2020-2021

CONSTITUTIO
NAL LAW
 The Commission of Inquiry
Act

SUBMITTED BY- SUBMITTED TO-

HARSH BHAI PATEL DR.NITIN AGARWAL
SECTION-A FACULTY OF LAW
ROLL NO.- 180010450033 UNIVERSITY OF
B.A. LL.B. HONS. LUCKNOW
FACULTY OF LAW
UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW
 CONTENT

S.no TOPIC Pg.no.

.
1 Introduction 02

2 BACKGROUND OF THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY ACT 02

3 THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY ACT 03

4 OBJECT OF THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY ACT 05

5 CONCLUSION 06

6 REFERENCES 07
INTRODUCTION

“we have a body independent of the department, whose decisions (Subject to any appeal to
the courts) bind the department. In addition, though not a court of law, the body in question
exercises an adjudicatory function akin to that of the courts. Such a body is a tribunal.”1

The expanding role of the modern welfare state needs a good system of governance which
enables the governments to ascertain certain facts from situations that develop, thus the
government requires full and first-hand information. For this cause, they set up inquiries that
probe into specific matters that concern the public and the Government itself.

BACKGROUND OF THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY ACT

More than two decades ago, there was a book written by Lord Hewart, an eminent British
politician and judge, called ‘The New Despotism’ and this was followed by the establishment
of a committee called the Donoughmore Committee. This Committee enquired into the
exercise of certain ministerial powers and the wide powers that they have which might lead to
the violation of human rights of citizens due to abuse and misuse of discretionary powers.
The Franks Committee, which is a significant committee when studying about the birth of
inquiry commissions is discussed, had similar views to the Donoughmore one.

In 1957 the Franks Committee was appointed by the British lord chancellor to study
administrative tribunals and such procedures as the holding of a public inquiry. The
committee declared that the work of administrative tribunals and of public inquiries should be
characterized by openness, fairness, and impartiality, and their report applied these aims in
great detail. The recommendations of the committee were largely accepted and resulted in the
Tribunals and Enquiries Act of 1958.

Thusthese two committees were landmark ones in the same study field. Other than to check
the trampling of human rights, the perversion of justice and the denial of redress against the
immense powers of the State and other such matters, they also looked into the growth of the
tribunal system and whether it was doing well for the nations.

The Franks Committee, head by Sir Oliver Franks, had to make a choice between two
conflicting attitudes, that of legal and administrative. It was also required of them to examine

1Foulkes, Administrative Law (5th edn.,19820), p.127

1 | Page
statutory tribunals and administrative processes including inquiry procedures. Their report
observed that:

“We consider that tribunals should properly be regarded as machinery provided by

Parliament for adjudication rather than as part of the machinery of administration. The
essential point is that in all these cases Parliament has deliberately provided for a decision
independent of the department concerned… And the intention of Parliament to provide for
the independence of tribunals is clear and unmistakable”2

The Committee gave a few recommendations as follows:

1. Tribunals were to be remade in the image of the ordinary courts

2. Chairmen must be legally qualified
3. Following of proper procedure is must
4. hearings should be public
5. Right to legal representation and legal aid must be given

In brief, the Committee through its recommendations, to curb maladministration, by the

application of procedural values of openness, fairness and impartiality, the Committee aimed
to guide tribunals to an “ideal” type of adjudication.

P.Birkinshaw critiqued the Franks Commission report to be failing at being able to scrutinize
the wide area of departmental decision making and tackle the “overtly collective dimensions”
to public decision making.3

THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY ACT

In India, before the Commission of Inquiry Act was enacted, the Governments used to set-up
committee and commissions by executive order. The Commissions of Inquiry Act provides
for the appointment of commissions of inquiry and for vesting them with certain powers.
Appropriate Commissions are formed when the Government deems it necessary, and if each
house of the Parliament passes the resolution for the same.

SCOPEOF THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY ACT

2Law and Administration by Carol Harlow, Richard Rawlings

3P.Birkinshaw, Grievances , Remedies and the State, 1995

2 | Page
It is for the purpose of making an inquiry into any matter of public importance and
performing such functions and within such time as may be specified in the notification, and
the Commission so appointed shall make the inquiry and perform the functions accordingly.
Provided that where any such Commission has been appointed to inquire into any matter

1. No state government shall appoint another Commission to inquire into the same
matter if the Commission by the Central Government is functioning. (except in the
case where the approval of the Central Government to do the same is taken)
2. No Central Government shall appoint another commission while the Commission
appointed by the State Government is functioning (except in the case where the
Central Government feels the need of the expansion of the scope of inquiry to larger
than one state)

The Commission comprises of one or more members appointed by the appropriate

government, and one of the members shall be appointed as Chairman.4

OBJECT OF THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY ACT

The Powers of the Commission are on the same level and of similar nature as the powers of a
civil court when the case concerned is tried under the Code of Civil Procedure,1908. The
matters are as follows:

1. to summon and enforce the attendance of any person from any part of India, and to
examine him on oath
2. to require the discovery and production of any documents
3. to receive evidence on affidavits
4. to requisition any public record or copy of it from any office or court
5. to issue commissions for the examination or witness of documents
6. to carry out any other prescribed matters5

Other than these powers, there are also additional powers given to the Commissions of
Inquiry, such as the power to require the furnishing of information even from the individuals
that have claimed a certain privilege for the time being, if the Commission feels there is
crucial information with that individual. Another is the power to enter any building or place
4THE COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY ACT, 1952, Section 3(2)

5THE COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY ACT, 1952, Section 4

3 | Page
where the Commission has reason to believe that there is evidence present such as documents
or books of accounts.

IMPORTANCEOF THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY ACT

The importance of Commissions of Inquiry can be briefly summarized in three points as

follows:

1. The machinery of the government to inquire into a definite matter of public

importance
2. To collect such relevant material as it may and make a report to the Government,
along with its own views and recommendations
3. To inform the mind of the Government and to enable it to take such actions as it may
in the circumstances think fit

The first two points are important, but the third point carries a lot of weight and gives the
Commissions of Inquiry greater significance as they play a role in influencing government
orders and policies, through the help of the findings of the Commissions.

The Supreme Court emphasizes the importance of findings of a Commission of Inquiry in the
case of Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia vs. Justice SR Tendolkar and ors 6 wherein it is stated
that “The whole purpose of setting up a Commission of Inquiry consisting of experts will be
frustrated and the elaborate process of inquiry will be deprived of its utility if the opinion and
advice of the expert body as to the measures the situation disclosed calls for cannot be placed
before the Government for consideration notwithstanding that doing so cannot be to the
prejudice of anybody because it has no force of its own.

In our view, the recommendations of., the Commission of Inquiry are of great importance to
the Government in outer to enable it to make up its mind as to what legislative and
administrative measures should be adopted to eradicate the evil found or to implement the
beneficial objects it has in view.”

The inquiry which received wide popularity was the “Mundhra Inquiry” which led to the
resignation of the then Finance Minister. This inquiry held by a commission consisting of a
single member, the former Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, Mr M. C. Chagla, related
6(AIR 1958 SC 538)

4 | Page
to certain investments of the funds of the Life Insurance Corporation of India alleged to have
been improperly made.

In the case of P.V Jagannath Rao vs. State of Orissa, there was a question that was put forth
the Supreme Court, which was whether the inquiry instituted by the government related to the
same matter which was already pending under a civil suit in the stage of First Appeal before
the High Court, whether such a suit amounted to usurpation of functions of Courts of Law.

The court opined that “the inquiry and the investigation by the commission do not, therefore,
amount to usurpation of the function of the courts of law. The scope of the trial by the courts
of law and the Commission of Inquiry is altogether different. In any case, it cannot be said
that the Commission of Inquiry would be liable for contempt of court if it proceeded to
enquire into matters referred to it by the Government Notification.

In appointing a Commission of Inquiry under S.3 of the Act, the Orissa Government is
exercising a statutory power and in making the inquiry contemplated by the notification, the
commission is performing its statutory duty”7

CONCLUSION

As we have seen that how the Commission of Inquiries Act, 1952 works, its purpose of
formation, powers, procedure, appointments, current status its amendment, etc. but even after
amending it for five-time the loopholes were not eradicated till now because of the possibility
that we still don’t have any established permanent body. In order to dodge multiplicity of
commissions and to have a uniform structure or procedure, it seems necessary that there
should be a permanent body or organization should be there to integrate all the activities of
the commissions like it is there in England when they enacted the inquiries act in 1958 they
created a permanent body called Councils of Tribunals. Also to maintain uniformity in the
laws it is suggested that instead of authorizing central government or state governments to
fabricate rules for the procedure to be ratified by the commissions, the Government of India
should make an extensive set of rules which are applicable to all the commissions present
also it will help in reducing or eradicating chaos among members and will develop a sense of

7A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 215.)

5 | Page
belongingness in the system. After implementing these changes as mentioned above, there
might be a possibility that the proper functioning of the system can be accomplished.

REFERENCES

1. Law Commission of India, 24 Report on The Commissions of Inquiry Act, (December

1962) 2. Problems Arising Under Commissions of Inquiry Act Author: B. Sharma

3. Committee on Administrative Tribunals and Enquiries Author: J. A. G. Griffith

4. Central Inquiry And State Ministers’ Accountability Author: V.P. Bharatiya

5. Commissions Of Enquiry In India Author: Om Prakash Motiwal

6 | Page