There needs to be a change in mindset. A commission of inquiry is not a substitute for a debate on the floor of the legislature on any important public issue. The attempt of governments to deflect public opinion and questions in the legislature by raising the bogus plea of the issue being sub-judice before the commission needs to be deprecated.

Nothing prevents the government from entrusting such inquiries to bureaucrats, but their credibility today is very low. If, willy-nilly, a judge has to be appointed, the choice of such appointment must always lie with the chief justice who, presumably, does not toe the line of the government. Having appointed the commission in all seriousness, the government must treat it with the same sense of urgency as an agency doing firefighting. All material sought must be made immediately available without any reservation, deferring to his discretion in the matter of privilege. Considering the end result to be achieved, the commission must restrict representation before it only to such persons as it thinks are absolutely necessary to unravel and discern the truth. Short shrift must be given to publicity hunters and peddlers of political pedagoguery. Cross-examination should be pruned to the irreducible minimum commensurate with the demands of natural justice. The judge must at all times be in the driving seat of proceedings and determine their speed and direction. He must brook neither interference nor interruption, using fully the powers under the act to summon and enforce attendance of all persons deemed necessary, however high and mighty they be.

... contd.