Guwahati: The Gauhati High Court has reiterated that courts cannot compel the government to act on the findings of a Commission of Inquiry, observing that such reports are recommendatory in nature and not legally enforceable.
A division bench of Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury made the observation while disposing of a public interest litigation (PIL) concerning the APSC cash-for-job scam.
The bench noted that a Commission of Inquiry functions primarily as a fact-finding body and its recommendations do not carry binding force. Consequently, the government is within its rights to accept, reject or partially implement the findings of such a commission.
“The report of a Commission of Inquiry is recommendatory in nature. Such recommendations are not binding on the government and, therefore, courts cannot compel their implementation,” the court observed.
The PIL, filed by Pritom Hazarika and Jon Jyoti Sarmah, had sought timely action by the state authorities on the report submitted by the Justice (retd) B.K. Sharma Commission of Inquiry.
In its order, the High Court also took note of developments in the functioning of the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC), observing that since 2014, the Commission has been conducting examinations annually without any reported irregularities that would cast doubt on the integrity of the process.
The court said this suggests that corrective measures may have already been put in place, even if it has not been explicitly stated that these were undertaken in pursuance of the commission’s recommendations.
Clarifying the scope of a Commission of Inquiry, the bench pointed out that such bodies neither adjudicate legal rights nor determine the guilt of individuals. As such, their reports are “judicially non-enforceable” and remain subject to the policy choices and administrative priorities of the government.
At the same time, the court underlined that judicial oversight is not entirely excluded. It said courts can ensure that such reports are duly placed before the legislature, considered by the government, and examined to ascertain whether any decision to reject them is arbitrary or mala fide.
The High Court disposed of the PIL with these observations, declining to issue any direction for mandatory implementation of the inquiry report.