TEAM HERALD
teamherald@herald-goa.com
NEW DELHI: No immediate revival of the MB Shah Inquiry Commission probing into the illegal mining of iron and magnesium that was wound up in October. The Supreme Court on Monday deferred consideration of applications until the commission’s reports that were received in July and October are tabled in Parliament.
The decision came after attorney general Ghoolam Vahanvati questioned the request of the applicants ~ Goa Foundation and two other NGOs ~ to place the inquiry reports in the public domain and on the website of the Ministry of Mines as an alternative prayer. He asserted that the report cannot be made public until tabled in Parliament.
He argued before the Forest Bench of Justices AK Patnaik, Surinder Singh Nijjar and Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, citing an additional affidavit by the ministry’s joint secretary stating that making public the reports would impinge upon Parliament’s jurisdiction since the statutory provisions contemplate tabling of the reports in Parliament, along with the Action Taken Report (ATR), within six months, and the reports as such are not yet placed before Parliament.
Applicants’ counsel Prashant Bhushan asserted that making public the report won’t be a breach of privileges of Parliament and reiterated a request to let further inquiry be continued as the court-appointed court of inquiry if the government is adamant in not reviving the commission.
He also contested the Attorney-General’s plea that the Shah Commission had nothing to do with the environment issues raised by his clients, pointing out that one of its terms was specifically environment. Moreover, he said the Commission had not completed its work before the government refused its extension while its findings will have vital bearing on the inter-generational equity (for future generations).
The additional affidavit not only submitted that what is pending before Parliament cannot be made the subject matter of discussion in courts, but sought dismissal of the applications as not maintainable and deserve to be “dismissed in limine” since they were filed in the pending 1995 case of TN Godavarman Thirumulpad versus Union of India that relates to forests and nothing to do with the environment issue.
On the Attorney General stating that the last reports ~ third report on Goa, a report on Jharkhand and second report of three volumes on Odisha ~ were under consideration and will be laid before Parliament after the Cabinet approves the ATR on them, Justice Patnaik wanted to know “how soon they will be placed before Parliament” and ruled that the applications will be considered after the reports are placed before Parliament.
Vahanvati wanted dismissal of the applications since they were filed in a wrong case of forests in which the Ministry of Mines was never a party and as such the aggrieved NGOs should have better come through a writ than tagging the applications to the case exclusively related to depletion of forests.
