By Act no. 60 of 1952, the parliament of India enacted an act with the title the Commission of Inquiry Act 1952, which was extended to the whole of India from the 16th of January 1953.

The commission of inquiry act 1952, serve as crucial and important legislation for the effective administration which enable the central and state government to establish commission for investigating matter of public importance and play a significant role in fact-finding, addressing administrative failure, corruption, human right violation and large scale public grievance as this act provide investigative power similar to those of a civil court which include summoning witness collecting evidence and requisitioning public record, it also has several limitation that effect its overall effectiveness.

When we look into the intention of legislation to make this act, it give idea to promote accountability and good governance by investigating instance of misuse of power, violation of trust and policy failures.it serve as foundation for policy recommendation and legal reforms by helping the government to address systemic weaknesses and prevent future administrative lapse.

Additionally, the act plays an important role in maintaining public confidence and reinforcing trust in democratic institutions by impartial and transparent inquiries in serious and sensitive matters. Furthermore, it also provides recommendations for corrective measures, which can lead to improvement in public administration and law enforcement. So, the act is a vital instrument for ensuring accountability, transparency, and governance reform in India.

Legal framework and investigation power

• Authority to establish a commission
Section 3 of the Commission of Inquiry Act 1952 establishes the procedure for appointing a commission of inquiry and specifying the condition on which the central and state government are empowered to initiate an investigation into a matter of public importance. The government has the discretion to set up a commission if it deems it necessary; however, if there is a resolution passed by both houses of the parliament or the state legislature, then the government is legally bound to constitute the commission.

The terms, function, and duration of the inquiry must be clearly defined in the official notification published in the official gazette. To prevent overlapping investigations, the act restricts multiple inquiries into the same issue. That is when the central government appointed a commission, a state cannot establish a parallel inquiry without obtaining prior approval from the central government.

The composition of the commission comprises one and two members, with the government designating a chairman, and if a vacancy arises at any stage, the government is authorised to appoint a replacement to ensure the continuity of the inquiry. Once the commission completes its investigation, it must submit a detailed report to the appropriate government. To promote transparency and accountability, the government must present the report before the parliament or the state legislature within six months, along with a memorandum detailing the action taken based on the finding.
 
• Power similar to a civil court
Section 4 of the Commission of the Inquiry Act 1952 grants the commission authority similar to that of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

These powers enable the commission to investigate effectively by:
• Summoning witnesses and recording statements
• Requisitioning public records and documents
• Examining evidence and affidavits
One of the key powers of the commission is the authority to summon individuals from anywhere in India and examine them under oath. Furthermore, it has the power to obtain public records or certified copies from government offices or courts, which ensures access to official documents necessary for the inquiry. These powers make the commission of inquiry a judicial body, equipping it with legal tools to conduct thorough investigations of public importance.
 
• Right of affected persons in commission proceedings
Sections 8B and 8C of the Commission of the Inquiry Act, 1952 ensure fairness and due process for individuals whose conduct or reputation may be affected by the inquiry. Section 8B mandates that such individuals must be allowed to be heard and present evidence in their defense, whereas Section 8C further allows them to cross-examine witnesses, address the commission, and seek legal representation. These sections uphold natural justice, ensuring that no one is unfairly harmed by the inquiry process while maintaining the credibility and transparency of the commission proceedings.

In the case, the Supreme Court of India held that the natural justice principle extends beyond the judicial function, i.e., it is not limited to the judicial bodies only but also applicable to the executive and administrative bodies.4

Scope and effectiveness
It establish to examine the matter of public importance how ever, there is lack in the enforcement of finding and the recommendation as they are not legally binding and their effectiveness depend on government action and public pressure to implement suggested reform.5

Let's look into the detail factor:

• Jurisdiction and Limitations The Commission can investigate issues of national or state concern that include corruption, administrative failure, and human rights violations. Their impact largely depends on government action, media attention, and public pressure. However, the lack of enforcement power, unlike the judicial body, means it cannot enforce punishment or verdicts but can only provide a fact-finding report. The government retains discretion over whether to act on their recommendations.
   
• Influence on Governance and Policy Although the commission does not have direct enforcement power, it plays a significant role in shaping policies, improving governance, and driving legal reform. By investigating critical public matters, they highlight systematic inefficiencies, administrative lapses, and corruption, leading to policy amendments and institutional restructuring. Some commissions established for public matters include:
  • Justice Sarkaria Commission (1983) – Established for the assessment of Centre-State relations, influencing subsequent constitutional and administrative adjustments.
  • Justice Ranganatha Mishra Commission (1984) – Investigated the anti-Sikh riots of 1984, leading to compensation policies and a rehabilitation program for the victims.
  • Nanavati Commission (2002) – Investigated the Gujarat riots; though controversial, its findings influenced judicial deliberations and policy responses related to communal violence.
  • Justice Verma Committee (2012) – Played a crucial role in reforming criminal law in India by suggesting stricter laws on sexual offenses, leading to the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, which imposed tougher penalties for crimes against women and led to the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act (POCSO), 2012.
     
• Comparison with Judicial and Legislative Inquiries Unlike judicial commissions, which have binding power (such as those formed under Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution), commissions under this Act primarily serve an advisory role. Legislative committees, like parliamentary standing committees, provide strong oversight functions, including compelling government agencies to respond to their findings.
   
• Role of Media and Public Participation The media plays an important role in highlighting commission reports and mobilizing public opinion. Public participation, such as petitions, protests, and RTI applications, can pressure the government to act on commission findings. For example, the Justice Verma Committee (2012) on the Criminal Law Amendment after the Nirbhaya case demonstrated how public engagement can drive policy changes based on commission recommendations.

Limitation of the Commission's investigation powers

As the above, the commission of inquiry under the commission of inquiry act 1952 play a vital role in investigating matter of the public importance but the effectiveness is significantly restricted by the legal, procedural and structural limitation.as these commission is not the judicial bodies due to which it lack the enforcement authority, which make them to dependant on the government for implementing their recommendation.

The following are the factors that weaken the impact of he power of the commission:

• Lack of enforcement authority The fundamental limitation of the commission of inquiry is that it cannot prosecute or penalise the individual or institution found guilty of wrongdoing. The court has the authority to convict and penalise the offender for the commission of the offence. The commission of inquiry is limited to the fact-finding body that investigates specific issues and submits reports with recommendations.
   
• The non-binding nature of reports The findings and recommendations suggested or reported by the Commission of Inquiry are not legally binding on the government. This means it all depends on the government for the implementation by accepting completely, modifying, or completely ignoring their report without any justification or any legal consequence.
   
• Delays in investigation and report submission Many years have passed for the proper and completing investigation and submission of reports to the authority. Such delay in the submission leaves the impact in grave danger and reduces the relevance and impact of their finding, allowing evidence to be lost and the responsible individual to escape accountability.
    Example: The Liberhan Commission (1992) took 17 years to investigate the Babri Masjid demolition, which led to changes in the political landscape of the situation and left little impact. Such delays weaken public trust in the commission and allow implicated individuals to manipulate the system to avoid responsibility.
   
• Political interference in the commission appointment and functioning The commission of inquiry is appointed by the central or state government, and its composition and functioning are often determined by political considerations. The discretion is that the government may appoint individuals who align with their interest, which raises the concern of bias and impartiality. Additionally, the commission may avoid investigating politically sensitive issues thoroughly due to pressure from the ruling government.
   
• Limited resources and investigative infrastructure Commissions of inquiry lack resources, including a dedicated team, forensic experts, and financial resources to conduct investigations. This insufficiency makes them rely on government agencies, which can lead to conflicts of interest and a lack of independent findings.

Need for reforms and strengthening the system

We determine the limitation of the commission due to its adversely affected the investigation by the legal loopholes, political interference, procedural delays and lack of accountability. To tackle these limitations and make these commissions more effective, several structural and procedural reforms are necessary, like strengthening their legal authority, reducing external influence, ensuring timely completion of inquiries, improving coordination with investigative agencies, and enhancing transparency, which can significantly improve their effectiveness.

Understanding these points in a wider perspective one by one:

1. Making their recommendation legally binding in specific cases We can say that one of the biggest limitations of the Commission of Inquiry is that its findings and recommendations are not considered legally enforceable. It is dependent on the government for implementation, and in many cases, the government exercises discretion by modifying or changing the object of the recommendation.
   
   Here, reform is needed so that in cases involving human rights violations, corruption, or significant public harm, the government should be legally bound to enforce or implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. A statutory mechanism should be established to ensure that specific categories of recommendations automatically trigger further legal or administrative action without government discretion.
    
2. Reducing political influence in commission formation As we all know, the appointment of commission members is done by the government, leading to political bias in their composition. In many cases, individuals aligned with the ruling government are appointed, raising doubts about their impartiality and independence. For a democratic state like India, where the government changes every five years and commissions take years—sometimes even a decade—to complete their work, a change in government can lead to difficulties in implementing recommendations.
   
   To tackle this, commission members should be appointed by an independent panel rather than the government, similar to judicial appointments. There should also be defined eligibility criteria to prevent politically motivated appointments.
    
3. Ensuring timely completion of inquiries A serious problem with commissions of inquiry is the delay in investigations and prolonged report submissions. Many commissions take years or even decades to complete their inquiries, often rendering their findings irrelevant by the time they are published. A notable example is the Liberhan Commission, which investigated the Babri Masjid demolition in 1992 and took 17 years to submit its final report, making it one of the longest-running inquiries in India.
   
   To address this issue, strict time limits should be imposed on all commissions. They should also be equipped with modern technologies such as digital documentation, modern forensic tools, and fast-track procedures to accelerate investigations.
    
4. Improving collaboration with other investigative agencies Due to a lack of specialized investigative resources such as forensic experts, intelligence access, and advanced data collection tools, commissions of inquiry often rely on government agencies that may have conflicts of interest. This makes it crucial to establish stronger collaboration between commissions and specialized investigative agencies such as the CBI, ED, forensic laboratories, and intelligence agencies.
    
5. Enhancing transparency and public accessibility of reports One of the major limitations of the Commission of Inquiry is the lack of transparency in its functioning. Commission reports often remain unpublished or heavily redacted, preventing the public from accessing crucial findings. The concern is that without public scrutiny, the government can manipulate or suppress inquiry reports that may be politically damaging.
   
   To address this, a mandatory disclosure policy should be introduced, requiring all reports to be released in the public domain within a specific period, except in cases involving national security.

Conclusion
From the above discussion, it concluded that under the Commission of Inquiry Act,1952, commissions of inquiry are the essential tools for investigating matters of public importance. The commission poses several powers included to those of a civil court such as summoning witnesses, examining them under oath, collecting evidence and requisitioning public records. However, with all the broad investigating power, it lacks the enforcement authority; that is, it cannot posses any penalising power directly.

The scope of the commission of inquiry extends to public governance issues, corruption, communal violence, administrative failure, human rights violations, and systematization flaws in the institutions. They provide fact-finding reports that guide policy making and judicial action. However, it lead in the effectiveness to the compromised by delays, political interference, limited resources and non binding nature of their recommendations.
Over the years, commissions of inquiry have played a significant role in uncovering corruption, administrative failures, and human rights violations, but the impact is inconsistent, with some commissions achieving remarkable success while others languished in bureaucratic delays or political suppression.

To enhance the role of the commission of inquiry it must be given greater lagan authority, independence and efficiency and making their recommendation binding, setting strict deadline and reducing government control over their formation with restore public confidence in their integrity. by the implementing these structural reforms, commission of inquiry can evolve into power full watchdog institution, capable of exposing misconducted ensuring justice and fostering grater accountability in governed.

End-Notes:

1. The Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952, No. 60, Acts of Parliament, 1952 (India). Available at https://www.indiacode.nic.in.
2. Ibid., sec 4.
3. Ibid., sec 8B.
4. A.K Kraipak & Ors. v. Union of India (1969).
5. https://www.ijlpa.com/_files/ugd/006c7e_26a009df0735478aaa78202681ae064f.pdf?index=true
6. 'Sarkaria Commission' available at https://interstatecouncil.gov.in/sarkaria-commission/, accessed on 1 March 2025.
7. 'A Critique of the Mishra Commission Report on the Riots in November 1984' (1987), available at, accessed on 1 March 2025.
8. Dhamayantee Dhar, '2002 Riot is Not a Conspiracy' (newsclick.in), available at, accessed on 2 March 2025.
9. 'Babri Masjid Demolition' (The Hindu), available at, accessed on 2 March 2025.

Also Read:

• Commission of Inquiry