The Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 constitutes the principal statutory framework through which the Central and State Governments in India establish Commissions of Inquiry to investigate matters of public importance. Conceived as independent fact-finding bodies, these commissions are expected to examine controversial incidents, ascertain facts, identify administrative or political failures, and recommend corrective measures. However, despite their significant role in democratic governance and public accountability, concerns persist regarding the effectiveness of commissions due to the non-binding nature of their findings and recommendations, prolonged delays in inquiry proceedings, and allegations of political influence in their constitution and functioning. This study critically examines the purpose, practice, and limitations of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 through a doctrinal research methodology based on statutory analysis, judicial principles, governmental reports, and secondary legal literature. The paper analyses the legislative framework, powers, and procedural features of commissions constituted under the Act and evaluates whether they have fulfilled their intended objectives. Particular attention is given to landmark inquiries, including the Chagla Commission, Maruti Commission, Liberhan Commission, and Nanavati-Mehta Commission, to assess their contributions to accountability, governance reforms, and public confidence. The study finds that although commissions often succeed in uncovering facts and influencing public discourse, their recommendations frequently remain unimplemented due to the absence of statutory enforceability. Excessive delays, lack of institutional accountability, and political considerations further diminish their practical effectiveness. The paper concludes that while the Act remains an important democratic mechanism for fact-finding and transparency, substantial reforms are necessary. It recommends introducing implementation obligations, statutory timelines, independent appointment procedures, mandatory Action Taken Reports, and enhanced public accessibility to ensure that commissions function as meaningful instruments of accountability rather than merely advisory bodies.