Opinion And then,action not taken

More often than not,the public importance of the definite matter stems more from its political overtones than its inherent moment. The overtones make it inherently difficult for a person not immune or indifferent to political pressure to act judiciously and in accordance with the

dictates of his conscience. The commission then degenerates into a convenient tool in the hands of the political class to stifle debate in the legislature and hope that the groundswell of public opinion would eventually subside with the passage of time.

The act prescribes no qualification for the person to be

appointed on the commission. This gives another handle to the government to appoint any convenient bureaucrat effectively to whitewash the issues and ensure that there are no adverse findings against it. The person chosen may also be a retired judge whose self-interest may override judiciousness in his findings. Every time there is such a definite matter of public importance,and the government dithers,there is persistent clamour for the appointment of a sitting judge,preferably of the high court or Supreme Court,to preside over the commission. In theory,at least,the last category of persons is expected to be impervious to political carrots and sticks.

The inevitable political overtones of the inquiry throw open the doors to all busybodies to claim before the commission that they represent particular interests that have certain facts to present and views to project during the

inquiry before the commission. Even if many of them are publicity seeking busybodies,it becomes impossible to separate the chaff from the grain until the whole process is completed. Apart from dumping tonnes of relevant and irrelevant documents on the commission,the representatives of different sections,often represented by astute counsel,insist on interminable cross-examination of witnesses,often randomly and ramblingly. The commission is often buffeted by the strong side winds,unable to steer the course for the inquiry charted by it. Any stern ruling by the commission brings forth flared tempers,acrimony,innuendos and outright allegations of bias. The commission must be made of sterner stuff if it has to navigate the turbulent sea of voluble lawyers,perjuring witnesses and uncooperative officers of the government to grapple with the Holy Grail of truth.

The task of the commission is to sift through the mass of documents and testimonies presented before it and draw rationally acceptable conclusions and suggest appropriate remedial measures to the government. The blame game freely indulged in by all political parties renders this task of the commission immeasurably complex. The sheer political sensitivity of the task daunts many,impelling them to seek quietude by adroit avoidance of appointment to the commission by convenient excuses,perhaps to prove Alexander Pope’s astute observation that fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

Even if an occasional lionhearted one volunteers to brave the flings and arrows of an outrageous fortune and decides to take arms against a sea of troubles to end them all,the outcome is utterly disillusioning. The government that solemnly appointed the commission is not obliged to accept the findings of the commission and may disdainfully dismiss them as “not acceptable” with nary an apology for the sheer waste of precious time,talent and public funds. True,Section 3(4) of the act requires that the report of the commission be tabled before the appropriate legislature together with a Memorandum of Action Taken. This is intended for the legislature to debate upon before acceptance. Aye,there lies the rub,for such a memorandum,called the Action Taken Report in popular parlance,gives free rein to the use of bureaucratic jargon to obfuscate material facts and metamorphose the Action Taken Report into a veritable No-Action Taken Report.

An unbiased reader of such an Action Taken Report will often find it to be an exercise in suppressio veri,if not suggestio falsi. Creative usage of bureaucratic language used in such an Action Taken Report is often replete with such circumlocution as would make Samuel Johnson blush in his grave. The findings of the commission accepted would be relatively few and insignificant,as compared to those that are officiously rejected as not acceptable. The reasons given for such non-acceptance of the commission’s findings are hardly enough to satisfy a reasonable mind but miraculously the legislature is made to accept the ATR and treat the matter as closed. The aggrieved citizens are left wondering as to whether the exercise was worth the time and money spent.

This is the painful and pitiable saga of most reports of commissions of inquiry appointed in this country so far. In the final analysis,the whole exercise,to quote William Shakespeare,resembles “A tale told by an idiot,full

of sound and fury,signifying nothing.”

Justice Srikrishna,who headed the commission of inquiry into the Bombay riots of 1992-3,retired as a judge of the Supreme Court

express@expressindia.com