The price of expertise: Are ‘expert committees’ a burden on the taxpayer?

Throughout India’s history, expert committees have played a key role in addressing complex policy, legal, and social issues requiring specialised knowledge. These committees are often formed to provide independent recommendations or propose solutions in areas such as agriculture, economics, medicine, and science, where technical expertise is crucial.
Government officials or the judiciary may lack the necessary expertise in these fields, so expert committees are convened to gather facts, analyse data, and offer evidence-based recommendations. These committees also provide neutral assessments on contentious issues, acting as third-party evaluators during public protests, legal standoffs, or disagreements—such as the debate around the farm laws. They help shape government policy and judicial decisions and can mediate conflict resolution, as seen during the Shaheen Bagh protests and other social movements.
How Are Expert Committees Established?
Expert committees in India are typically constituted by both the Government of India and the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court.
Government-appointed committees are usually formed through notifications or executive orders. While in principle, the government forms an expert committee whenever expert opinion is required, in practice, these committees are often created when the government faces pressure to implement significant policy changes or social reforms.
On the other hand, committees formed by the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, are often established in response to public interest litigations (PILs) or high-profile cases requiring expert opinion to ensure transparency and fairness. These panels have played critical roles in resolving protests, investigating financial irregularities, and ensuring the safety of marginalised sections of society. However, their effectiveness depends heavily on the follow-up actions taken by the relevant authorities based on their recommendations.
The Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952, is a key piece of legislation empowering both the central and state governments to establish commissions to investigate matters of public importance. Governments often establish committees under this Act in compliance with court orders. The Act provides a legal framework for setting up commissions, outlining their powers, procedures, and reporting structures.
The Commission of Inquiry Act has been used to investigate several high-profile cases, such as the Gujarat riots, the Bhopal gas tragedy, and corruption scandals involving public officials. While the recommendations made by these commissions are not legally binding, they often influence significant policy decisions or judicial outcomes.
Who Pays for These Expert Committees?
Neither the Commission of Inquiry Act nor the rules framed under it specify the expenses for the functioning of these expert committees. Research shows that compensation for committee members can vary significantly depending on several factors, including the size and composition of the committee, the complexity of the issues, the duration of the committee’s work, and the expertise of the individuals involved. Compensation is typically determined by government-established norms to ensure that committee members are fairly remunerated for their time, effort, and specialised knowledge.
For instance, committees dealing with highly complex or sensitive issues may require members with particular expertise, which commands a higher fee. Additionally, the duration of the committee’s work plays a role; some members receive fixed payments for the entire task, while others are compensated on a per-day or per-meeting basis, especially if their involvement is intermittent. Travel-related expenses—such as accommodation, transportation, and per diems—are typically reimbursed to ensure these costs do not burden the members.
Funding for these payments is usually drawn from the government’s budget, often allocated to the relevant department overseeing the committee’s work. This mechanism maintains transparency and accountability, as public funds are used to compensate experts. Ensuring impartiality in decision-making and avoiding private or corporate influence are essential, especially since taxpayer money is involved. Therefore, it is crucial that the committee’s work is driven by merit and the public good, rather than personal or financial gain.
However, it is important to note that any commission’s findings are advisory and not legally binding. As a result, recommendations are often ignored or only partially implemented, reducing their practical impact. A frequent criticism of such committees is the significant time and cost involved. Some inquiries stretch over several years, producing lengthy reports and delaying corrective actions. This prolonged process adds to the financial burden, contributing to inefficiency.
The Liberhan Commission: A 17-Year Inquiry and Its Findings
The Liberhan Commission was established by the Government of India in 1993 to investigate the events leading up to the demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya on December 6, 1992. Chaired by retired Justice MS Liberhan, the commission sought to ascertain the facts surrounding the incident, which had significant political and communal ramifications across India.
The commission’s inquiry focused on several aspects, including the roles of political leaders, organisations, and law enforcement agencies in the events leading to the demolition. It also examined the broader context of communal tensions in the region and the involvement of right-wing groups.
After 17 years of deliberation, the Liberhan Commission submitted its report in 2009. The report concluded that the demolition was pre-planned and involved several key political figures. It criticised the failure of both state and central governments to maintain law and order and recommended holding those responsible for the violence accountable.
An RTI filed by India Today’s Ashok Upadhyay revealed that between 1992 and 2010, the one-man panel of Justice Liberhan incurred expenses amounting to Rs 9 crore over 18 years, utilising 65% of its allocated budget of Rs 13 crore.
Farm Laws and Farmers’ Protests
In 2020, the Indian government introduced three farm laws aimed at liberalising agricultural markets, allowing farmers to sell their produce outside state-regulated markets and promoting contract farming. These laws sparked widespread protests, particularly in Punjab, Haryana, and Western Uttar Pradesh, where farmers feared the dismantling of the Minimum Support Price (MSP) system and increased corporate exploitation.
Amid the escalating protests, the Supreme Court stayed the implementation of the laws in January 2021 and appointed an expert committee to examine them and address the farmers’ concerns. The committee comprised Ashok Gulati, Pramod Kumar Joshi, Anil Ghanwat, and Bhupinder Singh Mann, who later recused himself. Despite submitting its report in March 2021, the Supreme Court did not take further action, and the report was not immediately made public.
The committee faced significant criticism. Farmer unions accused it of bias, as some members had previously expressed support for the farm laws. This led many protestors to distrust the committee, believing it was a delaying tactic rather than a genuine effort to address their concerns. Bhupinder Singh Mann’s recusal further eroded confidence in the committee’s ability to fairly evaluate the laws. Additionally, the secrecy surrounding the report’s findings contributed to the perception that the committee’s work had little real impact.
In November 2021, after almost a year of intense protests, the government repealed the farm laws without Supreme Court intervention, rendering the committee’s work irrelevant. The controversies and lack of transparency surrounding the committee meant it failed to gain the trust of the protesting farmers and played little role in the resolution.
Despite the lack of success with the previous expert committee, in response to the “Delhi Chalo” protests initiated by farmers in Punjab and Haryana in February 2024, the Supreme Court, on September 2, 2024, once again set up an expert committee to mediate between farmers and the state. This protest emerged from a High Court order directing the removal of barricades and the restoration of order on the Punjab-Haryana border.
This high-powered committee, chaired by former Punjab & Haryana High Court Judge Justice Nawab Singh, includes experts from various fields. Its aim is to address the farmers’ grievances and restore access to the highways. The court refrained from framing the terms of reference, allowing the panel to identify and formulate the issues for consideration.
While forming the committee, the Supreme Court issued a directive for an interim status report to be filed by October. However, as of October 5, no such report had been filed, according to official court records. The effectiveness of this committee remains to be seen, with the next hearing scheduled for mid-October 2024.
RG Kar Hospital Case – Safety and Security of Doctors
Following the tragic rape and murder of a trainee doctor in Kolkata in 2024, the Supreme Court constituted a 10-member National Task Force (NTF) on August 20, 2024. The NTF was tasked with formulating protocols to ensure doctors’ safety, prevent violence (including gender-based violence), and recommend dignified working conditions.
The NTF was given a three-week deadline for an interim report and a two-month deadline for the final report. It was also directed to consider additional measures, such as distress call systems and compensation funds.
On September 30, the Supreme Court asked the Solicitor General of India to place on record the outcome of the NTF’s proceedings and indicate the progress made. The case is scheduled for further hearing on October 15, 2024.
Manipur Violence Monitoring Committee
On August 7, 2023, the Supreme Court of India appointed a committee of three former high court judges—led by former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Justice Gita Mittal, with Justices (retired) Shalini P. Joshi and Asha Menon—to oversee relief and rehabilitation efforts for those affected by the Manipur violence that began on May 4, 2023. The committee was tasked with examining the nature of the violence, particularly against women, and recommending steps for social, economic, and psychological support, as well as compensation for victims.
The committee was responsible for ensuring dignity in relief camps, suggesting additional facilities, and overseeing the disbursement of compensation. They were also required to submit fortnightly updates to the court on the progress of compensation and other measures. By August 21, 2023, three reports had been filed, addressing issues like lost documentation and improvements to the Victims’ Compensation Scheme.
By September 2023, the committee had filed 12 reports, prompting the court to issue orders, including providing displaced persons with Aadhaar cards and funding compensation payments. In October 2023, the committee addressed the issue of unclaimed bodies in Manipur mortuaries, leading to court directives for burial or cremation. The committee’s tenure was extended in December 2023 for six months, and by July 2024, 34 reports had been submitted. On August 5, 2024, the Supreme Court extended the committee’s mandate for another six months.
Adani-Hindenburg Row
In March 2023, the Supreme Court of India constituted an expert committee, chaired by retired Justice A.M. Sapre, to assess the regulatory framework governing the Indian securities market in light of the Adani-Hindenburg controversy. The committee was tasked with making recommendations to strengthen the system and protect investors from volatility like that seen after the release of the Hindenburg Report.
The Court’s order, issued on March 2, 2023, directed the committee to submit its findings in a sealed cover within two months. The committee complied, submitting its report on May 6, 2023. On May 17, the Court made the report available to all parties and their counsel for further deliberations, and the committee was asked to continue assisting the Court.
In its findings, the expert committee found no prima facie lapses on the part of SEBI (Securities and Exchange Board of India) regarding the Adani matter. It noted that, while the volatility in Adani Group stocks following the Hindenburg Report affected individual investors, it did not pose a systemic risk to the broader securities market. The committee concluded that market forces and mitigatory measures helped stabilise the situation, and the overall impact on the economic ecosystem was minimal.
On January 3, 2024, the Supreme Court, while disposing of related pleas, acknowledged the committee’s findings that the Indian securities market showed resilience and that fluctuations in Adani Group stocks did not result in significant market-wide volatility. The Court recommended that the Centre and SEBI review the committee’s report and take necessary actions to strengthen the regulatory framework to better protect investors and ensure the smooth functioning of the market. SEBI and the government were encouraged to draw on the expertise of the committee members when implementing further measures based on the recommendations.
Pegasus Spyware Case
On October 27, 2021, the Supreme Court appointed a committee led by Justice RV Raveendran to investigate allegations of illegal surveillance using Pegasus spyware on Indian citizens. The committee included three technical experts in cybersecurity and digital forensics, along with other specialists, tasked with determining whether Pegasus had been used to access data or eavesdrop on devices in India.
The committee was charged with determining if Pegasus had been used to breach citizens’ privacy and recommending legal or procedural changes to enhance cybersecurity and protect privacy rights. It was also tasked with suggesting improvements to the laws governing surveillance in India. The committee had the autonomy to devise its procedures and conduct inquiries as necessary.
Initially, the technical committee was expected to submit its report by May 20, 2022, but it requested an extension until June 20, 2022. The Supreme Court granted the extension, noting that an interim report had been submitted. The final report was submitted towards the end of July 2022.
On October 27, 2022, the Court acknowledged the submission of the reports by the technical committee and the overseeing judge, both of which were sealed and placed under the custody of the Secretary General of the Court. Although the case was scheduled for further hearings after four weeks, it has not been listed since.
Covid-19 Oxygen Crisis
On May 6, 2021, the Supreme Court constituted a 12-member National Task Force (NTF) to develop a scientific methodology for allocating medical oxygen to states and Union Territories during the Covid-19 pandemic. The bench, comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah, allowed the task force to consult the Union government and draw on its resources. The NTF was also given the freedom to set its own procedures and modalities for carrying out its work.
The Union government was instructed to continue its current oxygen allocation system but adjust it based on the task force’s recommendations. Initially set up for six months, the NTF was required to periodically submit its recommendations to the Court.
By August 9, 2021, when the case was last heard, the Supreme Court was informed that the task force had held several meetings and submitted its reports to the Union government. The Court directed that these reports, covering all aspects of oxygen allocation and other relevant issues, be placed on the record. Additionally, the Union government was asked to file an Action Taken Report detailing the steps it had taken to implement the task force’s recommendations.
The court also required the government to submit an affidavit outlining how it had incorporated the NTF’s recommendations into its policy to enhance preparedness for managing the ongoing and future phases of the pandemic.