Commissions of Inquiry: The Act of 1952, Powers, Procedure and How a Commission Differs from a Court

The Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952

Section 3 empowers the appropriate Government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry for the purpose of making an inquiry into any definite matter of public importance, and makes such appointment obligatory where a resolution to that effect is passed by the House of the People or the Legislative Assembly of the State. Section 4 confers on the Commission the powers of a civil court trying a suit in respect of summoning and enforcing attendance, requiring the discovery and production of documents, receiving evidence on affidavit, requisitioning public records and issuing commissions for examination of witnesses. Section 5, where the Government so declares, confers additional powers including requiring a person to furnish information, entry and search, and seizure. Section 5(4) deems the Commission to be a civil court for specified purposes, and section 5(5) deems its proceedings to be judicial proceedings within sections 193 and 228 of the Penal Code. Section 6 provides that a statement made by a person before the Commission shall not subject him to any civil or criminal proceeding, except a prosecution for giving false evidence. Section 8 requires the Commission to regulate its own procedure. Section 8B requires that where the Commission proposes to prejudicially affect the reputation of any person, it shall give him a reasonable opportunity of being heard and of producing evidence in his defence, and section 8C entitles such a person and the appropriate Government to be represented by a legal practitioner.

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

Facts: A Commission of Inquiry was appointed under the Act to inquire into the affairs of certain companies and the conduct of the persons controlling them. The appointment was challenged on several grounds, including that the Act permitted the selection of particular individuals for inquiry and so offended Article 14, and that the Commission was in substance exercising judicial power without the safeguards of a trial.

Held: A Constitution Bench upheld the Act and the appointment. It held that a Commission of Inquiry is a fact-finding body appointed to collect material and to make a report to the Government; it is not a court, it has no power to adjudicate upon the rights of any person, its findings are not enforceable, and they do not by themselves impose any liability or affect any legal right. The Commission's function is to inform the mind of the Government, and the Government may or may not act on the report. Because the Commission decides nothing, the objection that it exercises judicial power without the safeguards of a trial does not arise; the safeguards appropriate to it are those of fair procedure in the inquiry, not those of adjudication. On Article 14, the Court held that the selection of a definite matter of public importance for inquiry does not offend equality, and laid down its well-known propositions on the presumption of constitutionality and permissible classification.

Ratio: A Commission of Inquiry is a fact-finding body whose function is to inform the Government. It is not a court, decides nothing, and its findings create no rights and impose no liability.

📖 State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, AIR 1967 SC 122

Facts: A Commission of Inquiry was appointed to inquire into allegations against a former Chief Minister. Evidence was received by the Commission on affidavit, and the person whose conduct was in question claimed the right to cross-examine the deponents of the affidavits and to be heard fully before any adverse finding was recorded against him.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the Commission was bound to act fairly but was not required to follow the procedure of a trial. It held that since a Commission is not a court and its proceedings do not determine rights, it is entitled to regulate its own procedure under section 8, and may receive evidence on affidavit; a person against whom allegations are made is entitled to be informed of the material and to have a reasonable opportunity to meet it, which includes the opportunity to file affidavits in reply and to address the Commission. The Court held that a general right to cross-examine every deponent does not follow automatically, but where the credibility of a witness is central and the material is likely to result in an adverse finding affecting reputation, fairness may require it. The essential requirement is that the person be given a real opportunity to answer what is alleged before any finding prejudicial to him is recorded.

Ratio: A Commission is not bound by the procedure of a trial and may regulate its own procedure, but it must act fairly: a person likely to be prejudicially affected must be told the material and given a real opportunity to answer, now reinforced by section 8B.

Source

Appointed by the Government under section 3, or obligatorily on a legislative resolution

Established by the Constitution or a statute as part of the judiciary

Function

Fact-finding and reporting

Adjudication of rights and liabilities

Initiated by

The Government or the legislature

A party who invokes the jurisdiction

Parties

There are no parties; the inquiry is inquisitorial

There are opposed parties in an adversarial proceeding

Procedure

Regulates its own procedure; not bound by the Evidence Act

Bound by the Code and the Evidence Act

Evidence

May be received on affidavit; the Commission may collect material itself

Led by the parties and tested by cross-examination

Effect of the findings

Recommendatory; create no rights and impose no liability

Binding and enforceable

Protection to witnesses

Section 6 protects a statement from use in civil or criminal proceedings

No such protection; evidence may be used

Appeal

None; the report may be challenged only on limited grounds

Appeal or revision as provided

Purpose

To inform the Government and the public about what happened and why

To decide a dispute between the parties before it

Can examine systemic failure, which no criminal trial does

Findings are recommendatory and frequently not acted upon

Can compel any person and any document, unlike a committee

Proceedings are often protracted, and reports arrive long after the event

Independent of the department implicated

Appointed by the Government, which also frames the terms of reference

Produces a public record of what happened

Reports are sometimes not laid before the legislature promptly

Protects witnesses under section 6, so candour is possible

Section 6 also means the evidence cannot be used in a prosecution

Can recommend structural reform as well as identify fault

A commission may be appointed to defer a difficult question rather than to answer it

⚠ The report is material, not a verdict

The single most misunderstood feature of a commission is the status of its report. Because commissions are often headed by a retired Judge, take evidence and record findings about named individuals, their reports are read as though they were judgments. They are not. A commission decides nothing, its findings bind nobody, they are not evidence in any subsequent proceeding, and a person adversely named is not thereby guilty of anything; equally, a person exonerated is not thereby acquitted, and a prosecution on the same facts is unaffected. What the report is, and it is a good deal, is an authoritative public account, compiled with the power to compel evidence, on which the Government, the legislature and the public can act.