The battle between the Arvind Kejriwal Government and lieutenant-Governor Najeeb Jung refuses to die with AAP Administration deciding to set up a third Commission of Inquiry (CoI) to address safety and security measures for women in the national Capital.
Officials said the setting up of the third CoI on women safety was bound to further escalate the bitter relationship between Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and the Narendra Modi Government at the Centre. A senior police officer said they can’t share any details of any case against women to any Commission as and when the case is under investigation, the details cannot be shared with any panel. “Secondly, till the time the Commission is not approved by l-G Najeeb Jung, it has no significance to us,” the officer said.
The tenure of the three-member CoI will be for a period of two years and its mandate will be to submit it its report after every three months. The two Commission of Inquiries constituted by the AAP Government to probe the CNG Fitness scam and financial irregularities in the DDCA have already been declared illegal, invalid and void ab initio by the Union Home Ministry.
The Delhi Assembly had earlier passed a resolution on women safety and security stating that the CoI will be empowered to receive unheeded complaints regarding crimes such as violence, sexual harassment, stalking and voyeurism, among others, committed against women since February 2013.
The notification said the Delhi Assembly through its resolution on August 3 last year had resolved that a CoI be constituted by the city Government to receive complaints regarding crime against women and suggest action to the administration and to address any other issue which it may find relevant during the course of any enquiry into the complaints committed against the women.
The notification said, “ Whereas, the Government of National Capital Territory Delhi in pursuance of the resolution of the Delhi legislative Assembly has decided to constitute an independent Commission of Inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 (60 of 1952) for enquiring complaints of crime committed against women since February 2013.”
The notification, issued by the deputy director of the women and Child Development Department, said retired district judge Dinesh Dayal will be the chairman of the commission and Richa Pandey Mishra and Surbhi Singh will be its two other members. While Mishra is the AAP spokesperson and has been raising funds for the party, Singh is said to be a close aid of Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and an active party volunteer.
The CoI will not only be receiving unheeded complaints of crime against women, but also suggest action to the Delhi Government on the basis of the recommendations made by the Justice Verma Committee.
It will also be bound to suggest necessary amendments to the relevant laws, if any, recommend whether any case of negligence or collusion is made out prima facie in the cases examined… implement the provisions of the existing laws as well as the recommendations of the Justice Verma Committee to prevent recurrence of such incidents… recommend welfare measures for improving the working condition of the real foot soldiers in the law enforcing agencies and address any issues which it may find relevant during course of its enquiry.
Declaring Commission probing CNG fitness scam and irregularities in DDCA as illegal, the MHA had noted that it has been clarified that the GNCTD is not the ‘competent’ authority to set up such enquiries under various provisions of the Constitution and the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.
Slamming the MHA, Manish Sisodia had earlier said the CoI set up by the Government will continue with its work and, if the MHA is aggrieved, it may approach the judiciary.
“Under the Constitution, the MHA does not have power to declare any order of the Delhi Government void. It is only the judiciary which has the power to declare any order of Delhi government null and void. The MHA seems to be attempting to encroach upon the domain of the
judiciary, which is dangerous. Therefore, the communication from MHA, at best could be treated as MHA’s opinion,” Sisodia had stated in his letter.