The Liberhan Commission was constituted on December 16, 1992 to probe the demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya.

Seventeen years later, on June 30, 2009, Justice Liberhan has submitted his report to the prime minister. It is an opportune time to raise several serious issues including the credibility of the institution of commissions of inquiry, take stock of the working of such commissions, examine what ails them, and seek solutions to salvage the situation. Experience and hindsight render one bold to be blunt and speak out.

The Commissions of Inquiry Act provides that a state or Central government may set up one to inquire into a matter of definite public importance. A cynical view has gained ground that commissions of inquiry are established merely to deflect the popular mood of the public and stave off inconvenient questions in the legislature and are not really intended to fathom the facts leading to a matter of moment. The saga of most of the commissions before, during and after they were set up, adds grist to the cynical mill.

A commission of inquiry can be headed by any person in whom the government has confidence. The coefficient of confidence commanded by judges being high, by default such commissions are headed by a judge, sitting or retired. The choice of the presiding judge often gets embroiled in political quagmire with the government jockeying to find the least “unsuitable” judge for the job. In the case of a sitting judge, the choice is usually made by the concerned chief justice, leaving little scope for the government to manoeuvre and manipulate, unless the chief justice is pliable. Pliability of the presiding officer has greater probability in the case of a retired judge, though honourable exceptions are not unknown.

... contd.