Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The question asks who has the authority to appoint a Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, is titled "Appointment of Commission." It states:
"The appropriate Government may, if it is of opinion that it is necessary so to do, and shall, if a resolution in this behalf is passed by the House of the People or, as the case may be, the Legislative Assembly of the State, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint a Commission of Inquiry for the purpose of making an inquiry into any definite matter of public importance..."
The term "appropriate Government" is defined in Section 2(a) of the Act. It means:
(i) the Central Government, in relation to any matter relatable to any of the entries in List I or List II or List III in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution; and
(ii) the State Government, in relation to any matter relatable to any of the entries in List II or List III of the Seventh Schedule.
This means both the Central Government and the State Governments have the power to appoint a Commission of Inquiry, depending on the subject matter. Therefore, option (A) is correct.
Step 3: Final Answer:
An Inquiry Commission under the 1952 Act is appointed by the appropriate government, which can be either the Central Government or the State Government.
Ahmadi.(as he then was) speaking for himself and PunchhiJ., endorsed the rec ommendations in the following words-The time is ripe for taking stock of the working of the various Tribunals set up in the country after the insertion of Articles 323A and 323B in the Constitution. After the incorporation of these two articles, Acts have been enacted where under tribunals have been constituted for dispensation of justice. Sufficient time has passed and experience gained in these last few years for taking stock of the situation with a view to finding out if they have served the purpose and objectives for which they were constituted. Complaints have been heard in regard to the functioning of other tribunals as well and it is time that a body like the Law Commission of India has a comprehensive look-in with a view to suggesting measures for their improved functioning. That body can also suggest changes in the different statutes and evolve a model on the basis whereof tribunals may be constituted or reconstituted with a view to ensuring greater independence. An intensive and extensive study needs to be undertaken by the Law Commission in regard to the Constitution of tribunals under various statutes with a view to ensuring their independence so that the public confidence in such tribunals may increase and the quality of their performance may improve.
Before parting with the case it is necessary to express our anguish over the ineffectiveness of the alternative mechanism devised for judicial review. The judicial review and remedy are the fundamental rights of the citizens. The dispensation of justice by the tribunal is much to be desired.
(Extracted with Edits from R.K. Jain v. Union of India, 1993 (4) SCC 119)