Powers of the Inquiry Commission — civil-court powers, additional powers and the s. 10A penalty (ss. 4, 5, 5A, 5B, 8A, 10A) — Right to Information (RTI) Notes

Powers of the Inquiry Commission — civil-court powers, additional powers and the s. 10A penalty (ss. 4, 5, 5A, 5B, 8A, 10A)

The 2012 paper asked about “the penalties for its contempt” — and it is a trap, because the Commissions of Inquiry Act gives the Commission no power to punish for contempt at all. What it has is section 10A, a penal provision, not a contempt power: a person who brings the Commission into disrepute may be punished with six months’ simple imprisonment — but it is the High Court, not the Commission, that takes cognizance and tries him. Knowing that distinction is worth more than reciting the whole Act.

The three tiers of power, and the penalty that is not a contempt power

A. Tier one — the civil-court powers (s. 4), held always

The Commission has the powers of a civil court under the CPC, 1908, in respect of: summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person from any part of India and examining him on oath (a); requiring the discovery and production of documents (b); receiving evidence on affidavit (c); requisitioning any public record from any court or office (d); and issuing commissions to examine witnesses or documents (e). These it has automatically, without asking.

B. Tier two — the additional powers (s. 5), only if notified

These the Commission has only if the appropriate Government, by notification, directs that s. 5 applies (s. 5(1)). They are: the power to require any person to furnish information (s. 5(2), the person being deemed legally bound under IPC ss. 176–177); the power to enter, search and seize books and documents, by the Commission or a Gazetted Officer it authorises (s. 5(3)); the Commission being deemed a civil court for certain IPC offences committed in its presence (s. 5(4)); and its proceedings being deemed judicial proceedings for IPC ss. 193 and 228, so a false witness commits perjury (s. 5(5)).

C. Tier three — the supporting powers, and the protections

s. 5A — power to utilise the services of any officer or investigation agency of the Centre or a State (with that Government’s concurrence) to conduct an investigation and submit a report. (Note: s. 5A is about borrowing investigators, not “incidental matters”.)
s. 5B — power to appoint assessors with special knowledge to assist and advise.
s. 8A — a vacancy or change of constitution does not restart the inquiry; it continues from the stage reached. (This is s. 8A, not s. 11 — s. 11 lets the Act be applied to other inquiring authorities.)
s. 6 — a witness’s statement cannot be used against him in any civil or criminal proceeding, except a prosecution for giving false evidence; s. 6A — no duty to disclose a secret process of manufacture.

D. Section 10A — the penalty, which is NOT a contempt power

If any person, by words spoken or intended to be read, makes or publishes a statement, or does any act, calculated to bring the Commission or any member into disrepute, he is punishable with simple imprisonment up to six months, or fine, or both (s. 10A(1)). But the Commission cannot punish him itself: the High Court takes cognizance, without committal, on a written complaint by a member or an authorised officer of the Commission (s. 10A(2)), made within six months (s. 10A(4)); the High Court tries it as a warrant case (s. 10A(5)); and an appeal lies as of right to the Supreme Court (s. 10A(6)).

Section 4, Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952: “The Commission shall have the powers of a civil court, while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of the following matters, namely — (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person from any part of India and examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of any document; (c) receiving evidence on affidavits; (d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or office; (e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents…”

In Simple Terms: Five civil-court powers, held as of right — summon anyone in India on oath, compel documents, take affidavits, call for any public record, and issue commissions. This is Tier One, and the Commission never has to ask for it.

Section 10A(1)–(2), Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952: “(1) If any person, by words either spoken or intended to be read, makes or publishes any statement or does any other act, which is calculated to bring the Commission or any member thereof into disrepute, he shall be punishable with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both. (2) …the High Court may take cognizance of such offence… upon a complaint in writing, made by a member of a Commission or an officer of the Commission authorised by it…”

In Simple Terms: This is a penal section, not a contempt jurisdiction. The Commission cannot punish anybody itself; it complains, in writing, to the High Court, which tries the offender and may give him six months’ simple imprisonment, a fine, or both. If a question asks about “penalties for contempt of the Commission”, this is the answer, and the correction is the mark.

⚠️ DON’T CONFUSE — s. 4 (always) vs s. 5 (only if notified), and s. 10A (no self-contempt power)

Do not say the Commission “always” has search-and-seizure power. The s. 4 civil-court powers are held automatically; the s. 5 additional powers (information, entry-search-seizure, deemed civil court, deemed judicial proceeding) apply only where the Government has notified them. And do not say the Commission can punish for contempt of itself — it cannot. Bringing it into disrepute is a s. 10A offence tried by the High Court on the Commission’s written complaint.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the bridge-collapse Commission

Facts. A Commission inquires into a bridge collapse. It wants to examine the contractor, raid his office, borrow forensic experts, replace an ailing member, and deal with a newspaper alleging it has been bought.

Rule. CoI Act ss. 4, 5(3), 5A, 5B, 8A, 6, 10A.

Apply. It may summon and examine the contractor on oath and compel his measurement books under s. 4 — automatically. It may raid and seize documents only if s. 5(3) has been notified, and then by a Gazetted Officer it authorises. It may borrow a State investigation agency under s. 5A, appoint a structural engineer as an assessor under s. 5B, and continue without restarting after the member is replaced under s. 8A. The contractor’s statement cannot be used against him except for perjury (s. 6). The newspaper editor cannot be punished by the Commission — but under s. 10A its member may complain in writing to the High Court within six months.

Conclusion. Tier-one powers are automatic; tier-two powers need a notification; and “contempt” of the Commission is really a High Court offence under s. 10A.

flowchart TD
    A["Powers of a Commission of Inquiry"]
    A --> B["TIER 1 — s. 4: powers of a CIVIL COURT,<br/>held AUTOMATICALLY (summon on oath,<br/>documents, affidavits, requisition records)"]
    A --> C["TIER 2 — s. 5: ADDITIONAL powers, ONLY<br/>IF NOTIFIED (require information; enter,<br/>search, seize; deemed civil court;<br/>deemed judicial proceeding — perjury)"]
    A --> D["TIER 3 — s. 5A borrow investigators ·<br/>s. 5B assessors · s. 8A a vacancy does<br/>NOT restart the inquiry · s. 6 witness<br/>immunity except for false evidence"]
    A --> E["s. 10A — NOT a contempt power:<br/>disrepute = 6 months, tried by the<br/>HIGH COURT on the Commission's written<br/>complaint; appeal to the Supreme Court"]
    classDef box fill:#e8f0fe,stroke:#333,color:#111;
    class A,B,C,D,E box;

Case Laws

Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar (1958) — the leading case: a Commission is a fact-finding body, not a court; it decides nothing, adjudicates no rights, and its report is advisory only; its powers are those the Act gives it and no more.
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) (1988) — the findings of a Commission are not evidence of guilt in a criminal trial; its function is to inform, not to convict.
State of Karnataka v. Union of India (1977) — the Centre’s power to appoint a Commission into a State’s Ministers was upheld; a fact-finding Commission invades no State right.
T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) — a Commission’s inquiry and a police investigation are distinct processes serving different ends.

📄 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