Discuss the constitutional basis and utility of court-appointed high-powered committees in probing allegations of police excess. What safeguards ensure their impartiality?

Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary for "complete justice" [1]. On this basis it creates ad hoc high-powered committees — such as the five-member panel under Justice R. Subhash Reddy probing the July 2026 Jantar Mantar police action [4] — to settle disputed facts of alleged police excess.

Constitutional basis

• Article 142 read with Article 32 supplies inherent, non-statutory authority to appoint fact-finding bodies where existing machinery is distrusted [1].
• The mandate flows from enforcing Article 19(1)(b) — peaceful assembly, restrictable only reasonably under Article 19(3) — making the proportionality of force judicially reviewable [1].
• Distinct from a statutory Commission of Inquiry (1952 Act), which the executive appoints and whose report is normally laid before the legislature [2].

Utility

• Provides independent fact-finding where the police would otherwise investigate themselves; the panel's remit covers both alleged excesses and violence against personnel [4].
• Mixed composition — three retired judges plus a former CBI Director and a retired DGP [4] — blends judicial detachment with operational literacy to read force-authorisation orders, control-room logs and detention registers.
• Delivers speed and expert assistance to the Court without a full trial.
• Limits: it is advisory, reports only to the Court, and lacks the 1952 Act's public-tabling step [2], so findings may never reach the citizen whose rights were at stake.

Safeguards for impartiality

• Chairmanship by a retired Supreme Court judge, with a judicial majority outvoting service members [4].
• Court-framed terms of reference and continuous judicial monitoring; the Court stressed that the panel assists it "with the highest standards of fairness and transparency" [4].
• A standing rule excluding members who served in or supervised the force under scrutiny would pre-empt conflict-of-interest pleas [4].
• Parliament's Standing Committee on Home Affairs (2022) urged that complaint bodies sit outside the police force, staffed by retired judges and jurists with women's representation [3].

Such committees are a constitutional stopgap, not a system. Making Police Complaints Authorities functional, and mandating time-bound, publicly released findings, would convert episodic judicial rescue into durable accountability — securing both the citizen's right to protest and the policeman's right to a fair hearing.