(c) Evidence gleaned/adduced - both oral and documentary

2.9.1 It is pertinent to point out here that while producing the files/documents in compliance with the direction of the Commission the Government of India filed two applications supported by affidavits of its officers claiming privilege under sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act and Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India in respect of documents contained in three files. Some of the deponents raised vehement objection to such claim on various grounds. After hearing the deponents concerned and/or their learned Counsel and the learned Counsel for the Government of India, the Commission directed the officers concerned who had filed the applications claiming privilege to specifically indicate the documents in respect of which the privilege was being claimed as the files in question contained not only official notes an correspondence of the Ministers and senior officers of the Government but also records of Parliamentary proceedings, newspaper cuttings and open letters sent by eminent citizens to the Ministry of Home Affairs and similar other documents which, by no stretch of imagination, could be treated as secret documents so as to entitle the Government of India to claim privilege in respect thereof. Pursuant to the said direction, supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of the Government of India specifying the documents in respect of which privilege was being claimed. After pursuing the documents the Commission felt that it would be appropriate to pass necessary orders on the issue after its visit to London to study declassified records there pertaining to Netaji and relevant to this inquiry.

2.9.2 After return from England it was felt by the Commission that all relevant documents and files relating to the terms and reference as made available to it from time to time by different agencies including the Government of India were also required to be studied before deciding the claim of privilege. After the study was complete the Commission passed an order on December 9, 2004 observing that the documents in question were neither necessary nor relevant for answering the terms of reference of the inquiry and, resultantly, the question whether the claim of privilege in respect thereof was justified or not need not be answered. The applications seeking claim of privilege were thus disposed of. Copies of all the orders passed in connection with the claim of privilege are annexed herewith (Annexure-C collectively).

2.9.3 The Commission also visited various establishments of Government of Taiwan and local government of Taipei city to look for and into documents which might be relevant to answer the terms of reference. The Chairman of the Commission, on return from Taipei, prepared a memorandum detailing therein the documents received by him there and some more documents required by the Commission but not readily available, for the transmission of which request was made by the Chairman to the official concerned on the eve of his departure. A copy of the memorandum is annexed herewith (Annexure-C/1). While returning from Taipei the Commission also visited Bangkok and examined a witness there. The evidence of the witness will be discussed at the appropriate stage.

2.9.4 Lastly, the Commission visited Russian Federation to examine some witnesses and inspect records in various archives of Russian Federation. On return, the Chairman prepared a memorandum. incorporating therein the names of the witnesses examined and the outcome of the visit to different archives. A copy of the memorandum is annexed herewith and marked Annexure-C/2.

2.9.5 Besides the documents referred to above, the Commission received 18 reader-printer copies of micro film rolls from the Public Record Office, London and one from the University of Southampton, England. Another four bundles of documents in Russian language were received from the Asiatic Society, Kolkata. The Commission requisitioned the services of two competent persons conversant with Russian language to study and translate them in English. On perusal of the translated version of the above two categories of documents it was found to be not relevant.

2.9.6 Apart from the above documents, the Commission has received 105 books - 47 in English, one in Russian and 57 including 14 journals in vernacular - from different deponents and other sources.