g LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA TWENTY-FOURTH REPORT (THE COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY ACT, 1952) DECEMBER, 1962 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA: MINISTRY OF LAW 140M of L—1CHAIRMAN, LAW COMMISSION, 5, Jorbagh, New Delhi—3, Dated 26h December, 1962. ‘Shri Asoke Kumar Sen, Minister of Law, New Delhi. My pear Misister, T have great pleasure in forwarding herewith the Twenty- Fourth Report of the Law Commission on the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. 2. The subject was referred by the Government to the Law ‘Commission under the circumstances mentioned in paragraph r of the Report, and was taken up in December, 1961 for consideration. A draft Report was prepared and discussed at the 37th meeting of the Law Commission held on the 7th April, 1962. Certain points were reconsidered at the 38th meeting of the Law Commission held on sth May, 1062. In conformity with the decisions taken at those meetings the draft Report was revised. 3. The draft Report, as 90 revised, was circulated to State Governments, High Courts, Bar Associations and also to certain eminent Judges who, as Chairmen of certain Commis- sions appointed under the Act, had practical experience of its working. The comments received on the draft Report were considered by the Law Commission at the 42nd meeting held ‘on the 37th and x8th December, 1962, and the draft Report ‘was revised in accordance with the decisions taken at that meeting and finalised. 4. Mr. Niren De was unable to attend the meeting of the ‘Commission at which the Report was finalised. The Report has not, therefore, been signed by him. I am, however, autho- tised by him to state that he concurs in the recommendations made in the Report.Gi) 5. My colleagues and I wish to record our appreciation of the assistance we have received from our Joint Secretary & Draftsman, Mr. S. K. Hiranandani and Additional Draftsman, Mr. P.M. Bakshi, Yours sincerely, J. L. KAPUR.REPORT ON THE COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY ACT, 1952 CONTENTS PARAGRAPH ‘Suayecr-MATTER 12, 33, 4 15. 16, ™ 38. 1. 20. ar. 23-24, 25, 26. 24 28. 30. Reference 10 Law Commission Genesis of existing Act Analysis of the Act Purposes for which Act used Analogous laws in other countries : Differences between English and Indian Acts Defects and drawbacks of inquiries by Com- missions eee Justification for our Act Some general points examined Poser of Government to 18 Procedure, 1908, would be attracted, since, under section 4, a Commission, in summoning witnesses, has the same powers as.a.civil court. On this reasoning, a Commission Would not be competent to summon a witness Tesiding at a distance longer than 200 miles from its headquarters. We ‘eonsider that the limitation imposed on civil courts by this rule should not apply to Commissions appointed under the ‘Act, in view of the different nature of the work assigned to @ Commission of Inquiry. We accordingly recommend, that a Commission appointed under the Act should have jurisdiction to summon a witness from any part of the ‘territories to which the Act extends. Rules under the Act! will secure that necessary travelling and other expenses are paid to witnesses who are summoned under the Act. 28. With reference to section 5(2) empowering a Commission to require any person to furnish information on a matter under inquiry, a question has been raised as to whether the persons so required can be punished for failure to give information, having regard, in particular, to the decision? in Ali Mahomed v. Emperor? In that case the members of the Wakf Board had not been declared to be public servants by the Act constituting the Board. Further, the Act provided a separate punishment for failure to furnish information. There is, however, no objection to the position being clarified by stating in sub-section (2) that any person required to furnish information shall be bound to furnish such information, so as to attract the penal provisions of the Indian Penal Code in this behalf. It has been suggested that a specific provision should be inserted in this sub-section (on the lines of section 175, Criminal Procedure Code), to the effect that a son shall not be. required to disclose. information which might incriminate him. We may point out that the obligation to disclose nS eee sublect to Privilege available under the Taw for the time bei Eotee. Ie would thus appear that no special privilege te conferred by this section, but any privilege conferred by Shy other law woul be available under the subvsection, 2. Section 5(3) authorises the Commission or any authorised gazetted officer to enter any building or place where any books of account or other documents relating Yo the subjectomatter of the inquiry may be found and t0 seize such books or documents, subject to the provisions of sections 102 and 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, in so far as they may be applicable, In Nerayanadoss v. T. Neeladri Raot already referred to,’ an argument was See Appendix I, section 12(2), as proposed. sSee Appendix TE, Notes to s. 6 (2) for detailed discussion 12 LA. 226; ATR 148 PC. 4. SALR 1959 Andhra Pradesh, 148, 152. See pare. 25, supra19 advanced that this provision conferred an uncontrolled and arbitrary power of entry and seizure on Commissions of Inquiry in general. Further, in that case the Com- mission had been appointed to inquire into the wide-spread mismanagement of the properties of Hindu religious and charitable trusts created for public purposes and it was therefore contended that there was also ‘a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, The Court pointed out that the sub-section gave no such sweeping powers, but merely authorised the Specified officers to enter buildings or places where. the relevant books or documents could be found, and the power of seizure was hedged in by several restrictions or sale- guards, including those contained in sections 102 and 103 Of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1808, It is not necessary to disturb the section on this point 30. (1) We have discussed elsewhere! the question as to the extent to which protection can be secured’ to Commis. sions of Inquiry in respect of scurrilous and scandalous ‘?'¢: attacks on them. Section 5 may accordingly be amended by sin ‘the insertion of a sub-section? making it an offence to publish any statement or do any other act calculated to bring the Commission or any member thereof into disrepute, @) Certain procedural questions have been raised in connection with this offence. It has been suggested to us, that in view of the status of the members of the Commis” sion who generally inelude a Judge of a Tigh Court or the Supreme Court, the offence should be triable by a High Court exclusively. It was further suggested that in the trial of the proposed new offence the personal attendance of members of the Commission should be dispensed with and that an Exception should be made to section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which requires the examination of the complamant. Further, it was suggested, the offence should be triable as a summons case and a provision should be made on the lines of the proviso to section 244(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 which confers on the court a discretion to hear the complainant or not. We have given careful consideration to all these suggestions. We feel that, taking all the circumstances into consideration, the proce. dure already prescribed in section 198B of the Code. of Cri- minal Procedure. 1898, in respect of defamation of high dig- nitaries of the State (including the President and the Vice= President) and public servants generally, would be suitable for this offence also, Section 108B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, provides that any offence falling under Chapter XXT of the Indian Penal Code (sections 499. to 502--a group of sections relating to defamation) against the President, Vice-President etc, shall be triable by a ‘See paragraph 12, supra, 8Seo Appendix I, 8. 5(5) as proposed 140 Mof Lgin 6. 20 Court of Session. ‘The section also lays down a special pro- cedure for the trial of such offences, The Sessions Court ‘can take cognizance of the offence without the accused being committed to it for trial, upon the complaint in writing of the Public Prosecutor, ‘The Court may also, for reasons to be recorded in writing, refrain from examining the person against whom the offence is committed. Since @ special provedure thus already exists for an analogous offence, we feel that there is no strong case for ereating a new procedure by making the offence triable by a High Court exclusively and thus laying down a different proce- dure for more or less similar offences, 31. Section 6 provides that no statement made by _a ijcrimnsting Person in the course of giving evidence before the Commis sion shall subject him to or be used against him in a erimi- nal proceeding. In this connection, a question was raised as to whether a person can claim protection under clause (3) of article 20 of the Constitution at the time of answering a question put to him and the Punjab High Court answered it in the afliemative'. Subsequently, ina Supreme Court decision®, it has been held by a majority that clause (8) of article 26 applies only where at the time the statement is made the person stands accused of an offence, Section 6 does not require any amendment from this point of view. It has been suggested that the protection given by scc- tion 6 to oral statements should be extended to documents. In our opinion, there is a good deal of difference between the spoken word and the written word. When dealing with inquiries into matters of delinite public importanee, there would appear to be very little justification for extending protection to persons whose guilt is clear from any docu= ments in their possession or custody. No doubt, i no such protection is extended, such evidence may not be readily fortheoming. One has therefore to balance the two consider- ations. In any event, any protection given cannot be to the same extent as is given by section 6 in the case of the spoken word. The interests of @ public inquiry would not be pro- moted by the enlargement of such protection, and we find that in many similar Acts no protection is afforded in rela- tion to the production of dociiments* In our country also, the practice has been to treat the spoken word differently from the written word, and to extend protection to the latter only if on the merits of the case protection is needed. ‘Such protection has often been of a very Limited or special SAllen Berry & Co, v, Mr. Vivian Bose, 1LR, (1960) Pun. 415; ALR. 1900 Pun 88, *State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu, ALR. 1961 S.C. 1808 Section 21(8) Ontario Securities Act IRS; 1960 (962), section 5]; the Evidence Act, (Canada) (RSE. 59, 8. 5). “Botti “discussed in (1962). Can, Bar ‘Journal, February, 6, 12 io 15 (The Privilege againat self inerimination)-2 nature.’ On the whole, we think that the protection con- erred by section 6 does not require any enlargement. 32, In our opinion, it is desirable to make il clear in the s interests of trade that nothing in the Act shall render it compulsory for any person giving evidence to disclose any secret process of manufacture? We recommend that a new section" be inserted to that effect, 33, (1) While discussing the procedure to be followed by Seaton 8 the Commission, we have recommended: the incorporation of rules 4 and 5 (with suitable modifications) in the Act. it- self. We recommend that section 8 be suitably amended in this behalf, (2) As regards sittings of the Commission in public or in private, the section leaves the matter to the Commission's discretion. Various suggestions have been made regarding this provision. On the one hand, it is argued that inquiries under the Act should always be held in public, since’ such inguiries relate to matters of public importance.’ On the other hand, it is argued that sometimes the inquiry relates to a commercial concern and. that the holding of such in- Quiries in public would be detrimental to the interests of such concerns. Since no uniform rule ean be laid down in respect of all inquiries, and the question whether an inquiry OF any part thereof should be held in publie or in private will depend on the circumstances of each case, we think that the best course would be to retain the existing provision, ‘which leaves the matter to the diseretion of the Cotnmission, A Commission would consist of responsible persons, and cat, bbe trusted to exercise its discretion in a reasonable manner. 34. Section § of the Act provides that the Commission may act notwithstanding the temporary absence of any (Nw). member or the existence of a vacancy amongst its members. We have already proposed® an amendment to section 3 of the Act in order to make it clear that it is open to the Government to increase the number of members on the Commission at any stage of the inguiry or to fill any vacancy. We now recommend,’ that it may be made clear that it is not necessary for the Commission to recommence its mquiry if a change takes place in the constitution of the Commission during the pendency of an inquiry. It may, ACJ. Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947; Indian Election Offences and Inquiries Act, 1920; the Capital Issues (Continuance of Control) Act, 1947. “Gontrast the general rovision in 3. 130, Indian Evidence “Act, 1872 @Gfi The Royal Commission Act, Australia, 1902-1993, section sa). See Appendix I, section 6A, ‘See para. 14, supra. Sec in this connection, a Private Member's Bill introduced ia the Lok Sabha on 11-5-1962—to amend the Act (Bill No. 15, of 1862)" (Shri D.C. Sharma). “See para, 26, supra, "Soe Appendix I, section 8A,Section 12, O thee 2 however, be provided that if the services of the Chairman have eeased to be available, the Commission should not set until a new chairman is appointed, Sueh a provision would appear to be appropriate.t 35, The rule-making section may be amended so as to ex pressly provide for two topics on which rules may be made, namely, the association of persons with the Commission as assessors and the payment of travelling and other expenses, to persons summoned to give evidence. 36, We have explained above the important changes which we recommend. ‘The other matters on which we have recommended an alteration in the existing Act will appear in the Notes on Clauses 87, In order to give a conerete shape to our proposals, we have, in Appendix I, put them in the forma of draft amend- ments to the existing Act Appendix: I contains Notes on Clauses, clucidating, with reference to the draft amendments in Appendix I, any points ‘that may require elucidation. Appendix IIT contains a statement showing the Commis- sions appointed under the Act. 1. Mr, JUSTICE J. L. KAPUR, Chairman. 2.G.R.RAJAGOPAUL. 3. D, BASU. | 4. K. G. DATAR, 5. 7. K. TOPE, *6, NIREN DE. S. K, HIRANANDANI, Secretary, New Deut, ‘The 18th December, 1962. compare section 5 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 se Appendix I sate. Nien De has been unable vo sign the Report, but he eon- ceurs in the recommendations mace the!60 of 1932. APPENDIX I PROPOSALS AS SHOWN IN THR FORM OF DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO THE EXISTING AcT, (This is a tentative draft only) Section 3 For section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the principal Act’), the follow- Ing section shall be substituted, namely ;— “3. (1) The appropriate Government may, if it is of Appoistment gpinion that it is necessary so to do, and shall, if a res lution in this behalf is passed by both Houses of Parl ‘ment or, as the case may be, by the Legislative Assembly of the State, or, in the case of a State having a Legisia. Hive Council, by both Houses of the Legistalure of the State, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint a Commission of Inquiry for the purpose of malcing an inguiry into any definite matter of public importence which shall be specified in the notification, and perform, ing such funetions, being functions necessary’ or snow denial to the inquiry.. o as may be 30 ° Commissie, °° specified. em Provided that where any such Commission has been appointed to inquire into any matter— {a) by the Central Government, no State Gov- (®) by a State Government, the Central Gov- gmment shall not appoint anather Commission to inquire into the same matier for so long atthe Commission appointed by the State Govetnment ss in existence, unless the Central Government is of The Commission may consist of one or more members appointed by ihe’ appropriate Goveenmene and where the Commission consists of more tones member, one of them tay be appointed by the api priate Government as the Chairman thecec? 140 MofL—s =Aso feston of period, CE, Exiting Sain (3) The appropriate Government may, at any stage of the inquiry by the Commission— (@) fill any vacancy which may have arisen in the office of a member of the Commission (whether consisting of one or more than one member); or (0) imerease the number of members of the Commission, (4) The Commission shali complete its inquiry and make tts report to the appropriate Governments within such period as may be specified by the appropriate Gov- ernment by notification in the Oficial Gazette, or within such further period as that Government may by like notification specify. Section 4 ‘To section 4 of the principal Act, the following Explana- tion shall be added, namel “Explanation —For the purpose of enforcing the afeetdge of twtneszes, he local limits of the farsi tion of the Commission shall be the limits of the terri tories to which this Act extends.”. Section 5 In section 5 of the principal Act— (a) in sub-section (1), after the word, figure and brackets “sub-section (3)", the “words, "figures and brackets “sub-section (6) of sub-section (7)"" shall “be inserted; (®) in sub-section (2), the following words shall be inserted at the end, namely:— “and any person so required shall be bound to furnish such information.”. (e) sub-section (5) shall be ie-numbered as sub- section (7), and before that sub-section as so re-number: ed, the “following sub-sections shall. be. inserted, namely: — “(5) If any person, by words either spoken or intended to ‘be read, makes or publicher Sooke oF ent or does any other act which is ealeulsiod ap bring the Commission or any, member theres) ings disrepute, he” shall be Dunishable with nets imprisonment which may extend t6 two year ne with fine or with both. (8) The provisions of section 198-B of the Code 9f Criminal Procedure, 1898, shall apply in relaing, 19 an offence under sub-section (5) as they apply we elation to an offence referred to in sub-section (1) Of the said section 198-B, subject to the modification 5 of 1368,8 that no complaint in respect of such offence shalt, be made by the Public Prosecutor except with the Previous sanction— (@), in the case of a Commission or member ofa Commission appointed by the Central ernment, of that Government; (b) in the case of a Commission, or a mem- ber of a Commission appointed by the State Government, of that State Government, Section 6A (New) After section 6 of the principal Act, the following section shall be inserted, namely :— “6A. Nothing in this Act shall make it compul- Secret pro- sory for any person giving evidence Before the Com. s,m 20 ‘mission to disclose any secret process of manufacture.”, P€ d#clo°ed, Section 8 For section 8 of the principal Act, the following section shall be substituted, namely,— “8, (1) If, at amy stage of the inquiry, the Commis. Prceiur te sion considers it nebeneery vo inant tia the conta be elle of any person or is of opinion that the reputation of any By,the Com- person is likely to Prejudicially affected by the inquiry, te Commission shall give’ to. that perton a reasonable opporcunity ‘of being heard in the inquiry and sroducing evidence sn his defence: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply where the credit of a witnesses is being impeached. (2) The appropriate Government, every person referred to in sub-section (1) and, with the permission of the Commission, any other person whose evidence i¢ recorded by the Commission (a) may cross-examine any person appearing before the Commission. other than ‘a person produc ed by it or him asa witness; (b) moy address the Commission. (3) The appropriate Government, every person re- ferred to in sub-scetion (2) and, ilk the pereaienon of the Commission, any other person whose evidence 1 recorded by the Commission may be represented before the Commission by'a legal practitioner or, with te permission of the Commission, by any other person. (4) Subject to the provisions contained in this Act and to any rules that may be made in this behalf, the Commission shall have power to regulate its own proce. dure (including the power to fx the places and times of iis stings and to decide whether to'sit in public or in private). oaequity not rupted by reason of vacancy oF change & 28 Section 8A (New) Atter section 8 of the principal Aet, the following secti shall'be inserted, samelye— oe "GA. (1) Where the Commission consists of two or more members, it may act notwithstanding the absence Of the Chairman or any other member or any vacancy among its members: Provided that, if the appropriate Government notifies the Commission that the services of the Chair- man have ceased to be available, the Commission shalt not act unless @ new Chairman is appointed, (2) Where during the course of an inquiry before a Comission, a change hs taken place in the constitu- fiom of the Commission by reason of, any vacancy hav: ing been filled or by an increase in the number of members of the Commission or for any ather reason, Tshall not be necessary, for the Commission to com: mence the inguiry afresh." Section 12 In section 12 of the principal Act— (@) in sub-section (2)— (i) after clause (a), the following clause shall be inserted, namely — (aa) the association with the Commission as assessors of persons having special knot- ledge of any matter relevant to the inquiry, to assist and advise 5" (id after clause (6), the following cleuse shall be inserted, namely — (oe) the travelling and other expenses payable to persons summoned, by the Commis Sion to give evidefice before it.” (b) after sub-section (2), the following sub-section shall be inserted, namely:— “(3) Every rule made by the Central Govern ment under thls section shall be laid, as soon as may Be after it is made, before each House of Parliament tuhile it te in session, for a totol period of thirty days which may be comprised in, one session or in two sucestive sessions end, if, before the expiry ‘of the session in which it #8 0 laid or the session Gmmediaely following, Goth Houses agree in mak~ ing any modification in the Tule or both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified jorm or be of no effect, as the case may be; 0, Rowever. that any suck modification or annulment ahall be without prejudice to the validity of any- thing previously done under thot rule.”.APPENDIX I Nores on CiAuses Section 3 It has been provided that where the appointment is to Sct 30) be in pursuance of the resolution of Parliament or State Raunt of Legislature, the resolution should be of both the Houses pot Houses. Necessary change has been made, ‘The general question of the Government's power to appoint a Commission suo motu has been dealt with. The notification constituting the Commission should Sectir specify the matter to be inquired into. It is considered 242,23, that the Act should contain an express provision on the subject. Necessary change has been made ‘The reasons for making an amendment in respect of the Section 3(0) words “performing such functions” have been already main paias given’ eee ‘hore 5 « mua yesh pon: in conaettin with section Snes 3, 3c in pana gen gota in connate soreay ‘The appropriate Government can appoint a Commission of Inquiry “for the purpose of making an inquiry into any definite matter of public importance and performing such functions and within such time as mey be specified in the notification.....", ‘The intention obviously is. that” the inquiry should be completed within the specified time. In order to make the intention clear, smal] verbal changes have been made. In section 9(1), main para, the words “the Commission 5. 3(), so appointed shall make the inquiry, ete.” have been omit iain para, ted, because it is considered unnecessary to make any such Otlization mandatory provision.* fo na the Section 3(1), proviso (a) has been brought in line with section 30s section 7 which uses the word “exists”. eoviso (a) A provision has been added to deal with the case where section 3) after the appointment of a Commission by a State Govern- provso @). ment, the Central Government decides to appoint a Com: mission to inquire into the same subject.” 'See the body of the Report, para, 21 Bee the body of the Repory, para. Ui ‘Bee the body of the Report, para, 24(a) sip any case section 3(4 a8 proposed croates, the obligation Fag detaled reasons, see diseussion in the body of the Report, para aT28 As the word “exists” is used in section 7, the proviso also has been framed in harmony with that use Section3(@) Tt has been made clear that the appointment of the Chairman will be by the appropriate Government. Sections) A new sub-section has been added to give the appro- priate Government power to fill up vacancies or inerease the number of member Seaton 34. | ‘The provision regarding conclusion of inquicy within the specified period—at present contained in section 3(1) main para. has been embodied here. Power has been given to the Government to extend the period in suitable eases: Some of the other important points relating to section 3 have been already discussed. Section 4 ‘An Explanation has been added to deal with the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Commission in relation to summoning a witness to attend in person. It broadly follows section 74 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and section 92 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Detailed reasons have been alzeady given. Section 5 Ssstons(®. As new sub-scctions are proposed to be added in section 5, consequential change has been made here. Enigrcetions 4. Under section 5(2), a Commission has power to require ‘Gommis" 8D person to furnish information on matters useful for sioa’s orders OF Televant to the subject-matter of the inquiry, ‘The see, Feputing,,, tion is, however, silent as to the penalty to be imposed on ‘sformation. any petson who does not obey a requisition for information issued by the Commission thereunder. Nor docs any other section of the Act impese a penalty for such dise obedience. ‘A question has beon raised whether section 176 of the Indian Penal Code, under which a person “legally bound” to furnish information on any subject to any public servant and omitting to furnish such information, is punishable with imprisonment up to one month or fine up to five hundred rupees or both, may apply to a requisition made under a special law. ‘The decision of the Privy Council in Ali Mahomed v. Emperor may be seen on the point. In that case, a question arose whether a person failing to furnish information required by 2 Wakt Committee eadee See the body of the Report, para, 26 for reasons, 2See also the body of the Report, para, 25, See the body of the Report, paras, 20 and 24(b) ¢c). ‘See the body of the Report, pera. 27 ALR, 1945 P, C. 147, 151,29 section & Mussalmen Wakf Act, 1923, as amended in Bom- bay, could be proceeded against in’ the High Court for contempt under the Contempt of Coutts Act, 1928. ‘The ‘objection taken was, that under section 2(3) ‘of the Cone tempt of Courts Act, the High Court could not take coguis zance of contempt. of 'a subordinate court, ‘where’ sch contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code. “It was argued, that the failure to furnish the infor- mation in question was an offence under section 176, Indian Renal Code, This argument. was rejected by the Privy Council on the following chain of seasoning? (@® Section 176 applies only where a person is “legally bound” to furnish informetion; (i) a person is legally bound to furnish only what is illegal for him to omit (section 43, latter half, Indian Penat Code); ii) it is illegal for a person to omit only that which is an offence (section 43, earlier half, Indian Penal Code); (iv) an offence is only that which is unishable Under the Indian Penat Cocte (section 40, Indian Penal ode). (Therefore, section 176 applies only to a failure which is an offence under some section of Indian Penal Code) ‘The Privy Council observed that if no other section of the Penal Code dealt with the matter, then, one must con- clude that the particular crime, though punishable under some other enactment, is not punishable under the Code, and would not fall under section 176. ‘Therefore, the High Court was not prohibited from dealing with it ander the Contempt of Courts Act. To make the matter clear a pro. vision on the subject has been added.! ‘The difficulty felt by the Press Commission has already been dealt with? New sub-sections are being inserted to deal with matters bringing a Commission or its members into dis, repute. This has been discussed in detail Section 64 This is new and has been inserted to give protection regarding disclosure of a secret process of mahutacture, Section 6D(1) of the (Australian) Royal Commission Act, 19021933, may be compared.* 3See also the body of the Report, para. 28, 2Sce the body of the Heport, para. 1. 3See the body of the Report, paragraphs 12 and 30. ‘+See also the body of the Report, para, $2.30 Seetion 8 (1) ial a dt deals with tho right of a person preju- Sifinily affected to be heard. ‘The new section ws aegis Buibad of the Central Commissions of Inquiry (Procedure) les, 1960 issued on the 7th May, 1960 with org aroesse) ange from that rule. Where the conduct of any sears Hebe investigated merely in order to determing Ke swede bility as @ witness, the provision giving him right ct neon sical producing evidence should not apply. “To reqane cpportunity for hearing in such eases would ge ween coliateral inquiries whieh would never end. THet hac hee made clear. Sections 8(2) and 8(8) hese, are new and bave been added® to deal with Siriain rights which are important enough to deserve c place in the Act. ‘They follow rule f of the Cental Come Teuens of Inquiry (Procedure) Rules, 1960 issued on tre 7h May, 1960, with verbal changes, Section 8 (4) his represents existing section 8, Portion referring to temporary absence or vacaney "is being omitted, we eo elaborate’ provision on the subject is being proposals Section 84 A new provision has been added to deal with cases of Wacancy, or absence amongst the mombers of the tenet mission.* ‘Sub-clause (1)—What is proposed is that absence or "Pequey Shall not invalidate the procecdings. Section 1(8) Gf the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as originally insertoy Py the, Industrial Disputos (Amendment and. ‘Temporary Provisions) Aet, 1951 (40 of 1951) is more elaborate: tak, a simpler provision is preferred. - [That section wae “te Tollows :— “A Tribunal, where it consists of two or more embers, may act notwithstanding the casual and ane Zoreseen absence of the Chairman oF any other member; Lis office after such absence, the proceedings mae he fontinued before the Tribunal from the stage at which he so rejoins.”) Section (4), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been mainly followed, #Sce also pars. 14 of the body of the Report, *See also the body of the Report, paras. 1 and 28 %See section 8A proposed to be inserted, *8ce also the body of the Report, para. 343 Sub-clause (2)—This is intended to deal with changes in constitution, It is considered that in such cases it should be permissible to continue the proceedings as they stand. Section 12 Power to make rules regarding assessors and expenses of witnesses has been added, a such a provision would be useful.! So far ag rules made by the Central Government are concerned, recent legislative practice has been to require that the rule should be laid before each House of Parlia- ment and should be subject io, modification agreed to by both Houses (or to annulment, if so directed by bot Houses), Consistently with this legislative practice, 1 Is desirabie that a similar provision should be inserted in the section under consideration also. Necessary amendment hhas been proposed.* ‘See the body of the Report, para. 38, The draft follows the usual provision as to laying of rules, ‘as found in reeent Central Acts, ‘The Law Commission is "exa fining’ separately the General Clauses Act, and in that connec Hon the question of inserting in that Act a general provision Fequiring laying of rules before Parliament, is likely to receive the attention “of the Commission. ‘The amendment ~ suggested above is, therefore, subject to any recommendauons that the Gommission may make (while dealing with the General Clauses ‘Act} in relation 40 laying of rulus before Parliament.INDEX TO APPENDIX 111 S.No. No. ia, ‘Name of appointing authority Pages Part A ae (Commissions of Inquiry set up by the Government of India) uo Government of India—Ministry of ‘Raihways (Railway Board) = 33 2 136 Government of India—Ministry of Tn- formation and Broadcasting —Press Information Bureau B76 Government of | India—Ministy of Health 8 4 Government of India Ministry of Com merce and Industry. 4 209 Government of India—Ministry of Com- merce and Industry—Department of Compeny Law Administraon = 4 Past B : (Commissions of Inquiry set up by the State Governments} Geers Government of Kerala : 4s zo Government of Gajart " & 18 Government of Rajasthan : 49 ot Government of Madhya Pradesh 49 Tore egy, Government of Mahereshtra 50 m2 Government of Andhra Pradesh st mo 2rg Himachal Pradesh Administration 37 Uhe Statement is bated on informstion supplied by various “Ministries and State Governments, 2The “S, No." mentioned indicates the Serial Numbers in the ‘Commission's File.APPENDIX 1 ‘Statement of Commissions of Inquiry set up under the Aet Parr A (Commissions set up by the Government of India) Mimstay or Raxaways (Railway Board) Four Commissions of Inquiry were appointed under the Gommissions of Inquiry Act, 1982 for the purpose of making inquiries into the caiises of the following Railway acct lents — {i %0 the Down Passenger train Ne. 665 at mile 86/19-16 between Jadcherla and Mahbubnagay Statens gh the Central Railway on the night of the Ist/2ud September 1956; {i,t train No. 603 Tuticorin Express at mile 170/14-12 between Ariyalur and Kallagam stations oo the Villupuram-Trichinopoly (Chord). ‘Line “ot the Southern Railway at 5-80 hours on the 23rd November 1986; (ii) to train No. 1 Down Bombay-Caleutta Mail at mile 97/4 between Padli and Asvait stations on the Igatpuri-Bhusaval double-line section of the Central Railway at 22-45 hours of 23rd Noveriber 1957; and (iv) between No. 2-DU/Down Passenger train and 45 Up Delhi-Pathankot Janta Express at £17 hours on Ist January 1958 at Mohri station on the Delhi-Ambala Section of the Northern Railway. (Particulars are given below) Date of Duration | Matter for which appointed | Remarks appointment of Commission 20-12-1936 | 20-12-1956 | For inquiry into the causes mina to of the = Mahbubnagar aarigs7 | Accident ' 1391956 12-1956 | For inquiry into the eauses cone » to = of the Ariyalur Accident. 29-12-1956Ey ‘Monster or Rawars Date of | Duration | Matter for, which appointment ‘pointed Remarks | Commission cae aeta-1957 | 4-12-1957 _| For inquiry into the to | causes of the Iga | 27-1-1958 muri Accident. 23-1-1958 | 23, 24. 25 | For inguiry into the land conses of = the Vazea-i9s8. ‘Mohri Accident. | and From : 21958 | | © 172-1958 tose | 262-1958, | 1 Mnustey oF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING Press Information Bureau get0-1952 Upto | ‘The Press Commis.) As regards the (Phe Press 31-7"1954 | sion was appointed | action taken on Commission) — | to. enquire into the | the Commission’s | state of the Press | Report, a State in India, its pre- | ment was, laid on sent and Aiture | the Table of Lok | fines of develog ‘Sabha on : ment and in 3o-s-1957_ indi ular to examine: | cating action (Othe ctrl, | Aken on the main management and | recommendations Swnetihip and fina- | of the Prost Com- feat structure of | mission. (AS Rewspapers, large | the statement is andsmall the pero: | very lengthy, iis dical press and news | not reproduced fgencies and feature | here) Syndicates + 1 Gi) the working | Some of the of enemas and Tecmmendaton, Shalne ad thet | mere accepted ‘effect on the presen- | ‘The Newspaper fftion “of, secure | (Price and” Page) | news and fair views; Act, 1956, was Gy the’ eect of | emated wo reduce | holding companies, | diferences due ! the distribution of | to economic ad- 1 SGvestuoments and | vantages ete The | Sach oner forms of | Press“ aid: Regi: xtema infuence ss | tration of Books |‘Muastay oF Information aNp Broapcasmine—contd, Date of appointment Press Information Bureau—contd. appointed | | may have a bearing on the development | of healthy —journal- | tie method of recruitment, training, |. seales “of remuneres | tion,” benefits ana 1 ther “conditions “of employment of work- fing’ journalists, set Uement of disputes affecting them and factors which influence the establishment and maintenince of high profesional standard; () the adequacy of newsprint supplies and their distribution among. all classes of newspapers and. the possibilities of pro- moting indigenous manufacture of (i) newsprint ; (i) print- inery (@) ensuring high stand- ards of journalism and (6) liaison between Government and the ing of Press Advisory Committees and organisations of edi tors and working / journalists, ete, 3 aa & 4 | | (i) freedom of the Press and repeal or Press ; the function | {amendment “of laws / Remarks Act, 1867 was amended to provide for the appointment of the Press Re- gistrar and other maticrs. Rates for telegraphs for ews agency mes Sages were te vised. Further with a view to extending the Provisions of the Industrial Dis putes Act to Working joumna- lists, the Working Journalists (Com Gitions of Service and Miscellane- ‘us Provisions) Act, 1955, was enacted, Section 1988 was introduced in the Criminal Proce dure Code (fe lating 10 defama- tion of public servants). "The Press (Objection able Matter) Act, 1951, was allowed to lapse. Cer- tain recommen dations were brought to the notice of the Stare Governments, and the recommenda- tions relating to privileges and of conternps26 ‘Mnistay or Invorscation ano Broapcastint—coneld, Date of appointment 23-5-1958 ‘(Kerala and Madras Food Poison- | ing Enquiry Commission) Duration | Matter for which of ‘appointed Commission | ft in consonance with it 5 and 10 make recommendations thereon | ‘Mnosray or Heaut [One ‘month | The inquiry into and from the | “report on the follow date of | ing matters, and for swhich ie | that purpore could Eommences) tke Such cvidence as | | comidead neve J ati. | Says ee whereby the food or | | foodstatts used in pre- Nes (@) whether the contamination could hhave been avoided or detected in time 5 | | te scion, i I | as tS Sean wat as ution of the conta ‘inated food or food- stuffs $ (a) whether there | had ‘been any fuikure in taking adequate | measures’ for” the {avoidance or timely Press Information Bureau—coneld. Sn Legislature were brought to the notice of the var- ious Legislatures, Certain” recom= ‘mendations were not accepted. 1, The Rerala and ‘Madras Food Pois Cases mission embarked upon the enguiry on the 6th June, 4958 and submite ted its Report to the | Government of India onthe sth July, 1958. 2. In the Report, the — Commissi have made— (@ their special recommendation about the dis- posal of foodsturts seized by the Kerala” State Government ; and inter alia (i) their general recommendations in regard tothe steps to be taken to prevent such ‘occurrences in fature. 3. In so faras the special ‘recom= mendations atem Ministry or HustH—contd, Date of || Duration appointment of, | ‘Commission Matter for which ‘appointed detection of such contamination and the person of persons responsible for such failure, and (©) the measures, tO be taken to safeguard against similar occur ences in future ‘concemed, they were accepted, by the State Gov femment concer ed who took ecessary action in the matter. 4, As regards the Tiftecn general recommendations, a Committee consisting of the representatives. of the Ministries of ©. & L,, Food and Agriculture, Lae our and Em- ployment, Trans port Communications, Railways, 8. R.& cA, Lew, Heath, W. H & S., Finance and Home Affairs was constituted. This Committee made recommen- dations for ( Short term mens~ ures and (i) ong term meas- vues, Short term meas ‘Those insecticides which are” consi- dered highly toxi¢ to man were notified 2 “Poison” under the Poisons Act, 1919 by the Minis ry of Home Aff airs, The State‘Moasmy or Hxaum—coneld. ‘Governments were also advised by that Ministry to ‘ake further action under the Poisons Act, 1919. The ‘other shore term taken by various Ministrios —con- | cemed. Long term meas { requested to take | necessary action to sponsor and loca bill called “Indian Pesticides: Bill” for regulat- ing the | manu- facture, import, storage, transport, distribution, etc of pesticides. ‘Mnnsrey or Commernce an Ixpustny Date of | Duration Mater for} Action taken appointment | of | which appointed| on the Report | Remarks (Commission of the Commission of Inquiry 7th April, | 1. The Planta- | Goverament’s 3-4-1984 a and’ immed tely after the disaster ‘to avert the same or to mitigate the conse ences there. ot upto the | ‘The Commis- | The Report is 3oth April, | sion of Inquiry } yet to be sub- 1962. consisting of | mitted to. Gov- Shri R. S. | emment, Ravdekar, could not complete the inquiry about the failure of the | Bansher and Rhadakwasla Damon account of the erate Seath of | Shri Bavdekar Government | therefore ape | pointed anotherMananastrena—concld, S.No, and | Date of | Duration of [Matter for which fame of the | appoint- | Commision |" appointed "| Remarks ‘Commission | ‘ment Inquiry under e is ee tt oe] | guy, Seb t953 | Shri Justice | i Vv. A. vaik, | Judge of the | | | Be oct S| pos | ea Spor on ‘othe fut | | wae hoes Eisai | sean circumstances | sommes | ' | failure oc- | curred; | @ the ade- | | guacy of action | | taken by the | | various aus thorities — be- | | fore, during ' | and” imme: | diately “ater the disaster to avert the same | | ort mitigate the conse: | quences there- | of,54 Awpuna Prapest Date of | Duration of | Matter for which appointment | Commission ‘appointed 16-10-1961. 2months | Inquiry into the | The Commission (To inquire into affairs of the | could not sub- affairs of one | Andhra” Hand- | mit its Report, as concern). loom Weavers | stay orders were Limited, Vijaya~ | passed by the wada owing to} High Court of | its" mismanage- | Andhra Pradesh. HMAcuAL PRADESH ADMINISTRATION 20-1-1958 From Fire accident in (To inquire into | 31-1-58 Shri Laxmi fire). rs Narain’s Temple 7338. at Chamba. GOMGIPND—TSS—140 M of Law (6164)—29-4-1963—1,750 \