Law and You > Criminal Laws > Criminology > Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952
The “Commission of Inquiry Act” is a legislative framework that enables the government to appoint commissions to investigate specific matters of public importance. These commissions are granted significant powers and resources to conduct inquiries, gather evidence, and make recommendations based on their findings. The objective is to ensure a fair and independent investigation into matters that require specialized expertise or are of significant public interest. The act covers practically all types of matters, it is not particular to any one type of matter. Matters to be inquired into must be definite public importance and must be determinate, distinct, and precise. It should not be vague. If the matters (or charges) to be inquired into are vague or speculative, the courts may intervene. On the whole, the courts are extremely liberal in upholding the action of the government.
Prior to the ratification of the “Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952”, the government would either issue an executive order, give notice in accordance with the “Public Servants Inquiries Act, 1850”, or create ad hoc committees to issue orders to the public.
This is a central legislation enacted under the constitution, Schedule VII, List I and III. This Act establishes commissions to look into issues that are relevant to, concern, or have an impact on the general public. This statute is applicable throughout India. When a commission is appointed by the federal or state governments and announced in the official gazette, only then does the act become operative.
The “Chagla Commission” was established by the Indian government to look into whether the money from the life insurance corporation of India has been used lawfully, and it is the first investigation to be conducted since India became independent.
On 3rd June, 2023, the Union Government of notified a Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 to inquire into the incidents of violence in the state of Manipur. The Commission shall make inquiry with respect to the causes and spread of the violence, which took place in Manipur, and whether there were any lapses on the part of any of the responsible authorities or individuals.
Objectives of the Act:
The government-approved technique was discovered to be onerous and flawed. In order to meet the constantly expanding need for public inquiries by the unbiased and independent authority. As a result, it was deemed necessary to craft an appropriate act on the issue, which led to the introduction of the “Commission of Inquiry bill, 1952”, in parliament. The Act authorizes the central and state governments to appoint inquiry commissions to make inquiries in the definite matters of public importance.
Appointment of Commission:
Under Section 3 of the Act, an inquiry commission can be appointed by an appropriate government when it is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do, or if a resolution is passed by the house of people (lok sabha) or a state legislative assembly as the case may be. The appointment of the commission is to be made by a notification in the official gazette. Where a resolution of the house of people or of a state legislative assembly is passed asking for the appointment of a commission of inquiry, government is bound to make such appointment. However, no mandamus can be issued to compel a government to appoint a commission where there is no resolution of legislature. It is so because the act uses the word shall appoint (mandatory) where a resolution is passed by the legislature, whereas it uses the word may (discretionary) in other cases.
Object of Inquiry Commission:
Matters to be inquired into must be definite public importance and must be determinate, distinct, and precise. It should not be vague. If the matters (or charges) to be inquired into are vague or speculative, the courts may intervene. On the whole, the courts are extremely liberal in upholding the action of the government.
Scope of Inquiry Commission:
The purpose of these inquiries has been to ascertain facts so that if any malpractices or problems are revealed, corrective legislative or administrative action, may be taken by the government.
Powers of Inquiry Commission:
According to Section 4 of the Act the Commission shall have the powers of a civil court, while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), in respect of the following matters, namely:—
- summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person from any part of India] and examining him on oath;
- requiring the discovery and production of any document;
- receiving evidence on affidavits;
- requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or office;
- issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents;
- any other matter which may be prescribed.
Period of Commission:
Period of duration of a commission must be stated in the notification. If the notification does not contain it, the defect can be cured by issuing another notification.
Report by Commission:
The findings of such commissions are normally tabled in the Assembly or Parliament, depending on who constituted it. However, the government is not bound to make the report public. The findings are not binding on the executive wither, but can be relied upon by courts as evidence.
Amendments:
Due to the loopholes in the original Act, there was a need to amend this act quite a few times and due to the flexibility in the constitution of our country, it was made possible. The Act has been amended over five times:
- The Commissions of Inquiry (Amendment) Act, 1971 (79 of 1971)
- The Delegated Legislation Provisions (Amendment) Act, 1985 (4 of 1986)
- The Commission of Inquiry (Amendment) Act, 1986 (36 of 1986)
- The Commissions of Inquiry (Amendment) Act, 1988 (63 of 1988)
- The Commissions of Inquiry (Amendment) Act, 1990 (19 of 1990)
Quasi-Judicial functions of Commission:
In Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia vs Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538 case, the Court held that although a commission of inquiry has been given powers of a court for some purposes, it is not a court and its functions is not judicial. The reasons for holding it to be an administrative are:
- there may not be any dispute before the commissions.
- it does not decide anything conclusively but merely gives its findings.
- there is no appeal against its findings.
- it does not follow the adversary procedure but is essentially inquisitorial in its approach.
The act however says that any proceedings of a commission shall be deemed judicial proceedings within the meanings of Section 193 and 228 of IPC. It was held in Kiran Bedi v Committee of Inquiry, AIR 1989 SC 714 that a commission of inquiry was a tribunal for the purpose of Article.
In the State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed, AIR 1967 SC 122 case, where the Commission of Inquiry was appointed by the state government against the CM for enquiring into the abuse of his power and position. The appointment of the Commission was upheld by the court on the ground that the cleanliness of the public life in which the public should be vitally interested must be a matter of public importance even if the person in question has ceased to be a Minister or CM.
In the State of Karnataka V. UOI, AIR 1978 SC 68 case, where an Inquiry Commission appointment by the Union Government to inquire into certain allegations of corruption and misuse of the Government power by the CM and a few Ministers. The Supreme Court held the appointment of the commission if valid.
Lentin Committee Report Under the Commission of Inquiry Act:
In January–February 1986, 14 patients well on the road to recovery in Mumbai’s government- run JJ Hospital suddenly died, showing identical symptoms after consuming a routine medicine glycerine (or glycerol), an anti-oedema drug used to combat swelling. The glycerine was laced with industrial glycol, a chemical which attacks the kidneys and kills quickly. These deaths may not have come to public notice but for the Maharashtra Times story on it, broken by journalist Jagan Phadnis. The public furore that followed compelled the Maharashtra government to announce the institution of an enquiry commission, led by a sitting judge of the Bombay High Court, Justice B. Lentin, and presumed that the matter would blow over. It did not, and for several years thereafter, the Justice Lentin Commission of Inquiry remained the focus of intense and unprecedented public and media interest.
The commission’s sittings ran on for one-and-a-half years. The Commission report, made public in March 1988, after much prevarication by the state government, is the first official document of its kind providing a rare and detailed insight into the state of public health system. Its pages describe the ‘ugly facets of the human mind and human nature, projecting errors of judgement, misuse of ministerial power and authority, apathy towards human life, corruption, nexus and quid pro quo between unscrupulous license holders, analytical laboratories, elements in the Industries Department controlling the awards of rate contracts; manufacturers, traders, merchants, suppliers, Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) and persons holding ministerial rank. The commission revealed how the system of drug purchase and licensing was vulnerable to the pressures of vested interests.
The commission provided an important understanding of the drug purchase system followed in our public hospitals. Kept deliberately obtuse and secretive, its rules left to individual caprice, it facilitated racketeering and money-making right down the line, at huge public cost. The absence of checks to ensure that quality drugs reached the public was revealed with painful clarity during the commission’s investigations. At that time there were only four government-owned drug-testing laboratories in the country and in order to cope with the huge workload the government appointed ‘government approved’ private laboratories that certified the purity of drugs.
Looking beyond the specific JJ Hospital episode, the commission then expanded its scope to a thorough probe into the state of the public health system in Maharashtra. Over 10 politicians, which included health ministers past and present, MPs, and MLAs, interfered in the workings of the FDA and harmed public interest by the protection they gave to manufacturers of substandard drugs.
The Lentin report strongly indicted then health minister Bhai Sawant who was charged with gross ministerial interference, favouritism for extraneous considerations, and misuse of power, while irresistible inference of corruption was also drawn against him. The commission found that the ‘government machinery was utilized by these politicians to extort money from the drugs industry to inflate the coffers of private trusts with which the ministers were associated.
Conclusion:
Commissions of Inquiry can be constituted by both the Central and State Governments, but the State Government can constitute ‘Commissions of Inquiry’ only on those subjects on which it is empowered to make laws. If a Commission is constituted earlier by the Central Government on any subject, the State Government cannot constitute another parallel Commission of Inquiry on the same subject without the approval of the Central Government. The Commission constituted by the Government under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952, shall have the same powers as a ‘Civil Court’ during the trial of a case under the ‘Code of Civil Procedure’, 1908. A Commission constituted by the Central Government may inquire into any matter relating to any entry included in List-I (Union List) or List-II (State List) or List-III (Concurrent List) in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Whereas, commissions set up by the State Governments can inquire into matters relating to entries included in List-II or List-III of the ‘Seventh Schedule’. The findings of such commissions are usually presented to the Legislative Assembly or Parliament, depending on who constitutes the commission. The government is not bound to make the report of the commission public. And although the findings of the Commission are not binding on the executive, these findings may be relied upon as evidence by the courts.