The latest affirmative response by the apex court to the request of the Union Government means the end of its post-Thakkar Commission resolve.

Firstly, the inquiry relates to a specific incident which squarely falls into the law and order category which is specifically a state subject. The issue is of the failure of the state police to anticipate such attacks when under the Police Act the prevention of crime is the primary duty of the police. This brings into focus the statepolice intelligence.

The other aspect is the investigation by the state police. When the State government itself has not sought such an inquiry, is it right for the apex court to agree to the ruling politicians' decision to launch that inquiry?Secondly, the home ministry is silent about the functioning of the state police, notwithstanding leading lights of the Union government making highly publicised trips to the tribal area of Keonjhar in Orissa where the macabre incident took place. There are several constitutional alternatives available to the ruling politicians at the Centre in terms of giving directions to the ruling politicians of Orissa and stepping up pressure under the Constitution if these directions are not obeyed.

Thirdly, the attorney-general of India, who is the country's constitutional consc-ience keeper, has remained silent. The attorney general, as the only lawyer appointed by the President to advise the Union government upon such legal matters as may be referred or assigned to him bythe President and to perform such duties of a legal character as may be given to him by the President, represents India before the United Nations under the International Charter for Civil and Political Rights.

The advocate-general of the state of Orissa enjoys the same position in the state under the Constitution in a direct relationship with the governor. When both the constitutional figures have made themselves virtually invisible, would it be advisable for the apex court to step in where such constitutional figures fear to tread?

Fourthly, the National Human Rights Commission under former Chief Justice of India M.N. Venkatachaliah has already swung into action under the Human Rights Act. It has the same powers as any Supreme Court judge has under the Commissions of Inquiry Act concerning summoning witnesses, enforcing their attendance and examining them on oath, for the discovery and inspection of any document, for requisitioning any public record from any court or office and to require any person tofurnish information on the matter that may be useful or relevant.

Under both the Acts the Commission or any of its authorised officers may enter any building or place where the Commission has reason to believe that any document relating to the subject matter of the inquiry may be found and may seize such document or make copies thereof.

Under both the Acts the powers for investigation and the use of Central or state agencies for the purpose are the same. But unlike the Supreme Court judge-headed commission under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, the Human Rights Commis-sion, upon completion of its inquiry, not only can recommend action to the Union government but can also itself approach the Supreme Court for a writ on the basis of its findings.

Further, it can recommend the immediate grant of interim relief to the widow of the deceased missionary and their two sons. Should the apex court be seen to supersede or run a parallel inquiry to the one already on under a former Chief Justice of India, especiallywhen the Human Rights Commission inquiry cannot be wound up like the Supreme Court judge inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act by a notification of ruling politicians?

Shouldn't, the Supreme Court have reflected before agreeing to the ruling politicians request as to why they were not even taking cognisance of the suo motu.

An inquiry already launched by the NHRC under an Act that is more effective than the Commission of Inquiry Act? The Union government has not sought the summoning of Parliament so that both Houses can meet and pass a resolution for the setting up of a commission of inquiry. Then such a Commission can never be wound up at the whim of politicians since under the Act only Parliament can do so.

The attorney-general could then have addressed the House. That, after the Presi-dential denunciation, would have at least reflected a national will for a purposeful inquiry. In the absence of that, should the Supreme Court have offered its judge for an inquiry when in the securities scam,politicians across the board kept out the courts by setting up a Parliamentary Committee that even took over the adjudicative role?

The apex court has suffered from many self-inflicted wounds. To the problem of the management of religion and the issue of elementary protection of life of minorities, the formula is the setting up of a Commission of Inquiry. Should the Supreme Court make itself a victim of the politicians' formula?