NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

SEMESTER – 7

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW PROJECT

TOPIC: SIGNIFICANCE OF COMMISSION OF INQUIRY IN

ADMINAISTRATIVE LAW WITH A SPECIAL FOCUS ON
ANALYSIS OF COMMISSION OF INQUIRY ACT, 1952

SUBMITTED TO PROF. SUSHMA SHARMA

SUBMITTED BY MEDHA R LAKSHMI, 2019BALLB47

1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to place on record special gratitude to my course teacher Prof. Sushma Sharma
for her timely suggestions, critical evaluation, creative guidance and great support throughout
the project research. Also, I owe a great deal of gratitude to the staff of Gyan Mandir, Library
for providing extensive database resources.

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................................................................................4
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM..................................................................................................4
HYPOTHESIS...........................................................................................................................5
RESEARCH QUESTIONS........................................................................................................5
OBJECTIVES OF STUDY........................................................................................................5
INTRODUCTION – THE POWER TO HOLD INQUIRIES & INVESTIGATION...............6
DIFFERENT VARIANTS OF INQUIRY PROCEDURES......................................................7
 ADMINISTRATIVE INQUIRIES..................................................................................7
 STATUTORY INQUIRIES............................................................................................9
 PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.....................................................................................9
ANALYSIS OF THE COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY ACT, 1952.......................................10
 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION................10
 POWERS, FUNCTIONS AND PROCEDURE OF COMMISSION OF INQUIRY...10
 LEGAL ISSUES ARISING UNDER THE ACT..........................................................12
 COMMISSION VIS-À-VIS COURT AND PARLIAMENT.......................................14
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS..................................................................................14
BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................................................16

3
 LITERATURE REVIEW
Alan Barth, GOVERNMENT BY INVESTIGATION (Viking Press, 1973):

This book gives account of the governmental investigation particularly of that in United
States and gives insight to a comparative analysis with that of India.

B.M. Prasad & Manish Mohan, THE COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY ACT, 1952- A
CRITICAL ANALYSIS (Lexis Nexis Butterworths, 2011):

This book works as a complete handbook on the topic of Commission of inquiry Act and
along with the commentary on the subject, it also contains various connected relevant
materials such as notifications of various important Commissions of Inquiry of the past,
extracts of connected statutory provisions, report of Law Commission of India and report of
the Royal Commission on Tribunals of Inquiry Act, 1966.

Jnanadhir Sarma Sarkar, COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY: PRACTICE AND PRINCIPLE

(Ashish Publishing House, 1990):

This book includes necessity in commissions of inquiry, its powers and functions, nature and
manner of inquiry, its relation vis a vis Government, Court, Parliament and public and also
finally provides suggestion for the improvement in working of the Act.

M. P. Jain, S. N. Jain, PRINCIPLES OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (Volume 1) 7th Edition

(English, Hardcover):

This book enables for a detailed examination of the principles of Administrative Law and
covers exhaustively all major judicial pronouncements which seek to strengthen procedural
and substantive safeguards vis-à-vis the administration.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
The administration enjoys some specific powers for the better discharging of its assigned
functions and one among them is the power to hold inquiries and investigations. These
powers basically for informational purpose are nevertheless having serious consequences as it
is evident from instances from past. However, it is still a matter of discussion that whether
adequate safeguards had been incorporated in relevant Acts to prevent the misuse of such
powers.

4
 HYPOTHESIS
From an initial research it appears that, although the power of inquiry are subjected to some
safeguards from abuse under Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
• What are the basic purposes behind the power to hold inquiry enjoyed by the administrative
law?

• What are the different variants of inquiry procedures?

• What was the historical background of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952?

• Why did the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 was enacted?

• What are the powers, function and procedure of the Commission of Inquiry?

• What are the legal issues arising under Commission of inquiry Act?

• What is the bearing of Commission of Inquiry on Judiciary and Parliament?

OBJECTIVES OF STUDY
• To understand the purpose behind the power to hold inquiry under administrative law;

• To study the different variants of inquiry procedures under administrative law;

• To outline the historical back ground, powers, scope, and procedures given under
Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952;

• To analyse the Judicial approach to the legal issues arising from Commission of Inquiry
Act, 1952;

• To identify the bearing of Commission of Inquiry on Judiciary and Parliament.

5
INTRODUCTION – THE POWER TO HOLD INQUIRIES & INVESTIGATION
Administration in the country enjoys some specific sundry, but typical powers which enable
them to gather information for a better discharge of their assigned functions. To meet this
end, authorities are conferred with various powers by different statutes and among them is
one which enable them inter alia to hold inquiries and investigations. There are many
situations, when the administration conducts an inquiry or investigation into state of affairs
before it takes any action. Generally, both the terms ‘inquiry and investigation’ are used
interchangeably and the Indian statutes show no difference between the two. When
interpreted broadly, the term ‘Governmental investigation’ could include each and every
attempt of a governmental agency for securing information, but as far as administrative law is
concerned the term is used comparatively in a restrictive sense ‘primarily with administrative
investigations and public inquiries, and not scientific, commercial, agricultural or inquires of
similar character.’ In an expanded and intensified administration, it is obvious that the quest
for more factual information will gain momentum. Moreover, in the background of a more
complicated socio-economic life, effective remedial measures to specific problem can be
initiated only with the full possession of the relevant facts, information and figures, for which
investigation and inquiry become an inevitable tool. The collected data by the administration
could be used for the ‘purposes of rulemaking, licensing, adjudication of disputes, law
enforcement, supervision etc and besides this, an inquiry done to unearth the evidences of a
suspected breach of law could initiate prosecution against the concerned individual, if a
deviation from law is found. Also, inquiries are undertaken in cases to determine ‘the causes
of some specific happening or event or calamity which may have caused public disquiet, such
as, a serious air or rail accident, or military deficiencies, industrial disputes or business
depression, or a matter of administrative lapse like police firing.’ At times administration
could also hold inquiry to ventilate the grievances and objections affected by a particular
policy and also to ‘gauge public reaction to any proposed policy, scheme or proposal
sponsored or to be sponsored by the government.’ Thus in a myriad of situations,
administration resorts to inquiries and it constitutes as a significant machinery in assisting the
governmental functions.1 However, at the same time the techniques of inquiry seen as
advantageous, it is also to be looked from the viewpoint that, this power although being
basically informational as regards the administration, it is nevertheless coercive in character
as far as concerning the person against whom it is used. Even when the primary aim of
Administration, when appointing an inquiry officer to enquire into an individual’s affair
1
Alan Barth, GOVERNMENT BY INVESTIGATION, 17 (1973).

6
could lie in finding out whether there had been any lapse in conduct, but it may also cause
him harassment, put him in jeopardy, tarnish the reputation, physical inconvenience, mental
agony, adverse suffering to his business, financial expense to defend his action and if fault
found in his part, vulnerable to further proceedings. Thus, in the modern administrative
process, these powers of inquiries and investigation are of great consequence and it necessary
to ensure that it is subjected to proper safeguards so as to reconcile administrative exigencies
of holding inquiry and investigation into the conducts of an individual with his interests and
rights. This project therefore aims to understand the overview of administrative power of
holding inquiries, study the variants of inquiry procedures and finally to critically examine
the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 in order to identify the legal controversies underneath.

DIFFERENT VARIANTS OF INQUIRY PROCEDURES

An inquiry could be launched either administratively or under the power conferred by a
statute. In the latter case, the specific statute under which an inquiry is held determines the
inquiry procedure, its scope and purposes.

 ADMINISTRATIVE INQUIRIES
Government can initiate inquiries on an informal and adhoc basis in its administrative powers
without any statutory authority. For instance, Sarkar committee was appointed by the
government of India in September 1966 to inquire into frauds and irregularities by the
government employees in the iron and steel import and export and in another instance the
government of India constituted ad hoc committee for suggesting amendments in the
Company’s act. Such informal inquiries could be preferable in many situations to that of a
formal inquiry under the Commission of inquiry Act. An informal committee could be held in
private and confidence without any public gaze while commission of inquiry under the
commission of inquiry Act are usually held in public. Also, it is possible for an informal
committee to recommend actions on a redressal format but a formal of inquiry under the act
may not be able to do so. However, in such situations there could be doubt in the public mind
regarding the credibility of such inquiries and it is necessary to ensure enough confidence
upon an administrative inquiry that it is being fair and impartial specially when conducted by
government official. For such a purpose the machinery provided under the commission of
inquiry act 1952 are resorted. Even when a situation where an inquiry body appointed by the
government under its administrative powers it is possible to apply all or any provisions of
commissions of inquiry act to it by resorting to the Section 11 of the said act which says
“where any inquiry authority is appointed by the government (other than a commission under
7
S. 3, CI Act), to make an inquiry into a definite matter of public importance, the government
may by notification in the official gazette apply any provision of this Act to that authority. On
issue of such a notification, "the authority shall be deemed to be a commission appointed
under S. 3of this Act.”2 Such a course of action was resorted to in the case Newspaper inquiry
fact finding committee when a committee which intended to ascertain different elements of
total revenue earned by the newspapers had no power to direct anyone to answer the
questionnaire was extended with the provision of the commission of inquiry by the
government when it felt that information sought by the committee was necessary. In this
context reference could also be made to the case of Prafulla Chandra v. State3 wherein a
committee was appointed administratively for inquiring into a fire accident. Later when the
inquiry authority was conferred with specific powers under Section 5(1) and 11 of the CI Act,
the concerned persons moved with writ petitions in the high court alleging that there was
violation on the principle of natural justice. The court in this case ruled that although the
report by the inquiry commission by itself had no penal effect but the petitioners did suffer an
inquiry by the virtue of findings of the recommendations by the officer. The court observed
that “Though it was a fact finding body and did not perform any judicial function and the
findings arrived at by such commission are not enforceable proprio viqore and it was to
determine and regulate its own procedure of enquiry and there was no lis nor any
determination of lis, it has a duty to act following the principles of natural justice... which
duty had been cast upon it by the notification itself.” Similarly supporting this proposition in
the Pergamon Press4 case the Court observed that “the inquiry officer must see to the terms of
enquiry that the principles of natural justice and fair play are observed.”5 On other hand in the
case of Harekrishna Mehtab v. Chief Minister, Orissa6 a committee was appointed by the
government of Orissa administratively to inquire into the allegations made to the ex-chief
minister of Orissa . Writ of certiorari was moved by the alleged person Mehthab for quashing
the report and the very first question arosr before the court was that whether a writ could be
issued against Mudholkar, the commission head who was not appointed to inquire under a
statutory provision .The court referring to the case of R v. Criminal injuries Compensation
Board7 held that “this writ of certiorari could be issued against non-statutory body also.
2
Section 11, Commissions of inquiry act, 1952.
3
AIR 1988 Ori 18 LNIND 1986 ORI 23.
4
Re Pergamon Press Ltd., (1970) 3 All ER 535. See, JAIN, Cases, Chapter XVII, Sec. A.
5
State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Chandrashekhara, AIR 1988 SC 1309 : (1988) 3 SCC 534 : 1989 LIC 249.
6
AIR 1971 Ori 175; JAIN, Cases, Chapter XVII, Sec. A.
7
(1967) 2 QBD 864; also, infra, Vol. II, under Judicial Control & Certiorari.

8
Mudholkar was appointed by the state government by exercising its executive power for
assisting in arrival it’s on satisfaction as provided under Section 3 of the CI Act. The High
court clearly stated that although did not the committee did not constitute a statutory body a
writ of certiorari could be issue against it also of the viewed that the inquiry by the inquiry
officer also was purely administrative and not quasi-judicial in character.” This approach has
now been clearly sanctioned by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. W.N.
Chadh8 wherein it ruled that hearing cannot be claimed by the concerned person at the stage
of investigation, i.e., when the investigating officer is not deciding any matter but is merely
collecting evidence to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out against him or not,
and a full inquiry is to take place thereafter when the concerned person would have an
opportunity of being heard.”

 STATUTORY INQUIRIES
Administrative authorities are conferred with the power to undertake inquiries and
investigation under the powers conferred by a number of statutes under specific situation for
specific purposes. References can be made to Section 54 of the Dentists Act, 1948, The
Income Tax Act, 1961Sections 33 and 34 of the Inland Vessels Act, 1917, Industries
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, Banking Companies Act, 1949, The Indian
Companies Act, 1956, S. Section 107, Customs Act, 1962, S. Section 5A of the Land
Acquisition Act etc.

 PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY – Not effective due to political reasons

Under the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the two Houses of Parliament,
“committee appointed by a House in entitled to take oral or written evidence or call for
documentary evidence in connection with a matter under its consideration, examination or
investigation and a witness fails to appear before a committee when summoned or called by it
by a letter, or a person refuses to provide any document when so required by a committee, his
conduct constitutes contempt of the House and may be reported to the House by the
concerned committee.”9 While in theory such a parliamentary inquiry is explained on the
ground of government’s accountability to parliament, in practice such an inquiry is not
viewed that effective for the reason of possible attempts from the political party members to
magnify or mitigate the matter under enquiry depending on their party interests. In England a
similar procedure by which “parliamentary committees were used to investigate alleged
8
AIR 1993 SC 1082 : 1993 Supp (4) SCC.
9
260 KAUL & SHAKDHAR, Practice & Procedure of Parliament, Chapter XX (1991).

9
wrong doing in high places” was replaced with the Tribunal of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921,
since it was highly unsatisfactory due to political overtones. The Indian scenario, seeks to
minimize similar defects by resorting to the machinery envisaged under the Commissions of
Inquiry Act, 1952 which is analysed in the following head.

ANALYSIS OF THE COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY ACT, 1952

In India the Statute par excellence to conduct inquiry in various occasions is the
Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, (CI Act) which confers the power on Government to
appoint commissions of inquiry in variety of subjects.

 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

Prior to the enactment of CI act, it was either under executive orders or special legislations
that enquiring authorities were appointed and this setting up Commission of Inquiry each
time whenever the necessity arose was a tardy process. Detailing on the genesis of the Act,
the report of 24th Law commission of Indian mentions “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.” 10
Parliament enacted the Act by exercising its 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 states “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.”

 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.”11 Even when a question of law such as
admissibility of evidence has to be disposed of, the nature of inquiry is confined to the facts
and thus Commission is a fact-finding body entrusted to give its honest and impartial view of

10
24th Report of the Law, Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (1962).
11
Section 3, Commissions of inquiry act, 1952.

10
the truth or otherwise on a matter of public importance mentioned in the Notification.
Political rivals often engage in unfounded allegation on each other supported by a
propaganda to discredit governmental functioning and in return to this when the public gets
curious and entitled to be informed on the truth, the recommendation of a commission of
enquiry gains social and administrative relevance, though it may or may not be accepted by
the government. As observed in Dalmia’s Case “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.”12

Though the Commission does not function like a criminal or civil court, the CI Act in itself
confer some specific civil court powers to commission for its effective working. Under
Section 4 of the Act, “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.” 13 Also depending
on the circumstances of each case, Section 5(1) provides “additional powers to take the help
of criminal court maybe notified the government to facilitate the discharge of function by the
Commission and Section 5(2) makes penal provision for omission or refusal to furnish
information under Sections 177, 177, Indian Penal Code.” 14 In the case of The Statesman v.
Fact Finding Commission15,the court although upheld the “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, it also found that it
becomes invalid as no notification under Section 5(1) read with Section 11 was issued.”16

The Act has one of its unique features that it is “empowered under Section 8 to regulate its
own procedure subject to any rules framed under Section 12 of the Act”, unlike Courts which
are guided by laws of procedures either civil or criminal. This discretion is justified on the
grounds that “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
12
Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538.
13
Section 4, Commissions of inquiry act, 1952.
14
Section 5, Commissions of inquiry act, 1952.
15
AIR 1975 Cal. 14.
16
Ibid.

11
called upon to decide questions of facts and to find real truths as far as possible avoiding
legalism or formalism of” courts.”17 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 have 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 Bora’s18
case. The Supreme Court refused to interfere on the ground of natural justice for excluding
other members of the Cabinet but intervened in Kiran Bedi’s19 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.”

 LEGAL ISSUES ARISING UNDER THE ACT

Generally, the commissions are classified into two categories advisory and investigative. The
advisory commissions are appointed purely for the purpose of gathering information are
studying a problem or to suggest the government on the questions of public policy. On the
other hand, commissions which are appointed to inquire into the individual context are
characterised as investigative commissions and there lies a need to be drawn between the
conflicting interest of party and the nature of commission as discussed earlier. When such a
commission is appointed, the concerned individual often attempts to stop the function of
commission and raise a several objections and consequently a volume of case laws has been
formed in which the court decides on the validity of these objections elucidate the various
aspect relating to the functioning of commission of inquiries. A basic question regarding the
constitutional validity of CI Act was raised in the case of Dalmia Jain group wherein it was
alleged that the act was falling outside the legislative competence of Parliament. It was
contented that “while Parliament could make a law authorising the appointment of an inquiry
commission to ascertain facts with a view to undertake some legislation, it could not do so for
administrative purposes, much less for holding an enquiry into any wrongs alleged to have
been committed by individuals with a view to punish them.” Supreme Court rejected these
contentions and held that “the relevant entries empowered Parliament to enact a law for
holding inquires not only for legislative purposes but also for administrative purposes.” An
17
B.M. Prasad & Manish Mohan, THE COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY ACT, 1952- A CRITICAL ANALYSIS,
25 (2011).
18
Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Appeal, AIR 1958 SC 398.
19
Mrs. Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry, 1988 (3) SCC 609.

12
interesting question wherein the notification appointing commission of inquiry was
challenged on constitutional grounds arouse in the case of Border Security Force versus the
state of Meghalaya.20 It was contented by BSF in a writ petition that it being an armed force
was subjected to the control of central government and a commission of inquiry appointed by
state government could not be inquired into the matter of BSF. Overruling in the contention
the court held that “The mere fact of appointing such a commission does not interfere with
the Central Government's control over the B.S.F. inasmuch as the commission is merely a
factfinding body and its report has no binding effect. If the report finds anything wrong with
the working of the B.S.F., the matter would then have to be referred to the Central
Government for taking necessary corrective action.” In a similar point of center state division
of powers, the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Union of India21 ruled that “S. 3(1) of
the Commissions of Inquiry Act places restrictions on the appointment of commissions by the
Centre and the State simultaneously to inquire into the same subject matter. But there can be
no objection in both the Governments appointing separate inquiry commissions if the scope
of inquiry of both is different although the persons whose actions are to be inquired into are
the same for both the inquiries.” In the case of Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar22,
the question was that “whether the conduct of an individual be the subject matter of an
inquiry by a commission appointed under S. 3, CI Act” when the government appointed a
commission for enquiring into the affairs of Dalmia – Jain companies. It was contented that
“the phrase "definite matter of public importance", for enquiring into which a commission
could be appointed under S. 3 of the CI Act., did not envisage the conduct of an individual
person or a company as it could not possibly be a matter of public importance and far less a
definite matter of that kind.” Dismissing the argument the Supreme Court observed that “We
see no warrant for the proposition that a definite matter of public importance must necessarily
mean only some matter involving the public benefit or advantage in the abstract, e.g., public
health, sanitation or the like or some public evil or prejudice, e.g., floods, famine or
pestilence or the like. Quite conceivably the conduct of an individual person or company or a
group of individual persons or companies may assume such a dangerous proportion and may
so prejudicially affect or threaten to affect the public wellbeing as to make such conduct a
definite matter of public importance urgently calling for a full inquiry. In the tempo of the
prevailing conditions in modern society events occur which were never foreseen and it is

20
AIR 1989 Gau 81.
21
1978 SCR (2) 1.
22
AIR 1958 SC 538.

13
impossible for Parliament or any legislature to anticipate all events or to provide for all
eventualities and, therefore, it must leave the duty of taking necessary action to the
appropriate government.”

 COMMISSION VIS-À-VIS COURT AND PARLIAMENT

The Commission and Court fifer in is manner and nature of functions, purpose and results.
Unlike Courts, there is no prosecutor, accused, formality or procedural laws associated with
Commission wherein the all the roles of ‘investigator, prosecutor, defender and judge’ are
rolled into one. The absence of denote judgment pronouncing authority clearly distinguishes
court from commission. When the commission remove the veil of secrecy by projecting
materials behind the screen, the Court project their judgments on dressed up materials which
are projected for viewing by the parties in litigation. 23 It is well established the Courts can
penalize for past actions, but commission are not capable of recommending 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.”24 Since the commission function under a
statute, Court intervention in it is only possible on the ground of ultra vires abuse of power
under Act.25 Parliament or the state legislature has a major role in amending or passing the
Commissions of Inquiry Act as per the changing circumstances to give effect to the Act.
Whenever a ruling party evades the matter for hiding exposure, the opposition can give notice
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.’26

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

In a modern complex society, the need for public inquiry into political or social events cannot
be overemphasized and such multi-dimensional events will generally fall beyond the outline
of civil or criminal law. In matter of public significance, public inquiry could emerge as the

23
Sheela Barse v, Union of India, 1988 (4) SCC 226.
24
Kehar Singh v. Delhi Administration, 1988 (3) SCC 609.
25
Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 740.
26
B.M. Prasad & Manish Mohan, THE COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY ACT, 1952- A CRITICAL ANALYSIS,
25 (2011).

14
best resort and moreover the rationale of inquiry commission lies in the right of people to
know and be informed 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, thereby
rendering it not as a privilege or discretion of government, but a fundamental right of citizen.
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 of
course 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.

15
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
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).

BOOKS:

1. Alan Barth, GOVERNMENT BY INVESTIGATION (Viking Press, 1973).

2. B.M. Prasad & Manish Mohan, THE COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY ACT, 1952- A
CRITICAL ANALYSIS (Lexis Nexis Butterworths, 2011).

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 AND

POLITICAL WEEKLY (July 11th, 1988).

CASELAWS:

• Border Security Force versus the state of Meghalaya, AIR 1989 Gau 81

• HarekrishnaMehtabv. Chief Minister, Orissa AIR 1971 Ori 175

• Kehar Singh v. Delhi Administration, 1988 (3) SCC 609

• Krishnaballav Sahay v. Commission of Inquiry, AIR 1969 SC 258

• Mrs. Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry, 1988 (3) SCC 609

• Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Appeal, AIR 1958 SC 398

• Prafulla Chandra v. State AIR 1988 Ori 18

• R v. Criminal injuries Compensation Board (1967) 2 QBD 864

16
• Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538

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

• Sheela Barse v, Union of India, 1988 (4) SCC 226

• State of Karnataka v. Union of India 1978 SCR (2) 1

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

• Union of India v. W.N. Chadhe AIR 1993 SC 1082

17