Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 — appointment and constitution of a Commission (s. 3) — Right to Information (RTI) Notes

Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 — appointment and constitution of a Commission (s. 3)

Every time something terrible happens in India — a riot, a bridge collapse, a scandal — a Minister announces a “judicial inquiry”. That announcement is made under section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. And then, very often, nothing further is heard of the report. The Act anticipated exactly that: s. 3(4) requires the Government to lay the report, with a memorandum of the action taken on it, before the legislature within six months. The report is not the Government’s private property — and that single sub-section decides both of this paper’s problems.

Appointment, constitution and the fate of the report

The Act (Act 60 of 1952, in force 1 October 1952) is “an Act to provide for the appointment of Commissions of Inquiry and for vesting such Commissions with certain powers.” Under s. 2(a) the “appropriate Government” is the Centre for matters in Lists I, II or III, and the State for matters in Lists II or III.

A. The appointment (s. 3(1)) — the two limbs

The appropriate Government may, if it is of opinion that it is necessary, and shall, if a resolution is passed by each House of Parliament or the State Legislature, by notification in the Official Gazette appoint a Commission of Inquiry into any definite matter of public importance. Learn the two limbs: “may” on the Government’s own opinion; “shall” on a resolution of the legislature. The subject must be a definite matter of public importance, not a roving inquiry. The proviso bars duplication — the Centre and a State may not both inquire into the same matter (unless the Centre needs the scope to extend to two or more States).

B. Composition and vacancies (ss. 3(2)–(3))

The Commission may consist of one or more members; where more than one, one may be appointed Chairman (s. 3(2)). The Government may fill any vacancy at any stage (s. 3(3)).

C. The report and the surrounding machinery

Section 3(4) is the sub-section the problems turn on: the Government shall cause the report, with a memorandum of the action taken, to be laid before the legislature within six months of its submission. Around it sit s. 7 (the Commission ceases when so notified, but one set up on a legislative resolution can be wound up only by another resolution); s. 8 (it regulates its own procedure and may sit in public or private); ss. 8B and 8C (a person whose conduct is inquired into, or whose reputation is at stake, must be heard, may cross-examine and may have a lawyer); s. 9 (good-faith protection, and protection for publication of the report); s. 10 (members are public servants); and s. 12 (rule-making — under which the Commission of Inquiry (Central) Rules, 1972 were made). For the Commission’s powers, see Topic 9.

Section 3(1), Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952: “The appropriate Government may, if it is of opinion that it is necessary so to do, and shall, if a resolution in this behalf is passed by each House of Parliament or, as the case may be, the Legislature of the State, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint a Commission of Inquiry for the purpose of making an inquiry into any definite matter of public importance…”

In Simple Terms: “May” if the Government thinks fit; “shall” if the legislature resolves. The Government has a discretion of its own, but none at all once Parliament or the State Legislature passes a resolution. And the subject must be a definite matter of public importance, not a fishing expedition.

Section 3(4), Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952: “The appropriate Government shall cause to be laid before each House of Parliament or, as the case may be, the Legislature of the State, the report, if any, of the Commission on the inquiry made by the Commission under sub-section (1) together with a memorandum of the action taken thereon, within a period of six months of the submission of the report…”

In Simple Terms: The Government cannot bury the report. It must put it before the legislature within six months, and must say what it has done about it. This is the sub-section that makes a Commission’s report a public document — and it answers both of this paper’s problems.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the Ramaswamy Commission report (2015 and 2022)

Facts. A Commission, appointed on the Supreme Court’s directions, inquired into a communal riot and submitted its report to the Supreme Court. An RTI activist seeks the report. Is he entitled?

Rule. CoI Act ss. 3(4) (report laid before the legislature within six months) and 9 (publication protected); RTI Act ss. 2(f), 2(h), 8(1)(b), 8(1)(h), 8(1)(g), 8(2), 10.

Apply. The report is “information” held by a public authority (the Government, or the Supreme Court, itself a public authority). A Commission’s report is not secret — by design of s. 3(4) it becomes public. So the instinctive “a commission report is confidential / sub judice” answer is wrong. Exemptions could apply only in part: s. 8(1)(b) if the Supreme Court has expressly forbidden publication; s. 8(1)(h) for anything impeding a live investigation; s. 8(1)(g) for witnesses who deposed in confidence — and even then s. 10 requires severance, not wholesale refusal. Given a communal riot ordered to be probed by the Supreme Court, s. 8(2) applies with great force.

Conclusion. He is entitled to the report, because by s. 3(4) it is a public document once submitted and laid — subject only to any express court direction, severance of anything genuinely exempt, and his applying to the correct public authority. (Decoy: neither “confidential” nor “sub judice” is a ground of exemption unless the court has actually forbidden publication.)

flowchart TD
    A["Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952<br/>(Act 60 of 1952)"]
    A --> B["s. 3(1) — APPOINTMENT by the appropriate<br/>Government into ANY DEFINITE MATTER<br/>OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE"]
    B --> C{"which trigger?"}
    C -->|"the Government's opinion"| D["'MAY' appoint"]
    C -->|"a legislative resolution"| E["'SHALL' appoint"]
    A --> F["s. 3(2) one or more members, a Chairman;<br/>s. 3(3) fill a vacancy at any stage"]
    A --> G["s. 3(4) — the REPORT must be LAID before<br/>the legislature within SIX MONTHS with a<br/>memorandum of action → a PUBLIC DOCUMENT"]
    A --> H["ss. 8B/8C fair hearing · s. 9 good faith ·<br/>s. 12 rules → the 1972 Rules"]
    classDef box fill:#e8f0fe,stroke:#333,color:#111;
    class A,B,D,E,F,G,H box;
    classDef q fill:#FFF3CD,stroke:#8a6d00,color:#111;
    class C q;

Case Laws

Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar (1958) — the leading case: a Commission of Inquiry is a fact-finding body, not a court; it decides nothing and adjudicates no rights, and its report is advisory only.
State of Karnataka v. Union of India (1977) — the Centre may appoint a Commission into the conduct of a State’s Chief Minister and Ministers; a Commission adjudicates nothing, so its appointment invades no State right.
CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019) — the Supreme Court is a public authority; after the RTI Act, any exemption must be found within the RTI Act itself and applied by balancing the public interest.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Right to Information (RTI) topics