National Commission for Scheduled Castes. File
The story so far: The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 28, 2026) has clarified that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) does not have adjudicatory powers under Article 338 of the Constitution and cannot issue a binding order in service disputes. While the Commission has powers similar to those of a civil court to summon witnesses, call for documents and receive evidence during an inquiry, these powers are only meant to facilitate investigations. The ruling came in a case involving promotional benefits claimed by an employee of the Mumbai Port Authority.
What was the case about?
The case arose from the service dispute of a stenographer, who joined the Mumbai Port Authority in 1997. She was promoted as Stenographer Grade-I from Grade II after being granted consequential seniority under a 2002 Office Memorandum relating to reservation in promotions for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe employees.
Also Read | National Commission for Scheduled Castes cannot pass permanent/interim injunction orders, rules Madras High Court
However, after the Supreme Court’s judgment in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) and subsequent government instructions, the benefit of consequential seniority was withdrawn, leading to her reversion to a lower post.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.
What did the Supreme Court rule?
The Court held that Article 338 does not confer adjudicatory powers on the NCSC.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih held, “The powers entrusted to NCSC are limited in nature. Clearly NCSC and its other compatriots under Articles 338A and 338B are Constitutional Bodies with a socially beneficent purpose but quite apparently, the Legislature has prescribed a role that is recommendatory and advisory, but certainly not adjudicatory. They are not meant to be bodies taking over adjudicatory functions.”
It examined Article 338(5), which lists the Commission’s functions, including investigating constitutional safeguards, inquiring into complaints, monitoring implementation of safeguards, advising governments and submitting reports to the President
The Bench noted that Article 338(8) grants the Commission certain powers of a civil court, such as summoning witnesses, receiving evidence and requisitioning documents.
The Court said that “The legislature has been quite categorical in the powers of the Civil Court that have been extended to the NCSC. The word used is “namely” whereunder certain powers have been enumerated. That indicates the limited scope of the powers granted to it. It is therefore clear that while it has powers to requisition documents and receive evidence it does not have the power to make an order in furtherance of that evidence. In other words, NCSC can record a factual finding and then ask the concerned Government, either the Centre or the State to act thereupon”, it added.
The Bench looked into Sub-clauses (a) and (d). The Bench noted that Sub-clause (a) gives the power to the NCSC to investigate and monitor all matters regarding safeguards provided for the Scheduled Castes under the Constitution or in any other law. “It flows from this that the provision of safeguards is a function of the Legislature, and the NCSC’s role is to monitor that the true intent of the safeguards is being implemented and met with as a ground reality. Sub-clause (d) provides that the Commission will present annually or at other times as seen fit, reports to the President regarding the working of their safeguards. This implies that safeguards are those recommendations made to the State or the Union Government that are in furtherance of its functions”, it explained.
Relying on earlier decisions, including All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees’ Welfare Association v. Union of India (1996) and Collector v. Ajit Jogi (2011), the Court reiterated that the Commission’s role is recommendatory and advisory, not adjudicatory.
Accordingly, it set aside the Bombay High Court’s judgment and declared the NCSC’s direction requiring payment of arrears within 30 days to be unconstitutional and without legal effect.
The verdict is significant as it clearly outlines the boundaries of constitutional commissions established under Articles 338, 338A, and 338B, preventing them from encroaching upon judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
Published – July 31, 2026 02:25 pm IST
