Subject – Administrative Law

COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY

SUBMITTED BY: ARVIND SRINIVAS

I.D. NO. 1555
3 YEAR, B.A. LL. B. (HONS.)
RD

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 12 SEPTEMBER, 2010.

TH
 Research Methodology
1. Aim:
This paper aims to make a study of and examine the status, relevance and functions of commissions
of inquiry.

2. Scope and Limitations:

The scope of the paper extends to a descriptive study of the status,powers, functions and relevance
of commissions of inquiry. Due to paucity of time an space an analytical approach could not be
taken.

3. Research Questions:
The following research questions are answered in this paper:
1. What is the status of a commission of enquiry?
2. What are the powers and functions of a commission of inquiry?
3. What is the relevance of commissions of inquiry?

4. Data Sources:
Secondary sources of data such as books and case law have been used in the compilation of this
paper. All sources of data have been duly acknowledged.

5. Style of Writing:
A uniform and analytical mode of writing has been employed throughout the paper.

6. Mode of Citation:
A uniform and approved mode of citation has been used in this paper.
 Introduction

The necessity for the Commissions of Inquiry Act of 1952 (the Act) arose principally due to the
tedious nature of the measures that needed to be taken before setting up any such commission. Prior
to the enactment of this legislation public inquiry had to be ordered either by executive notice
served under the Public Service Inquiries Act of 1850 or by the enactment of ad hoc legislation such
as the Sugar Crisis Enquiring Authority Act of 1950. The Act itself is modeled on the Tribunals Of
Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921 of England. Despite the general structure being similar, the two Acts
have significant differences. The differences increased after the recommendations of the 24 th Law
Commission Report on this subject were implemented via an amendment to the Act in the year
1971. The amendments mainly pertained to the protection of the liberty and reputation of
individuals or groups. The latest amendment to the Act was in the year 1990.

These measures often proved to be inadequate in dealing with the overwhelming need for public
inquiry by an independent and impartial authority. The need for this independent authority was
reinforced by the fact that parliamentary committees were and are often influenced by the political
conditions that are prevalent at the time. For example Indira Gandhi jailed numerous members of
Parliament on the basis of the findings of parliamentary inquiries and was herself jailed on this
basis, upon losing majority in Parliament.

The functions of the commissions can be of various types. There are commissions which are
instituted to provide information such as the ones dealing with the census. Then there are
commissions such as the Pay Commission which provide the Government with recommendations
on matters of great national importance. Thirdly there are commissions of inquiry which investigate
the conduct of public officials which have the tendenct to dversely affect the confidence of the
people in the public administration. Thus the function of a commission of inquiry, primarily, is to
investigate such conduct and recommend administrative or legislative measures to remedy any
adverse situation. As the Government cannot be expected to go into every little detail of
irregularities in public administration, commissions of inquiry are appointed to carry out this
paramount task.

The status of the commissions of inquiry has been subject to extensive judicial scrutiny. It is now,
however, settled law that a commission of inquiry is not a court except where the statute expressly
grants it this privilege. Even then the commissions have considerable powers. The Act grants the
commissions the power of summoning witnesses, of binding them under oath and of generally
regulating and evn formulating its own procedure.

The aim of this research paper is to examine the status, finctions and relevance of commissions of
inquiry.
 Status of Commissions of Inquiry

Appointment
The Central Government may appoint a commission with regard to any of the matters mentioned in
all three lists of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution whereas the State Government may only do so
with regard to matters contained in List II and List III of the 7 th Schedule. This power of
appointment is derived from the provisions of Article 246 read with entry 94 of List I and entry 45
of List II of the 7th Schedule.1

The Supreme Court in Dalmia's case2 upheld the constitutionality of the Act and the appointment of
commissions under s.3 of the Act. It was contended that the Act was ultra vires the Constitution and
that the appointment of commissions was bad due to excessive delegation of power to the
government resulting in the usurping of both Parliamentary and judicial powers. It was also argued
that inquiries cannot be conducted except for the purposes of legislation. The Supreme Court
rejected both the arguments. The term 'for the purpose of' contained in entry 94 of List I and 45 of
List II was interpreted not to mean for the purposes of legislation only. The Supreme Court went on
to say that the recommendations made by the commissions of inquiry were imperative to the efforts
of the government to take legislative or administrative measures to eradicate the evil found or to
implement the beneficial objects of the findings of the commissions.

Though the Central Government has no power to legislate on the matters contained in the State List,
it is allowed to order an inquiry into any of these matters. In the case of State of Karnataka v. Union
of India3 it was held that the scope of inquiry under such a law will cover all matters which are
ancillary to such inquiry. However legislation is ruled out. The view was reinforced in this case with
reference being made to entry 97 of List I read with Article 248 which deal with the residuary
powers granted to the Centre. The Supreme Court in Dalmia's case further justified this power given
to the Central Government by saying that the mere fear that the wide and discretionary power would
be misused was not enough to deny the existence of the power itself as discretion could not be taken
to mean discrimination.

The second ground of attack in the Dalmia case, which was that appointment of commissions under
s.3 of the Act amounted to excessive delegation, was also rejected by the Supreme Court. The
1 J.S. Sarkar, Commissions of Inquiry: Practice and Principle, (Ashish Publishing House, New Delhi, 1990) at p.5
2 Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendulkar, AIR 1958 SC 538.
3 State of Karnataka v. Union of India,AIR 1978 SC 68.
Supreme Court refused to accept that such an appointment was tantamount to the usurping of
judicial powers and delegation of essential legislative functions.. The rationale behind the rejection
was that firstly as the Act laid down the policy of the legislature, the core functions were not being
delegated and that secondly there was no encroachment on the powers of the judiciary as there was
no adjudication but only fact finding involved in the whole process of inquiry. As the commission
had no power to pass definitive and enforceable decisions, even when presided over by a sitting
judge of the High Court or the Supreme Court, the commission cannot claim to be a judge nor can
the proceedings said to be judicial.

Who can appoint commissions

The Central Government can appoint commissions of inquiry to investigate matters contained in all
three lists of the 7th Schedule whereas the State can do so only with respect to matters contained in
the State and the Concurrent Lists of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution. The appointment need not
necessarily be only for legislative purposes but can be for administrative and other purposes as well.
Once the Central Government has appointed a commission with respect to one matter, the State
Governments cannot institute another commission to look into the same matter. The same holds for
a situation in which the State Government institutes the commission except in cases where the
Centre feels that the scope of the inquiry has to be extended to two or more states. The words 'same
matter' mean the same subject matter against the same persons in the same time period, as is
required to invoke the doctrine of res judicata.4

The leading case in this matter is the case of State of Karnataka v. Union of India. The facts of this
case are that the Central Government appointed the Grover Commission to inquire into
irregularities alleged against Devraj Urs who was the then Chief Minister of Karnataka. However
Urs had preempted the Central Government by appointing a commission earlier. He then proceeded
to file a suit under Art. 131 and a writ petition claiming that the appointment of the commission by
the Centre was illegal. Both the suit and the writ petition were dismissed by the Supreme Court on
the basis that the scope of the two inquiries were very much different as the scope of the Central
Commission was much broader. It was also pointed out as was in Bakshi Ghulam Muhammad's and
K.B. Sahay's cases that it was inconceivable that a commission of enquiry should appointed by the
cabinet against the Chief Minister or that the minister appointed the commission against himself.
Ultimately, however, the appointment or otherwise, of a commission will depend on the subjective
satisfaction of the appropriate government and no other authority or court can compel the
appropriate government to act to the contrary.

4 Supra note 1.
When can the appointment be made
The appointment can be made on definite matters of public importance by a notification in the
Official Gazette. There are two reasons as to why this notification in the Official Gazette has to be
made. Firstly it is to bring to public knowledge the appointment of the commission and secondly to
authenticate the contents of the notification to prevent any further dispute in that regard. In
Sambunath Jha's case5 the court stated that the publication of the notification in the Official Gazette
is an imperative requirement and cannot be dispensed with.

Although there is no provision for appeal in the High Courts or the Supreme Court when it comes to
the appointment or non appointment of commissions, the notification appointing the commission
can be challenged as being mala fide or ultra vires beyond the scope of the Act. In Kunju's case the
notification was struck down as neither the original notification nor the authenticated copy showing
order for issuing the notice in the name of the Governor, could be produced. It was held that the
publication of the notice in the Gazette in proper form must be strictly proved by producing the
Gazette or at least from the official record. In Karunanidhi's case6 when the signature on the
notification was that of the Cabinet Secretary and not that of the departmental secretary, the
Supreme Court refused to quash the notice as Rules of Business are discretionary and not
mandatory and evidence can be produced to prove that proceedings were conducted according to
the constitution and the rules. The presumption of the courts is that official acts are done in the
proper manner and the burden is upon the person making the allegation of irregularity to prove the
same.

In Dalmia's case7 the court stated that there is a presumption of constitutionality of the notification
which may be rebutted by showing it to ultra vires, mala fide, vague and not on a definite matter of
public importance. No hard and fast rule exists to prove any of the grounds that can be used to rebut
the presumption of constitutionality and the nature and extent of materials needed for this rebuttal
depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Political motive was alleged in State of
Jammu and Kashmir v. Buxi Ghulam Muhammad8, in Jagan Nath Rao's case9 and in Harekrishna
Mehtab's case.10 The Supreme Court however refused to strike down the notifications stating that
the dominant purpose of the appointment was not political rivalry but to maintain the purity and
integrity of the administration. The matter may also be considered by differentiating between

5 Sambunath Jha v. K.P. Sinha, AIR 1972 SC 1515.

6 M. Karunanidhi v. UOI, AIR 1977 Mad. 192.
7 Supra note 2.
8 State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Buxi Ghulam Muhammad, AIR 1967 SC 122.
9 Jagannath Rao v. State of Orissa, AIR 1969 SC 215
10 Harekrishna Mehtab v. C.M Orissa, AIR 1970 Ori. 175.
motive and purpose. If the object, purpose and aim of the notification is within the ambit of s.3 of
the Act and is intra vires, then whatever the motive whether mala fide or bona fide, the notification
remains valid as found in the three cases mentioned above. However in Kunju's case11 the
notification was quashed as the purpose of the commission was the dismissal of one minister when
several other ministers were facing the same allegations. On the contrary in Dalmia's case the
notification was not quashed even though the inquiry was against nine companies headed by Dalmia
as there was reasonabe classification based on intelligible differentia having rational nexus with the
object and purpose of the notification.

It is also imperative that the notification under s.3 off the Act must refer to a definite matter of
public importance. Definite matter does not entail particulars of time, place or person as in a charge
sheet. It is necessary that the subject matter of the inquiry be clear and definite. The commission is
inquisitorial and not accusatory and it is the business of the commission to find out whatever
materials are available in connection with the subject matter of the inquiry. In Dalmia's case the
court stated that the word definite is opposed vague and means definite, distinct and precise subject
matter which may appear in the notification. It was also stated that it is not necessary to cite all
instances and particulars. It is also not necessary to name the person or persons involved as long as
the person or group has been clearly defined. The inquiry has to be on a matter of public
importance. This does not mean that there should be some public benefit involved. Any conduct on
the part of a person, group or company the prejudicially affects public well being can be termed to
be of public importance. It is also to be noted that public importance and public agitation have no
connection It is left to the discretion of the Government as to whether the matter is of public
importance or not. This was held in State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Ghulam Muhammad. Thus
courts have more control over the publication of the notification than on the purpose of the
notification. 12

The appropriate Government has the sole and exclusive discretion to appoint one or more members
of the commission and where the commission is comprised of more than one member, one of them
maybe appointed the chairman thereof. The appropriate Government is at liberty to fill up any
vacancies in the commission from the time of its appointment to the time of the submission of the
report. However if the vacancy is not filled the remaining members of the commission may proceed
with the task in order to ensure continuity and prevent delay. When a new member is appointed or
an existing member either resigns or expire, the inquiry continues from that point onwards and there
is no need for a new inquiry to be instituted. It is always important that the government should
11 P.K. Kunju v. State of Kerala, AIR 1970 Ker 252
12 Supra note 1 at p.7
appoint competent and impartial persons with experience and knowledge in the field of inquiry.13

Similar to the appointment of the commission, the termination of the commission may be made by
the appropriate Government by an official notification in the Gazette from the date notified at the
sole discretion of the said Government. However when the commission was appointed by a
resolution of Parliament or legislature, it can be terminated only by a resolution of Parliament or
legislature. Termination cannot be questioned by commission, court or any other authority as both
appointment and termination are at the exclusive discretion of the appropriate Government.14

13 Supra note 1 at p.9

14 Supra note 1 at p.10
 Powers and Functions of Commissions of Inquiry
Subsequent to its appointment under s.3 of the Act, the Commission has the power and jurisdiction
to inquire into any definite matter of public importance and to carry out any such function as is
directed in the Notification. The inquiry is restricted to matter of fact and not of law. This does not
bar the commission from disposing off matters such as the admissibility of evidence, production of
documents or the claim of privilege. The function of the commission is to find facts or real truths as
far as as possible and not merely legal truths. The commission is thus a fact finding body entrusted
with the task of giving its honest and unbiased opinion on the matter of public importance
mentioned in the notification.15

There is no plaintiff or prosecutor in an inquiry nor is there a defendant or accused and there is no
lis or charge to be adjudicated by the Commission by any definitive judgment or ordr. Its function is
only to inquire and report for information to the appropriate Government to take such action as it
may, in the circumstance, think fit. As observed in the Statesman case,16 the function of the
Commission is inquisitorial rather than accusatory or judicial. The primary function of the
Commission is to act as adviser to the Government and submit report and recommendations for
future on the materials available and not to indict or charge any person or group of persons. Inquiry
is also made on whether allegations should be established or the person's name should be cleared as
held in K.B. Sahay's case17. This is often necessitated by the smear campaigns carried out by
politicians on their rivals. As the court in Dalmia held, the function of the commission is no less
important than that of the courts and while courts dealt with private interest litigation, the
commissions dealt with matters of pubic interest.

The words 'such other functions' which often find mention in the Notifications give authority to the
Commission not only to inquire into the facts but also to make recommendations for future
legislation or administrative corrections on the basis of the facts found. However this power of
recommendations does not include the power to recommend penal action.18

Though the commission is not a court it has been accorded some powers that are normally accorded
to civil courts in order to enable the commission to function properly and effectively. Under s.4 of
the Act, the Commission has the power to summon and enforce the attendance of any person from

15 Saharay, Administrative Law and Tribunal, (Eastern Law House, Calcutta, 1987), at p.34
16 The Statesman v. Fact Finding Committe, AIR 1975 Cal 14.
17 K.B. Sahay v. Commission of Inquiry, AIR 1969 SC 258.
18 Supra note 1 at p.13
any part of India, to require the discovery or production of documents, to receive evidence on
affidavit, to requisition any public document, to issue commission for the examination of any
witness or document and in any other matter which may be prescribed by the rules. These powers
are given to the Commission automatically as soon as it is appointed.

When there is a situation in which the conduct and reputation of a person or a group of persons are
involved, additional powers to enlist the help of the criminal court as mentioned in section 5, may
be notified by the Government under s.5(1) to facilitate the discharge of functions by the
Commission. S.5(2) makes penal provision for omission or refusal to furnish information under
ss.176 and 177 of the Indian Penal Code. S.5(3) of the Act enables the Commission to empower any
officer below the rank of Gazetted officer for search and seizure subject to the provisions of s.100
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under s.5(4), the Commission has been declared a civil court
when any offence under section 175 I.P.C. which penalises intentional omission to produce or
deliver any document when there is a legal obligation to do so. 19

The Commission is also given the status of a civil court for the offences of refusal to take oath
under s.178, refusal to answer questions when legally required to under s.179, refusal to sign a
statement under s.180 and intentional delivery of insult under s.228 of the I.P.C. These offences
have to be committed in view and presence of the Commission. The Commission, may, after
recording the facts constituting the offence and the statement of the accused forward the case to a
Magistrate having jurisdiction and the Magistrate shall proceed to hear such a case under s.346 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. Similar to the powers of the civil court given to the Commission,
these powers too are accorded to facilitate the efficient functioning of the Commission.20

As the Commission of Inquiry is not a court, the Contempt of Courts Act is not applicable. To stave
off public criticism by jilted political parties and public officials, the 24th Law Commission Report21
suggested some amendments to the Act which formed the basis for s.10A of the Act. As per the
provisions of this section a complaint may bee filed by the public prosecutor under s.199(2) of the
Cr.P.C. in case of defamation or libel to bring the commission or any of its members into disrepute.

Regulation of procedure
The Act grants the Commission with the unique privilege of not being guided by the laws of civil or
criminal procedure. Even the provisions of the Evidence Act or not applicable. Instead as per the

19 Supra note 1 at p.14

20 Supra note 15 at p.36
21 24th Law Commission Report Found at www.lawcommissionofindia.nic.in
stipulations of s8 of the Act, the Commission is empowered to regulate its own procedure subject to
the rules framed under s.12 of the Act. The rationale underlying the granting of this power to the
Commission is twofold. Firstly it has to be kept in mind that every Commission will have a
different purpose and having to follow similar procedure for all these purposes will lead to
inefficiency and secondly the commissions are called upon to decide questions of fact and to avoid
the legalism and formalism of courts. The commission however while framing the procedure has to
follow the principles of natural justice, which form the basis of the civil and criminal procedures
and the Evidence Act. In Nagendranath Bora's case22 it was decided that the question with regard to
the violation of any of the principles of natural justice by the procedure framed by the commission,
should be determined by the courts not on the basis of any preconceived notions but in the light of
statutory rules. It is however to be noted that the Commission and not the court, is the final
authority to decide on the question of natural justice underlying the regulation framed by it.

Nature and manner of inquiry

In order to understand the functions of a commission of inquiry it is necessary that we understand
the exact nature of the inquiry and the manner in which it is carried out. It has been settled in
Dalmia's case that the commission is not a judicial body irrespective of whether it is chaired by a
sitting judge of the High Court or the Supreme Court. Though it is deemed to be a court for the
purposes of ss.4 and 5 of the Act, this only means that declared and deemed powers of civil court in
respect of specified provisions only excludes such power in respect of other functions. With
reference to ss.19 and 20 of the IPC it has been held that the commission is not a court as a judge
must be empowered by law to give definitive judgment. As it was stated in Dalmia's case the
commission has no power to adjudicate in the sense of passing an order or a judgment which can be
enforced proprio vigore but is merely to investigate and record its findings and recommendations
without any power to enforce them. This view was affirmed in Dr. Baliram's case23 where it was
held that the commission is not a court for filing complaint under s.195(b)(3) of the Cr.P.C.

The second aspect that determines the nature of inquiry is the fact that the recommendations of the
commission are not binding upon the Government. Thirdly the distinction between Court, Tribunal
and Inquiry was laid down in the Statesman case. Court not only has the power to give binding
judgments but also has the power to enforce them. A Tribunal must be constited under statutory
authority, have a regular or permanent existence and exercise the power to hear and decide disputes
within a definite jurisdiction. Inquiry on the other hand, whether appointed under a statute or not
may or may not arrive at any conclusion and will often be required to make a report or
22 Nagendranath Bora v. Commissioner of Appeal, AIR 1958 SC 398.
23 Dr. Baliram Hiray v. Justice Lentin, 1988 (4) SCC 419.
recommendation to some other government agency. Its procedure is investigatory and inquisitorial
rather than accusatory and judicial.

The manner of inquiry is as follows. Subsequent to the notification Under s.3 of the Act and as soon
as the venue and establishment are available , the commission will issue public notice inviting
statements or information or memoranda from the members of the public in respect of the terms of
the inquiry. This procedure is common to all commissions of inquiry regardless of the purpose of
their institution. However when, at any stage of the inquiry, the commission feels that the reputation
of any person is involved, reasonable opportunity of being heard in the inquiry and to produce
evidence, has to be given to that person as required by s.8B of the Act. The commission will then
ask the investigating agency to compile a report of the particulars with regard to time, date, place,
and persons involved in connect to the subject matter of the investigation. Notice will be then
issued under s8B or s.8C of the Act, attached to which will be the complaint and the affidavit giving
the list of witnesses and documents in support of the complaint. This notice also directs the
respondents to submit their statements in support along with their affidavit. 24

The commission under s.4C has the power to dispose the case only on the evidence given in the
affidavits. The complainants and the respondents may be directed to file as many affidavits as it
takes to prove the respective cases. As the section is not subject to the CPC there is no right to cross
examine the witness. This was decided in Buxi Ghulam Muhammad's case. It is the discretion of the
commission to call or not to call formal witnesses to produce the documents. The order of witnesses
should always be such that the complainant is examined first, especially if it is the Government.

24 S. Chakraverti, Administrative Law and Tribunals, (The Law Book Co., Allahabad, 1988), at p. 202.
 Relevance of Commissions of Inquiry

There is an understandable dislike for the commissions of inquiry instituted under s.3 of the Act, on
the part of public servants and politicians alike. This is because more often than not these
commissions never achieve results within the deadlines assigned to them, are largely ineffective and
a severe drain on the State's resources. Even in the scenario where the report is submitted, it is
seldom seen that the Government takes any form of action based on the report as the report is not
binding on the Government. The commission is only for the purpose of determining the facts of the
subject matter of the inquiry and the punitive and compensatory powers are still with the courts. It
has been often seen in the past that these commissions are appointed to quell agitation, to delay
punitive action and to discredit political opponents.25

The views expressed by Sir Alfred Butt in the Budget Leakage case in England come to mind when
a criticism of commissions of inquiry is to be made. In his speech Sir Alfred Butt stated that he
would have to suffer for the rest of his life from a finding against which there was no appeal, upon
evidence which did not justify a trial and a method not open to bring out the true and full facts. An
important criticism of commissions of inquiry is also that when there are methods of inquiry such as
by the police, magistrate , intelligence, vigilance, parliamentary committees, Central Bureau of
Investigation and departmental inquiries, it is highly discriminatory to appoint commissions of
inquiry which irreversibly prejudice any further forms of inquiry. 26

When the above criticisms are examined, it can be seen that they hold relevance with respect to the
practical functioning of the provisions of the Act and not the Act itself. The working of the Act
comes under justified criticism due to the misuse or abuse of the powers by the government,
political parties, courts and the commissions themselves. However this does not mean that the
situation is beyond redemption. Courts of law in India too are slow and ineffective in their
functioning chiefly due to the machinations of clever parties and pleaders. Commissions, are thus
no worse than the courts. In fact the commissions can be forced to speed up proceedings through the
application of public pressure whereas the courts are immune to any such pressures.

The need for these commissions arises out of the public nature of the proceedings that they conduct
or are supposed to conduct. Other forms forms of inquiry lack this public character. For example a

25 Supra note 21
26 Supra note 1 at p.2
police inquiry is only an investigation into an alleged crime and not a public inquiry. The public
nature of the commissions allows them to investigate a far wider range of irregularities than any of
the traditional forms. Primarily these commissions are needed to keep misuse of power, unethical
conduct and other such undesirable aspects of public administration, in check. The purpose of the
commission is to determine facts, on the basis of which, unethical conduct can be condemned and
stigmatized and unfounded rumours can be done away with in order to restore the confidence of the
general public in the public administration. Even though these commissions have been misused in
the past, it remains a fact that till date there is no better alternative to these commissions of inquiry
to conduct an independent and impartial inquiry.

Commissions of inquiry as found in India cannot be found anywhere else in the world. The reason
for this is that these commissions are independent and impartial bodies solely instituted for the
purpose of finding facts without any immediate object to penalise anybody. Though there is no
appeal available against the findings of the commission, a notification issued for the appointment of
the commission may be struck down by courts if they are found to be ultra vires or mala fide
beyond the scope of the Act. Thus the criticism delivered in the Budget Leakage case does not hold
good in the case of commissions of inquiry in India. Full procedural protection is accorded to the
reputation and liberty of individuals even though these are not judicial proceedings. The individuals
are accorded the opportunity to clear their names from any allegations in their interest and in the
interest of the public.27

The relevance and importance of such commissions are reinforced by the fact that the
recommendations of these commissions are very useful to the Government in deciding what
legislative or administrative steps have to be taken to remedy any adverse situation. There are two
types of commissions as seen before. There are commissions which focus on specific areas such as
the the Pay Commission and the Water Disputes Commission and there are commissions which are
against public officials. The importance of the findings of both types of commissions are imperative
for the Government to run the country in an efficient and transparent manner. As procedural
safeguards are observed even when the conduct of a public official is under the scanner, the benefits
of instituting these commissions outweighs the disadvantages that such institution has.28

27 Supra note1 at p.4

28 Supra note 21
 Conclusion

This research paper set out with the aim to examine the status, functions and relevance of
commissions of inquiry. As far as the status of the commissions is concerned it has been judicially
settled that a commission of inquiry is not a court. This is because the nature of the inquiry is
inquisitorial and not adjudicatory. The commission only makes recommendations and findings. It
does not issue decrees or orders that are enforceable and hence cannot be called a court.

When it comes to the appointment of the commissions, it is seen that under s.3 of the Act the
appropriate Government, both at the State and the Centre, can appoint a commission of inquiry. The
condition to be met before appointment is that the subject matter of the investigation to be carried
out by the commission should be of definite public importance. This means that the matter must
have the potential to disrupt the confidence of the general public in the public administration.
However no other authority apart from the appropriate Government has a say in the appointment
and the termination of a commission of inquiry.

Though the commission has been held not to be a court, the Act grants some powers to the
commission to facilitate the fact finding process in which it is engaged. Sections 4 and 5 deem the
commission to be a court in order to help the commission penalise any person who refuses to
divulge any information which is necessary for the progress of the inquiry. The commission has
similar powers in respect of refusal to take oath and to sign a statement. Following the
recommendations of the 24th Law Commission Report, the members of the commission and the
commission as a whole is protected from defamation and libel as per the procedure laid down in
s.10A of the Act. It is also to be noted that under s.8, subject tp the rules formulated under s.12, the
commission has the liberty to formulate and regualte its own procedure, which also has to follow
the principles of natural justice.

Finally the relevance of commissions of inquiry arises out of the need for an impartial and
independent fact finding body. Though the nature of the inquiry is only inquisitorial, the findings
and recommendations of the inquiry are imperative in aiding the Government to remedy any
irregularities in the administration, by means of legislative and executive measures. It is true that in
the past commissions have been influenced by the prevalent political conditions. In conclusion it
can be said that the mere possibility of bias cannot defeat the need for and the advantages of an
independent unbiased inquisitorial body.