ADMINISTRATIVE lAW

III YEAR
VII TRIMESTER

Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952

Status and Relevance

Submitted by:
Varun Yadav
I.D. No 2107
IIIrd Year, B.A., L.L.B (Hons.)
Date of Submission: August 5th, 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

INTRODUCTION

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE LEGISLATION AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

2. POWERS, FUNCTIONS AND PROCEDURE OF COMMISSION OF INQUIRY

10

3. COMMISSION VIS--VIS COURT AND PARLIAMENT

13

CONCLUSION

16

Index of Authorities
LEGISLATIONS:
1. The Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.
2. The Constitution of India, 1950.
3. The Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921.

LAW COMMISSION REPORT

1. 24th Report of the Law, Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (1962).

CASES:
1. Kehar Singh v. Delhi Administration, 1988 (3) SCC 609.
2. Krishnaballav Sahay v. Commission of Inquiry, AIR 1969 SC 258.
3. Mrs. Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry, 1988 (3) SCC 609.
4. Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Appeal, AIR 1958 SC 398.
5. Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538.
6. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 740.
7. Sheela Barse v, Union of India, 1988 (4) SCC 226.
8. The Statesman v. Fact Finding Commission, AIR 1975 Cal. 14.

Introduction
A Commission of Inquiry is a hybrid of the judicial and the administrative lib of the state. It is

judicial in the sense that its finding can seriously affect the reputation of a person, though it is
not a Court of law as it cannot give a binding verdict. Similarly, it is an administrative organ
without the trappings and red-tapism that makes them infamous. In essence, it provides for a
fact-finding inquiry, which reports its findings to the government appointing it- so that the
government can be guided by the entire exercise undertaken by a Commission of Inquiry.

A Commission of Inquiry is a unique tool in the hands of the government for collection of

information without the use of police and other coercive investigation methodologies and
agencies. It has high acceptability amongst the public not only because of the statue of persons
chairing these Commissions but also because of larger participation of the general public. The
Mundhra Inquiry held by Mr. Justice Chagla, which led to the resignation of the then Union
Finance Minister Mr. T.T Krishnamachari, is well known.

Prior to the enactment of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 (Hereinafter Act), the job used to

be entrusted to Committees appointed by Resolutions of Parliament. The working of analogous

laws in countries like England, Australia and Canada reinforced the case for a special enactment
on the subject. Although modelled largely in the English Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act,
1921, the experience of its working in England gave its framers in India an idea to give a wider
sweep to the Indian enactment than what is visible under English Law. However, needless to say,
law is not a static phenomenon but a living organism. It cannot be said that in its present form,
the Act has attained the sublime position that is expected of.

In the research paper, the researcher will analyse the birth of the Act, along with the historical
reasons and its inherent objects and reasons. The researcher will also study the procedure to
conduct an inquiry under the act. Furthermore, the researcher will analyse the functionality of the
Act vis--vis Judiciary and Executive.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
The researcher aims to understand the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.
The objective of this paper is to analyse the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 to study its status
and relevance in the present times.
SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS
The scope of this paper has been limited to the general analysis of the Act and the procedure
adopted under it. The researcher has not delved into the constitutionality of the Act vis--vis
other legislations.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The paper seeks to answer the following research questions:

What was the historical background of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952?
Why did the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 was enacted?
What is the position of law in other countries with regard to such legislation and its status in

India?
What are the powers, function and procedure of the Commission of Inquiry?
What is the bearing of Commission of Inquiry on Judiciary and Parliament?

CHAPTERISATION

The paper has been divided into 3 chapters.

The first chapter deals with the historical background of the Act and the need for such a piece

of legislation.
The second chapter is about the power, function and procedure to conduct an inquiry under

the Act.
The third chapter deals with the role of Commission of Inquiry vis--vis Judiciary and
Parliament.

METHOD OF WRITING

The style of writing has been analytical with regard to bringing out the nuances of the NDPS Act.
SOURCES OF DATA
The researcher has completely relied on primary sources such as legislations and case laws and
secondary sources like books and journal articles for the paper.
MODE OF CITATION
The researcher has followed the NLS Guide to Uniform Citation throughout the project.

1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE

LEGISLATION AND NEED FOR THE
LEGISLATION
The Act was enacted after due consultation with State Governments to facilitate the setting up of

Commissions with requisite powers to inquire into and report on any matter of public
importance. Prior to the present enactment enquiring authorities were appointed under executive
orders or through special legislation. Promoting special legislation for setting up a Commission
of Inquiry each time the necessity for it arose was felt to involve a tardy process. The twentyfourth report of the Law Commission of India submitted in 1962, detailing the genesis of the

Act, felt as follows:

.Government felt convinced of the utility of such inquiries as a means of arriving at a
proper appraisal of matters of public importance and of infusing the confidence of the
public in its administration and conduct. As the necessity for such inquiries was bound to
be recurring one, it was felt advantageous to have an enactment generalizing the powers,
which Commission of Inquiry may exercise, and leaving it to the Government to constitute
a Commission as and when necessary.1
There were analogous laws in other countries, In England, inquiries are held under the Tribunals

of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921. Before the passing of that Act, inquiries were held by the
Committees of Parliament, which required a resolution of both Houses of parliament. But an
inquiry by a committee of parliament is likely to be influenced by political considerations. The
Act, however, does not exclude inquiries by Parliamentary Committees for certain kind of
inquiries. In some cases where the subject matter is predominantly political, such Committees
are appointed to make inquiries.2

1 24th Report of the Law, Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (1962).

2 J Sarma Sarkar, COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY: PRACTICE AND PRINCIPLE, 8 (1990).

In the United States of America, there does not appear to be any law analogous to the English

Act. A Committee of the Congress holds the Inquiries. A committee of the Congress has powers
to examine witness on oath and punish for its contempt.3

The Act is largely modelled on the English Act, but there are certain differences between the
Indian Act and the English Act. The Indian Act empowers the government to set up a
Commission of Inquiry suo moto, but there is no corresponding provision in the English Act.

Under the English Act, a resolution of both Houses of Parliament is required for setting uo a

Tribunal of Inquiry, while the Indian Act requires a resolution of the House of People (Lok
Sabha) only or, as the case maybe, the Legislative Assembly of the State. The above differences
existed at the time of the original enactment. However, by the Amendment Act 19 of 1990,
resolution by each House of Parliament or, as the may be, the Legislature of the State has been
made the requisite condition. The English Act does not make the resolution binding on the
Government, although normally the Government would respect the wishes of Parliament; but in
India, the resolution of the house of the People or Legislative Assembly is binding on the Central
Government or the State Government, as the case may be. The English Act provides that if any
contempt of the tribunal is committed the tribunal can refer the matter to the High Court which
will punish the or take steps for the punishment of the contemnor in like wise manner as if he
had been guilty of contempt of the High Court. The Indian Act also provides for penalty for acts
calculated to bring the Commission or any member thereof into disrepute. The English Act
expressly provides that an inquiry shall be held in public or in private, but the Indian Act leaves
it to the discretion of the Commission to hold its sittings in public or in private. The immunity
granted to witness under Section 6 of the Indian Act is far greater than that conferred under
Section 1(3) of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921. In England the answers given by a
witness may be used in evidence against him in subsequent civil or criminal proceeding. But
under section 6 of the Indian Act use of statement of a witness made before the Commission has
been completely barred in all proceedings except a prosecution for perjury. One of the novel
feature of the Indian Act is the power to direct that all or any of the provisions of the Act shall be
applicable to any other authority, other than a Commission appointed under the Act where that
authority is inquiring into a matter of public importance. This is a deeming provision and that

3 Alan Barth, GOVERNMENT BY INVESTIGATION, 17 (1973).

authority shall be deemed to be a Commission appointed under the Act. There is no

corresponding provision in the English Act.4

It was under this background that the Central Government, after due consultations with the State

Governments, decided to enact a specific and comprehensive law to appoint Commissions on

Inquiry with requisite powers. Accordingly Bill No. 39 of 1952 was introduced in Lok Sabha.

The Act was enacted by the Parliament in exercise of legislative powers under Article 246 of the

Constitution of India read with Entry 94 of List I and Entry 45 of List III of the Seventh
Schedule. As the preamble of the Act suggests, the purpose of the Act is to confer powers on the
Central Government and the State Governments to enable these to appoint Commissions of
Inquiry with requisite powers to hold inquiries in respect of matters of public importance. As
stated earlier, prior to the passing of this enactment, inquiries were held under the executive
orders or by establishing inquiring authorities through separate legislation. However, after
independence, the necessity for appointment of such Commissions increased. The object is to
maintain high standard of public administration and for infusing the confidence of the public in
its administration and conduct.5

A look at the list of Commissions of Inquiry appointed by the Central Government or State

Governments would show that the powers were resorted to when the matters of grave public
importance arose. The reports of some of these Commissions led to serious consequences
involving the national polity. Chagla Commission was appointed to inquire into the affairs of
Haridas Mundhra, which led to the resignation of the then Finance Minister Mr. T.T
Krishnamachari. S.R. Tendolkar Commission was appointed to inquire into affairs of Dalmia
Jain Group of Companies. Das Commission was appointed to inquire into the allegations of
corruption against the Punjab Chief Minister, Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon. Shah Commission to
inquire

into

the

emergency

excesses,

Gupta

Commission

on

Maruti

affairs,

Venkatswamy/Phukan Commission in relation to Tehelka Video tapes, Liberhan Commission on

demolition of Babri Masjid are some of the important Commission of inquiry, which have been
appointed in the past to inquire into important matters with far reaching consequences. Needless
4 B.M. Prasad & Manish Mohan, THE COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY ACT, 1952- A CRITICAL ANALYSIS, 25 (2011).
5 Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538.

to say that in order to play a delicate socio-legal role, the Present act was conceived, moulded
and enacted.6

2. POWERS, FUNCTIONS AND PROCEDURE

OF COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
Appointed under Section 3 of the Act, the Commission has jurisdiction and authority to inquire

into any definite matter of public importance and to perform such function and within such time
as mat be specified in the Notification.

The inquiry is confined to matter or fact and not law, though the question of law raised during

inquiry such as admissibility of evidence, production of document or the claim of privilege or

secrecy has to be disposed of. The function of the Commission is to find facts or real truths as far
as practicable and not merely legal truths. The Commission is thus a fact-finding body entrusted
to give its honest and impartial view of the truth or otherwise on a matter of public importance
mentioned in the Notification.

In an inquiry under the Act there is no plaintiff or prosecutor, there is no defendant or accused

and there is no lis or charge to be adjudicated by the Commission by any definitive judgement or
order. Its function is only to inquire and report for information to the appropriate Government to
take such action as it mat, in the circumstance, thinks fit. The Commission has no powers to
penalize or fix liability for past acts. Its procedure is investigatory and inquisitorial rather
accusatory or judicial.

The primary or essential 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. Inquiry is made on allegations whether to establish them or clear

the name of persons charged.7 Unfounded allegations are often made by political opponents

supported by a partial press and propaganda to discredit the government and public servants. The
6 J.B. Monteiro, Commission of Inquiry- Their Limitations, 21(1), ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY, 26, 29 (July
11th, 1988).

governments as well as the public are entitled to know the truth or otherwise of those allegations.
The recommendations may or may not be acceptable to the government, which may reject the
same with, or without reasons but the publicity of the recommendations have great social and
administrative relevance. As observed in Dalmias Case8 the recommendations of the

Commission of Inquiry are of great importance to the Government in order to enable it to make
up its mind as to what legislative or administrative measure should be adopted to eradicate the
evil found or to implement the beneficial objects it has in view The function of the Commission

is no less important than the functions of courts, civil or criminal. While Courts deal mainly with
private interest litigation, commissions deal with public interest issues at large.

The words such other functions which are often mentioned or implied in the Notification gives

authority to the Commission not only to inquire into facts but to make recommendations for
future legislation or administrative measures on the basis if facts found, but cannot recommend
any penalty or liability for past acts. The function of the Commission is to submit report and
recommendations within the time fixed in the notification or within the time extended from time
to time by further notification. The omission, if any, can be rectified by subsequent notification.9

Though Commission is not a court, either civil or criminal, it has been conferred some specific

powers of civil courts as mentioned in the Act itself so as to enable the commission to function
properly and effectively. Under Section 4 of the Act, the Commission has powers of Civil Court

for a). summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person form any part of India, b).
requiring the discovery or production of any document, c). requisitioning any public document or
copy thereof, d). receiving evidence on affidavit, e). issuing commission for the examination of
any witness or document, and f). any other matter which may be prescribed by the rules. These
powers come automatically with the appointment of the Commission.
But according to the circumstances of each case, particularly when conduct and reputation of

persons and groups are involved, additional powers to take the help of criminal court as mention
in Section 5 maybe notified under Section 5(1) by the government to facilitate the discharge of
7 Krishnaballav Sahay v. Commission of Inquiry, AIR 1969 SC 258.
8 Supra note 5.
9 Id.

function by the Commission. Section 5(2) makes penal provision for omission or refusal to
furnish information under Sections 177, 177, Indian Penal Code. The Commission of Economics
of paper industry appointed by a Central Government resolution was made a Commission of
Inquiry under Section 3 of the Act applying Section 11 of the Act when the Statesman Ltd.
Refused to answer or supply information as called under Section 176 by that Commission. The

appointment was upheld but the power conferred was found invalid as no notification under
Section 5(1) read with Section 11 was issued.10
Section 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 section 100, Cr.P.C., 1973.
Under Section 5(4), the Commission has been declared a Civil Court when any offence under
Section 175, I.P.C. (intentionally omits to produce or deliver any document legally bound to do
so), 178 (refuses to bind himself on oath), 179 (refuses to answer questions legally bound to state
the truth), 180(refuses to sign statement), 228 (intentionally offers any insult to causes any
interruption) is committed in view and the presence of the Commission, it 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 case under Section
346, Cr.P.C., 1973. Without such powers the Commission could not function effectively at all.

The Commission of Inquiry have not only been criticized for their unfavourable reports by

political opponents and partial press and propaganda media but are often brought into ridicule or
contempt making personal aspersions or alleging political bias against the members and
chairman of the Commission. The 24th Law Commission considered the matter and reported that
as the Commission is not a Court, the Contempt of Court cannot be made applicable to them but
made some suggestions on the lines of which Section 10A was added. Under that Section the
complaint may be filed by the public prosecutor under Section 199(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 in case
of defamation or libel to bring the Commission or any member thereof into disrepute with this
difference that the complaint may be filed with the sanction of the appropriate government.11

10 The Statesman v. Fact Finding Commission, AIR 1975 Cal. 14.

11 Supra note 1.

One of the unique features of the Act is that the Commissions, unlike courts, are not guided by

the laws of procedure, civil or criminal or by the Evidence Act but is empowered under Section 8
to regulate its own procedure subject to any rules framed under Section 12 of the Act. This
unusual discretion was given for two reasons- first, the procedure will differ for different types
and purposes of the Commission and no uniform procedure may be suitable, and secondly, the
Commissions are called upon to decide questions of facts and to find real truths as far as possible
avoiding legalism or formalism of courts.12 It is now well settled that regulations made by the

Commission will conform to natural justice underlying the laws of procedure or the Evidence

Act, as the Commission thinks fit or proper. The questions whether or not any rules of natural
justice has been violated should be decided by Courts not on any preconceived notions but in the
light of statutory rules and provisions as decided in Nagendranath Boras13 case. The Supreme
Court refused to interfere on the ground of natural justice for excluding other members of the
Cabinet but intervened in Kiran Bedis14 case not for violation of principles of natural justice but
for violation of Article 14(2). Commission and not Court is the final authority to decide on the
question of natural justice underlying the regulation framed by it.

12 Supra note 2, at 19.

13 Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Appeal, AIR 1958 SC 398.
14 Mrs. Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry, 1988 (3) SCC 609.

3. COMMISSION VIS--VIS COURT AND

PARLIAMENT
The Commission is not a Court nor its proceeding judicial. They differ in their nature and

manner of functioning, in their purpose and results. There is no lis, no prosecutor or accused, no
formality or procedural laws or Evidence Act. The procedure is inquisitorial rather than
accusatory or judicial even when adversary proceeding in necessary where conduct and
reputation are involved.15 The Commission in investigator, prosecutor, defender and judge of all
facts all rolled into one. Evidence or materials collected by or before the Commission is its own
responsibility unlike Courts who have to decide only on the materials produced by the party or
the police. Proceeding before the Commission cannot be withdrawn or dismissed for default not
the absence of the respondent is material. The Commission must proceed to decide on the
materials available even in the absence of either party or their advocate. The absence of any
authority to give definitive judgements, which can be enforced decisively, distinguishes the
Commission from court.16 But in its weakness lies its strength. While Courts project their
decision on legal truths on dressed up materials projected on the screen for viewing by the parties
to the litigation, Commission tear the veil of mystery and secrecy by projecting raw materials
behind the screen for viewing by the public for their information. The Courts can punish or
penalize for past acts but the Commission can only recommend future course of action. It is also
a settled law that the Commission is not guilty of contempt of Court in the discharge of its
statutory duty even though the subject matter is overlapping as the purpose and powers of the
Commission are different as noted above. 17 The Courts, though, have no power to appeal or
revision against any procedure adopted by the Commission in its discretion or order passed or
decision made by it except as laid down in sub-section (5) of Section 5AA of the Act. As the

15 Supra note 4, at 118.

16 Sheela Barse v, Union of India, 1988 (4) SCC 226.
17 Kehar Singh v. Delhi Administration, 1988 (3) SCC 609.

Commission functions under a statute, Courts can intervene only on the ground of ultravires

abuse or misuse of power of the Act.18

Parliament or the Legislature of the State has a great role in passing or amending the

Commissions of Inquiry Act according to the changing necessity to give effects to the purposes
and provisions of the Act. It is its duty to bring to the notice of the government or pass a

resolution wherever an urgent matter of public importance for inquiry by a Commission arises. If

the ruling party evades the matter to hide exposure, the opposition may give notice or initiate
resolution for discussion. Whenever Commission of Inquiry in appointed either by a resolution
of the House of the People or the Legislative Assembly or by notification of the Government, all
necessary help should be extended to complete the inquiry and submit its report as early as
practicable, creating a favourable atmosphere. If there is delay during inquiry or in filing report,
Parliament may elicit from the Government the reasons for the delay and suggest they may be

expedited.19

18 Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 740.

19 Supra note 4, at 153.

CONCLUSION
Time has come, for a fresh look, at the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. The Act needs to be

amended or a new law needs to be enacted to make the enquiry commission powerful,
independent, effective, transparent and accountable. The need for public inquiry into major
socio-economic or political events in a modern complex society cannot to over-emphasised. Such
events are multi-dimensional generally, beyond the purview of criminal law or civil law. Only a
public enquiry can find out the truth about such events which will have great public significance.
The inquiry Commission has its rationale in people's right to know and to be informed about

such major events, under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. It is not a question of
government's privilege or discretion, but of citizen's fundamental right to know.
Such an independent inquiry Commission should be recognised as people's agency of good and

transparent governance, not government's instrumentality for its narrow political purposes. It is
absolutely important that appointment, composition and Terms of Reference of the Commission
should not be left to the discretion of the government as at present, or should be entrusted to a
widely representative, independent body of eminent persons. The judges need not always be
appointed as members of Commission for two main reasons - one, the judges by training
experience and institutional constraint not always fit to perform this task involving complex
socio- economic and political elements; and two, the judges should not be dragged into such
public issues which would ultimately compromise the judge's authority, independence and
legitimacy. The Commission should be sufficiently empowered so as to enable it to enquire in
depth and exhaustively. The Commission should be completely independent of political,
commercial or professional connections. Lastly, the Commission should have complete legal
status and its report may or may not be used in civil or criminal proceedings, it should not be
bereft of any legal significance.

The Commission falls clearly within the constitutional and administrative law and must be

subject to judicial review with ofcourse its appropriate judicial standards. Such commissions are
today much more needed when heads of state and public authorities are more and more engaging
in crimes against humanity, violations of the constitution and operation of the people and they
may not be brought within the purview or ordinary criminal law but should not escape from the
domain of human rights. Only such public enquiries with legal powers can do the work.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS:
1. Alan Barth, GOVERNMENT BY INVESTIGATION (Viking Press, 1973).
2. B.M. Prasad & Manish Mohan, THE COMMISSIONS
ANALYSIS (Lexis Nexis Butterworths, 2011).

OF INQUIRY

ACT, 1952- A CRITICAL

3. Jnanadhir Sarma Sarkar, COMMISSIONS

OF INQUIRY:

PRACTICE

AND

PRINCIPLE (Ashish

Publishing House, 1990).

Articles
1. J.B. Monteiro, Commission of Inquiry- Their Limitations, 21(1), ECONOMIC
POLITICAL WEEKLY (July 11th, 1988).

AND