Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, is a central legislation that empowers the government to appoint commissions to inquire into matters of definite public importance.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
Section 3 of the Act specifies the appointing authority. It states that the "appropriate Government" may, if it is of opinion that it is necessary so to do, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint a Commission of Inquiry.
The term "appropriate Government" is defined in Section 2(a) of the Act. It means:
- The Central Government, in relation to any matter relatable to any of the entries enumerated in List I (Union List) or List II (State List) or List III (Concurrent List) in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
- The State Government, in relation to any matter relatable to any of the entries enumerated in List II or List III of the Seventh Schedule.
Essentially, both the Central Government and the State Governments have the power to appoint a Commission of Inquiry within their respective legislative domains.
Step 3: Final Answer:
Therefore, an Inquiry Commission under the Act is appointed by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be.
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)