Justice L Narasimha Reddy on the Sri Krishna Committee Report

The judge says:

Dealing with the Right to Information Act Justice Narsimha Reddy said

The RTI Act can be said to be a legislative device, to help the citizens to secure information, which they intend to. A detailed mechanism is provided.  Appointment of a Public Information Officer in every office is made obligatory.  He in turn is conferred with the power to process the application submitted for information, and to furnish it.  The RTI Act also recognizes under Section 8, that certain categories of information, mentioned therein need not be furnished to an applicant.

Notwithstanding the comprehensive nature of the Act,
it cannot be said to be repository of the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a).  The right to freedom of speech and expression is wider in its scope and it is not susceptible to any precise definition.  Further, information is something which a person intends to get from others, whereas speech and expression is a phenomenon through which he conveys his ideas to others.  Viewed from this angle, right to information is only a step that helps an individual to get himself well-informed, so that he can exercise right to freedom of speech and expression, effectively.

In cases where public hearings are undertaken and the agency or committee is not assigned any secret job, what it compiles is nothing, but the information, evidence and material, received from the public.  Therefore, if an application is made for making available the report or a note, prepared on the basis of such hearings, what is requested is not an information-simplicitor, as defined under that Act.  On the other hand, the attempt of the individual, seeking the report or a note is an effort to satisfy himself, whether the material presented by him or other stakeholders was properly reflected.  In this sense, the matter cannot be said to be strictly governed by the provisions of the RTI Act.  Therefore, the preliminary objection raised by the learned ASG is not sustained.

ON the question whether a writ petition it self is maintainable he said

Another contention advanced by the learned ASG is that a Writ of Mandamus would lie only when a duty is cast upon an authority by a provision of law and such authority has failed to discharge that duty.  He contends that basically the committee is not an authority amenable to judicial review, much less, any duty was cast upon it to make the note public.  As a further extension of this argument, he submits that no duty cast upon the respondent to reveal the contents of the note and in that view of the matter, the question of its failure to discharge the duty does not arise.

notwithstanding the restrictions felt upon the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a
Wirt of Mandamus for enforcement of legal or statutory rights,
the concept of existence of a duty to act upon the authority and failure to discharge such duty is not relevant, when it comes to the question of enforcement of fundamental right, or where a citizen complains of violation of principles of natural justice, or if the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction, or where the vires of an enactment are challenged.  It was also mentioned that the list is not exhaustive.

ON the secrecy element :

The appointment of Justice Vivian Bose Commission in 1956, to inquire into the affairs of Allen Berry and Company, Justice Chagla Commission appointed in 1966 to inquire into Mundra Group of Companies, Justice Tendolkar’s Commission to investigate the affairs of the Dalmia Group, to mention a few, and the working thereof, virtually defined the scope and ambit of the Act and functioning of the Commissions.  They have also evoked and instilled the public confidence in the system.  The 1952 Act has been pressed into service, on fairly large number of occasions.  The Commissions were appointed many a time, either on the basis of resolutions passed by the Parliament, or the Legislatives of the States, or in certain cases through executive orders.

It is also important to note that some times, committees were appointed without making reference to the provisions of the Act.  For instance, the Vohra Committee on 09-07-1993, and Justice R.S. Pathak Inquiry Authority on 11-11-2005, were appointed by the Government of India, without making any reference to the provisions of the Act.

More often than not, sitting or former Judges are appointed to head the Commissions/Committees.  In is on account of their neutrality to the issues, experience in analyzing the matters dispassionately, and their knowledge of law and procedure.
In Administrative Law, Text and Materials, by Beatson, Matthews and Elliott, it is said,

“It can be appropriate for judges to chair inquiries, because their experience and position make them particularly well suited to the role.  The judiciary has a great deal of experience in analyzing evidence, determining facts and reaching conclusions, albeit in an adversarial rather than inquisitorial context.  The judiciary also has a long tradition of independence from politics, and judges are widely accepted to be free from any party political bias [1].”

It therefore emerges that one of the important characteristics of the work undertaken by a Commission or Committee of Inquiry is to make its report public, and to enable the persons concerned, as well as the Government, to form their opinions.   It would help them to change the opinions, which they have formed earlier, or enable them to convince those who hold the other point of view.

One of the contentions of the petitioner is that the committee did not feel that it must be made secret and that the decision taken by the respondent to withhold it from the public is untenable.  That may be the general impression, which one may gain on reading the paragraph in Chapter VIII.  However, the note which was handed over to the Union of India in a sealed cover, was directed to be kept as secret by the committee itself.  This is evident from the fact that, on every page of it, the word “secret” was written.  Therefore, it is not the case, where the decision to keep the note secret, is taken by the Government, on its own accord.

The very fact that the deliberations and proceedings before the Committee were public in nature and that even according to the committee, the contents of the note were taken into account, while discussing various options in Chapter-IX, and that a specific reference was made to the note at different places of the report is prima facie a ground to make it available to the political parties and other stakeholders.

Secondly, from the preamble of the note, it is evident that the note is based upon,

“(i) analysis of certain relevant memoranda given by the political parties and other groups; (ii) information gained through interaction with different political parties/groups at State level and during field visits (districts and villages); (iii) discussions held with Senior Officers of the State Government including that of the Police Department; with District Collectors and Superintendents of Police and with other sources; and (v) own experience”.

The Committee discussed the issue of communal violence in its secret note.  The subject is certainly a sensitive issue.  As to source of information, it, however, observed,

“The intelligence wing of the State Police and the I.B.               will be more informed on this aspect”.

This means that the Committee relied upon some other source, for its analysis, if not, for its recommendations. Though privilege under Sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act was claimed, none of the ingredients thereof either pleaded or proved.

After a great deal of study, an in-depth pondering over, and after weighing the factors, such as propriety, this Court opinions not as matter of choice, that the objective in preparing a separate note and delivering it to the respondent was more, an effort to persuade the Union of India to desist from showing any inclination towards Option No.5, i.e. formation of Telangana State.  In a way, it can be said that, whatever positive was said in support of option No.5, was just neutralized, through the note, even at the cost of several contradictions.

It appears that the committee hesitated to state in its report, what is exactly intended to, particularly about its disinclination to recommend the formation of a separate State of Telangana,  though it has the right or to express any view of its choice.

To buttress this, it becomes necessary to make reference to some portions of the note, which, by any standard, cannot be treated, either as secret or sensitive.  Take for instance, what the committee said in Option No.V of the IX Chapter, about the economic viability of a separate state of Telangana, if formed.
The committee said,

“…However, the overall economic viability of Telangana with Hyderabad is projected to be stable and as a matter of fact the GDP of this state will be much larger than many other states in the country.”

It is also mentioned that the continuing demand for a separate Telangana has some merit, though not totally unjustified.  However, in the note, it painted a different picture, for a separate state.  According to it, most of the major infrastructure in Telangana region in the fields of education, industries, etc., is owned by “Seemandra people”, and formation of State would be detrimental to such establishments.  The note, on this aspect reads,

“Most of the major educational infrastructure in the Telangana region has historically been owned by the Seemandhra people and it is located mostly within the limits of greater Hyderabad.  The student community which is spearheading the separate Telangana agitation has been using these educational institutions for their agitational activities. This may lead to migration of the faculty as well as these institutions, impacting / reducing the availability of local persons who can be productively engaged by the industry/business-houses.

(i) Telangana region is mineral rich having deposits of limestone, and granite.  The dominant industries here are thermal power stations, pharmaceuticals etc., which are mostly managed by Seemandhra people.  One of the main propaganda issues in the Telangana agitation has been that once a separate state is created, the job opportunities in all these industries will be made available to the people of Telangana.  Many of the owners and skilled personnel in these industries have historically being from Seemandhra region, the inability to substitute them with sufficient number of qualified locals may lead to conflict between the locals and non-locals and also between the management and the workforce.  Telangana region is dependent on coal reserves for its power generation while Seemandhra region, though dependent on coal reserves, is rapidly expanding its energy sources, viz., gas, wind, solar and nuclear.  Thus, energy deficiencies may lead to migration of population, imbalance in the employment opportunities, which may become a cause for social unrest.

(ii)        Farming in Telangana is mostly dependent on ground and rain water and lift irrigation schemes which require substantial amount of electrical energy.  The present Government has extended free power facility to the farmers across the state which has benefited the small and marginal farmers in Telangana region to a large extent.  Some districts of Telangana region such as Nalgonda, Medak, Mahbubnagar and Hyderabad are industrially developed and hence consume substantial amount of energy.  Since Telangana region energy sources are largely coal based thermal power plants, any economic imbalance may lead to energy starvation of the small and marginal farmers which will adversely affect the productivity of the land.  This can cause decline in their earnings which may result in distress sale of lands and their migration to the industrial belt in the Hyderabad city.  This may further cause change in the population profile, pressure on unskilled employment sector, land and water utilization in Hyderabad which in turn may accentuate inter-regional rivalry and tensions in Hyderabad area.”

The Committee has also mentioned in its note that if state of Telangana is formed, as suggested in the V option, it would become an epicenter for Maoist violence, and communal violence.  It suspected both the religious communities of being desperate and outreaching each other.  About Muslims, it said,

“…There is a certain sense of mutual suspicion between two communities who are living in the above mentioned areas.  If communal passions become an additional factor in an atmosphere where unemployment, social unrest, etc. exist, it may give rise to birth of militant, Jihadi elements…”

As regards Hindus, it said,

“…Telangana has large number of Muslim pockets and to counter Muslim influence, Hindu fundamentalists may compete with them and try to polarize the Hindu population…”

Fissures on caste lines were also projected.   The note suggests that Maoists will extend their activities to various districts of Telangana; spread Maoist violence, and that Maoists are trying to make a combat through Telangana region.

However, the scenario as to Maoist violence, and Communal violence, with reference to Option No.1, i.e. to treat the movement as a normal law and order situation, the committee has this to say:

“(b) Maoist violence

In the event of the demand of a separate Telangana state not being realized, some of the militant elements which have been in the forefront of the agitations may go underground to revive the Maoist movement in certain pockets of Telangana which, however, could possibly be tackled within a small timeframe with firm political will and strong administrative action.  The Maoists who are active in Dandakaranya and Andhra-Orissa Border areas viz., Khammam, East Godavari, Vizag, etc., and certain forest areas of Adilabad, Karimnagar and Warangal may continue to operate along the borders with Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Maharashtra and Orissa.  Their activities might be more intense in Vizag and Khammam regions but the fall out of violence may mostly be confined to these few districts.

(c) Communal violence

As the State has, by and large, been able to neutralize most of the Jihadi elements in the last two decades and has evolved a suitable mechanisms to contain communal and factional resistance, there may not be much change on the position on these two fronts.  The status quo may remain.  Since the alignment of political forces on communal lines is likely to be less probable, the outbreak of communal violence would be contingent upon extraneous factors”.

Option No.3 in the report was about merger of Rayalaseema with Telangana.  In the main report, almost a rosy picture was painted about it, even while expressing the view that no political party may agree for that course.  In the report, however, the Committee has this to say,

Since the BJP has a strong presence, it may try to consolidate in Telangana area and further extend its base.  AIMIM may try to expand in Rayalaseema regions resulting in birth of militant communalism in certain pockets”.

As regards Chapter-VI, the same version,
as presented in the report was almost repeated in the note, may be in a different language.   One can easily find the difference of approach of the committee, as reflected in the report, on the one hand, and the note, on the other hand.

That the Committee travelled beyond the terms of reference in its endeavour to persuade the Union of India, not to accede to the demand for Telangana, is demonstrated in a three-page Supplementary Note, appended to the note, representing Chapter-VIII.  This Court pondered over for days together, as to whether it would be proper to reproduce the note.  It is certainly a matter of serious concern for anyone to make public, a portion of the note, which a committee, comprising of highly placed personalities from different sections of the society; has opined otherwise.   However, the reasons, that prompted this Court to make the supplementary note as part of the judgment; are,

a)     section 3(4) of the 1952 Act makes it obligatory on the part of the Government to make every report of Commission/Committee, public;

b)     the report submitted by the Vohra Committee, which was constituted on the same lines, as Justice Srikrishna Committee, i.e., not invoking specific provisions of the 1952 Act; was made public, though the very object of the Committee was to look into the sensitive issues pertaining to security of State;

c)     The Committee herein was not assigned any task of analyzing security aspects;

d)     the very exercise undertaken by the committee was in the light of a public demand on different directions and open enquiry, involving every stakeholder and that the contents of the note are of general importance; are needed to discuss certain fundamental issues, pertaining to public law domain; and

e)     the committee was not assigned any private or political functions.  It was constituted by issuing a notification in the gazette.  In the floor of the Parliament, it was stated that about Rs.20 crores was spent upon it.

The Supplementary Note has three parts, and it reads:

a) Political Management

(i) There is a need for ensuring unity among the leaders of the ruling party in the State.  There is also a need for providing strong and firm political leadership and placement of representatives of Telangana in key positions (may be CM / Dy.CM (Since done.  This aspect was discussed with FM & HM in September, 2010).  Action also needs to be initiated for softening the TRS to the extent possible, especially in the context of the fact that TRS has threatened to launch a civil disobedience movement after December 31 and also initiate a “Maha Yuddam’ (a Massive war) if Centre does not announce a Separate Telangana.  Gaddar’s TPF (Telangana Praja Front) who had parted company with TRS have again joined hands with TRS.  Inputs indicate that this agitation can be tackled if Congress Leaders do not give an impression indicating any covert / overt support to it.  Hence the Congress MPs / MLAs need to be taken into confidence and asked not to lend any form of support to the agitation.  The Congress High Command must sensitize its own MPs and MLAs and educate them about the wisdom for arriving at an acceptable and workable solution.  With the ruling party and main opposition party (for Telangana demand) being brought on the same page, the support mechanisms have a higher probability of becoming successful.

(ii) Further, on receipt of the Committee’s Report by the Government, a general message should be conveyed amongst the people of the State that Centre will be open for detailed discussions on the recommendations / options of the Report with the concerned leaders / stakeholders either directly or through a Group of Ministers or through important interlocutors and that this process will start at the earliest.

Before analyzing this part of the supplementary note, it is relevant to refer to the emphasis added by jurists to keep the legal and political issues, in separate compartments, in the context of such enquiries also.  In the chapter, the “Role of Judges in Public Inquiries”, in a treatise on Administrative Law[2], an article written by Drewry, ‘Judicial Inquiries and Public Reassurance’ was extracted.   The article, in turn, made a reference to a book ‘Legalism’ written by Judith Shklar, published by Cambridge Mass in 1964. The learned author said,

“There appears to be virtually unanimous agreement that law and politics must be kept apart as much as possible in theory no less than in practice.  The divorce of law from politics is, to be sure, designed to prevent arbitrariness, and that is why there is so little argument about its necessity.  However, ideologically, legalism does not stop there.  Politics is regarded not only as something apart from law, but as inferior to law.  Law aims at justice, while politics looks only to expediency.  The former is neutral and objective, the latter the uncontrolled child of competing ideologies.”

It may be noted that the Government kept with it, the ultimate power to decide the further course of action upon the statement made on 09-12-2009 which is purely a political exercise.  It has constituted a committee comprising of two jurists, two social scientists, and an ex-bureaucrat, to study the situation and submit report covering legal and social dimensions of the issue.  None of them were supposed to have any political leanings, or for that matter, political tendencies.  Unfortunately, the portion extracted above makes one to feel, whether it fits into any Terms of Reference to the Committee at all.  A rough analysis of the same discloses that,

a)    there is a need for providing placement of representatives of Telangana in key positions such as Chief Minister, or Deputy Chief Minister, and that the same has been “since done”;

b)    the ruling and main opposition party are “being brought on the same page”;

c)     a political party “TRS” must be “softened”, to the extent possible; and

d)    it must be ensured that MPs and MLAs from the ruling party do not extend covert/overt support to the agitation.

The above analysis would find even political scientists and sociologists in wilderness, and persuade them to add new chapters to political sciences and public administration.  None of these aspects could have been put on paper by a given ruling party, even if it is desperate.  Extend the terms of reference to the extent possible without feeling any inhibition.  Still you do not have a basis for this exercise.  It does not even reflect political expediency.  At the most it manifest political despondency.

The factual accuracy of the note can be discerned from the observation of the committee in its note that its suggestion for making a representative from the State of Andhra Pradesh, as Chief Minister or Deputy Chief Minister “is done”.  At a time, when the committee was giving final touches to its report, a new Chief Minister was sworn in with some changes in the Cabinet.  There was a serious speculation and talk that a Legislator from Telangana is going to be made as the Deputy Chief Minister, so much so, his name was also announced from Delhi.  The Committee appears to have proceeded as though the said Legislator was sworn as Deputy Chief Minister.

The next part is much more startling.  It is under the heading “Media Management”.  It is also beneficial to read it, and this Court is certain that, not a syllable of it pertains to “Security of State”, much less “Sensitivity”.  The only basis for making it secret appears to be that such ideas do not occur to jurists and social scientists and they are not said in public.  However, it is not necessary that anything, which cannot be discussed in public, for that very reason must be in the realm of security of state, or that privilege can be claimed about it.  The part reads,

(b) Media Management

(i) Andhra Pradesh has got about 13 Electronic Channels and 5 major local Newspapers which are in the forefront of molding the public opinion.  Except for two Channels (Raj News & hmtv), the rest of them are supporters of a united Andhra Pradesh.  The equity holders of the channels except the above two and the entire Print Media are with the Seemandhra people.  The main editors/resident and sub-editors, the Film world etc. are dominated by Seemandhra people.  A coordinated action on their part has the potential of shaping the perception of the common man.  However, the beat journalists in the respective regions are locals and are likely to capture only those events/news which reflect the regional sentiments.

(ii) Hyderabad city which is expected to be the center of most of the agitations is generally covered by those journalists who are votaries of a separate Telangana.  Hence a lot of media hype on the Osmania University Students agitation, self-immolations etc. may be created.  Therefore, media management assumes critical importance to ensure that only the reality is projected and no unnecessary hype is created.  In the immediate past, it is observed that the media coverage on the issue has shown a declining trend resulting in a lower intensity of the agitation.  Each of the media houses are affiliated to different Political Parties.  In the Print Media all major Newspapers are owned by Seemandhra people and the Regional contents published by them play a vital role.  Most of the editors except Andhra Jyothi are pro-united A.P.  However, similar to the electronic channels, the print media have also got political affiliations.  The editorial opinions, the banner headlines, the Regional content, the District editions need to be managed to be realistic and should give only due coverage to the separate Telangana agitations.”

If one has any doubt about the hidden opposition of the Committee for formation of Telangana, that stands removed with this note.           It suggests that, barring a miniscule exception, rest of the print and electronic media are dominated by people from one region of the state, and they are in a position to mould the public opinion.  The committee also opined that it is only the “beat journalists” from in Telangana area, that are creating media hype on Osmania University Students agitation, self-immolations, etc.

If the equity-holders or owners of the channels subscribe to the view expressed by the Committee, it is a matter of deep concern as to how a sacrosanct fundamental right was reduced into a business activity and converted as tool to distort public opinion, and they do not represent the fourth estate, in its letter and spirit.   On the other hand, if they do not agree with the opinion formed by the Committee, they have to prove their neutrality.

It is beneficial to recollect an incident, which will lend support to the opinion formed by the committee about the functioning of a section of electronic media in the State.  When the agitation was at its peak, the State Government deployed large contingent of police personnel in the Osmania University Campus.  Specially chosen officers were deputed to oversee the operations.    On a particular day, the police resorted to indiscriminate lathi charge  and chasing of students.  When girls, who gathered at the meeting, were running away, male police constables caught hold of them at their private parts.  This was picturized by the so-called “beat journalists”, and the same was telecast.  The officer, who took responsibility for the entire operations, ensured that the journalist is beaten, blue and black.  His motorcycle was burnt, and police constables were made to pour urine upon it.

The judge quotes extensively from Justice Mathew and his views in a case of Benett Coleman and adds a quote from the said judge :

“…The phrase (freedom of the press) must now cover two sets of rights and not one only.  With the rights of editors and publishers to express themselves, there must be associated a right of the public to be served with substantial and honest basis of facts for its judgment of public affairs. Of these two, it is the latter which today tends to take precedence and importance.  The freedom of the press has to change its point of focus from the editor to the citizen”.

The Supplementary Note under discussion and the recent revelation in certain tapes pointed out a strange “link” which, if permitted to grow and develop, would have the potential of sounding a death knell to the foundations of democracy.  It is the link between the Government and the Media.

Few years thereafter, Solzhenitsyn, in his article on “Freedom of Press”, published by Harvard [(1980) Ethics and Public Policy Centre], observed[3],

“What sort of responsibility does a journalist or a newspaper have to the readership or to the history?  If they have misled public opinion by inaccurate information or wrong conclusions, do we know of any case of open regret voiced by the same journalist or the same newspaper?  No. A nation may be worse for such a mistake, but the journalist always gets away with it. (p.10)

Press has become the greatest power within the Western countries, exceeding that of legislature, the executive and the judiciary.  Yet one would like to ask, ‘According to what law has it been elected and to whom is it responsible?  Who has voted Western journalists into their position of power, for how long and with what prerogatives? (p.10)

The state of affairs of the media houses prevailing in the State of Andhra Pradesh, as presented by the committee makes one to fee as how the observations of Justice K.K. Matthew and Alex Solzhenitsyn, have turned out to be true.  More disturbing is the suggestion given by the Committee to the Government.  It reads,

“The print media is hugely dependent on the Government for advertisement revenue and if carefully handled can be an effective tool to achieve this goal”.

It is trite that the freedom of press was evolved, more through the judgments of the Supreme Court, and works of jurists and academicians.  They have not only evolved such freedom, as a concomitant part of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, but also have nurtured it from any onslaught by State or others from time to time.  State control of allocation of newsprint or release of advertisements, was misused, either to encourage those, who toe the line of the Government, or to victimize the agencies, that make true and courageous reporting, causing embarrassment to the Government.  Great persons like, Ramnath, Goenka withstood the victimization and onslaught, than to surrender, even while many others have, either bent, or crawled.

Whatever be the circumstances under which a person in the Government may have thought of using the Government advertisements, as a mechanism to arm-twist the media, such an idea ought not to have occurred to the Committee in general, or to the individual  members thereof, in particular.  One would only wish that the members of the Committee hailing from the legal fraternity and social sciences were not aware of these contents of the report. However, if these passages have gained their entry into the report, with their knowledge, the people would have nothing more than, to lament, alas! where to look at.

Now comes the advice of the committee to the Government as to full preparedness.  It is aware that if its advises are followed, they are found to be backlash and instead leaving the Government at crossroads, it gave advise as to the manner in which the agitators must be dealt with.  Not only the manner of deployment of police force, but also the type of ammunition and arsenal to be used, was also suggested.  The paragraph reads as under:

“(c) Full Preparedness

(i) As under each of the options there is a high possibility of agitational backlash, notwithstanding the actions taken in advance as suggested in (a) and (b) above, an appropriate plan of deployment grid of police force (both Central and State) with full technical support needs to be immediately drawn up.  Advance preparedness in this regard would go a long way in containing the law and order situation and minimize destruction of lives and property.  It would also be necessary to have a mechanism for monitoring the situation and collection of real time intelligence with a view to ensure taking up of effective advance action to preempt any break of violence in the potentially troubled spots.  The likely troubled spots (e.g. Osmania, Kakatiya, Krishna Devraya Universities etc.) and the trouble creators in the three regions must be identified in advance and suitable action plan prepared.  In my discussions with Chief Secretary and DGP, the kind of equipment and weaponry to be used were also discussed and it was agreed that weaponry used should be such as not to cause fatal injuries, while at the same time effective enough to bring the agitationists quickly under control.

In nutshell it may be concluded that the first couple of months will be critical after the submission of the Report, as speculative stories will thrive and emotions of people incited”..

It is rather unfortunate that the committee did not even make a mention about the fact that about 600 persons, mostly students committed suicide during the agitation, spread over one year.  At least, it ought to have taken note of the fact that,
a teenaged Scheduled Tribe boy, with no parents, studying Intermediate, by doing part-time job in a small hotel, committed suicide by immolation, right in the middle of platoons of police, deployed at the gate of Osmania University.  Few students in Osmania University committed suicides, out of frustration.  It did not show any concern about the future of the innocent students or the families of the deceased persons, even while it expressed concern about the future of the educational institutions, industries and establishments owned by a section of people.  Universities are viewed as centres of trouble and students, as potential “trouble creators”.

If the committee has suggested use of arsenal of lesser degree, it is not because there is any pity or sympathy towards the agitators.  Obviously, it is to avoid the wrath of the human rights agencies.

The police, which is not inclined or able to nab persons who committed day-light murder in the middle of the city has proved its efficiency in booking cases against hundreds of students even with smallest provocation.  The cases are so framed, that it would be difficult for them to get bails and even if one comes out, another case is ready, for putting him behind bars. For some,
it would take remaining part of their life to come out of the cases.

It must not be forgotten that Universities are not only centers of learning, but also are the laboratories, where future leaders are turned out.  It is not exaggeration that, either in the immediate past or at present, students, particularly, those, who were leaders in the campus, have proven to be effective leaders and administrators in the Government.  Banaras Hindu University and Aligarh Muslim University, to name a few, produced leaders of very high caliber. At one point of time, the former students of Osmania University were Chief Ministers of three different States.  (P.V. Narasimha Rao, S.B. Chavan and Veeredra Patil for the States of A.P., Maharashtra and Karnataka, respectively.) Later on, one of them became Prime Minister, and another, Union Home Minister. Andhra and Sri Venkateswara Universities have also presented persons of very high caliber, not only in academics, but also in different wings of the society including politics.  This is not to suggest that indiscipline must be tolerated.  Bullet can not be a panacea for all the problems, particularly, in a society, governed by Rule of Law.

For some, it may appear that politics is antithesis to study, in the campus.  However, they do not realize the fact that unless some well-informed and intelligent students with character and patriotism do not grow up as politicians, the space would be occupied by anti-social elements or by those, who do not find any difference between “University” and “anniversary”, or the one between “acumen” and “vacuum”.  The country has already made substantial progress in this direction.

If students in large number have chosen to press for a demand, not concerning themselves, even at the cost of their studies and lives, the Government, and the society, at large, is required to stop for a while, and think about it, than to search modes of suppression. Today, Osmania University has become almost a cantonment, and one is welcomed with barbed wires or dreadful barricades.  Many a time, the police and armed forces outnumber the students.  The students do not have even freedom to go from one end of the University to another, in groups.  The Government wanted a peaceful solution to this situation.  The Committee, however, had a different thing in mind.  Those who fed the committee with inaccurate information and projections should have realized that, if real bullets that killed 369 persons could not suppress the demand, rubber bullets may not achieve that goal.

For those who indiscriminately use the force against their own citizens, an eye-opener came in the recent past.  Libyan Air Force was exhorted to bombard the persons, who were agitating for change of guard.  Two pilots of Jet Fighters have taken off from the ground, but have para-trooped in a safe location, permitting the flights to crash.

More than the contents of the note, a larger question arises.  Existence of peace and tranquility is always a thing, which everyone can wish and relish.  In a society, where several conflicts of interests and ideologies exist, it is but natural that dissents and dissentions are expressed.  Some times, they are expressed in the legislative bodies, and on other occasions, outside them.  Intensity thereof would depend upon the genuinity of the cause, on the one hand, and the response of the State or the lack of it, on the other hand.  The best course to put an end to such agitations is, to engage the persons in meaningful discussion, accede to their demands, if they are genuine, or to explain them as to how their demand is not genuine, or not capable of being accepted, even if genuine.  Use of forces can be justified only when the agitators resort to it first.

The maneuver suggested by the Committee in its secret supplementary note poses an open challenge, if not threat, to the very system of democracy. If the source of inputs that gave rise to this is the Government, it (the Government) owes an explanation to the citizens.  If, on the other hand, the origin of inputs is elsewhere,
the Government must move in the right earnest to pluck and eradicate such foul source and thereby prove its respect for, and confidence in, the democracy.

It is not uncommon that people who want quick access to power or to be in the good looks of trigger happy Rulers, cross the limits of decency and propriety, and many a time, they are rewarded.  The reward, however, will not only be short-lived, but, some times, would also prove costly.  This Court is not able to resist its temptation to quote what Nick Meo said, in his article HUDA THE EXECUTIONER (The New Indian Express March 7,2011).  It was about a lady, who ascended to the position of Mayor of the Second Largest City, Benghazi, in Libya.  In his own words,

“When Colonel Gaddafi hanged his first political opponent  (Al-Sadek Hamed, a young Aeronautical Engineer) in Benghazi’s basketball stadium, thousands of schoolchildren were rounded up to watch a carefully choreographed, sadistic display of the regime’s version of justice.  They had been told they would see the trial of one of the Colonel’s enemies.  But instead a gallows was dramatically produced as the condemned man knelt in the middle of the basketball court, hands bound behind his back.  The crowd yelled out “No, no” as they realized what was about to happen.  Two young men bravely ran up to the revolutionary judges and begged them for mercy.

The worst moment came right at the end, as the hanged man kicked and writhed on the gallows.  A determined-looking young woman (Huda Ben Amir) stepped forward, grabbed him by the legs, and pulled hard on his body until the struggling stopped.  Afterwards everyone knew why she did it. “She was ambitious, and Gaddafi has always promoted ruthless people…”

She knew Gaddafi would be watching on TV and would see her.  Sure enough, afterwards she was rapidly promoted.  That terrible thing she did was the making of Huda Ben Amir’s career…            She is one of the richest and most powerful women in Libya and one of the most hated, a favourite of the colonel, a member of his privileged elite, and twice mayor of Benghazi”.

However, everybody who felt that the protest in Libya was suppressed with the martyrdom of Al-Sadek, were proved wrong.  Today, the young martyr from his grave makes a dictator, who ruled the country for decades together, to run for hiding.

What about Huda Ben Amir ?

“She fled from the city as soon as the uprising broke out two weeks ago, leaving her mansion home to be burned down”.

History is replete with these examples.  The lesson is that, suppression beyond a point becomes counter-productive.  It is only the solutions that are brought about through mutual discussion and democratic process, that will provide a long-lasting, respectable and peaceful solution.