Nanavati ‘ Commission Vs Banerjee ‘Committee’

via H Balakrishnan published on September 27, 2008






Your edit ” His ‘version’ of the ‘truth’ ” – (TNIE – 27 SEP).



Your edit is ‘ flawed ‘ on many counts,

regrettably!! First, you equate the Nanavati Commission ‘ to the Banerjee ‘Committee’.


The former was a full-fledged Inquiry Commission duly constituted under the provisions of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952. It was a multi-member commission whose members were appointed in consultation with the Chief Justice of India and Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court. The latter ‘ committee ‘ was constituted by the Government of India, Ministry of Railways in exercise of powers vested under Article 73 of the Constitution of India.



, the appointment of members of the ‘Commission’ had gone through judicial scrutiny – By the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and  the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court and  both the appointments were held valid. On the contraray, the constitution of Banerjee Committee was held as bad in law and was quashed and set aside by Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat on 13.10.2006. The Hon’ble High Court also passed orders that final report of the committee cannot be published or tabled on the floor of the Parliament.



the Nanavati Commissionwas appointed immediately after the incident. The Banerjee ‘Committee’ was formed 2 ½ Yrs after the incident just before Bihar elections with political motive. Report was to be submitted within 6 months to coincide with Bihar Election!!



  the procedure adopted by the commission was elaborate and as per law to find out the real truth behind the Godhra incident. Whereas, the Banerjee ‘Committee’ was only an effort to wind up the inquiry in a short time with a political motive.



, due credence was given to the testimony of RPF personnel by the Nanavati ‘Commission’ and the report submitted by the then DRM of Railways immediately after the incident. Cross examination of such witnesses was also allowed by the commission. The Banerjee ‘Committee’mentioned about the confidential report of the then DRM which was submitted immediately after the incident in its interim report, no credence was given to their testimony. The DRM’s report was taken on record but was rejected without assigning any reason.




Your edit, is in tune with that read after Justice Wadhwa submitted the report of his ‘Commission of Inquiry ‘ into the Graham Staines murder!!  Here is what Arun Shourie wrote in
his ” Harvesting our Souls: Missionaries, Their Design, their Claims”:” But no, the secularists were all in rage. ‘A STAINED REPORT’, ‘A WHITEWASH’, ‘A POLITICALLY TUTORED REPORT’ – they shouted. Justice Wadhwa had failed the litmus test: if only he had included a sentence – a single sentence! – imputing, howsoever obliquely, that Dara Singh was in some way affiliated to some organization that our friends could have somehow linked to the RSS or the BJP, what applause would have greeted the Report! “. So too in the present case of the Justice Nanavati Commission!! In which case, I have no doubts that you would have heralded it as a

” Daniel come to the Judgment”!!



As the adage goes – ‘THE MORE THINGS CHANGE – THE MORE THEY REMAIN THE SAME’!! Like the ‘ secular ‘ Indian English media!! CHEERS!!






Welcome to Haindava Keralam! Register for Free or Login as a privileged HK member to enjoy auto-approval of your comments and to receive periodic updates.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available

four × three =

Latest Articles from Media Watch

Did You Know?