Of omissions in commissions

Lost in the cacophony over the Liberhan Commission report, are the real questions. Will the inquiry commission have any impact? Will the government heed to its recommendations?

The Liberhan commission that inquired into the Babri Masjid demolition has raised a serious debate about the efficacy of the Commission of Inquiries Act that empowers such commissions. Some leading constitutional experts, advocates and former IPS officers DNA spoke to are unanimous in their objection to the manner in which successive governments have abused the Act.

Former Delhi police commissioner Ved Marwah was probing the anti-Sikh riots but the government stopped it abruptly. Marwah says the purpose of commissions is not to get to the bottom of the truth, “but to buy time and assuage outbursts of pubic sentiments”.

“After the anti-Sikh riots, I was brought back to Delhi Police and asked to inquire into the role of Delhi Police officers in the rioting. I prepared a report in less than three months. There was so much evidence available, both material and documentary, which I had put on record,” said Marwah. The report never saw the light of day. Even before it was released, the government, under pressure, asked Marwah to wind up and hand over the evidence to a new commission led by Justice Ranganath Mishra.

The new commission did not name anybody, saying it was beyond its mandate to do so. Justice Mishra recommended constitution of three more committees. At least 10 commissions and committees were formed to investigate the riots, but the Sikh community is still waiting for justice.

Senior advocate PN Lekhi says, “We have the Jain commission, which investigated a useless theme: conspiracy behind Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination. It was just a political exercise. Chandraswami and Karunanidhi were indicted. The CBI took up further inquiry against Chandraswami, which is still on. Jain took seven years to say he had nothing to report except his suspicions.”

Independent India has seen at least 150 commissions but not one led to any concrete action being taken. The reasons are obvious. Under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, the commission does not have powers of either a court of law or an investigating agency. Even their recommendations are not binding on the government.

What is the need for such commissions, especially considering the fact that crores are spent — Rs9 crore in the Liberhan case — to get to something which is of no use?
There are other criticisms. Many experts feel that an investigating agency like the CBI is better equipped to carry out scientific investigation than a retired judge.

Lekhi argues, “There is no need to scrap the Act. The Act is not properly used, but often abused. Judges are not chosen intelligently, but for their political inclinations. These commissions end up serving the interests of whosoever is in power.”

Marwah says, “There has to be accountability. The Liberhan commission took 17 years. It’s ridiculous. The commissions need to function like fact-finding bodies whose recommendations are binding on the government. Otherwise, why is so much public money spent on them?”

The Act says that institution of a commission is for examination of a matter of grave public importance. And the commission's role is only recommendatory.

“The report is only an opinion. You don’t need 17 years to form an opinion… you already have opinion of the masses. It is a matter of collating and not creating the opinion,” Lekhi says.

It is also well-known that inquiry commissions are more often than not retirement postings for judges. Therefore, says Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan, “Vested interests are in-built. That can only be dealt with by asking these commissions to carry out investigations in public interest. They should not be paid. That will ensure speedy completion of inquiries.”

Arguing for a constitutional body to oversee appointments to these commissions, Bhushan says, “The government wants to put its man on the job and chief justices want to oblige friends. A body like the Judicial Appointments Commission, responsible for appointment of SC and high court judges, should oversee these appointments. That will take care of the questionable selection process.”