In the wake of the recent observations of the Madras High Court questioning the State government on the amount of funds spent on running Commissions of Inquiry on various issues, legal experts and activists have questioned the need for appointing such panels in the first place.
The objective of appointing inquiry panels, the costs incurred by the State exchequer, the purpose they serve if and after their reports are submitted to the government and the absence of a meaningful debate on their findings and the lessons learned from the incidents being probed are all issues that are yet to be addressed, they contend.
“In my opinion, the appointing of Commissions of Inquiry is often a meaningless exercise. They don’t have any legal standing in the court,” contends retired High Court judge K. Chandru. Though the reports should ideally be made public, there had been instances in the past where the government had acted against the leaking of inquiry reports, he pointed out.
The State government, headed by then Chief Minister M.G. Ramachandran, registered cases under the Official Secrets Act against DMK leader M. Karunanidhi for having released the report of the J.C.R. Paul Inquiry Commission that probed the death of Subramania Pillai, an official attached to the Murugan temple in Tiruchendur, in 1980, he noted.
VCK general secretary D. Ravikumar said that the reports of inquiry panels, if at all tabled by the respective State governments, were rarely discussed in the House.
Kathir, an activist from Madurai-based NGO ‘Evidence’, argued that out of the 45-odd Commissions of Inquiry appointed in the State since 1991, the reports of only about two to three had proved useful.
“When we move the court, the government will submit that it has already appointed a Commission of Inquiry and [hence] our plea need not be entertained. Eventually, the High Court will dismiss our plea,” Mr. Kathir pointed out.
