947 to 1953 and its Prime Minister from 1953 to 1963.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
G. M. Sadiq challenges the genuineness of the, signatures on the numberice of the motion and also denies that it had the support of, a majority of the Assembly , At 9 a.m. the Legislative Assembly which was to meet on that day,.
So he held these offices, one after the other, for a total period of about sixteen years.
It is said that shortly thereafter, political rivalry between him and Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad started.
It was also pointed out that the Commissioner appointed was a retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India.
This was denied on behalf of G. M. Sadiq.
On September 1, 1965, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad moved the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir under ss.
On September 22, 1964, at 5 oclock in the morning, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad and some of his supporters were arrested under the Defence of India Rules.
In February 1964, Shamsuddin left office and a new Govern ment was formed with G. M. Sadiq as the Prime Minister.
Bakshi Ghulam Muhammad was the Deputy Prime Minister in that Government and G. M. Sadiq was also in the Cabinet.
It was pointed out that this might have resulted in serious companysequences for Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad which the Commission of Inquiry would number.
In the absence of the statement, it is impossible for us to say which is the companyrect version.
It was said on behalf of G. M. Sadiq that before setting up the Commission the Government had investigated into the facts through the Criminal Investigation Department and if the Governments intention was mala fide, they companyld have started criminal proceedings and ruined the political life of Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad just as well thereby and kept him busy and out of politics for a long time.
It was companytended that since the inquiry is for finding facts, if the Government were already satisfied about them, there was numberneed for further inquiry.
Sen, I. N. Shroff, M. K. Banerjee, B. N. Kirpal, R. K. Kaul, R. N. Kaul, P. L. Handu, Lalit Bhasin and T. R. Bhasin, for respondent No.
Sometime in November 1964, a petition for a writ of habeas companypus for the release of Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad was presented to the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir.
1102 of 1966.
In August 1964, a numberice was issued fixing a session of the Legislature of the State in the following September.
On January 30, 1965, a Notification was issued by the State Government appointing a Commission of Inquiry companystituted by N. Rajagopala Ayyangar to enquire into 1 the nature and extent of the assets and pecuniary resources of Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad and the members of his family and other relatives mentioned in the first Schedule to the Order, in October 1947 and in October 1963 and ii whether during this period, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad and the others mentioned in the Schedule had obtained any assets and pecuniary resources or advantages by Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad abusing the official positions held by him or by the aforesaid people set out in the first Schedule by exploiting that position with his knowledge, companysent and companynivance.
These are the parties to the proceedings before us.
After the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India in 1947, a responsible Government was set up there under the Prime Ministership of Shiekh Mohammad Abdulla.
On December 15, 1964, before the petition companyld be heard and decided, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad was released from arrest by the State Government.
It however does number make the arrest mala fide.
The substance of this companytention is that an inquiry cannot be directed under the Act into the actions of a Minister except at the instance of the Legislature, it cannot be directed by an order of the Government.
226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution, for a writ striking down the Notification and quashing the proceedings of the Commission taken till then and for certain other reliefs to which it is number necessary to refer.
K. Daphtary, Attorney General, S. V. Gupte, Solicitor General, Jaswant Singh, Advocate General for the State of J. H. R. Khanna S. Javali, Ravinder Narain, for the appellants.
On behalf of G. M. Sadiq it was said that such a statement had number been made and what had been said was that he would be released after the companypletion of investigation by the Criminal Investigation Department as thereafter, there will be numberoccasion for Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad to disturb the public peace and safety.
67 of 1965.
was prorogued by the Speaker under the directions of the Sadar i Riyasat, the companystitutional head of the State.
They had to be so before they companyld honestly set up the Commission to make the inquiry.
This companytention has numberforce at all.
In the High Court, eight grounds had been advanced in support of the petition, three of which were rejected but the rest were accepted, some unanimously and some by the majority of the learned Judges.
That statement is number before us.
This is number denied.
