Commissions of Inquiry in India
🧾 What is a Commission of Inquiry?
A Commission of Inquiry is a fact-finding body appointed by the Central or State Government to investigate and report on matters of public importance. These are not courts, and their findings are not binding, but they carry significant weight in public discourse and policymaking.
⚖️ Legal Basis: Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952
Empowers the Central and State Governments to set up commissions.
The commission can be headed by:
A sitting judge
A retired judge
An expert or notable person, depending on the subject.
It has civil court powers (e.g., summoning witnesses, taking evidence, etc.)
Its findings are recommendatory, not enforceable in law.
🎯 Objectives of Commissions of Inquiry
Investigate major public incidents (e.g., riots, scams, accidents).
Provide a non-judicial fact-finding mechanism.
Advise the government based on findings.
Help in shaping policy, reforms, or criminal investigations.
🧑⚖️ Notable Commissions in India
| Commission | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Shah Commission | Investigated Emergency abuses (1975-77) |
| Nanavati Commission | Probed 2002 Gujarat riots |
| Liberhan Commission | Investigated Babri Masjid demolition |
| Justice Srikrishna Commission | Probed 1992-93 Mumbai riots |
| Justice Mudgal Committee | Investigated IPL spot-fixing scandal |
🔍 Difference from Courts
| Courts | Commissions of Inquiry |
|---|---|
| Bind parties | Findings are recommendatory |
| Deliver judgment | Submit report to the government |
| Enforceable | Not enforceable |
| Judicial forum | Quasi-judicial fact-finding body |
⚖️ Landmark Case Laws on Commissions of Inquiry
✅ 1. Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar (1958)
Citation: AIR 1958 SC 538
Facts:
A commission was appointed to inquire into certain allegations against the Dalmia Group of Companies. They challenged the legality of the commission on the ground of bias and political targeting.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.
Laid down principles for reasonable classification and non-arbitrariness under Article 14.
Held that the state can appoint a commission for a legitimate public purpose even if a particular person or group is the focus.
Significance:
Established that a commission is not a court, but can investigate specific individuals if there's public interest.
Set early jurisprudence on Article 14 and equality before law.
✅ 2. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969)
Citation: AIR 1970 SC 150
Facts:
Though not directly about a commission under the 1952 Act, this case discussed the distinction between administrative and quasi-judicial bodies and the principles of natural justice.
Judgment:
Held that even administrative actions are subject to principles of natural justice.
Decisions of commissions can be challenged on grounds of bias, lack of fairness, or procedural impropriety.
Significance:
This ruling applies to commissions: they must act fairly, impartially, and with procedural integrity.
✅ 3. State of Karnataka v. Union of India (1978)
Citation: AIR 1978 SC 68
Facts:
The central government set up a commission under the 1952 Act to inquire into the conduct of the Karnataka Chief Minister. The state government challenged it as a violation of federalism.
Judgment:
Supreme Court ruled that the Centre can appoint a commission on matters of public importance even if it relates to a State subject.
The power under the Commissions of Inquiry Act is valid and not ultra vires federal structure, as long as public interest is involved.
Significance:
Upheld the validity of central commissions investigating state matters if it involves national importance or public interest.
✅ 4. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994)
Citation: (1994) 3 SCC 569
Facts:
The Court examined the nature of commissions in context of anti-terror laws, especially the TADA Act. The relevance was the admissibility of commission reports in legal proceedings.
Judgment:
Clarified that findings of a commission have no evidentiary value in criminal trials unless proved independently.
A commission cannot substitute a criminal trial or a judicial process.
Significance:
Reiterated that commission reports are advisory, and cannot be treated as conclusive proof in legal or criminal proceedings.
✅ 5. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) (Right to Privacy Case)
Citation: (2017) 10 SCC 1
Facts:
While the case is primarily about the Right to Privacy, it made significant observations about state surveillance, inquiry commissions, and public accountability.
Judgment:
Observed that inquiries and commissions must respect individual rights, especially privacy and dignity.
Public inquiries must balance public interest with individual freedoms.
Significance:
Indirectly linked commission inquiries with constitutional rights, emphasizing human dignity and fairness.
✅ 6. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
Citation: AIR 1997 SC 610
Facts:
Concerned custodial violence. Though not about commissions directly, the Court observed that inquiries into police conduct must follow fair procedure.
Judgment:
Recommended that inquiry commissions in custodial deaths be conducted transparently.
Emphasized the role of commissions in ensuring state accountability.
Significance:
Empowered the use of commissions to investigate state abuses, including police violence and human rights violations.
✅ 7. Ramesh v. Union of India (1988)
Citation: AIR 1988 SC 775
Facts:
Concerned the broadcast of a TV serial (Tamas) based on a commission report about communal riots. The petitioner argued that it would disturb public peace.
Judgment:
Court upheld freedom of expression.
Held that Commission findings can be used for public discourse, education, and media, as long as they don’t incite violence.
Significance:
Validated the public dissemination of commission findings as part of free speech and public awareness.
📌 Key Legal Takeaways from the Cases
| Legal Principle | Case Law |
|---|---|
| Commissions are valid and can focus on individuals | Ram Krishna Dalmia (1958) |
| Must follow natural justice | A.K. Kraipak (1969) |
| Centre can set up commission on state issues if public interest involved | State of Karnataka v. Union of India (1978) |
| Commission reports not admissible as legal evidence | Kartar Singh (1994) |
| Inquiries must balance privacy and public interest | Puttaswamy (2017) |
| Commissions ensure state accountability in HR cases | D.K. Basu (1997) |
| Findings can be disseminated publicly | Ramesh (1988) |
🧾 Conclusion
Commissions of Inquiry are crucial in India’s democratic setup.
They offer a non-binding, but authoritative forum for probing public issues.
Their powers are limited to fact-finding — they cannot impose penalties or judgments.
However, they have significant impact on public opinion, media, and policy formulation.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld their legality but has emphasized the need for procedural fairness, independence, and non-political use.
RELATED Blog
0 comments