What a Commission of Inquiry Is For
Chapter Thirty-Nine
Syllabus topic 2, "Commission of Inquiry"
Pages 190 to 194 of 1033
In one line
When something has gone badly wrong in public life and nobody agrees what happened, the Government appoints a judge to find out and report; the report settles the facts and settles nothing else.
In the wording a student can write in an exam: a Commission of Inquiry is a body appointed by the appropriate Government under section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952 to inquire into a definite matter of public importance and to perform such functions and within such time as the notification specifies; it is not a court, it decides nothing between parties, its findings create no legal liability and its report is recommendatory and not enforceable of its own force, its purpose being to establish the facts and, by doing so publicly, to restore confidence in the integrity of public life.
Why an institution of this kind is necessary
Because some questions are too big for a court and too contested for a department.
A court decides a case. It has parties, an issue between them, rules of evidence and a judgment that binds those parties. Riots in a city, a bridge collapse, the working of a whole licensing system, the conduct of a Government over a decade: none of these is a case, none has two parties, and no judgment could exhaust them.
A departmental inquiry is not believed. Where the allegation is that a Government or its Ministers acted improperly, an inquiry by that Government's own officers answers nothing, however carefully it is done.
A parliamentary committee is partisan by construction. Module III's fifth label deals with committee inquiries, and chapter 1130 sets out their limits: they report to a House organised in parties, and their findings are read as party findings.
So a fourth instrument was needed, and its defining features follow from the need: independent of the Government, headed by somebody the public will believe, with power to compel evidence, sitting publicly, and reporting publicly.
The purpose in the Supreme Court's own words
The clearest statement is in the judgment chapter 500 works in full, and it is worth having the substance now because it frames the whole label.
Facts. State of Karnataka v. Union of India, (1977) 4 SCC 608, decided on 8 November 1977 by a bench of seven presided over by M.H. Beg CJ, arose when the Union Government appointed a Commission of Inquiry into allegations against the Chief Minister and other Ministers of Karnataka. The State had already notified its own Commission on related ground and sued the Union under article 131, contending that the Central notification was barred by proviso (b) to section 3(1), which forbids a second Commission on the same matter, and that the Union was interfering with the government of the State.
What a Commission of Inquiry Is For
Held. The Central notification was valid. Comparing the two notifications, the State's was meant only to see whether the veil worn by certain transactions was correct in form, while the Central one was meant to tear down the veil of apparent legality; because the two inquiries were substantially different in nature and object they were not into "the same matter" and the proviso did not bar the second. On the purpose of the Act the Court held that the obvious intention behind it is to enable the machinery of democratic government to function more efficiently and effectively, and that it can hardly be construed as an Act meant to thwart democratic methods of government; that in all democratic countries when allegations and rumours circulate causing a crisis of confidence in the integrity of public life or about other matters of public importance, it is essential that public confidence should be restored, and this can be done only by thoroughly investigating and probing the rumours and allegations; and that such an inquiry might reveal either that the evil exists or that there is no force in the rumours, and in either case confidence is restored.
Why it matters. It supplies the purpose from which every criticism in this label is measured, and it disposes of the objection that an inquiry is an attack on a State Government. The last sentence is the one to carry into an answer: the institution succeeds whichever way the facts turn out, because its product is knowledge and not punishment.
The four things a Commission is for, and the one it is not for
One, to establish facts that are disputed. This is the primary function and everything else follows from it.
Two, to restore public confidence. Whether by confirming the allegation or by dispelling it.
Three, to produce recommendations for the future. Chapter 480 will show that this is what the Supreme Court held a Commission may properly do: recommend legislative or administrative measures so that the thing does not happen again.
Four, to create a public record. A report is published, laid before the House and read. It is history written with the power to compel witnesses.
And what it is not for: punishment. A Commission cannot convict, cannot fine, cannot order compensation and cannot dismiss anybody. Chapter 480 works the case that settles this. The consequence is the central tension of the label and the subject of MU's third question: a body powerful enough to find that a Minister behaved corruptly, and powerless to do anything about it.
Why India uses this instrument so much
Because the alternative institutions are weak in exactly the places a Commission is strong. A Commission can be appointed in a week, given any terms of reference the Government chooses, headed by a retired Supreme Court judge and empowered to summon anybody in India.
What a Commission of Inquiry Is For
Because it is politically useful. An inquiry answers a demand for action without taking any. That is a criticism and it is also a fact about why the instrument survives, and chapter 540 puts numbers to it.
And because it fills the gap the ombudsman does not. Chapter 330 showed that a citizen with a grievance against a Union department has nowhere to go. A Commission is not for individual grievances either, but where a failure is systemic and public, it is the only Indian institution that can look at the whole of it.
A worked example
A pedestrian bridge collapses in a city, killing fourteen people. The bridge was inspected eight months earlier and certified fit. Two contractors, a municipal engineer and a State department are involved.
A criminal court will try whoever is charged, on the evidence the police collect, for the offences the police name. It will decide their guilt and nothing else. It will not ask why the inspection regime allowed a fit certificate, and it will take years.
A departmental inquiry by the same State department will be believed by nobody, because the department is implicated.
A writ petition may get directions for compensation and for a status report. It cannot find facts.
A Commission of Inquiry under section 3 can be appointed within days, with terms of reference covering the collapse, the inspection, the contract and the systemic failure; can summon the engineer, the contractors and the Secretary; can require the file; and can report publicly, with recommendations for the inspection regime.
What it cannot do. Convict anybody. Order compensation. Dismiss the engineer. Its findings are not evidence in the criminal trial, because section 6 makes a statement to the Commission inadmissible against its maker, and chapter 420 reads that section.
So the two run in parallel and answer different questions. The court asks who is guilty. The Commission asks what happened and what should change. A student who can state that division has the label's central idea.
What a Commission of Inquiry is NOT
Not a court. Chapter 470 works the two cases that settle it.
Not a trial. Nobody is accused, there is no charge, and there is no verdict.
Not binding. Chapter 480 works the case and the Latin phrase the Court used.
Not permanent. It exists for the matter in the notification and ceases under section 7. This is the sharpest contrast with the Lokpal and the Lokayukta, which are standing bodies.
What a Commission of Inquiry Is For
And not a substitute for the ombudsman or for the vigilance machinery. Section 14(4) of the Lokpal Act forbids moving a matter from the Lokpal to a Commission, and chapter 140 explained why.
Quick revision
A Commission of Inquiry is appointed by the appropriate Government under section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952 to inquire into a definite matter of public importance.
Purpose, from State of Karnataka v. Union of India, (1977) 4 SCC 608: to enable the machinery of democratic government to function more efficiently, and to restore public confidence where rumours and allegations cause a crisis of confidence, whichever way the facts turn out.
Four functions: establish disputed facts; restore confidence; recommend for the future; create a public record.
What it cannot do: convict, fine, compensate or dismiss. The report is recommendatory.
Why India uses it: quick to appoint, wide terms of reference, a credible head, power to compel evidence, and politically useful because it answers a demand for action without taking any.
Test yourself
1. What is a Commission of Inquiry and what is it for? A body appointed by the appropriate Government under section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952 to inquire into a definite matter of public importance and perform such functions within such time as the notification specifies. It exists to establish disputed facts, to restore public confidence, to recommend measures for the future and to create a public record, in situations too large for a court, too contested for a departmental inquiry and too partisan for a parliamentary committee.
2. State the purpose of the Act as the Supreme Court described it in 1977. That the obvious intention behind the Act is to enable the machinery of democratic government to function more efficiently and effectively and that it can hardly be construed as meant to thwart democratic methods of government; and that in all democratic countries where allegations and rumours cause a crisis of confidence in the integrity of public life it is essential that confidence be restored, which can be done only by thoroughly probing them, an inquiry revealing either that the evil exists or that there is no force in the rumours, and in either case restoring confidence.
3. Why can a court not do the work of a Commission of Inquiry? Because a court decides a case: it needs parties, an issue between them, admissible evidence and a judgment binding those parties. A riot, a structural collapse, the working of a licensing system or the conduct of a Government over years is not a case, has no two parties and could not be exhausted by any judgment. A court also asks who is guilty of a named offence, whereas the question a Commission answers is what happened and what should change.
What a Commission of Inquiry Is For
4. Distinguish the Commission from the ombudsman on four grounds. Existence: a Commission is appointed for one matter and ceases under section 7, while a Lokpal or Lokayukta is a standing body. Trigger: a Commission is appointed by the Government or on a resolution of the House, while an ombudsman acts on a citizen's complaint. Output: a Commission reports and recommends with no legal consequence, while the Lokpal may sanction prosecution, attach and confiscate. And subject: a Commission may inquire into any definite matter of public importance, while the Lokpal is confined to offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
The rest of this subject
These notes are cut from the University's printed syllabus. Open the syllabus itself, or the past papers, for the same subject.