A study on Public Inquires and Commissions of Inquiry
Public Inquiries and Commissions of Inquiry
1. Introduction
Public Inquiries and Commissions of Inquiry are formal investigations set up by the government to look into matters of public concern.
They are usually fact-finding bodies tasked with investigating events, allegations, or issues where public confidence or transparency is at stake.
Established under Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (in India), but similar mechanisms exist in other jurisdictions.
They do not possess judicial powers but have wide investigative authority and can summon witnesses, require documents, etc.
2. Purpose and Role
To investigate complex or sensitive issues (e.g., corruption, accidents, policy failures).
Provide transparent and impartial reports to the government and public.
Make recommendations for policy or administrative reforms.
Help restore public confidence and accountability.
Assist legislative or executive bodies in understanding facts without the delays of courts.
3. Powers of Public Inquiries and Commissions
Summon and enforce attendance of witnesses.
Require production of documents and records.
Examine witnesses on oath or affirmation.
Receive evidence including affidavits.
Make interim and final reports.
Recommend prosecution or reforms (though they do not try cases).
4. Limitations
They do not have the power to enforce judgments or punish.
Their reports are advisory and non-binding.
Sometimes criticized for delays or political influence.
Key Case Laws on Public Inquiries and Commissions
1. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) (Judges’ Transfer Case)
Reinforced the importance of independent investigations.
Although about judiciary, it set a precedent for inquiry commissions to maintain impartiality and autonomy.
Emphasized that inquiry commissions should not be used as a tool for harassment.
2. B.R. Kapoor v. Union of India (1980)
Held that Commissions of Inquiry are not bound by the strict rules of evidence applicable in courts.
Enables them to conduct a more flexible and informal fact-finding process.
3. State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah (1972)
Held that reports of inquiry commissions can be used as evidence in subsequent judicial proceedings.
But they do not replace a trial.
4. Union of India v. P.C. Sen (1961)
Recognized that inquiry commissions have the power to summon witnesses and compel production of documents.
Also clarified they are not courts of law but quasi-judicial bodies.
5. Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998)
In the context of the CBI and judicial oversight, the Supreme Court stressed the role of inquiry commissions in investigating corruption.
Reiterated the importance of independent inquiries for public accountability.
Summary Table: Public Inquiries and Commissions
| Aspect | Details | Case Law Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Investigate public issues, fact-finding, restore confidence | S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) |
| Powers | Summon witnesses, require documents, receive evidence | Union of India v. P.C. Sen (1961) |
| Evidence | Not bound by strict legal evidence rules | B.R. Kapoor v. Union of India (1980) |
| Legal Status | Quasi-judicial, advisory reports | State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shah (1972) |
| Role in Corruption | Ensure independent probe into public corruption | Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) |
Conclusion
Public Inquiries and Commissions of Inquiry are essential democratic tools to investigate and report on issues affecting the public interest. Their flexibility and investigative powers allow them to uncover facts and recommend reforms without the formal constraints of courts. However, their effectiveness depends on independence, timely reporting, and genuine governmental follow-up.
RELATED Blog
0 comments