Whither commissions of inquiry

The Thoothukudi firing gave rise to the demand for probe by a Commission of Inquiry by a sitting judge of the High Court for yet another time. The government’s response was to appoint a commission headed by Justice Aruna Jagadeesan, a retired Judge of the High Court. When serious allegations are made against the state machinery, public interest litigations are filed seeking CBI inquiry, and the Delhi High Court having directed the National Human Rights Commission to look into the complaints, is it proper for the government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry? What is the real motive and what will be the outcome of such commissions?

Under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952, the Union government can order for an inquiry in respect of all items provided in List I and III of Schedule VII of the Constitution. The State governments are empowered to order a Commission of inquiry in respect of items in List II and List III of Schedule VII. Many a time, commissions are appointed simultaneously by both the Centre and the State so as to frustrate the effort of one or the other. Though it has the powers of the Civil Court, a Commission’s report, to be submitted merely to the Legislature, is not binding. Under Section 3(4), it will be placed before a House with action taken report within six months – which is breached often.

The time limit fixed under the Act has no meaning because many commissions have become self-perpetuating bodies. An inquiry ordered under the Act is an eye wash. The Commission is a toothless tiger, which is most often appointed to ward off public protest. The presiding officers – either a retired judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court – are often either anxious to give a report in favour of the State or they perpetuate their tenure by frequent adjournments, thus frustrating the effort to find out the truth regarding a matter of public importance. A classic example is the Liberhan Commission, which continued for more than 18 years. Once Sanjay Gandhi called a Commission report as an FIR and nothing more. Many reports are gathering dust in the corridors of Secretariats of Central and State governments.

Of late, people have lost their faith in the Commissions. There is an increased demand for appointing a sitting judge to head such panels, as happened in the case of Paramakudi firing. But the government appointed only a retired judge, which had led to the affected parties boycotting the Commission (2011). After two extensions, the commission submitted its report, justifying police firing.

In Fenn Walter Vs. Union of India (2002), the Supreme Court had directed that a sitting judge would be relieved to take charge as a Commission only on matters of grave national importance, and not as a routine. Thus, despite demands for a sitting judge to head, the government of the day invariably chooses one of the available superannuated judges, thus not satisfying those who demand the inquiry.

Such an inquiry will succeed only when the government is interested in the outcome, or when the Commissioner is an upright person interested in unearthing the truth.

Justice Venugopal Commission (1982) that went into the Mandaikkadu incident came out with a report adverse to the minorities. The government then promptly amended the Panchayat Rules to provide for District Collectors prior permission to establish a place of worship. Largely, this affected only the minorities while the majority Hindus never had any qualms about building temples even in public places.

Justice Ismail Commission (1977), which went into the jail atrocities in the Chennai prison, indicted several jail officers. But as there was change in the government (AIADMK), these officers were given promotions, indirectly rewarding tortures.

Justice Maruthamuthu was appointed when the Scheduled Caste groups sought to know the real status of thousands of acres of Panchami lands (given to them for cultivation and enjoyment, and recorded as DC land in revenue records, which are inalienable) that have changed hands to non-Dalits. Unfortunately, after his death no new commission was appointed. After a lot of noise, the government quietly downgraded its status and appointed a retired IAS official. Even after several months, there is no progress in the matter, and the Panchami lands continue to be enjoyed by non-Dalits.

In Thoothukudi firing, the High Courts are seized of the matter and there are demands for an outside agency to investigate. Even the bodies are directed to be kept in the mortuary for further investigation. If it is going to result in a criminal investigation, the time factor for investigation by any agency is most crucial. At that stage, appointment of an inquiry commission will only delay the process of criminal investigation followed by a prompt trial.

When 17 persons who were escaping from police lathicharge drowned in Tamirabarani river in Tirunelveli, retired Supreme Court judge, Justice S Mohan, was appointed as the Commission. Even before its appointment, the affected parties had moved the HC for a second post-mortem examination, and also sought CBI investigation. A division bench comprising Justice K G Balakrishnan (Chief Judge-as he then was) and Justice K Sampath dismissed the writ petition on the ground that such requests can be made after Commission submitted its report. As expected, the Commission blamed the Dalits and their leaders and whitewashed the role of the police.

In such matters, if an investigation is not done expeditiously and honestly by an impartial agency, the outcome will be hampered and the issue will fizzle out. But governments have consistently stonewalled inquiries by an impartial investigating agency and adopted dilatory tactics. The request for CBI investigation into Paramakudi firing was turned down by the High Court by referring the appointment of Justice Sampath Commission.

Rajaji once remarked when you want to delay the matter or to keep it pending, appoint a commission of inquiry. The state government has faithfully followed it in all its inquiry commission appointments, involving extraordinary expenditure of public funds for such a wasteful extravaganza.