Commission of Inquiry may proceed on public-importance issues while criminal trials remain pending; statements stay inadmissible in later proceedings.

A Commission of Inquiry appointed to examine the circumstances, causes and background of communal disturbances could proceed notwithstanding pending criminal prosecutions, because its reference concerned a definite matter of public importance and not adjudication of criminal guilt. Its inquiry was treated as inquisitorial and distinct from the sub judice trial issues, so restraint on that ground was refused. Section 6 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 also barred use of statements made before the Commission in civil or criminal proceedings, except for false evidence prosecutions, so those statements were held inadmissible against the persons facing trial. The petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a Commission of Inquiry appointed to investigate the circumstances, causes, and background of communal disturbances could be restrained from commencing its inquiry because criminal prosecutions arising out of the same disturbances were pending. (ii) Whether statements made before the Commission could be used against persons facing criminal trial.

Issue (i): Whether a Commission of Inquiry appointed to investigate the circumstances, causes, and background of communal disturbances could be restrained from commencing its inquiry because criminal prosecutions arising out of the same disturbances were pending.

Analysis: The inquiry was held to concern a definite matter of public importance within Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, namely the strained social relations, antecedent conditions, and causes leading to the disturbances, and not the adjudication of guilt in the criminal cases. The terms of reference were treated as distinct from the factual issues in the prosecutions. The Commission was therefore not conducting a parallel inquiry into a sub judice criminal matter, and its fact-finding exercise was described as inquisitorial rather than accusatorial and not a judicial proceeding of a court of law.

Conclusion: The Commission could not be restrained from commencing the inquiry, and the objection based on pending criminal trials failed.

Issue (ii): Whether statements made before the Commission could be used against persons facing criminal trial.

Analysis: Section 6 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 was treated as an express bar against using statements made before the Commission in any civil or criminal proceeding, except a prosecution for false evidence. The statutory protection was held to make such statements wholly inadmissible in later proceedings, and the possibility of prejudice in the criminal trial was therefore rejected.

Conclusion: Statements made before the Commission were not admissible against the petitioners in the criminal cases.

Final Conclusion: The petition was dismissed because the inquiry lawfully could proceed on a public-importance issue distinct from the criminal prosecutions, and the statute itself prevented use of Commission statements against the petitioners in trial.

Ratio Decidendi: A Commission of Inquiry may proceed where its reference concerns collateral matters of public importance and not the determination of criminal guilt, and Section 6 renders statements before the Commission inadmissible in subsequent civil or criminal proceedings.

---