The Supreme Court has held that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) is not vested with adjudicatory powers and cannot issue binding or enforceable directions while examining complaints. Its constitutional role is confined to investigating grievances, monitoring safeguards for Scheduled Castes and making recommendations to the competent authorities.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih delivered the ruling while allowing an appeal filed by the Mumbai Port Authority. In doing so, the Court set aside a Bombay High Court judgment that had upheld an NCSC direction ordering the Port Authority to restore an employee’s promotion and release consequential salary arrears.
The case arose from the service dispute of Madhavi K. Chandorkar, who joined the Mumbai Port Authority in 1997. She was promoted as Stenographer Grade-I after being granted consequential seniority under a 2002 Office Memorandum relating to reservation in promotions for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe employees.
However, following the Supreme Court’s judgment in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India and subsequent government instructions, the benefit of consequential seniority was withdrawn, leading to her reversion to a lower post. After the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed her challenge, she approached the NCSC.
The Commission directed the Port Authority to reinstate her promotion and extend all consequential monetary benefits. The Bombay High Court declined to interfere with the Commission’s order, prompting the Port Authority to approach the Supreme Court.
Examining the scope of Article 338 of the Constitution, the apex court observed that while the NCSC has powers akin to those of a civil court for the limited purpose of conducting inquiries and summoning evidence, these powers do not confer judicial or adjudicatory authority.
The Bench noted that the Commission is empowered to investigate matters concerning constitutional safeguards for Scheduled Castes, inquire into specific complaints, participate in policy oversight and recommend measures for their effective implementation. These functions, the Court said, are advisory and recommendatory rather than binding.
The Court emphasised that Article 338 does not authorise the NCSC to determine legal rights or issue mandatory directions that are enforceable against government authorities or public bodies. Service disputes relating to promotions, seniority or other employment benefits must be decided by the courts or tribunals having jurisdiction over such matters.
Accordingly, the Bench held that the Commission had exceeded the limits of its constitutional authority by directing the Mumbai Port Authority to grant promotional and monetary benefits to the employee. It further held that the High Court erred in treating the Commission’s directions as binding.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court quashed the orders of both the NCSC and the Bombay High Court, reiterating that the Commission’s recommendations may carry persuasive value but cannot be enforced as judicial directions.
The post Supreme Court: NCSC can recommend action but cannot pass enforceable orders appeared first on India Legal.