The state government had moved the top court seeking that the judicial inquiry commission should examine more witnesses in the matter. It had moved the top court against the commission's refusal to do so.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the state government, contended before a bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah, that state has filed an affidavit.
The bench replied that was not the order of the commission, instead it had said that those who want to get examined should file their affidavit.
Singhvi replied that the bench is correct, the witnesses have not filed the affidavit, but state has filed. The bench replied that the state was not directed by the commission to file an affidavit.
Singhvi submitted before the bench to look at the affidavit, "Can I make one submission? It's been one year, and the commission is continuing and nothing has happened. Imagine a commission doing this," he argued.
The bench observed that the government wanted the expert witness to be examined but commission did not agree. "You may have extended commissions tenure but it has closed the proceedings," noted the bench.
Singhvi contended before the bench that additional terms of reference were given, but no additional witnesses were examined. He cited that in October last year, two witnesses were examined, but the commission did not examine the six witnesses recommended by the state.
The bench dismissed the appeal noting that the commission has already closed the proceedings. "All they (the commission) need to do is file the report," observed the top court.