Inquiry under Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952, from Fundamental Rights Perspective^[1]

Government(s) in recent times are opting for an inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952, to uncover the truth behind events that affect the public at large. This Act being a statutory force, a commission constituted under this Act operates on a structured legal framework rather than a political whim.

In an era where state expenditure runs into multiple crores, commissions serve as a safety valve for democracy. These commissions are the best way to restore public faith and provide evidence that no one is above the law.

Enactment of the Act, 1952, and Its Object

The Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 (the Act), is a central enactment whose legislative competence is derived from Article 246 of the Constitution of India read with Entry 94 of List I and Entry 45 of List III of the Seventh Schedule.

The first commission constituted under this Act, 1952, was on 7th January 1958 – the Chagla Commission / Mundhra Inquiry – constituted to investigate the propriety of investments made by the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) in companies controlled by industrialist Haridas Mundhra.

Powers of Government Under Section 3

This Act empowers the government, be it central or state, to appoint a commission under Section 3 of the Act to investigate matters of public importance.

Provision	Description
Article 246	Defines legislative competence between the union and states.
Entry 94, List I	Empowers Parliament regarding enquiries for Union purposes.
Entry 45, List III	Allows both the centre and states to legislate on enquiries and statistics.
Section 3 of the Act	Provides power to appoint a commission of inquiry.

Constitutional Validity of the Act

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the constitutional bench judgement of Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia Vs Shri Justice S.R. Tendulkar, AIR 1958 SC 538, upheld the validity of the Act.

Prior to the enactment of the Act, 1952, enquiries were conducted by ad hoc committees, which often lacked statutory powers to function effectively.

Judicial Pronouncements on Commission of Inquiry

In P. Janardhana Reddy Vs State of AP 2001 (6) SCC 50, the Honourable Court held that a state has the power to entrust serious matters of public importance to a commission for inquiry.

The primary object of the Commission is to achieve public confidence in administration and to provide proper appraisal of critical issues.

In P.V. Jagannath Rao and others Vs. State of Orissa and others, 1968 (3) SCR 789, the Honourable Court held that the dominant purpose of setting up the Commission of Inquiry was to promote measures for maintaining the purity and integrity of the administration in the political life of the State.

Importance of Commissions in Democracy

• Restore public confidence in governance.
• Ensure accountability in public administration.
• Investigate matters of serious public importance.
• Promote transparency and integrity in political life.
• Provide structured and legally backed enquiries.

Commission Constituted to Inquire into Issues of Public Importance

The Parliament or the State Legislature, considering the opinion of the government, passes a resolution under Section 3 to enquire into issue(s) of public importance.

The Division Bench of Nagpur High Court in the case of M. V. Rajwade I.A.S., Dist. Magistrate Vs. Dr. S. M. Hassan and Others AIR 1954 Nagpur 71 held that an inquiry under the Act is of a different character.

There is no accuser, no accused, and no specific charges for trial.

Though a commission report is fact-finding, it possesses the power of a civil court to summon witnesses and record evidence under Section 4 and the powers of search and seizure by an officer not below the rank of Gazetted Officer under Section 5.

Further, Section 6 reinforces the fundamental right under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India by providing statutory immunity to the witness.

It ensures that a witness’s statement before the commission is inadmissible as evidence against them in subsequent civil or criminal proceedings, thereby protecting the witness against self-incrimination.

Key Powers of the Commission

Provision	Power / Protection
Section 3	Constitution of Commission to inquire into matters of public importance
Section 4	Power of civil court to summon witnesses and record evidence
Section 5	Power of search and seizure through Gazetted Officer
Section 6	Protection against self-incrimination for witnesses

Important Features of Commission Inquiry

• No accuser or accused exists in the proceedings.
• No specific criminal charges are framed for trial.
• The inquiry is fact-finding in nature.
• The Commission has powers similar to a civil court.
• Witnesses receive statutory protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

Findings of the Commission Vis-à-Vis Its Enforcement

The function of the Commission is neither that of a court, nor does it have the power to pass a judgement.

The proceedings before the commission are inquisitorial rather than adversarial in nature.

The findings made by the Commission are purely fact-finding in nature; in Ram Krishna Dalmia (supra), it was held that the Commission has no power of adjudication in the sense of passing an order which can be enforced proprio vigore.

The seven-judge bench decision in State of Karnataka Vs. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 68 and another judgement in Kehar Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Delhi Admn. AIR 1988 SC 1883 held that a commission appointed under the Act, 1952, is merely to record its findings based on its investigation for the information of the appropriate government.

Further, it held that the commission has no power to enforce its decision, and the report cannot be looked at as a judicial inquiry.

It is the discretion of the government to either make suitable administrative / legislative changes or take no action on the report submitted by the commission.

In the case of T.T. Antony Vs State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, it was again held that the report and findings of the Commission of Inquiry are meant for the information of the government.

Under Section 3(4) of the Act, the appropriate government is under a statutory obligation to table the commission’s report before the Parliament or the State Legislature within a period of six months of the submission of the report by the commission, accompanied by a memorandum of action taken, if any, to ensure executive accountability.

Legal Position on Commission Findings

Case Law	Principle Laid Down
Ram Krishna Dalmia	Commission findings are not enforceable orders
State of Karnataka Vs Union of India AIR 1978 SC 68	The commission only records findings for government information
Kehar Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Delhi Admn, AIR 1988 SC 1883	A commission report is not a judicial inquiry
T.T. Antony Vs State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181	The commission report is informational in nature

Key Takeaways on Enforcement

• The Commission is not a court of law.
• Its proceedings are inquisitorial and not adversarial.
• The Commission cannot enforce its findings.
• The report is advisory and informational in nature.
• The government may accept, reject, or ignore the recommendations.
• The report must be tabled before Parliament or the State Legislature within six months.

Compliance with the Principles of Natural Justice – Section 8B of the Act, 1952

Given the significance attached to the commission’s report, it is imperative that all findings of the commission be reached in strict adherence to the principles of natural justice. The commission can have its own procedure for conducting its inquiry; however, it is guided by the provisions of the Act of 1952. Section 8B was inserted into the Act vide Amendment No. 79/1971 with effect from 13.12.1971, which compels the commission to provide a mandatory formal notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard whenever it appears that a person’s reputation may be at stake.

In State of Bihar Vs. Lal Krishna Advani and Others (2003) 8 SCC 361, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that notice under Section 8B is mandatory for a person whose conduct or reputation is likely to be prejudiced by such inquiry or the findings recorded in the commission’s report.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni (1983 (1) SCC 124) observed that the right to reputation is a facet of the right to life of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Object of Section 8B

The object of Section 8B is to ensure that the principles of natural justice are complied with. Under Section 8B, a statutory duty is cast upon the commission to issue a reasonable notice.

The notice to a person under Section 8B enables the person to produce evidence in defence. Further, evidence produced by such a person will give them the right to cross-examine, under Section 8C of the Act, the witness who deposed against them.

To be precise, the entire process contemplated under Sections 8B and 8C is to ensure that the commission does not take an adverse decision against a person without sufficient notice.

Supreme Court Interpretation of Section 8B

In Kiran Bedi Vs Committee of Inquiry and Another AIR 1989 SC 714, which arose from an investigation into violent clashes between lawyers and Delhi police personnel in 1988, the Honourable Supreme Court clarified the procedural nuances of Section 8B.

The Court held that when a person’s conduct is the subject of the commission, the formal issuance of notice under Section 8B is a mere technicality. Given that Section 8B prescribes no format for such notice, any communication directing the individual to answer the Terms of Reference (ToR) is sufficient notice under Section 8B.

The principle is further reinforced in N. Mani Vs Sangeetha Theatre and Others, 2004 (12) SCC 278, which held that an administrative action is not invalidated by the failure to cite a specific legal provision, provided the lawful source of power exists.

Applying this to the Act, a person whose conduct is under scrutiny cannot challenge the validity of the proceedings on the ground that the notice did not mention Section 8B, much more so when the conduct of the person is itself the subject of the inquiry.

Principle of Substance Over Form

In evaluating the validity of the commission’s report, judicial discretion must prioritise the substantive objective of the inquiry over mere technical compliance.

Given that the commission is constituted to investigate matters of utmost public importance, the court should be loath to strike down a report solely on a technical ground that the notice failed to explicitly cite Section 8B or that the notice was issued without mentioning Section 8B.

If the individual was effectively put on notice by the nature of proceedings and the Terms of Reference, non-citation or omission of Section 8B on the notice is not a deviation from mandatory notice.

Requirement of Proving Prejudice

Furthermore, the validity of a Commission’s report cannot be challenged on the mere technicality of a notice failing to cite Section 8B unless the aggrieved party demonstrates actual prejudice.

As held in Union of India v. Bishamber Das Dogra (2009) 13 SCC 102, a party pleading a violation of natural justice must specifically plead and prove that the procedural lapse resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

Similarly, in S.K. Singh v. Central Bank of India (1996) 6 SCC 415, the Supreme Court relied on Managing Director, ECIL Vs B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727 and affirmed that judicial interference is unwarranted where the individual failed to demonstrate to the court what prejudice was caused on account of the non-supply of the inquiry report.

Consequently, applying these principles, if the substance of the inquiry is known to the party, the mere non-citation of Section 8B would not constitute a fatal illegality capable of vitiating the commission’s findings.

Important Judicial Precedents

Case Name	Legal Principle
State of Bihar Vs Lal Krishna Advani and Others (2003) 8 SCC 361	Notice under Section 8B is mandatory where reputation may be affected.
Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni (1983 (1) SCC 124)	The right to reputation forms part of Article 21.
Kiran Bedi Vs Committee of Inquiry and Another AIR 1989 SC 714	Notice under Section 8B need not follow a prescribed format.
N. Mani Vs Sangeetha Theatre and Others 2004 (12) SCC 278	Non-citation of a statutory provision does not invalidate proceedings.
Union of India v. Bishamber Das Dogra (2009) 13 SCC 102	Actual prejudice must be proved in natural justice violations.
S.K. Singh v. Central Bank of India (1996) 6 SCC 415	Judicial interference requires proof of prejudice.

Justice P.C. Ghose Commission and Telangana High Court Decision

Justice P.C. Ghose Commission, constituted by the Government of Telangana vide GO Ms No. 6 dated 14/3/2024, to investigate the structural failure of the Meddigadda Barrage and the expenditure totalling Rs 14,742.74 crores incurred towards the construction of the barrages on the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project (KLIP), faced legal challenges alleging non-issuance of notice under Section 8B.

The Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana in Thanneeru Harish Rao and Others v. State of Telangana WP Nos. 24835, 24837, 26367 and 29352 of 2025, though upholding the constitution of the Commission under Section 3, held that non-issuance of notice under Section 8B is a violation of the statutory provision.

Key Legal Principles Emerging from the Judgments

• Section 8B notice is mandatory where reputation or conduct may be affected.
• Natural justice principles form the foundation of Commission proceedings.
• Substance prevails over technical defects in procedural compliance.
• Non-citation of Section 8B alone does not invalidate proceedings.
• Actual prejudice must be proved to challenge procedural irregularities.
• Public accountability and transparency remain paramount in commissions of inquiry.

Conclusion

In the landmark decision Thanneeru Harish Rao and Others (supra), the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana held that the Telangana State rightly constituted the Commission for investigating a matter of public importance, reinforcing transparency and executive accountability.

This decision balanced the state’s authority to investigate issues of public importance with the individual’s liberty of being heard.

By upholding the commission constituted under Section 3 of the Act, the Court held that public accountability is paramount while duly ensuring that the rights of individuals are protected.