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.