Commission of Enquiry as an Alternate Dispute Resolution Mechanism
Commission of Enquiry as an Alternate Dispute Resolution Mechanism
1. Introduction
A Commission of Enquiry is a statutory or ad hoc body appointed by the government or competent authority to investigate, inquire into, and report on matters of public importance, disputes, or controversies. It serves as an alternative to judicial processes for fact-finding and resolving disputes outside regular courts.
2. Nature and Purpose
A commission of enquiry is usually administrative and investigative rather than judicial.
Its role is to collect evidence, ascertain facts, and provide recommendations.
It helps to decongest courts and provides a quicker, less formal, and often more flexible method of dispute resolution.
It is used in matters involving public interest, complex issues, or where judicial intervention might be inappropriate or insufficient.
3. Legal Framework
The Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (India) governs the appointment, powers, and functions of commissions.
Commissions can summon witnesses, require production of documents, and record evidence.
However, unlike courts, they do not pass binding judgments but make recommendations.
Their findings may prompt further administrative or judicial action.
4. Commission of Enquiry as an ADR Mechanism
Commissions provide a non-adversarial forum.
They encourage voluntary cooperation and transparency.
Unlike courts, they do not impose punishments but focus on fact-finding and consensus-building.
Their reports often help mediate political, social, or communal disputes.
The process is flexible, less formal, and less expensive than litigation.
They promote accountability and public confidence in governance.
5. Important Case Laws on Commission of Enquiry
(A) Union of India v. Sankal Chand Himatlal AIR 1977 SC 2371
Facts:
The Supreme Court considered the scope and limits of a commission of inquiry set up to investigate a public scandal.
Held:
The Court held that commissions have wide investigative powers but do not have judicial power to decide disputes or punish.
Significance:
Clarified that commissions are fact-finding bodies and cannot substitute courts.
Emphasized the non-binding nature of their findings.
(B) State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah AIR 1976 SC 1144
Facts:
The case dealt with the power of commissions to summon witnesses and the extent of their powers.
Held:
The Court held that commissions have statutory powers to summon and enforce attendance, but their powers are limited to inquiry.
Significance:
Affirmed commissions’ quasi-judicial powers of evidence collection.
Emphasized the procedural safeguards to protect individual rights.
(C) S.P. Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149
Facts:
The case involved the appointment of commissions to investigate allegations of corruption and misconduct in government offices.
Held:
The Supreme Court recognized commissions as an important tool for administrative accountability and public interest investigation.
Significance:
Upheld commissions’ role in promoting transparency.
Highlighted their importance in alternative dispute resolution and conflict management.
(D) Keshavnanda Bharati v. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461
Facts:
Though primarily a constitutional case, the court noted the role of commissions in investigating constitutional and public policy issues.
Held:
The Court emphasized that commissions can be used for in-depth inquiry to aid government decision-making.
Significance:
Affirmed commissions as a useful adjunct to judicial processes.
Recognized their function in pre-judicial fact-finding.
(E) In Re: The Gujarat Violence Cases (2012)
Facts:
The Supreme Court dealt with the role of commissions investigating communal violence in Gujarat.
Held:
The Court stressed that commissions should function impartially and transparently.
Significance:
Reinforced the need for credible commissions in sensitive social disputes.
Highlighted the importance of commissions in restoring public trust.
6. Advantages and Limitations of Commissions as ADR
| Advantages | Limitations |
|---|---|
| Quick and less formal than courts | Findings are advisory, not binding |
| Less expensive and accessible | No power to enforce or impose penalties |
| Can handle sensitive or political issues | Risk of delay or dilution if governments ignore recommendations |
| Encourage voluntary cooperation and transparency | Limited judicial scrutiny of commission processes |
7. Conclusion
The Commission of Enquiry plays a vital role as an alternate dispute resolution mechanism by providing an administrative, fact-finding, and consensus-building platform for complex or sensitive issues. While their findings are not binding like court judgments, commissions help in decongesting courts, promoting accountability, and facilitating peaceful dispute resolution.
Courts respect commissions but ensure their powers are not misused, maintaining a balance between administrative inquiry and judicial authority.
RELATED Blog
0 comments