Commission, omission

One need not look beyond the performance of various judicial commissions of inquiry to find fault with the Indian judiciary. A judicial commission is set up with a pre-defined term of existence to expedite a probe into a case or an incident of vital national importance, when it is observed that such a probe will get delayed in the normal courts of justice. However, very few commissions have handled their probes competently and submitted their reports before the end of their terms. A majority of them have overrun their terms by several years and sometimes decades, repeatedly requesting and getting extensions.

The Liberhan Commission, constituted to probe the demolition of the Babri Masjid and the subsequent riots in Ayodhya, was set up with a term of three months. Fifteen years and 44 term extensions later, nobody can guess when its report will be submitted. The Nanavati-Shah commission was set up in March 2002 to probe the Godhra train carnage in Gujarat. Commission member Justice Shah passed away in March this year, a development which might further delay the report. The Srikrishna Commission, set up in January 1993, was given time till March that year to probe into the Bombay riots, but the final report came out in 1998.

Many of these commissions have ensured that justice is their first casualty. A delay over years means that their reports are irrelevant when they are submitted. In the interim period, the accused walk free, witnesses pass away, turn hostile or flee the country and crucial evidence is lost.

... contd.