In India, setting up a committee has become the government’s most common response to a crisis. Whether it is an accident, an administrative failure, or a major public controversy, inquiry panels are often announced quickly to signal action. But as public attention fades, many of these committees quietly disappear from the spotlight, with little clarity on whether their recommendations are implemented or anyone is held accountable.The latest example came on July 26, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced a high-powered task force, headed by Infosys co-founder Nandan Nilekani, to recommend reforms for examinations conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA).Similar responses have been seen in other recent incidents. After an IndiGo flight disruption, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) formed a four-member committee to investigate the incident. Likewise, after chaos at an event featuring football star Lionel Messi at Kolkata’s Salt Lake Stadium, the West Bengal government announced a committee to examine the lapses. While such announcements project swift action, the real test is whether the reports are made public and their recommendations are actually implemented.However, several such committees fade from public attention once the immediate crisis subsides, with reports often remaining unpublished and recommendations rarely implemented. This story examines how these inquiry committees function and what follows after their formation.Questions over committee’s pace on coaching classFormer Union education minister Dharmendra Pradhan, in his letter posted on X, wrote that he had “remained committed to ensuring that no deserving student’s future would be ruined because of the examination mafia and that no student would suffer injustice.” In its 371st Report on the review of autonomous bodies and institutions under the Department of Higher Education, tabled in the Rajya Sabha on December 8, 2025, the parliamentary standing committee expressed concern over the rapid expansion of private coaching centres for competitive examinations. The committee recommended that the Department of Higher Education work with the NTA to ensure that entrance examination papers are aligned more closely with the school curriculum, thereby reducing dependence on coaching centres. It also recommended the constitution of a high-level committee to examine the proliferation of coaching institutes and suggest measures for their regulation.A government order, received through an RTI reply received from the Department of Higher Education, states that a high-level committee was constituted in June 2026 to examine the issue. Source: RTI response from the Department of Higher EducationHowever, the same RTI reply reveals that the committee has met only three times – on August 26, 2025, November 15, 2025, and June 2, 2026. The order constituting the committee states that it would brief the education minister every month on the action taken. Source: RTI response from the Department of Higher EducationThe meeting schedule disclosed through the RTI, however, appears to fall short of this monthly reporting requirement.Source: RTI response from the Department of Higher EducationThe committee’s terms of reference also do not prescribe any deadline for submitting its final report. The absence of a defined timeline, coupled with the limited number of meetings held so far, raises questions about the pace of implementation of the parliamentary standing committee’s recommendations. It also leaves uncertainty over when or how the government intends to address the growing dependence on coaching centres that parliament had flagged as a matter of concern.NTA reforms: Another committee, two years laterThe prime minister’s announcement of a new task force to reform the National Testing Agency (NTA) comes nearly two years after the Union government had set up a similar high-level committee following the 2024 NEET-UG controversy.The NTA came under severe criticism in 2024 after allegations of irregularities in the NEET-UG examination and the cancellation of the UGC-NET exam over concerns about its integrity. The controversy triggered nationwide protests, with students and opposition parties demanding sweeping reforms and, in some cases, the agency’s dissolution.In response, the Ministry of Education constituted a seven-member High-Level Committee of Experts on June 22, 2024, under the chairmanship of former ISRO Chairman Dr K. Radhakrishnan. The committee was asked to recommend reforms to improve the examination process, strengthen data security, and review the NTA’s structure and functioning.The committee submitted its report to the government on October 21, 2024.After the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak, the NTA announced on May 19, 2026 that it was strengthening its leadership and institutional framework. In a press release, the agency said four senior officers from the Union government had been posted to the NTA, including two joint secretary-level officers who would serve as additional director generals “as per the recommendations of the Radhakrishnan Committee.”This indicates that at least some of the committee’s recommendations had begun to be implemented even before the Prime Minister announced a new task force headed by Infosys co-founder Nandan Nilekani to recommend further reforms for NTA-conducted examinations.The announcement of another expert panel, however, raises important questions: how many of the Radhakrishnan Committee’s recommendations have been implemented? Which recommendations remain pending? If the earlier reforms were implemented, what shortcomings remained that required a fresh committee? If they were not implemented, why was another panel constituted instead of acting on the existing recommendations?Tragedy followed by silence: New Delhi Railway Station stampedeOn February 15, 2025, a stampede at New Delhi Railway Station killed at least 18 people, including four children, and injured 15 others. The incident occurred when passengers slipped on a footbridge above platforms, leading to a pile-up in the already overcrowded station.In response, the Railways formed a two-member high-level committee comprising Northern Railways’ Principal Chief Commercial Manager Narsingh Deo and Principal Chief Security Commissioner Pankaj Gangwar to investigate the stampede.An RTI application was filed seeking information about the committee’s timeline for submitting its report, a copy of the report if submitted, and details of any action taken based on its findings. The Railways denied all the information, citing Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which exempts disclosure if it could impede the process of investigation, apprehension, or prosecution of offenders.The denial appears baseless, as basic details such as the notification of the committee’s formation and the timeline assigned to it are administrative in nature. The lack of official information also contributed to confusion and speculation. Several media reports cited what was claimed to be an RPF inquiry report, raising questions about whether a platform change announcement led to the stampede. The Railways later issued a press release calling these reports “wrong and misleading”, and highlighting how the absence of timely and accurate information can fuel rumours.It is important to note that the incident occurred in February, the RTI application was filed in May, but the Railways responded only in September – nearly four months later – despite the RTI Act requiring a reply within 30 days. This suggests a pattern where information is delayed and, when it can no longer be withheld, is simply denied.The same pattern was seen in the case of the Air India crash.Air India crash probe: Report unreleased, transparency questions raisedAir India Flight AI-171 crashed on June 12, 2025, in Ahmedabad, killing 241 of the 242 people on board. Reports also indicated that between 19 and 33 people died on the ground.On June 13, 2025, the government set up a high-level, multi-disciplinary committee to investigate the crash. The panel was tasked with reviewing existing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and guidelines to prevent similar incidents. According to the notification, the committee was expected to submit its report within three months.Six months after its formation, the Ministry of Civil Aviation did not provide any information regarding the report. An RTI filed on September 23, 2025, further sought details including the committee’s meeting minutes, the submission date of the report and a copy of the report. The ministry in their reply dated December 17, 2025 refused, citing Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act, which exempts disclosure of cabinet papers, including records of deliberations of the council of ministers, secretaries, and other officers. This justification is considered baseless, as the committee’s work did not involve cabinet deliberations.The lack of timely public information has stirred controversy. The AAIB’s preliminary report outlined key technical events and cockpit conversations before the crash. Media reports, citing the cockpit voice recorder, suggested that one pilot asked, “Why did you cut off the fuel?” and the other replied, “I did not do so,” creating the impression that the disaster was the pilot’s mistake.Following this, Pushkaraj Sabharwal, father of pilot Captain Sumeet Sabharwal, filed a petition seeking a court-monitored inquiry led by a former Supreme Court judge. The Supreme Court issued notices to the Union government and the DGCA on this petition. The Federation of Indian Pilots supported the plea. During hearings, the Union government clarified that the AAIB’s preliminary findings do not blame Captain Sabharwal.The case highlights a recurring problem in India: rumours and misreporting, as seen in the New Delhi Railway Station stampede and the Air India crash, could be avoided if the government communicated promptly and transparently with citizens.Four years on, MSP panel yet to submit reportPrior to the youth protests at Jantar Mantar this July, one of the largest mass mobilisations witnessed in India in recent years was the farmers’ movement, which demanded the repeal of the three farm laws and a legal guarantee for the Minimum Support Price (MSP). The agitation was called off only after Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the withdrawal of the farm laws on the occasion of Guru Purab in November 2021. In the same address, the prime minister had also announced the formation of a committee to deliberate on the issue of MSP.More than four years later, there has been no public update on the committee’s work. In response to an RTI application, the Ministry of Agriculture informed on October 16, 2025, that the committee had held 45 meetings, with the last meeting taking place on January 8, 2025. This means no meeting took place in the last one year. The ministry also stated that around Rs 38 lakh had been spent on the committee’s expenses.However, the ministry did not provide answers to key information, including whether any deadline was set for the committee to submit its report or whether any interim report has been submitted so far. Four years after the committee was formed following one of the biggest mass movements in India’s history, the absence of clear updates continues to raise questions about transparency and accountability.Committee formed to probe blackening of White Desert had no updateThe White Desert of Kutch is one of the rare places in the world where the ocean meets the desert. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has personally invited people from across the country to visit Kutch and experience the pristine White Rann, its rich culture, and the region’s warm hospitality during the ongoing Rann Utsav. Calling it a unique blend of nature, history, and tradition, the Prime Minister said the Rann Utsav would be a “lifetime experience,” adding that the destination offers both relaxation and opportunities to explore new facets of India’s cultural heritage.However, in 2024, media reports flagged concerns about the “blackening” of the White Desert in Kutch. Following these reports, the then Kutch collector constituted a five-member committee to investigate the issue. As per the notification announcing the committee’s formation, the collector had directed it to submit its report within three days. For nearly a year, no information about the committee’s findings has been made public.An RTI application was filed in November 2024, seeking a copy of the committee’s report and the minutes of its meetings, but the Kutch collector’s office did not provide the requested details. The office shared only the notification related to the committee’s formation, and that too after the Gujarat Information Commission directed it to do so, in September 2025. The absence of any public disclosure on the committee’s report continues to raise questions about transparency in the handling of the issue.Elite exceptions committeesIn a swift turn of events, the Supreme Court on August 25, 2025, had directed the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to assess the functioning of Vantara, registered as the Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre. Less than a month later, following the SIT’s findings, the court cleared Vantara of any wrongdoing, giving the organisation a clean chit.A similar pattern emerged in the corporate sphere. SEBI, which had launched a probe into allegations made by Hindenburg Research against the Adani Group, completed its investigation and issued a clean chit to the conglomerate in under two years.These developments highlight how high-profile cases in India, even those attracting intense public scrutiny, can conclude with regulatory and judicial clearance after detailed investigations, but such is not the case with the committees formed related to the larger public interest subjects. Ultimately, the pattern of forming committees as a default response raises questions about the effectiveness of governance in India. While such panels signal action and offer a semblance of accountability, their impact often remains limited if findings are not transparent or enforced. True accountability requires not just announcements, but timely publication of reports, clear implementation of recommendations, and sustained public oversight. Without these, committees risk becoming symbolic exercises that temporarily soothe public outrage while leaving systemic issues unaddressed.Suchak Patel is an independent writer.