The history of the commissions set up to investigate into various events and recommend measures to prevent such events and to identify the causes behind them and the persons responsible in Independent India is a dubious one. It is time to closely examine the effectiveness of the innumberable commissions which entailed enormous public expenditure and skewed objectives that underlined their appointments. The last but not the least is the one which was constituted to inquire into the events leading to the demolition of Babri Maszid in 1992 which is also known as Liberhan Commission. This Commission has produced a monumental document in the form of its report after 17 years from the date of its constitution and in its marathon and tortuous course of existence there were 399 sittings and 48 extensions. All these cost the national exchequer a princely sum of almost rupees nine crore! There is a big question on the worth of its recommendations as no government is expected to be bold enough politically to court disaster by taking action based on its recommendations without the attendant social tension.

The objectives of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952, which are to ensure an impartial a judicial inquiry, have largely failed if one looks at the functioning and the end-results produced by these commissions. Take the instance of the more than one commission which were appointed to inquire into the riots against the Sikhs following Indira Gandhi's assassination. It all started with the appointment of Marvah Commission which wound up subsequently followed by Jusitce Rangannath Mishra Commission which recommended setting up a few committees! Again another commission came into the scene Justice Nanavati Commission in 2000. who incidentally heads another commission inquiring into the Godhara carnage.

It is important to note that the parent act does not empower a person to compel a person to give evidence nether does it have the power to try an offence. In the absence of these powers it is toothless. Thus the commissions have degenerated into diversionary and convenient tools to deal with the public emotion at a given point of time for the government and the politicians who firmly believe in the dictum that “public memory is short”. There is another aspect of this issue which relates to the ethical question. Article 220 of our Constitution puts restrictions on the practice by the retired judges. And the practice of appointing retired judges to head these commissions is a dangerous one for our democracy. It might act a temptation for any judge to be in the favourite book of the power that be and that would bring down the quality of justice.

A pragmatic examination of the criminal system of justice as it prevails in India ,would reveal that it depends on two critical elements. One is investigation and the others is dispensation of justice. Our courts and judges are looked upon as the dispensers of justice and they deliver judgements and verdicts strictly based on the evidences produced through investigation which is purely an executive function. Thus it would not make any sense to burden the judiciary with the task of the police officers .

Apart from the colossal waste of public money, the commissions have created a vested interest which needs to be eradicated. Even a two judges commission appointed in 1987 to study the effectiveness of commissions have described them as “ineffective and useless”.