Polity · 5 Aug 2026

Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952

Consider the following statements regarding Commissions of Inquiry set up under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952:

  1. A Commission of Inquiry constituted under this Act has binding legal authority to convict individuals it finds responsible for a conspiracy.
  2. The findings of such a Commission and the verdict of a criminal court examining the same events can differ because the two apply different standards of proof.
  3. The Liberhan Commission, probing the Babri Masjid demolition, submitted its report only after receiving 48 extensions.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

A1 and 2 only
B2 and 3 only
C1 and 3 only
D1, 2 and 3

Tests the ability to distinguish an institution's formal legal power from its factual findings - an analytical distinction UPSC frequently uses to trap candidates who conflate "commission concluded X" with "X is legally established."

Subscribe / Login in App →
This question is based on: Justice Liberhan Is Gone - The Question His Commission Never Resolved Isn't
Take this in full test mode → Instructions for 5 Aug 2026
About this question

Why in news

Justice M.S. Liberhan, who headed the Commission probing the 1992 Babri Masjid demolition, died this week at 87, reviving debate on the gap between commission findings and criminal court outcomes.

Why for UPSC

This tests the structural distinction between fact-finding commissions and courts - a recurring UPSC theme in governance and accountability mechanisms, going beyond the obvious "what happened at Ayodhya" recall.

Prelims summary

Commissions of Inquiry under the 1952 Act are advisory, fact-finding bodies without binding legal or convicting power; their conclusions can legitimately diverge from a criminal court's verdict due to differing standards of proof.

On web, answers are shown once after a test — no save or reattempt. For unlimited reattempts, Hindi medium, and Mentor Observations, use the TAN App.