Administrative Law

State of J&K v. Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad

AIR 1967 SC 122

Facts

Jammu & Kashmir Government appointed a Commission of Inquiry against Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad.
The inquiry concerned assets allegedly acquired by misuse of official position.
Government filed affidavits and documents supporting the allegations.
Bakshi sought permission to cross-examine all persons who filed affidavits.

Whether natural justice gave Bakshi an absolute right to cross-examine every person who filed an affidavit against him.

The Court treated the Commission as a fact-finding body, not a court deciding final rights.
Its report did not by itself impose punishment or civil liability.
This mattered because the level of procedural protection required was lower than in a trial.
Bakshi had already been given opportunity to file his affidavit in reply.
The Commission had also filtered allegations and told him which allegations he had to meet.
Inspection of documents was no longer an issue because full inspection had later been given.
On cross-examination, the Court said there is no universal natural justice rule that every affidavit deponent must be cross-examined.
The statute itself gave only a restricted right of cross-examination, mainly where witnesses were called to depose viva voce.
Since affidavits were being used in a fact-finding inquiry, the Commission could decide case by case whether cross-examination was necessary.
Therefore, refusal to allow blanket cross-examination of all affidavit deponents was not unfair.

The Supreme Court held that Bakshi had no absolute right to cross-examine all affidavit deponents.
Natural justice was satisfied because he had notice, documents, and an opportunity to answer the allegations.
The Commission could decide whether cross-examination was needed in each individual case.
Use this case for: cross-examination is not an automatic part of natural justice; it depends on context, statute, and nature of inquiry.