I dare -Written by Dr. Kiran Bedi

iii

iii Do not print (final)

HAY HOUSE INDIAAustralia Canada Hong Kong India

South Africa United Kingdom United States

I DARE!Kiran Bedi

Revised and Enlarged Edition

85

85 Do not print (final)

Chapter 11

The Lawyers Strike – at Kiran:She Strikes Back

PERHAPS THE MOST TENSE, TIRESOME AND NERVE-RACKING TIME THAT

Kiran had to endure during her term of service was during thelawyers’ strike that commenced in January 1988 and continuedthrough June that year. However, the legal battle in and out of thecourtrooms ended only in April 1990.

The events that triggered off the strike were as follows. Around2 p.m., on 15 January 1988, Ratna Singh, an English honours studentof St Stephen’s College, New Delhi, came out of the toilet of theladies’ common room and saw a man wearing a green checked coatfleeing from the place where she had left her handbag.

Sensing mischief she gave chase and shouted for help. KavitaIssar, also an English honours student, saw her chasing the man inthe green coat and joined the shouting. Anand Misra, a second-yearchemistry honours student, heard the two girls shouting and caughtthe person whom they were chasing. The group was joined by AnandPrasad (second-year history honours) and Manjusha Damle (finalyear Sanskrit honours). Ratna Singh checked her handbag anddeclared that Rs 110, a cassette tape and her doctor’s prescriptionwere missing. The items were found on the person of the man theyhad apprehended. The college authorities were informed and thevice-principal of the college, Horace Jacob, duly notified theRoshanara Police Station. A subinspector of police, Kawal Singh,soon appeared on the scene. The culprit accepted his crime and

86 I DARE!


maintained that he was an educated unemployed youth and hadtherefore resorted to stealing. He also admitted, in his ownhandwriting, to having stolen some money from girls’ handbagsa day earlier in the same place. A Delhi Transport Corporation(DTC) bus pass in the name of Manjusha Damle was alsorecovered from him. He gave a written statement wherein hestated that his name was Rakesh Kumar and that he lived atE-40, Model Basti, Delhi. A first information report (FIR), No.9/88/U/S380/111/IPC was lodged with the Roshanara PoliceStation. During his stay at the police station, however, he gaveanother name and another address.

The investigating officer apparently knew that the apprehendedperson had been giving false names and addresses and so the formerfelt that the latter might try to give him the slip. However, since hewas taking the accused in a DTC bus (which is always very crowded)he took the extra precaution of handcuffing him for the period tillhe produced him before the court. At the court, however, all hellseemed to break loose. Some of the lawyers present there recognizedthe handcuffed man to be one Rajesh Agnihotri, a lawyer practisingat the Tees Hazari courts. The investigating officer was manhandledand shouted at. On learning the identity of the accused he, however,promptly removed the handcuffs. Metropolitan Magistrate PradeepChaddha dismissed all charges against the accused on grounds oflack of evidence. He also directed the commissioner of police, Delhi,to take action against the concerned police officers.

‘This was a surprising decision, as the production was not for ajudgement but only for remand or bail. This was a clear judgementof “NOT GUILTY”, without looking at the evidence,’ pointed outKiran later.

***

The very same day, 15 January 1988, the lawyers of the Tees Hazaricourts struck work. Hari Chand, the president of the Delhi BarAssociation, declared that Rajesh Agnihotri had been falselyimplicated by the students of St Stephen’s College. This was becauseRajesh Agnihotri had been involved in a scuffle with the students ina university special bus over the occupying of seats reserved for

87


ladies. These students, Hari Chand claimed, beat him up and tookhim to the college hostel where he was illegally confined for a numberof hours. On a subsequent date, when he had gone to the college tovisit his father, who was a reader there in the Department of Botany,he was apprehended by the students and implicated in a false case.The then president of the St Stephen’s Students’ Union Society, RajitPunhani, said: ‘The incident [the lawyers’ response to their colleague’sarrest] erodes the confidence of the students in doing what the lawrequires them to do.’ The metropolitan magistrate held that therewas no prima facie case against the accused and therefore the caseshould be immediately dropped by the police. He recorded his viewsas follows: ‘There’s hardly any material placed on record whichshould justify further detention of the accused or his trial. Nobodyhas actually seen the accused taking out money and also no recoverywas effected. Hence, prosecution and trial will serve no purpose ...’(signed Pradeep Chaddha, 16 January 1988). What interest thepolice had in pursuing the case was, however, not a matter he wouldcare to look into. Over the days the strike gathered momentum and,on 21 January, the lawyers formed a protest procession and marched,shouting slogans, to the office of the DCP (North), namely, KiranBedi. The protest marchers straightaway forced entry into her officeand tried to get at Kiran. She was at that time in a meeting with allher district gazetted officers, reviewing the preparation for theforthcoming 26 January parade. All of them, sensing the intrusion,sprang to their feet, and immediately came between the lawyersand their DCP and succeeded in physically pushing them out. Whiledoing so, they bolted Kiran in, protecting her from being attacked.The additional DCP, M. S. Sandhu, being the seniormost on thespot, took charge. Other officers with Sandhu included Prabhat Singh,assistant commissioner of police (ACP), D. L. Kashyap, VinayChaudhury, Ram Kumar and S. B. S. Tyagi.

The lawyers, for hours, remained menacing and kept on shoutingfilthy slogans. Sandhu continued to tolerate them, avoiding aconfrontation with them as far as possible. But while he could toleratethe lawyers, some of his juniors could not. When a section of lawyersstarted to pull out the name plates and berets of some constables,the latter hit back, and all hell was let loose. Some lawyers wereinjured, as also some policemen. Photographers’ cameras were

THE LAWYERS STRIKE – AT KIRAN

88 I DARE!


smashed. It was all very wild. But the lawyers’ biggest grouse wasthat they could not do to Kiran what they had come for. Now theywanted nothing short of her ‘head’. They went on an indefinite strikeand demanded her suspension. They alleged that Kiran had ordereda lathicharge on them and made sure that they were injured. Theyalso wanted compensation for the injuries they had received, whilesimultaneously demanding ‘nothing short of Kiran Bedi’ssuspension’. The incident had eyewitnesses at different stages ofthe rapidly changing scene. Therefore, the next day’s newspaperspublished the versions of all sides: the injuries, the smashing ofcameras, the filthy slogans and what have you!

It was clearly evident from published accounts in thenewspapers that the lawyers wanted to humiliate the gender in theservice and perhaps send out a larger message. Otherwise, howdoes one explain the language and aggression displayed? After all,if it was only a matter of the accountability of a senior officer,then, by the same token, the commissioner of police could alsohave been gheraoed and harassed. There perhaps was somethingabout Kiran’s way of functioning that had raised the hackles ofthe lawyers. Up to 7 February 1988, they did not have anythingsubstantial against her but somehow she had to be suspended anddismissed. This was effectively achieved by playing up thehandcuffing incident to create the bogey of ‘police high-handedness’.

In retrospect, one wonders whether the crime preventionactivities undertaken by Kiran under the commissioneratepowers entrusted to her, wherein she was holding her own courtsand consolidating effect ive crime prevention throughexternment proceedings, did not provide the real reason for thelawyers’ ire. After all, she seemed to have effectively curbedthe role of some of the lawyers and typists as middlemen whoseprimary source of income was the seeking of bail for pettycriminals involved in picking pockets, stealing from their ownhomes or those of others and delving in crimes related to theirdrug habits. One really wonders.

***

89


On 22 January 1988, the lieutenant governor of Delhi, H. L. Kapur,ordered a magisterial enquiry into the entire incident. The enquiryreport was to be submitted within a week.

The lawyers, however, would have nothing to do with thisenquiry and continued to insist that they would not compromise onanything short of the dismissal of Kiran Bedi.

By effectively mobilizing the system of associations andunions that are so prevalent in the country, the Delhi lawyerssucceeded in persuading five lakh of their colleagues all over Indiato join their strike. A strike of this dimension constituted a recordin the history of the legal profession. Yet, the amazing fact aboutthis bushfire strike was that it was not engendered by any nobleprinciple or constitutional crisis but was based on a one-pointprogramme, i.e., the dismissal of Kiran Bedi from service. Andthat too on the issue of the handcuffing of a person who keptchanging his name and address and was caught red-handed bythe students and handed over to a police officer for legal action.The main difference was that this person happened to be a lawyertoo!

On 4 February 1988, the magistrate in charge of the enquirysubmitted his report. He maintained that the sequence of eventsled him to clearly believe that Rajesh Agnihotri was definitelyinvolved in the crime of theft and that he was rightly arrestedby the police of the Roshanara Police Station. However, he heldthe view that Rajesh being handcuffed was not warranted.

The lawyers immediately demanded that the concernedsubinspector be suspended and disciplinary action taken against himfor handcuffing the accused!

***

Meanwhile, a judicial enquiry had been instituted into the 21 Januaryincident of the lathicharge on the lawyers outside the office of theDCP (N). The enquiry was to be conducted by a retired judge ofthe Delhi High Court, Justice P. N. Khanna. He was instructed tosubmit an interim report within a week and the final report within amonth. But this wasn’t enough for the lawyers. They wanted an


90 I DARE!


enquiry to be conducted only by a sitting judge of the Delhi HighCourt. And eventually they had their way.

On 7 February, the lawyers of the Supreme Court called offtheir strike. The lawyers of the lower courts, however, were in nomood to compromise on their one-point stand, i.e., the dismissal ofKiran Bedi, before they would take any further action on the issue.

Fifteen members of the Action Committee set up by the lawyersof the Tees Hazari courts started a relay hunger strike to get theirdemand fulfilled.

The courts thus remained paralysed. On 17 February, the TeesHazari courts complex witnessed an unprecedented riot. People fromdistant places such as Samaypur and Badli (on the outskirts of Delhi)and also from adjoining areas came in trucks and tempos to protestagainst what they considered to be an unlawful and baseless strike.They raised slogans against the striking lawyers. The lawyers formedan opposition group immediately and slanging matches andbrickbatting became the order of the day. In the ensuing meleeseveral persons (belonging to both groups) as well as bystanderswere injured. The police had to intervene to separate the groups andrestore order. A number of arrests were made, the most prominentbeing that of a Delhi municipal councillor, Rajesh Yadav.

Such a situation naturally stoked the fire of the lawyers’ agitation.They were quick to scream themselves hoarse that Kiran Bedi hadengineered the whole scenario and declared that they would stopshort of nothing but her ‘blood’!

The interesting thing about the whole episode was that thelawyers themselves were divided about the course of events. Almostall the senior lawyers of the Supreme Court as well as the DelhiHigh Court were strongly opposed to the strike, whereas the juniorlawyers were adamant that they would not rest till Kiran Bedi wasdismissed. The senior lawyers insisted that a secret ballot be held todetermine the true opinion of the majority regarding the continuationof the strike. Under vehement protests and demonstrations such asecret ballot was held in the premises of the Supreme Court BarAssociation Library. Govinda Mukhoty, the president of the DelhiBar Association Action Committee, assured one and all thatthere would be no force used during the balloting and that ifthere was, then, he would resign from his post. Ballot boxes,

91


however, were hijacked. The Supreme Court Bar Associationpresident, M. C. Bhandare, condemned this hijacking and declaredit to be highly undemocratic and an act of cowardice. ‘Those whofight for human rights should see to it that others’ right to vote shouldnot be frustrated. The silent majority of the Supreme Court hasdecided to lift the siege from 7 March,’ he declared.

If telling evidence of hijacking were needed, the photographspublished in some newspapers showed a group of lawyers carryingaway ballot boxes from the Supreme Court premises. Prominentamong them were the president of the New Delhi Bar Association,Thakur Onkar Singh, and Rajesh Wadhwa, a member of the NewDelhi Bar Association. The two, however, denied that the pictureswere theirs but admitted that they did have a remarkable resemblance.Govinda Mukhoty stated that there was 90 per cent evidence of his‘boys’ having been involved in the ballot-box hijacking and in thegeneral disruption caused to the voting process but maintained thatas there was still a margin of 10 per cent proof of certainty, hewould not resign. Later, however, he changed his stance and said hewould resign. This was enough to drive the chairman of the DelhiBar Association, Daljit Tandon, to tears and declare that once againmoney power and adverse publicity were out to stifle their efforts.

In another significant development, a lawyers’ delegationapproached Union Home Minister Buta Singh and demanded thesuspension of Kiran Bedi. The home minister rejected their appealand requested them to call off their stir pending the report of thehigh-powered commission that was looking into the matter. Whilethe striking lawyers then demonstrated against the home minister,women’s rights activists, women’s groups and university studentsheld a massive rally to support Buta Singh’s statement.

While the lawyers in Delhi continued their agitation, severalhigh courts across the country condemned it and declared it to beillegal. They maintained that such gross dereliction of duty shouldbe severely punished. They declared that lawyers had made it a habitof striking work on the flimsiest of pretexts without anyresponsibility towards their commitments, leading to the harassmentof the people at large. Lawyers’ strikes had been sparked off byinane things like a judge objecting to not being addressed as ‘YourHonour’; cases being dismissed because the pleader came in late;


92 I DARE!


and political demands for the formation of a separate Telanganastate (by bifurcating Andhra Pradesh).

Meanwhile, the office of the administrator of Delhi concededto the demands of the lawyers and issued orders countermandingthe enquiry by Justice Khanna. It felt that a fresh commission shouldbe constituted to look into the entire matter from its genesisonwards. As a result, a two-bench commission, comprising JusticeN. N. Goswami and Justice D. P. Wadhwa, was set up.

The Goswami–Wadhwa Commission was asked to give aninterim report within a specified time. It did. It held Kiran Bediguilty on all possible counts. Soon after that Kiran was transferredto the Central Reserve Police Force, an order to be reversed within24 hours by the personal intervention of none other than PrimeMinister Rajiv Gandhi. He had called her for a personal meeting inwhich he suggested that her talents would be better utilized in theinterdiction of drug trafficking (see also Chapter 9).

But little did the prime minister or Kiran realize what amarathon legal battle lay ahead. Kiran used to start the day in thelawyer’s chamber, if she was lucky to have a lawyer, then go to thecourts for her hearings that had assumed the shape of a publictrial, then rush to attend office in the Narcotics Control Bureauand then return to the lawyer’s chamber to prepare for the nextday’s hearings or prepare herself with her colleagues, namely,M. S. Sandhu, S. B. S. Tyagi, Vinay Chaudhury, Prabhat Singh,Jinder Singh and others, all serving officers of the Delhi Police.There were days in which Kiran had to be physically present inthree courts, that is, before the commission of inquiry, the DelhiHigh Court and the Supreme Court. She was appearing in person,defending herself, while the seniormost of the counsel, K. K.Venugopal, would be pitted against her.

Kiran lived by the hour then, as she says: morning, afternoon,evening and night. Her day, she adds, was divided into four majorportions when scenes changed and so did the priorities and strategies.The slogan of a section of the lawyers was a ‘fight to the finish! Wemust get Kiran Bedi’s scalp’. This was a battle where one womanwas visibly pitted against a large organized union of lawyers. Bothsides had their grievances, without a doubt but, who was the accusedand who the accuser? Kiran for the first time became a lawyer who

93


appeared for herself and filed a petition before the apex court. Sherecalls the help given to her by a friend, Anil Bal. He introduced herto a senior advocate, Gopal Subramaniam, who gave all possiblelegal guidance and staff assistance, which enabled her to prepareher petitions and appear before the Supreme Court in person. Therulings given by the Supreme Court in her case are already part oflegal history and are quoted as landmark judgements deliveredby Mr Justice E. S. Venkataramiah, Mr Justice M. M. Dutt andMr Justice N. D. Ojha. Kiran had gone to the highest court,questioning her status of accused before the commission of inquiryand therefore seeking the right to defend herself. When thecommission of inquiry had asked her to take the witness box to beexamined, she took the stand and said, ‘I do not wish to make astatement, your lordship. I beg leave to state that.’ The judges didnot say anything for some time and only then did Justice Wadhwasuggest that she take a chair while he consulted his colleague. ‘I amused to standing for long periods,’ answered Kiran.

‘Are you advising your client not to take oath?’ Justice Wadhwaasked G. Ramaswamy (Kiran’s counsel). ‘She can be prosecuted forcontempt of court,’ he was told.

‘I am only asking that my client be given an opportunity todefend herself, your honour,’ said her counsel. ‘You cannot forceher to take that opportunity without examining the witnesses first.’

Ramaswamy then asked the judges to overrule his plea if theyso thought fit so that ‘we can move the higher courts’.

Here is what appeared then in the press, which indicates thesituation in the courtroom.

KIRAN BEDI REFUSES TO TAKE OATH

Mrs Kiran Bedi refused to take oath before Justices Wadhwaand Goswami on Thursday [19 May 1988]. She was askedto show cause by Friday why she should not be prosecutedfor contempt of court.

Subinspector Jinder Singh, who was to have been cross-examined before the panel on Thursday along with Mrs Bedi,


94 I DARE!


did not turn up in the court. He was issued non-bailablewarrants to appear before the court on 23 May.

Mrs Bedi’s counsel told the two-judge panel that hewould move higher courts against their ruling. The TisHazari Bar Association, meanwhile, filed petitions beforethe High Court and the Supreme Court to prevent any ex-parte stay of the proceedings.

Mrs Bedi’s refusal to take oath came after her counsel hadargued that, virtually being an accused before the committee,she was not bound to take oath. The judges, however, orderedthat she be cross-examined. ‘I beg leave to state that I do notwish to make any statement,’ Mrs Bedi said. The courtroomerupted with cries of ‘contempt’. The show-cause notice waslater served on Mrs Bedi as the court adjourned.

Simultaneously, the court ordered that Mr Ved Marwah,former police chief, and Mr M. S. Sandhu, ex-additionalDCP, be present on Friday for cross-examination.

Dozens of lawyers had crammed the courtroom onThursday to witness Mrs Bedi’s testimony. Five minutesafter the judges had taken their seats, there was a buzz ofexcitement. Mr G. Ramaswami, additional solicitor-general,walked in to defend the police department. His appearanceon Monday had generated a spate of objections from thebar associations.

Mr Ramaswami first made his own position in thematter clear. He said he was duty-bound to accept the briefsince the Government had ordered him to do so. ‘Thelawyers did not discuss any of their confidential case strategywith me. My conscience is clear,’ Mr Ramaswami said.

Mr Ramaswami then addressed himself to the case.He said the present inquiry was not just for fact-finding butfor probing specific charges against specific individuals. ‘MrsBedi is almost the accused before this committee,’ he said.

Mr Ramaswami said that if a person refused to testifybefore the committee when he was called as an ordinarywitness, he could be penalised. But, he said, a virtual accusedcould not be compelled to depose.

95


Mr Ramaswami cited the case of Mrs Indira Gandhiwho had refused to depose before the [J.C.] ShahCommission under similar circumstances. ‘The high courtupheld her right to stay away from the witness box,’ he said.

‘Are you saying Mrs Bedi will not take oath?’ askedJustice Wadhwa. Mr Ramaswami said she would appearlater, after he had had a chance to cross-examine those whohad deposed against her.

The judges ruled there was a fundamental differencebetween Mrs Gandhi’s case and Mrs Bedi’s case. MrsGandhi had not filed an affidavit before the commissionwhile Mrs Bedi had done so: ‘She is only being cross-examined on her own affidavit,’ said Justice Goswami.

The judges asked SI Jinder Singh to take the box. Thesubinspector was not present. Non-bailable warrants wereissued for him to appear on 23 May.

Mrs Bedi was then called to the box. ‘Mrs Bedi, haveyou filed an affidavit?’ asked Justice Goswami. Even as shewas replying, counsel for bar associations, Bawa GurcharanSingh, asked her to take oath.

The reader asked Mrs Bedi to repeat the oath after him.‘I do not wish to make a statement, your lordship. I begleave to state that,’ Mrs Bedi said.

‘Contempt, contempt,’ shouted the lawyers. ‘Shecannot be compelled to take oath,’ said Mr Ramaswami.

The judges did not say anything for some time. ‘Take a chair,’Justice Wadhwa told Mrs Bedi as he consulted his colleague. ‘Iam used to standing for long periods,’ Mrs Bedi told him.

‘Are you advising your client not to take oath?’ JusticeWadhwa asked Mr Ramaswami. ‘She can be prosecutedfor contempt of court’.

Mr Ramaswami told the judges that he only wished toread out an extract from the judgement in the Indira Gandhicase to them. ‘After that, your lordships, I will advise her totake oath if you overrule my contention,’ he said.

The judgement was read out. Mr Ramaswami said theaccused was only being given an opportunity to defend


96 I DARE!


herself. ‘You can’t force her to take that opportunity withoutletting us examine their witnesses,’ he said. When JusticeWadhwa mentioned the affidavit, Mr Ramaswami said: ‘Ifyou are going to get technical, I will be super-technical.’

Mrs Bedi, at this stage, asked if she could state on oaththat she would not make any statement. ‘That would betantamount to contempt,’ Justice Wadhwa said.

Mr Ramaswami asked him to overrule his plea ‘so thatwe can move higher courts.’ ‘What further overruling doyou want,’ Justice Wadhwa said, and served notice on MrsBedi to show cause why she should not be hauled up forcontempt of court.

(Indian Express, 20 May 1988)

It was on this issue that Kiran went on special leave petitionbefore the Supreme Court vacation judge on three counts:

(1) She wanted to know what her status was before the commissionof inquiry: was it that of an accused or not?

(2) If she was an accused then did she have the right to defendherself and examine the witnesses before she herselfcould be cross-examined to know the allegations againsther?

(3) She requested that the prosecution that had beenlaunched against her in the court of Chief MetropolitanMagistrate R. L. Chugh be quashed.

Mr Justice K. N. Singh (the vacation judge), before whom herpetition was presented, gave relief to her on all counts. In a packedcourtroom, the vacation judge also directed the Goswami–WadhwaCommission to reconsider its decision regarding the order in whichthe police and the Delhi Bar Association witnesses would beexamined.

Later, however, the same matter came before the regular benchcomprising Justice E. S. Venkataramiah, Justice M. M. Dutt andJustice N. D. Ojha. They made several observations of great

97


consequence, which led to strong reactions. They ruled that sinceKiran Bedi was the sole object of attack by the Bar Associationbefore the commission of inquiry, she was the ‘fittest person to comeunder Section 8 (B) of the Commission of Inquiry Act’. In otherwords, she should get the rights and privileges of an accused alongwith its responsibilities. They also quashed the prosecution’scontempt of court proceedings in which she was already on bail,based on a complaint of the commission. The apex court alsocategorically stated that Kiran Bedi was discriminated against.Further, since her prosecution was not based on the order of law, theprosecution against her should also go, the same court declared.Various national dailies recorded and reported the event, which washistory in itself.

PROTECTION UNDER SECTION 8BKIRAN BEDI WAS ‘DISCRIMINATED’

Justice E. S. Venkataramiah, the presiding judge of thebench hearing the Kiran Bedi case, observed on Thursday[28 July 1988] that the commission’s order naming onlyfour persons entitled to the protection under Section 8Bof the Commission of Inquiry Act was discriminatoryon the face of it as Ms Bedi, former DCP (north), wasleft out.

‘Either the order must go or they must write a freshorder,’ the judge explained. If the commission judges hadgiven reasons for this discrimination this appeal would nothave come to the Supreme Court, he observed.

Since Ms Bedi is being prosecuted on this point, thejudge doubted the validity of the prosecution also. The courthad earlier stayed her prosecution for not taking oath beforethe commission.

Her counsel and Additional Solicitor-General,Mr G. Ramaswamy, said that she had not refused to takeoath but only maintained that the stage has not come toput her in the box. Even the commission’s order had stated


98 I DARE!


that Section 8B witnesses would be examined at the end ofthe proceedings. Therefore, her prosecution was not proper,counsel submitted.

Moreover, the lawyers cannot intervene in theprosecution as they have no locus standi in it. It is entirelybetween the court and the accused, he argued.

Justice Venkataramiah asked counsel to read out theorder of the commission which purportedly discriminatesagainst Ms Bedi. He then observed that the parties werenot dealt with even-handedly. When he indicated that theprosecution is liable to be set aside, Mr K. K. Venugopal,counsel for the lawyers, said that the order should not beset aside on a ‘technical’ ground. The judge insisted that itwas ‘substantial’ ground.

Most o f the day on Thursday was taken byMr Ramaswamy summing up his arguments of the lasttwo weeks, and reading out well-known judgements on theprocedures of commissions of inquiry.

Justice Venkataramiah strengthened his argumentsoccasionally by quoting judgements. Reading out the judges’case of 1980, he remarked that the loss of reputation isworse than death for anyone. The judge also stressed thatthe procedures followed by tribunals must be fair andreasonable under Article 21 of the Constitution. Agreeingwith Mr Ramaswamy that the lawyers must lead evidencefirst, the judge said that the principle of burden of proofmust be followed.

The hearing will resume on Friday. The bench hearingthe appeal of Ms Bedi challenging the procedures adoptedby the Goswami–Wadhwa Committee inquiring into thelawyers’ strike in Delhi also consists of Justice M. M. Duttand Justice N. D. Ojha.

(Indian Express, 29 July 1988)

I dare -Written by Dr. Kiran Bedi

Government & Nonprofit

Transcript of I dare -Written by Dr. Kiran Bedi