'NCSC Cannot Pass Mandatory Adjudicatory Orders Directing Payment Of Arrears': Supreme Court Clarifies Commission's Powers Under Article 338

"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." Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated July 28, 2026, held that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) cannot issue mandatory adjudicatory orders directing payment of arrears in service matters. The Court clarified that the NCSC's powers under Article 338 of the Constitution of India are primarily recommendatory and advisory, rather than adjudicatory.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih observed that while the NCSC serves a socially beneficent purpose, its constitutional role is strictly defined.

The appellant, Mumbai Port Authority, had demoted Respondent No.3, Madhavi K. Chandorkar, a Scheduled Caste employee, following a Bombay High Court order that quashed a 2002 Office Memorandum on consequential seniority. Aggrieved by her demotion, Respondent No.3 filed a complaint with the NCSC. The NCSC, after conducting a hearing, issued an order directing the appellant to ensure promotion as per reservation rules and pay arrears within 30 days. This NCSC order was subsequently challenged by the Mumbai Port Authority before the Bombay High Court, which dismissed the petition, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

The primary question before the Supreme Court was whether the National Commission for Scheduled Castes possesses the power to issue mandatory adjudicatory orders, particularly concerning service matters and directing the payment of arrears. The court also examined the precise scope of NCSC's powers under Article 338 of the Constitution of India.

Constitutional Mandate of the NCSC

The Supreme Court commenced its analysis by noting that the NCSC is a constitutional body established under Article 338 of the Constitution of India. It traced the evolution of the Commission from a single Special Officer to its current form through the 65th and 89th Amendments. The Court highlighted that Article 338(5) outlines the duties of the NCSC, including investigating and monitoring safeguards, inquiring into specific complaints, advising on socio-economic development, and presenting reports with recommendations to the President.

Limited Scope of Civil Court Powers for NCSC

The bench emphasized that the Division Bench of the High Court erred in concluding that the NCSC's directions were within its powers. The Supreme Court underscored that Article 338(8) provides the NCSC with powers of a civil court, but these are specifically enumerated using the word "namely," indicating a limited scope. These powers include summoning persons, requiring discovery of documents, receiving evidence, and requisitioning public records.

Powers are for Facilitating Investigation, Not Adjudication

The Court categorically stated that these enumerated powers are essential for facilitating an investigation or an inquiry and do not convert the Commission into a civil court with adjudicatory authority. It clarified that while the NCSC can record factual findings, it cannot make an order in furtherance of that evidence or direct specific actions like payment of arrears.

"Safeguards" Not an Enforcement Provision

Addressing the NCSC's submission that "safeguards" in Article 338(5)(b) constitute an enforcement limb, the Supreme Court found this difficult to accept given the explicit language of the Article. The Court held that Article 338(5) clearly does not confer adjudicatory power, but rather a recommendatory one. The power is to inquire into the deprivation of "rights and safeguards," which are to be read together as a bundle.

NCSC Role: Monitor and Recommend

The Court further noted that sub-clauses (a) and (d) of Article 338(5) support its conclusion. Sub-clause (a) empowers the NCSC to investigate and monitor matters concerning safeguards provided by the Legislature, implying a monitoring role. Sub-clause (d) mandates the Commission to present reports to the President with recommendations for effective implementation of safeguards, reinforcing its advisory nature.

No Adjudicatory Powers or Injunctions: Precedent Affirmed

The Supreme Court reiterated its earlier stance from the case of All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare Assn. v. Union of India. In that judgment, it was clearly held that the NCSC possesses procedural powers of a civil court for investigation and inquiry, but it cannot exercise powers like granting injunctions, temporary or permanent.

"All the procedural powers of a civil court are given to the Commission for the purpose of investigating and inquiring into these matters and that too for that limited purpose only. The powers of a civil court of granting injunctions, temporary or permanent, do not inhere in the Commission nor can such a power be inferred or derived from a reading of clause (8) of Article 338 of the Constitution."

Advisory, Not Adjudicatory: Further Precedents

The Court also referred to Collector v. Ajit Jogi, where it was held that the NCSC's power to inquire into "deprivation of rights and safeguards" does not extend to deciding the caste/tribe status of an individual. Further, drawing a parallel, the bench cited Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Orissa State Commission for Women, where similar observations were made regarding the Orissa State Commission for Women, confirming that such commissions are not adjudicatory tribunals determining the rights of parties.

For these reasons, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court. It declared the directions issued by the NCSC, particularly those relating to the payment of arrears, to be contrary to the provisions of the Constitution and, as such, non-est in law. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

The Supreme Court has unequivocally clarified that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes functions as a monitoring and recommendatory body under the Constitution, not an adjudicatory one capable of issuing mandatory orders for remedies such as payment of arrears. This ruling reinforces the constitutional limits on the NCSC's authority, ensuring that its vital role in safeguarding the rights of Scheduled Castes remains within the advisory and investigative framework prescribed by Article 338.

Date of Decision: 28 July 2026