Structures of Legal Restraint, Oh Police Powers in India
The Ibakkar - Natarajan Commission
Part one of the Nanawti Commission report, probing into the Godhara incident in Gujarat, released last month has once again opened the Pandora's Box over logic of setting up Inquiry Commissions in the country.
The report while giving clean chit to the Narendra Modi Government has supported the theory of conspiracy, leading to a widespread criticism across the country.
Many call it 'eye wash' and other call it 'sponsored report'. Communists have termed it a 'piecemeal' and fabricated report, whereas; National Democratic Alliance (NDA) calls it 'triumph of truth'.
Justice Nanawati report in fact contradicts the UC Banerjee report which also probed the Godhara incident. How a single incident draws two extreme conclusions?
The two reports have raised a very debatable issue. What do judicial commissions, appointed by the various governments to examine issues ranging from riots, scandals and assassinations to inter-state disputes actually achieve?
Critics of commissions say that their recent history has been extremely spotty. Apart from taking inordinately long to deliver reports, they seldom achieve anything.
Keeping apart from such allegations and counter allegations, the issue that has again come to fore is whether an inquiry commission can substitute criminal prosecution?
Do these Commissions serve any purpose? Is it not an eye wash? Are these Commissions able to bring culprits to book? Are not Commissions of inquiry a waste of time and money?
To understand the entire issue, one has to discuss the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 itself. Before this Act came into being, the governments used to order an inquiry by executive notifications under Public Service Inquiry Act, 1850. Sometimes, they used to enact adhoc and temporary legislations too.
To meet the public demand for impartial and judicial inquiries, the Government of India came out with a comprehensive legislation, which resulted into passage of this Commission of
Part one of the Nanawti Commission report, probing into the Godhara incident in Gujarat, released last month has once again opened the Pandora's Box over logic of setting up Inquiry Commissions in the country.
The report while giving clean chit to the Narendra Modi Government has supported the theory of conspiracy, leading to a widespread criticism across the country.
Many call it 'eye wash' and other call it 'sponsored report'. Communists have termed it a 'piecemeal' and fabricated report, whereas; National Democratic Alliance (NDA) calls it 'triumph of truth'.
Justice Nanawati report in fact contradicts the UC Banerjee report which also probed the Godhara incident. How a single incident draws two extreme conclusions?
The two reports have raised a very debatable issue. What do judicial commissions, appointed by the various governments to examine issues ranging from riots, scandals and assassinations to inter-state disputes actually achieve?
Critics of commissions say that their recent history has been extremely spotty. Apart from taking inordinately long to deliver reports, they seldom achieve anything.
Keeping apart from such allegations and counter allegations, the issue that has again come to fore is whether an inquiry commission can substitute criminal prosecution?
Do these Commissions serve any purpose? Is it not an eye wash? Are these Commissions able to bring culprits to book? Are not Commissions of inquiry a waste of time and money?
To understand the entire issue, one has to discuss the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 itself. Before this Act came into being, the governments used to order an inquiry by executive notifications under Public Service Inquiry Act, 1850. Sometimes, they used to enact adhoc and temporary legislations too.
To meet the public demand for impartial and judicial inquiries, the Government of India came out with a comprehensive legislation, which resulted into passage of this Commission of