SC Commission May Recommend, Not Mandate FIR: Delhi HC Clarifies Powers of NCSC under Article 338 in Caste Abuse Complaint

"No direction for FIR was issued by the National Commission for Scheduled Castes; the recommendation is only advisory in nature" – Delhi High Court addressing the scope of powers conferred upon the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) under Article 338 of the Constitution. The Court ruled that the NCSC can recommend an inquiry or action but cannot direct registration of an FIR, especially in cases involving allegations under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The matter arose from a complaint filed by a street vendor, Raghav Paswan, alleging caste-based abuse by a DDA official during eviction proceedings. The NCSC had issued an order on 05.01.2018, recommending both registration of FIR under the SC/ST Act and restoration of vending rights. This prompted the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to approach the High Court, contending that the NCSC had exceeded its constitutional mandate.

“The Order of the Commission is Not Binding. It is Recommendatory in Nature Only”: High Court Rejects Mandatory Nature of NCSC’s FIR Direction

The Court began its analysis by noting that no direct or mandatory instruction was issued by the NCSC to the Police for FIR registration. The Bench emphasized that:

“It is only a recommendation made to the Police and there is no direction whatsoever for registration of FIR. As has been conceded, the NCSC does not have any power to direct registration of FIR, but to recommend such action.” [Para 35]

Referring to Paragraph 33 to 36 of the judgment, the Court concluded that the police are at liberty to conduct an enquiry into the allegations made, but are not bound to file an FIR solely on the basis of the NCSC's recommendation. The order, according to the Court, lacked the necessary specificity to trigger criminal prosecution:

“There are no specific references to the date on which any caste-based humiliation was caused… only omnibus allegations have been made.” [Para 34]

Right to Vend or Caste-Based Harassment?

The Court, after examining the background and contentions of both parties, clarified that the real grievance of the Respondent (Raghav Paswan) pertained to the withdrawal of his vending rights, not solely the alleged caste-based abuse:

“Essentially, the grievance of Respondent No.1 was of his removal from his vending site, which has prompted him to file a Complaint.” [Para 32]

While the Respondent alleged that Karamvir Singh Narwal, a DDA officer, extorted money and abused him with casteist slurs, the Court found no corroborative material indicating any specific incident or date of such abuse. The findings confirmed that the complaint's core concern was administrative action, not an atrocity as defined under the SC/ST Act.

“Police Free to Proceed with Enquiry as per Law”: Writ Petition Allowed, FIR Not Mandatory

The High Court disposed of the petition with a clear clarification that the Order dated 05.01.2018 of the NCSC was not binding, and the police is free to proceed in accordance with law:

“In view of the aforesaid, Police is at liberty to hold an enquiry in terms of the Order dated 05.01.2018, as mandated under law. However, it is clarified that this Order does not give any direction for registration of FIR, but only recommends an enquiry.” [Para 36]

As a result, the writ petition was allowed, and the matter was closed with no direction for FIR registration.

The case required the Court to interpret the powers of NCSC under Article 338 of the Constitution, especially regarding its investigative and recommendatory functions. Article 338(5) confers upon the Commission the power to “inquire into specific complaints” relating to deprivation of rights of Scheduled Castes.

However, no provision under Article 338 or the SC/ST Act empowers the Commission to direct the police to register FIRs or take punitive action. This judgment, therefore, reaffirms the constitutional limitations on quasi-judicial bodies like the NCSC.

The Court also examined the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, under which the respondent claimed his vending rights. While acknowledging that a Town Vending Committee (TVC) had not been constituted by the DDA, the Court held that the complaint’s administrative nature could not be stretched into a criminal prosecution absent specific, substantiated allegations.

In this judgment, the Delhi High Court has reinforced the advisory nature of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes’ powers. The Court has drawn a clear line between recommendation and enforcement, emphasizing that omnibus allegations cannot trigger criminal proceedings unless backed by concrete evidence and statutory procedure.

This ruling will serve as a critical precedent for both government authorities and complainants, balancing the right to dignity of Scheduled Caste individuals with the procedural safeguards necessary for maintaining administrative and criminal accountability.

Date of Decision: 10 November 2025