1. Two communications are received from the Commission appointed by this Court by order dated 4-1-2013. Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families Assn. v. Union of India, (2013) 2 SCC 493 [LQ/SC/2013/10] : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 799 [LQ/SC/2013/10]

2. (A) The first is a letter bearing No. 01/SCC/1/2013 signed by the Chairman of the Commission and both its Members.

3. It is with reference to the order passed by this Court on 15-2-2013. That order was passed on a mentioning made by Dr Ashok Dhamija, counsel for the Union of India, pointing out that in the order constituting the Commission, there was no direction regarding fees payable to the Members of the Commission.

4. The Court then proceeded to pass the order leaving it to the Chairman of the Commission to fix not only his own remuneration/honorarium but also those payable to the other two Members of the Commission.

5. In the letter signed by the Chairman and the Members of the Commission, it is stated that the mentioning was made by Dr Dhamija without their consent and even without their knowledge.

6. It is further stated that they "accepted the appointment because of their respect to the Court and with a feeling that it was an honour to them to be asked by the Apex Court to hold the inquiry".

7. We deeply appreciate the sentiments expressed by the Chairman and the two Members of the Commission. It was exactly in that spirit that the Court constituted the Commission.

8. The Court felt that on an issue of grave national importance the Court could count on their assistance and rely upon their vast experience, competence and absolute objectivity.

9. At this stage, Mr Paras Kuhad, learned Additional Solicitor General, submitted that since the matter of fee is left in the hands of the Chairman, he may feel reluctance in charging any remuneration either himself or by the Members of the Commission.

10. Mr Kuhad further submitted that there is a precedent in this regard when for a similar Commission constituted by the Bench of the Chief Justice of India, the following order was passed:

"The sitting fee also to be paid to the Commission. Rs 50,000 may be paid to the Chairman for each day of sitting and Rs 35,000 each should be paid for a days sitting to Members. The Secretary of the Commission may take appropriate steps to get the payment from out of the amount deposited with the Registry of this Court."

11. We take note of the submission made by Mr Kuhad, but we still leave it open to the Chairman to take a decision as regards any remuneration/ honorarium that they should claim for the work done by them.

12. (B) The other is a letter dated 23-2-2013 from the Secretary to the Commission forwarding a memorandum submitted to the Commission by an organisation called "Civil Society, Coalition on Human Rights in Manipur and the UN".

13. In the memorandum submitted to the Commission, the organisation has apparently raised certain objections in the manner the public advertisement was issued by the Commission in connection with its visit to Manipur and its sittings there.

14. We leave it entirely to the Commission to deal with the memorandum and, if necessary, to pass appropriate order on it.

15. Mr Kuhad points out that in the memorandum there are certain allegations made against the Commission.

16. We deprecate the making of allegations against the Commission appointed by this Court and we make it clear that in case such a thing is recurred, we may feel constrained to take appropriate action.