CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

(I) CWP-14576-2022

Reserved on: April 09, 2025

Pronounced on : July 08, 2025

VIJAY SHARMA

-PETITIONER

V/S

THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

-RESPONDENTS

(II) CWP-13768-2022

GURBAKSHISH SINGH SANDHU

-PETITIONER

V/S

THE PUNJAB STATE SCHEDULED CASTES COMMISSION

AND ORS.

-RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present: Ms. Supriya Garg, Advocate

for the petitioner (in CWP-14576-2022).

Mr. R.S. Khosla, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocate

for the petitioner (in CWP-13768-2022).

Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, D.A.G., Punjab.

Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate with

Mr. Karanpreet Singh, Advocate and

Mr. Som Nath, Advocate

for the respondent No.3 (in both writ petitions).

***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.

1. Both these writ petitions are amenable for being decided

through a common verdict, on account of theirs enveloping a common

CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 2

prayer and a common issue for adjudication. For the sake of brevity and

convenience, the facts are being extracted from CWP-14576-2022.

2. The hereinafter extracted directions, as embodied in the order/

letter dated 31.05.2022 drawn by the Punjab State Commission for

Scheduled Castes (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Commission’), caused pain

to the petitioner and consequently propelled him to institute thereagainst the

instant writ petition.

“The commission desires that appropriate action should

be taken against the accused and action taken report be

submitted by the next date i.e. 13.06.2022 through the competent

authority.

”

3. Post the drawing of the impugned directions, FIR No.51

dated 11.06.2022, under Sections 3(1)(za)(E) of the Scheduled Castes and

the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment

2015) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SC/ST Act’), Sections 420 and 120-

B of the IPC, was registered against the petitioner at P.S. City Morinda,

District Rupnagar. Therefore, prayer is also made for quashing all the

legal proceedings, including the FIR, emanating from the impugned

directions.

4. What emerges from perusal of the record available before

this Court is that, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had, while issuing

notice upon this writ petition on 12.07.2022, ordered the consequent

proceedings arising out of the impugned order to remain stayed.

Accordingly, the investigation of the FIR in question has also been stayed.

5. Before proceeding to gauge the validity of the impugned

CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 3

directions, it is deemed imperative to initially make a concise and

compendious survey of the facts.

FACTUAL MATRIX

6. During the tenure of the petitioner as President, Municipal

Council, Morinda, i.e. from 2008 to 2013, one post of ETT Teacher fell

vacant upon the resignation of one Amandeep Singh. Consequently, the

Municipal Council passed Agenda Item No.253 for filling up this post,

and an advertisement for filling the post from amongst general category

candidates was issued on 12.04.2011. The selection process for this post

was carried out by a Six Member Selection Committee constituted as per

Clause 5 of the Punjab Municipal Primary Teachers (Recruitment &

Conditions of Service) Draft Rules, 2006. The petitioner, being President,

was de facto Chairman of the Selection Committee. In pursuance of the

advertisement, a total of 11 candidates applied for the post of ETT

teacher, out of whom, one Mrs. Rajni Bala was selected by the Selection

Committee for appointment. The copy of the merit list is appended as

Annexure P-3.

7. Post completion of the petitioner’s tenure as President,

Municipal Council, Morinda, the respondent No.3- Gurdhayan Singh filed

a complaint before the Commission on 21.05.2015, alleging that the

selection was done in violation of the roster point. It was alleged that, in

order to prevent a member of Scheduled Castes from employment against

the reserved post vacated by one Amandeep Singh, Scheduled Caste, and

in order to accommodate Mrs. Rajni Bala wife of Mr. Rajneesh Sood (the

CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 4

then Accountant, Municipal Council Morinda), the petitioner connived

with Mr. Rajneesh Sood and one Mr. Gurbakshish Singh Sandhu (the then

Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Morinda/petitioner in CWP-

13768-2022) and advertised the said post under General Category. Not

only this, in order to ensure appointment of Mrs. Rajni Bala, the

candidature of all the candidates, including one Scheduled Caste

candidate, was rejected.

8. The Commission proceeded with the complaint and directed

the police authorities to investigate the matter with regard to violation of

the provisions of the SC/ST Act. Subsequently, the petitioner was served

with a show cause notice dated 27.07.2020, issued by the Department of

Local Government. However, vide order dated 22.06.2021 (Annexure P-

5), the competent authority concluded that proceedings under Section 22

of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, cannot be initiated against the petitioner.

Hence, the show cause notice was filed in office.

9. Moreover, the police authorities submitted an inquiry report

dated 24.05.2022 before the Commission, wherein became recorded that,

there was no violation of any provisions of the SC/ST Act and no action

was required to be taken against the petitioner.

10. Upon receipt of the inquiry report dated 24.05.2022, the

Commission found the inquiry to be misleading and passed the impugned

directions. The outcome of these directions was the registration of the FIR

in question.

COLLECTIVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS

CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 5

FOR THE PETITIONERS

11. While referring to the mandate clothed in Article 338 of the

Constitution of India, the learned counsels for the petitioners submit that,

the Commission is not bestowed with the power to issue directions in the

nature of interim injunction or mandatory injunction. Although the

Commission has been equipped with the procedural powers of Civil

Court, but, only for the limited purpose of conduct ing

inquiry/investigation and making recommendations to the Union or State

Governments. Therefore, once the impugned directions themselves are

illegal on account of theirs being passed by an authority lacking the

subject jurisdiction, hence the natural corollary thereof is that, the FIR,

which has been registered on the basis of such illegal directions, is also

illegal and deserves to be quashed.

12. To lend vigour to their above made argument, the learned

counsels for the petitioners place reliance upon “All India Indian

Overseas Bank Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Employees

Welfare Association and Others versus Union of India and Others”

reported as 1196(6) SCC 606 and “Jatt Ram versus Punjab State Human

Rights Commission and another” reported as 2005 (3) RCR (Criminal)

716.

13. The learned counsels for the petitioners further submit that,

the impugned directions suffer from the vice of illegality even on account

of infraction of principles of natural justice inasmuch as no effective

opportunity of hearing was granted. Moreover, by placing reliance upon

CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 6

various precedent laws, which would be discussed in the latter part of this

verdict, they submit that, the Commission does not have any power to

interfere into ongoing investigations and to issue directions for invoking

specific provisions of the SC/ST Act.

14. Finally, the learned counsels for the petitioners submit that,

despite the police authorities making clear echoings in their report(s) that

no offence, much less criminal offence, is made out against the petitioners

for violating the provisions of the SC/ST Act, yet such report(s) has been

ignored by the Commission and the impugned directions have been

issued, which resulted into registration of the FIR in question against the

petitioners.

COLLECTIVE SUBMISSIONS BY THE LEARNED COUNSELS

FOR THE RESPONDENTS

15. In their endeavour to defend the legality of the impugned

directions, the learned counsels for the respondents collectively submit

that, in view of the powers conferred by the Constitution of India, it is the

obligatory duty of the Commission to protect and safeguard the rights of

members belonging to the scheduled castes. Clause (5) of Article 338

confers ample powers upon the Commission to investigate and monitor,

besides inquiring into specific complaints in the matters relating to the

scheduled castes. Clause (8) gives the status of Civil Court to the

Commission while carrying out investigation. Moreover, Rule 7 of the

Rules of Procedure of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of Procedure’) provides for

CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 7

investigation and inquiry by the Commission. A conjoint reading of

Article 338 and Rule 7 makes it abundantly clear that, the Commission is

well empowered to issue the directions under challenge.

16. Marching forth, it is submitted that, Rule 7.5.1 of the Rules

of Procedure empowers the Commission to get in touch with the law

enforcing and administrative machinery of the State and the district to

ascertain the details of incident and the action taken by the district

administration. If after detailed inquiry/investigation, the Commission

finds substance in the allegation/complaint regarding atrocity, it may

recommend to file an FIR against the accused with the concerned law

enforcing agency of the State/District. This Rule also empowers the

Commission to call the State Government/District Administration/Police

Personnel within three days through summons. On the anvil of the above

powers, it is vehemently submitted that, the impugned directions fall

strictly within the scope of Rule 7.5.1 and the same cannot be termed to

be beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission. In case, the arguments

advanced by the petitioner’s counsel are accepted, the Commission would

be rendered completely ineffective and this would defeat the basic object

of Article 338 of the Constitution of India.

17. Furthermore, it is submitted that, the States/UTs are bound to

register FIR on the directions of the Commission, specifically in view of

the letter dated 10.05.2013 issued by the Government of India, Ministry

of Home Affairs, to all the States/UTs.

ANALYSIS OF SOME SIGNIFICANT LEGAL PROVISIONS AND

CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 8

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS GERMANE TO DISPOSAL OF THIS

WRIT PETITION

18. Article 338 of the Constitution of India mandates the creation

of the National Commission. Clause (5) of the Article 338 embodies the

duty of the National Commission. Clause (6) imposes an obligation upon

the President of India to cause all reports of the National Commission to

be laid before each House of Parliament, along with a memorandum

explaining the action taken or proposed to be taken on the

recommendations relating to the Union and reasons for the non-

acceptance, if any, of any of such recommendations. Clause (7) stipulates

that, where any report of the National Commission, or any part thereof,

relates to any matter with which any State Government is concerned, a

copy of such report shall be forwarded to the Governor of the State,

whereupon, the latter shall cause it to be laid before the Legislature of the

State, along with a memorandum explaining the action taken or proposed

to be taken on the recommendations relating to the State and the reasons

for the non-acceptance, if any, of any such recommendations. Clause (8)

equips the National Commission with all the powers of a civil court trying

a suit, while investigating any matter referred to in sub-clause (a) or

inquiring into any complaint referred to in sub-clause (b) of Clause (5).

19. Article 338 of the Constitution of India is reproduced

hereunder:-

“338. National Commission for Scheduled Castes

(1) There shall be a Commission for the Scheduled Castes to be

known as the National Commission for the Scheduled Castes.

CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 9

(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by

Parliament, the Commission shall consist of a Chairperson, Vice-

Chairperson and three other Members and the conditions of

service and tenure of office of the Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson

and other Members so appointed shall be such as the President

may by rule determine.

(3) The Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and other Members of the

Commission shall be appointed by the President by warrant under

his hand and seal.

(4) The Commission shall have the power to regulate its own

procedure.

(5) It shall be the duty of the Commission--

(a) to investigate and monitor all matters relating to the

safeguards provided for the Scheduled Castes under this

Constitution or under any other law for the time being in

force or under any order of the Government and to

evaluate the working of such safeguards;

(b) to inquire into specific complaints with respect to the

deprivation of rights and safeguards of the Scheduled

Castes;

(c) to participate and advise on the planning process of

socio-economic development of the Scheduled Castes and

to evaluate the progress of their development under the

Union and any State;

(d) to present to the President, annually and at such other

times as the Commission may deem fit, reports upon the

working of those safeguards;

(e) to make in such reports recommendations as to the

measures that should be taken by the Union or any State

for the effective implementation of those safeguards and

other measures for the protection, welfare and socio-

economic development of the Scheduled Castes; and

(f) to discharge such other functions in relation to the

protection, welfare and development and advancement of

CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 10

the Scheduled Castes as the President may, subject to the

provisions of any law made by Parliament, by the rule

specify.

(6) The President shall cause all such reports to be laid before

each House of Parliament along with a memorandum explaining

the action taken or proposed to be taken on the recommendations

relating to the Union and the reasons for the non-acceptance, if

any, of any of such recommendations.

(7) Where any such report, or any part thereof, relates to any

matter with which any State Government is concerned, a copy of

such report shall be forwarded to the Governor of the State who

shall cause it to be laid before the Legislature of the State along

with a memorandum explaining the action taken or proposed to be

taken on the recommendations relating to the State and the

reasons for the non-acceptance, if any, of any of such

recommendations.

(8) The Commission shall, while investigating any matter referred

to in sub-clause (a) or inquiring into any complaint referred to in

sub-clause (b) of clause (5), have all the powers of a civil court

trying a suit and in particular in respect of the following matters,

namely:-

(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person

from any part of India and examining him on oath;

(b) requiring the discovery and production of any

documents;

(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;

(d) requisitioning any public or copy thereof from any

court or office;

(e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses

and documents;

(f) any other matter which the President may, by rule,

determine.

(9) The Union and every State Government shall consult the

Commission on all major policy matters affecting Scheduled

CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 11

Castes.

(10) In this article, references to the Scheduled Castes shall be

construed as including references to such other backward classes

as the President may, on receipt of the report of a Commission

appointed under clause (1) of article 340, by order specify and

also to the Anglo-Indian community.”

20. The Government of India, vide notification dated 25.03.2009

published in the official gazette, notified the Rules of Procedure. To

address the issue at hand, Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure assumes

significant importance.

21. Rule 7.1 lays down that, the Commission shall function by

holding ‘sittings’ and ‘meetings’ at any place within the country and also

through its officers at the Headquarters and in the State Offices. The

members of the Commission including the Chairperson and the Vice-

Chairperson shall function in accordance with the procedure prescribed

under these Rules.

22. Rule 7.2.1 prescribes the methods for investigating or

inquiring into the matters falling within the authority of the Commission.

Rule 7.2.(a) deals with the investigation and inquiry by the Commission

directly.

23. Rule 7.4.1 illustrates the aspects, which are to be kept in

mind while filing complaints before the Commission. Rule 7.4.1.(e)

clearly spells out that, no action will be taken on matters, which are

subjudice. Therefore, subjudice matter need not be referred to the

Commission as complaint(s). Moreover, Rule 7.4.1.(f) dictates that, cases

pending in courts or cases wherein court has already given its final verdict

CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 12

may not be taken up afresh with the Commission.

24. Rule 7.5 deals with inquiry into cases of atroci ties.

According to Rule 7.5.1, whenever information is received about any

incident of atrocity against a person belonging to scheduled castes, the

Commission would immediately get in touch with the law enforcing and

administrative machinery of the State and the district to ascertain the

details of incident and the action taken by the district administration. If

after detailed inquiry/investigation, the Commission finds substance in the

allegation/complaint regarding atrocity, it may recommend to file an FIR

against the accused with the concerned law enforcing agency of the

State/District. (emphasis supplied) Rule 7.5.2 requires the Commission

to ensure compliance of certain parameters while monitoring and issuing

instructions to the concerned authorities.

25. The relevant portions of Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure are

reproduced hereunder:-

“7.0 INVESTIGATION AND INQUIRY BY THE

COMMISSION

7.1 The Commission shall function by holding 'sittings' and

'meetings' at any place within the country and also through its

officers at the Headquarters and in the State Offices. The

Members of the Commission including the Chairperson and the

Vice-Chairperson shall function in accordance with the procedure

prescribed under these rules.

7.2.1 The Commission may adopt any one or more of the

following methods for investigating or inquiring into the matters

falling within its authority:

(a) by the Commission directly;

(b) by an Investigating Team constituted at the Headquarters

CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 13

of the Commission; and

(c) through its State Offices;

(d) by the State Agencies;

(e) by any other institution/Deptt. funded by Central

Government and its statutory bodies.

7.2 (a) Investigation and Inquiry by the Commission directly

7.2(a) (i) The Commission may hold sittings for investigation into

matters relating to safeguards, protection, welfare and

development of the Scheduled Castes for inquiry into specific

complaints for which the Commission decided to take up

investigation or inquiry directly. Such sittings may be held either

at the Headquarters of the Commission or at any other place

within the country.

7.2(a) (ii) The sitting(s) of the Commission would be held after

giving due notice to the parties intended to be heard and also due

publicity/notice to the general public. Care will be taken to see

that the members of the Scheduled Castes who are affected in the

matter under investigation or inquiry are given due information

through notice or publicity.

7.2(a) (iii) When a decision for direct investigation is taken, an

officer not below the rank of Investigator/Research

Officer/Section Officer along with necessary staff may be attached

to the Member(s) entrusted with such investigation or enquiry and

they shall take all steps to arrange such sittings.

7.2(a) (iv) The Commission shall convene meeting of all the Chief

Secretaries, Secy. (Home), Secy. (Social Welfare), DGPs of the

State and Secretaries of the Government of India, who may be

considered accountable for the implementation of the programme

of the safeguards as enumerated under Article 338(5)(a) once in a

year for monitoring the safeguards and development.

7.2(a) (v) In accordance with Clause (8) of Article 338 of the

Constitution, while investigating in a matter referred to in sub-

clause (a) or in inquiring into any complaint referred to in sub-

clause (b) of clause (5) of Article 338, the Commission shall have

CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 14

all the powers of civil court trying a suit and in particular in

respect of the following matters, namely:-

(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person

from any part of India and examining him on oath;

(b) requiring the discovery and production of any document;

(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;

(d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any

court or office;

(e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses and

documents;

(f) any other matter which the President may, by rule,

determine.

7.2(a) (vi) The Commission for the purpose of taking evidence in

the investigation or inquiry requires the presence of any person

and when considered necessary may issue summons to him/her

with the approval of the Chairman. The summons for enforcing

attendance of any person from any part of India and examining

him/her during the course of investigation and inquiry by the

Commission shall provide at least 15 days' notice to the person

directed to be present before the Commission from the date of

receipt of the summons. In serious cases of atrocities, three days'

notice will be given to the person directed to be present before the

Commission from the date of receipt of the summons by him/her.

7.2(a) (vii) Where the property, service/employment of Scheduled

Castes and other related matters are under immediate threat and

prompt attention of the Commission is required, the matter shall

be taken cognizance by issue of telex/fax to the concerned

authority for making it known to them that the Commission is

seized of the issue and that authority will be prohibited to take any

action till the completion of the enquiry in the matter by the

NCSC. Urgent reply by telegram or fax shall be called from the

concerned authority. In case no reply is received within three

working days, the authority concerned may be required to appear

before the Commission at a three days' notice for enquiry.

CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 15

7.2(a) (viii) The Commission may issue commission/under Clause

8(e) of Article 338 of the Constitution to take evidence in any

matter under investigation or inquiry and for this purpose appoint

any person by an order in writing. The Commission may make

further rules for payment of fee and travelling and other

allowances to persons appointed to take evidence on commission.

7.2(a) (ix) After holding the required sittings, the Member(s) who

conducted the investigation shall make a report, which shall be

sent to the enquiry officer appointed under Rule 34 or any other

officer authorized by the Commission to receive the report. The

report received in the Commission shall be submitted within 3

days to the Chairperson for inspections. After examination, action

may be initiated on the report with the approval of the

Chairperson.

7.4.1 The following aspect may be kept in mind while filing

complaints before the Commission-

XX XX XX

(e) No action will be taken on matters, which are subjudice.

Hence subjudice matter need not be referred to the Commission

as complaint(s).

(f) Cases pending in courts or cases in which a court has already

given its final verdict may not be taken up afresh with the

Commission.

XX XX XX

7.5 Inquiry into cases of atrocities

7.5.1 Whenever information is received in the Commission about

any incident of atrocity against a person belonging to Scheduled

Castes, the Commission would immediately get in touch with the

law enforcing and administrative machinery of the State and the

district to ascertain the details of incident and the action taken by

the district administration. If after detailed inquiry/investigation;

the Commission finds substance in the allegation/complaint

regarding atrocity, the Commission may recommend to file an

FIR against the accused with the concerned law-enforcing agency

CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 16

of the State/District. In such cases, the State Government/District

Administration/Police Personnel may be called within three days

through the summons.

7.5.2 The Commission ensures the following while by monitoring

and issuing instruction to the concerned authorities-

(i) Whether the scene of occurrence of the crime has been visited

immediately by Collector and Supdt. of Police of the district on

receipt of information.

(ii) Whether proper FIR is registered in local Police Station.

(iii) Whether names of all the persons involved/cited by the

complainant has been included in the FIR.

(iv) Whether investigation has been taken up by a Senior Police

Officer as per provisions of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989.

(v) Whether culprits have been apprehended and booked without

loss of time.

(vi) Whether proper charge sheet has been filed mentioning the

relevant sections of IPC together with the PCR Act, 1955 and SCs

& STs (POA) Act, 1989 in Court.

(vii) Whether the cases are tried by the Special Courts.

(viii) Whether special Public Prosecutors are appointed to handle

these cases.

(ix) Whether Police assists the courts in bringing forward

witnesses and see that the culprits are suitably punished by the

courts.”

26. The Rules of Procedure cannot be read in isolation, rather

they are required to be read with Article 338 of the Constitution of India.

The powers of the Commission have already been examined by Hon’ble

the Supreme Court and various High Courts, including this High Court.

27. In “All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees’

Welfare Association and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.”, (1996) 6

SCC 606, Hon’ble the Supreme Court examined the issue “Whether the

CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 17

National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes has the

power to issue directions in the nature of interim injunction ?”. While

answering this issue in negative, it was held that, sub-clauses (a) to (f) of

Clause (3) clearly indicate the area in which the Commission may use the

powers of a Civil Court. However, such powers do not convert the

Commission into Civil Court. The powers of Civil Court of granting

injunctions, temporary or permanent, do not inhere in the Commission nor

can such powers be inferred or derived from a reading of Clause 8 of

Article 338 of the Constitution of India. The relevant paragraphs of the

verdict rendered in supra case are reproduced hereunder:-

“

4. The short question that arises for consideration in this matter

is whether the Commission had the power to issue a direction in

the nature of an interim injunction? The appellant supports the

letter dated March 4, 1993 of the Commission on the facts of the

case which supposedly justify the passing of an interim direction

of the type contained in the letter dated March 4, 1993. The

appellant refers to Article 338, clauses (5) and (8), of the

Constitution introduced by the Constitution (Sixty Fifth

Amendment) Act, 1990 to argue that the Commission had power

to requisition public record and hence it could issue directions as

if it enjoyed powers like a civil court for all purposes. Further the

appellant contends that even a single member of the Commission

has every authority to pass a direction on behalf of the entire

Commission and hence the High Court was wrong in expressing

the view that a single member of the Commission could not have

issued the direction contained in the letter dated March 4, 1993.

The appellant further contends that no writ would lie against an

interim order of the Commission.

6. It can be seen from a plain reading of clause 8 that the

Commission has the power of the Civil Court for the purpose of

CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 18

conducting an investigation contemplated in sub-clause (a) and

an inquiry into a complaint referred to in sub-clause (b) of Clause

5 of Article 338 of the Constitution.

7. Sub-clauses (a) to (f) of clause (3) clearly indicate the area in

which the Commission may use the powers of a Civil Court. The

Commission has the power to summon and enforce attendance of

any person from any part of India and examine him on oath; it

can require the discovery and production of documents, so on and

so forth. All these powers are essential to facilitate an

investigation or an inquiry. Such powers do not convert the

Commission into Civil Court.

11. Interestingly, here, in clause 8 of Article 138, the words used

are "the Commission shall... have all the powers of the Civil

Court trying a suit." But the words "all the powers of a Civil

Court" have to be exercised "while investigating any matter

referred to in sub-clause (a) or inquiring into any complaint

referred to in sub-clause (b) of clause 5". 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.”

28. The Division Bench of this Court, in case titled as “

Jatt Ram

versus Punjab State Human Rights Commission and another”,

examined the issue appertaining to powers of the Human Rights

Commission. While relying upon various judicial precedents of Hon’ble

the Supreme Court, it was held that the Commission, in exercise of the

power under the apposite Act, has no power to issue directions for

ordering re-investigation in a matter or for ordering cancellation of FIR or

for entertaining a complaint on the allegations that an FIR against a

CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 19

complainant has been wrongly recorded. It was further held that, even the

High Courts and the Supreme Court, in exercise of their inherent powers,

have to act under certain restraints. Therefore, when the Commission does

not even have the inherent powers, the power to interfere in investigation

either on the asking of the complainant or the accused in the FIR or suo-

moto obviously cannot be inferred in favour of the Commission. The

relevant paragraphs of the verdict drawn in Jatt Ram’s case are

reproduced hereunder:-

“28. Thus, the view taken by us with regard to meaning of the

word "recommendations" in Jai Singh's case (supra) stands fully

fortified. We reiterate that the word "recommendation" used in

Section 18 of the Act necessarily means "to suggest". Such a

suggestion cannot be treated to be a decision capable of

execution or enforcement.

29. There are various instances when this court as well as the

Commission is called upon to intervene in criminal matters at the

instance of either party. Some times the allegations are levelled

against the investigating agency with regard to the investigation

being conducted not in fair and proper manner and some times a

grievance is made that the criminal proceedings have been

launched with a mala fide intention or with ulterior motive.

Invariably this court is called upon to interfere in the matter by

exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "Code"). The

Apex Court has settled the matter by laying down that the

inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code

are to be used sparingly, it has been repeatedly held by the

Supreme Court that inherent powers of this court cannot be used

either to scuttle the investigation, interfere with the same or to

prematurely abort it. It has also been held that in exercise of the

powers under Section 482 of the Code neither any comments

CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 20

should be offered nor any remarks be made by the Court when an

investigation is pending as the same would prejudice the

investigation. It has also been laid down that this court while

exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Code cannot take

into consideration statements of some persons whose evidence is

yet to be recorded during trial. The law laid down by the Apex

Court in some of the cases covering the inherent jurisdiction of

the High Court under Section 482 of the Code may be noticed as

follows:

30. In case of Om Parkash Chugh v. State of Haryana, it has been

held:

"...We have come across from the judgment of the learned

Single Judge of the High Court that remarks have been

made on the averments contained in the complaint as well

as the case involved in F.I.R. No. 452 of 1997. We are of

the considered view that the High Court should not have

made such comments on the averments contained in the

complaint as the same remains only in the embryo stage

because the complaint has not yet been forwarded by the

Magistrate to the police as contemplated in Section 156(3)

of the Code. Even that apart, any findings on the merits of

the case at a stage when investigation is pending would

cause prejudice to the investigating agency as well as the

accused concerned. Those observations and remarks made

by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment are

not warranted, particularly since the stage was too

premature. We make it clear that we have not gone into the

allegations made in the complaint or the materials

collected by the investigating agency in respect of FIR No.

452 of 1997. We refrain from expressing any opinion at

this stage as the investigation into them must be held in the

fairest manner possible. We, therefore, set aside the

impugned judgment of the High Court."

31. In the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Ors., , the

CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 21

Apex Court appreciates the law laid down by the Privy Council in

the case of Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, A.I.R. 1945 P.C. 18

wherein it was observed as follows:

"In India, as has been shown, there is a statutory right on

the part of the police to investigate the circumstances of an

alleged cognizable crime without requiring any authority

from the judicial authorities, and it would, as their

Lordships think, be an unfortunate result if it should be

held possible to interfere with those statutory rights by an

exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court."

32. It was observed by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case

that the right of the police to investigate into a cognizable offence

is a statutory right in which the court does not possess any

supervisory jurisdiction under Cr.P.C. However, the Supreme

Court held that the aforesaid power of the police was not

unlimited but was subject to some well recognised limitations and

in some of the situations the High Court possessed inherent

powers to interdict the investigation to prevent abuse of the

process of the court. The well settled principles of law on the

subject have been reiterated a number of times and also in the

case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(1) S.C. 335.

The aforesaid considerations for exercise of inherent powers "by

this court may be noticed as follows:

"In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various

relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of

the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of

decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary

power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under

Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and

reproduced above, we give the following categories of

cases by way of, illustration wherein such power could be

exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any

court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it

may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly

CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 22

defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible

guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list

of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be

exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information

report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face

value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie

constitute any offence or make out a case against the

accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report

and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not

disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by

police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except

under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of

Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR

or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the

same do not disclose the commission of any offence and

make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a

cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable

offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer

without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under

Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint

are so absurd and inherently improbably on the basis of

which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion

that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the

accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of

the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under

which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution

and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is

a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned,

CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 23

providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the

aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended

with mala fides and or where the proceeding is maliciously

instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance

on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private

and personal grudge."

33. In the case of State of Orissa v. Bansidhar Singh, 1996(2)

Supreme Court Cases 194, it was held by the Supreme Court that

High Court, while exercising powers under Section 482 of the

Code could not have taken into account the statement of certain

persons whose evidence was yet to be recorded at the time since

the case was at the investigation stage itself.

34. In the case of State of Bihar and Anr. v. Md. Khalique and

Anr., , the Apex Court observed as under:

"Law is well settled regarding interference by the High

Court with an investigation of a case. The extraordinary

power under Article 226 or inherent power under Section

482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court either to

prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to

secure the ends of justice. The power of quashing a

criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and

with circumspection and that too in the rarest of the rare

cases."

35. The law laid down by the Supreme Court was again reiterated

in the case of M. Narayandas v. State of Karnataka and Ors.

36. In a recent case i.e. State of A.P. v. Colconda Linga Swamy

and Anr., after reiterating the law laid down in Bhajan Lal's case

(supra), the Supreme Court held that it would not be proper for

the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light

of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction

would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion

that the proceedings are to be quashed. It was further held that it

would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude

CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 24

that the complaint Cannot be proceeded with. With regard to the

allegations of mala fide in lodging the criminal proceedings, the

following observations made by the Apex Court may be noticed:

"... When an information is lodged at the police station and

an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the

informant would be of secondary importance. It is the

material collected during the investigation and evidence

led in court which decides the fate of the accused person.

The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of

no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for

quashing the proceeding."

37. Taking into consideration the aforesaid law laid down by the

Apex Court in various judgments, as noticed above, we made the

following observations in Jai Singh's case (supra):

"In the light of the settled law by the Apex Court with

regard to the inherent powers of the High Court in

interfering with the powers of the investigation by the

investigating agency and making further comments or

remarks on the veracity or authenticity of the prosecution

version, it has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court

that High Court has no such power to scuttle the

investigation at the initial stages and that the investigating

agency has a statutory right of investigation. Even when

there are inherent powers with the High Court to interfere

at the stage of investigation, it has been held that the

aforesaid powers shall be sparingly used in the rarest of

the rare cases.

What is true about the powers of the High Court and the

limitation put there upon is obviously true for the

Commission. In addition, from the perusal of the

provisions of the Act, we notice that there are no inherent

powers which have been conferred upon the Commission.

As noticed above, the Commission is merely a creation of

the statute. There are no general or plenary powers

CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 25

enjoyed by the Commission. In contrast to the Court of law

which enjoys inherent and plenary powers, the

Commission does not have any such powers.

On the same analogy it would be proposer for us to hold

that even in civil disputes, which are governed essentially

by the Code of Civil Procedure or some other statutory

provisions, the Commission has no role to play. We have

already noticed above, that under Section 12 of the Act, it

is only the violation of human rights or abetment thereof

by a public servant, or negligence in the prevention of such

violation by a public servant that would give a cause of

concern to the Commission to initiate an enquiry into the

matter. It would, therefore, necessarily follow that unless

and until a case falls within the four corners under the

provisions of the Act, the Commission have neither any

authority nor any power even to initiate proceedings as or

inquire into the matter and obviously no direction (even in

the shape of recommendations) can be issued."

38. As a result of the aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the

law laid down by the Apex Court in various judgments noticed

above, and the provisions of the Act and the Regulations, we have

no hesitation. in holding that the Commission, or the State

Commission, in exercise of the power under the Act have no

power to issue directions, for ordering reinvestigation in a matter,

which is being investigated and or has been investigated by the

investigating agency nor have any powers to order the

cancellation of FIRs nor can entertain the complaints on the

allegations that an FIR against a complainant had been wrongly

recorded. As noticed above, entertainment of the aforesaid

complaints on the said allegations and issuance of any such

directions, by the Commission would not only amount to

thwarting the investigation at the initial stages or interference

with the same but shall also not be permissible in view of the fact

that even in exercise of inherent powers of the High Court, the

CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 26

Apex Court has laid down certain restraints. In these

circumstances, when the Commission does not even have the

inherent powers, the power to interfere in investigation either on

the asking of the complainant or on the asking of the accused in

the FIR or suo-moto obviously cannot be inferred in favour of the

Commission.”

29. Similarly, in case titled as “Jesamal s/o Arjundas Motwani

and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.”, 2008(16) R.C.R.

(Criminal) 285, the Bombay High Court also examined as to whether the

National Commission has powers to issue directions for re-investigation

and invoking the provisions of the SC/ST Act. Recording a dis-

affirmative answer, it was held that the National Commission cannot issue

such directions inasmuch as it has not specifically been granted any power

to direct the State Police Officers to re-investigate any matter. Moreover,

it was also held that, the State Office of the National Commission

exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law. The relevant observations

are reproduced hereunder:-

“2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

the petitioners inter alia seek to quash communication dated

11.4.2008 (Annexure P-4 to the petition) issued by the Director,

National Commission for Scheduled Castes, State Office

(Maharashtra and Goa), Pune (R-3) to the Superintendent of

Police, Gadchiroli (R-2) to re-investigate and to invoke the

provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in the event of prima facie

case against the petitioners.

18. It was further urged by Shri Kapgate, the learned counsel for

the intervener that State Office of the National Commission has

the authority and jurisdiction to direct reinvestigation. In this

CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 27

respect he invited our attention to Article 338 (5) of the

Constitution of India. It would be proper to refer to the said

provision. Article 338 (5) provides that it shall be the duty of the

Commission:-

(a) to investigate and monitor all matters relating to the

safeguards provided for the Scheduled Castes under this

Constitution or under any other law for the time being in

force or under any order of the Government and to

evaluate the working of such safeguards;

(b) to inquire into specific complaints with respect to the

deprivation of rights and safeguards of the Scheduled

Castes;

(c) to participate and advise on the planning process of

socio-economic development of the Scheduled Castes and

to evaluate the progress of their development under the

Union and any State;

(d) to present to the President, annually and at such other

times as the Commission may deem fit, reports upon the

working of those safeguards;

(e) to make in such reports recommendations as to the

measures that should be taken by the Union or any State

for the effective implementation of those safeguards and

other measures for the protection, welfare and socio-

economic development of the Scheduled Castes; and

(f) to discharge such other functions in relation to the

protection, welfare and development and advancement of

the Scheduled Castes as the President may, subject to the

provisions of any law made by Parliament, by the rule

specify.

20. The fallacy of the submission made on behalf of the

complainant can be seen from the judgment of the Apex Court in

All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare

Association and others vs. Union of India others (1996) 6 SCC

606, in which the direction of the National Commission to the

CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 28

Executive Director of Indian Overseas Bank to stop the promotion

process pending further investigation and final verdict in the

matter was held to be bad for want of jurisdiction. The Apex

Court observed that the Commission having not been specifically

granted any power to issue interim injunctions, lacks the

authority to issue an order impugned. In this respect the Apex

Court observed that the powers of a Civil Court in 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. The above

observations of the Apex Court are also relevant and applicable

to the present case where it has not been shown that the

Commission has been specifically granted any power to direct the

State Police Officers to reinvestigate any matter. We are satisfied

that the State Office of the National Commission has exercised

jurisdiction not vested in it by law. As such, in our view, the State

Office of the National Commission lacks the authority of issuing

communication dated 11.4.2008 and, therefore, the same is held

bad for want of jurisdiction.”

30. Hon’ble the Supreme Court, while rendering its verdict in

case titled as “Collector, Bilaspur Vs. Ajit P.K. Jogi and Ors.”, 2011(4)

SCT 740 (SC), specifically held that authorities shall not pass any orders

that go beyond the scope of its statutory jurisdiction. The principal

question, which cropped up for consideration in the supra case was,

“Whether the Commission had the jurisdiction to entertain complaints

about the genuineness of caste certificate of a particular individual and

pronounce upon the validity of the caste certificate and the caste status of

such person?”

31. While answering the above question in negative, Hon’ble the

Supreme Court held that, the Commission has not been entrusted with the

CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 29

power to take up the role of a court or an adjudicatory tribunal and

determine the rights of the parties. The power under Clause 5(b) of Article

338 does not entitle the Commission to hold an inquiry in regard to the

caste status of any particular individual and record a finding upon the

validity of the caste certificate. In case, any such complaint is received

regarding deprivation of the rights and safeguards of the scheduled castes,

the Commission will have to refer the matter to the State Government or

the authority concerned with verification of caste/tribal status, to take

necessary action. The Commission can also follow up the matter with the

State Government or such authority dealing with the matter to ensure that

the complaint is enquired into and appropriate decision is taken. If the

State Government or the authority concerned does not take action, the

Commission could either itself or through the affected persons initiate

legal action to ensure that there is a proper adjudication of the matter.

32. To reach at the supra conclusion, reliance was placed upon

the verdict drawn in “State Bank of Patiala V. Vinesh Kumar Bhasin”,

2010 (4) SCC 368, wherein, it was held that, the Disabilities Act clothes

the Chief Commissioner/Commissioner functioning thereunder with

certain powers of a civil court for discharge of their functions, however, it

does not enable them to assume the other powers of a civil court, which

are not vested in them by the provisions of the Disabilities Act. Similarly,

reliance was also placed upon the verdict penned down in “Bhabani

Prasad Jena V. Orissa State Commission for Women”, 2010 (8) SCC

633, wherein became enclosed the observations that, the 1993 Act has not

CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 30

entrusted the State Commission with the power to take up the role of a

court or an adjudicatory tribunal and determine the rights of the parties.

33. The relevant observations of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, as

recorded in “Collector, Bilaspur Vs. Ajit P.K. Jogi and Ors.”, are

extracted hereunder:-

“

11. Dealing with the powers of a similar (State) Commission for

Women, this Court in Bhabani Prasad Jena vs. Orissa State

Commission for Women [2010 (8) SCC 633], held as under :

"Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, learned Counsel for Respondent 2

submitted that once a power has been given to the State

Commission to receive complaints including the matter

concerning deprivation of women of their rights, it is

implied that the State Commission is authorized to decide

these complaints. We are afraid, no such implied power

can be read into Section 10(1)(d) as suggested by the

learned Counsel. The provision contained in Section 10(1)

(d) is expressly clear that the State Commission may

receive complaints in relation to the matters specified

therein and on receipt of such complaints take up the

matter with the authorities concerned for appropriate

remedial measures. The 1993 Act has not entrusted the

State Commission with the power to take up the role of a

court or an adjudicatory tribunal and determine the rights

of the parties. The State Commission is not a tribunal

discharging the functions of a judicial character or a

court."

12. Dealing with the powers of the Chief Commissioner and

Commissioners under the persons with Disabilities (Equal

Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act and

the Rules thereunder, this Court in State Bank of Patiala vs.

Vinesh Kumar Bhasin- 2010 (4) SCC 368, held as follows:

"It is evident from the said provisions, that neither the

CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 31

Chief Commissioner nor any Commissioner functioning

under the Disabilities Act has power to issue any

mandatory or prohibitory injunction or other interim

directions. The fact that the Disabilities Act clothes them

with certain powers of a civil court for discharge of their

functions (which include power to look into complaints),

does not enable them to assume the other powers of a civil

court which are not vested in them by the provisions of the

Disabilities Act."

13. It is evident from Article 338 as it originally stood, that the

Commission was constituted to protect and safeguard the persons

belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes by ensuring :

(i) anti- discrimination, (ii) affirmative action by way reservation

and empowerment, and (iii) redressal of grievances. The duties

under clause 5(b) of Article 338 did not extend to either issue of

caste/tribe certificate or to revoke or cancel a caste/tribe

certificate or to decide upon the validity of the caste certificate.

Having regard to the sub-clause (b) of clause (5) of Article 338,

the Commission could no doubt entertain and enquire into any

specific complaint about deprivation of any rights and safeguards

of Scheduled Tribes. When such a complaint was received, the

Commission could enquire into such complaint and give a report

to the Central Government or State Government requiring

effective implementation of the safeguards and measures for the

protection and welfare and socio-economic development of

scheduled tribes. This power to enquire into `deprivation of rights

and safeguards of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes' did

not include the power to enquire into and decide the caste/tribe

status of any particular individual. In fact, as there was no

effective mechanism to verify the caste/tribe certificates issued to

individuals, this Court in Madhuri Patil vs. Addl. Commissioner

(Tribal Development) - 1994 (6) SCC 241 directed constitution of

scrutiny committees.

CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 32

16. It is only after recording the said findings, the Commission

directed the State government to verify the genuineness of the ST

certificate obtained by first respondent and initiate action for

cancellation of the certificate and also initiate criminal action. All

these were unwarranted. As noticed above, the power under

clause 5(b) of Article 338 (or under any of the other sub-clauses

of clause 5 of Article 338) did not entitle the Commission to hold

an inquiry in regard to the caste status of any particular

individual, summon documents, and record a finding that his

caste certificate is bogus or false. If such a complaint was

received about the deprivation of the rights and safeguards, it will

have to refer the matter to the State Government or the authority

concerned with verification of caste/tribal status, to take

necessary action. It can certainly follow up the matter with the

State Government or such authority dealing with the matter to

ensure that the complaint is inquired into and appropriate

decision is taken. If the State Government or the authorities did

not take action, the Commission could either itself or through the

affected persons, initiate legal action to ensure that there is a

proper verification of the caste certificate, but it cannot undertake

the exercise itself, as has been done in this case. The contention

that there was sufficient material to reach such a conclusion is

not relevant. The scope of the duties of the Commission as noticed

above, did not involve inquiry or adjudication in regard to the

rights of parties or caste status of the parties. The same is the

position even under Article 338A (which was subsequently

inserted) providing for a separate Commission for Scheduled

Tribes with identical duties. The order of the Commission cannot

therefore be sustained. The High Court was justified in setting

aside the said order dated 16.10.2001.”

34. A similar issue inhering the case at hand also cropped up

before the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. O.P. No.15329 of

2020, titled as “M. Nandhini Vs. The Director, National Commission

CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 33

for Schedule Caste and Ors.”, Decided on: 29.09.2020. The petitioner-

M. Nandhini approached the High Court for issuance of directions upon

the official respondent(s) to forthwith file an altered FIR in view of the

specific directions issued by the National Commission, however, her

petition was dismissed. It was held by the Madras High Court that, though

the National Commission has power to enquire the complaint lodged

before it, it cannot direct any police authority to do anything in respect of

registration of FIR or the offences. The relevant portion of the verdict

rendered in M. Nandhini’s case is reproduced hereinafter:-

“This petition has been filed seeking to direct the 2nd respondent

to instruct the 3rd respondent to forthwith file an altered FIR in

Crime No.08 of 2019 on the file of 3rd respondent to include the

relevant provisions of law under the provisions of SC and ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Women Harassment Act along

with Section 498A, 506(ii) of IPC against the 4th respondent and

his relatives and complete the same within a time frame as may be

fixed by this Hon'ble High Court.

6. The learned Senior counsel would contended that though the

National Commission for Schedule Caste directed the third

respondent to include the offences under the provisions of SC and

ST Act and also Women Harassment Act, the third respondent did

not include those offences. The National Commission for Schedule

Caste cannot direct the third respondent, who is the police

authority, to include any offences under the SC and ST Act.

Though the National Commission for Schedule Caste has power

to enquire the complaint lodged before the commission, they

cannot direct any police authority to do anything in respect of

registration of FIR or the offences. Further, the third respondent

has now completed the investigation and also filed the final report

before the Court concerned. Therefore, the prayer sought for in

CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 34

this petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be

dismissed.

7. With the above observations, this Criminal Original Petition is

dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to workout his

remedies under Sections 216 and 319 of Cr.P.C., before the trial

Court during the trial by let in evidence.”

35. In “K.G. Subramanian Vs. The Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Erode Sub Division and Ors.”, Neutral Citation: 2023-2-

LW(Crl)202, the High Court of Madras again dealt with an alike issue as

to whether the National Commission has power to direct the investigating

officer to re-investigate the case and finally penned down a negative

answer. The relevant observations of the Madras High Court are

reproduced hereunder:-

“8. In this case, the following questions arise:

(i) Whether the National Commission for Scheduled Castes

has power to direct the Investigating Officer to re-

investigate the case?

(ii) Even if such a direction is issued, whether the

Investigating Officer can re-investigate the case without

approaching the Superior Courts for permission to re-

investigate.

9. As regards the 1

st

question, it is seen that the National

Commission for Scheduled Castes derives its power from Article

338 of the Constitution of India and the Commissions of Inquiry

Act, 1952. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgement reported

in 1996 (6) SCC 606 –All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST

Employees Welfare Association and others Vs. Union of India and

others., had an occasion to consider the power of the National

Commission for Scheduled Castes, which is traceable to Article

338 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held

that though the National Commission for Scheduled Castes had

CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 35

the power of Civil Courts for the purpose of conducting

investigation or enquiry, they cannot be termed as Civil Court.

12. The above Rule 7.4.1 (e) and (f) would show that the

Commission shall not take up matters which are subjudice or

where final orders have been passed by the Courts. Admittedly, in

this case, the final report, closing the case, was filed before the

Court. Thus, the Act does not confer any power on the National

Commission for Scheduled Castes to order re-investigation. The

Kerala High Court on the basis of similar provisions had held

that, even further investigation cannot be directed by the

Commission.”

36. A similar view was also taken by the High Court of

Karnataka at Bengaluru in “M.B. Siddalingaswamy Vs. The State of

Karnataka and Ors.”, Neutral Citation: 2021(2) KarLJ 108. The

relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:-

“13. ……A reading of the afore-extracted Sections 8 and 10 of the

said Act, makes it abundantly clear that the Commission is not

empowered to adjudicate upon the rights of parties. The power

vested with the Commission of Inquiry and submission of a report

cannot be extended to adjudicate all disputes between individual

and a State or a statutory authority. The powers conferred do not

contemplate that the Commission can examine matters like a civil

Court and adjudicate dispute and pronounce its decision either

interim or final or issue a direction of the kind that is issued in the

case on hand.

14. The Commission cannot be construed to be a Tribunal or a

forum discharging the functions of a judicial character or Court.

Article 338 of the Constitution itself does not entrust the

Commission with the power to take up the role of a Court or an

adjudicatory Tribunal and determine the rights of parties inter se.

15. Clause (8) of Article 338 gives all the powers of a civil Court

trying a suit but the said powers are to be exercised while

CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 36

investigating any matter referred to it in the clauses

aforementioned which would make it clear that the powers

bestowed upon the Commission by the Constitution are

procedural powers of the civil Court for the purpose of

investigating and enquiring into matters and are limited only for

that purpose. The procedure that is conferred under Article 338

cannot be confused to be conferring a substantive power akin to

that of a civil Court or a Tribunal which are adjudicating bodies

of disputes of citizens.”

CONCLUSION OF THIS COURT

37. Although much emphasis has been thrust on Rules 7.5.1 and

7.5.2 of the Rules of Procedure in order to defend the legality of the

impugned directions, as already observed by this Court in the preceding

paragraphs, the Rules of Procedure cannot be read in isolation from

Article 338 of the Constitution of India wherefrom the Commission owes

its origin.

38. Therefore, the final conclusion spurring from th e

hereinabove discussed legal propositions is that, the Commission is not

bestowed with any power to issue any directions in the nature of

temporary or permanent injunction, rather its power is purely

recommendatory in nature. The term “recommendation” has been

explained by the Division Bench of this Court in Jatt Ram’s case, which

is deemed imperative at this stage to be extracted hereinafter:-

“25. With regard to the argument that the recommendations of

the Commission cannot be treated to be a mere suggestion, we

may notice that the words "recommend" and "recommendations"

have been defined in Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged

Dictionary of the English Language (New Revised Edition) as

CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 37

follows:

"Recommend" means 1. to present as worthy of confidence,

acceptance use etc; commend; mention favourably to

recommend an applicant for a job to recommend a book, 2.

to represent or urged as advisable or expedient; to

recommend caution, 3. to advise as an alternative; suggest

(a choice, course of action etc.) as appropriate, beneficial,

or the like; He recommended the blue plate special. The

doctor recommended special exercises for her. 4. to make

desirable or attractive; a plan that has very little to

recommend it.

"Recommendation" has been described to mean an act of

recommending, 2. a letter or the like recommending a

person or thing, 3. representation in favour of a person or

thing. 4. anything that serves to recommend a person or

thing or induce acceptance or favour.

26. Similarly in Corpus Juris Secundum, the word "recommend"

and "recommendation" have been ascribed the following

meaning:

"RECOMMEND", to advise or counsel, to counsel as to a

course of action, to commend, to commend to the

favourable, notice of another, to bestow commendation on,

to praise as desirable advantageous, trustworthy, or

advisable, to put in a favourable light before any one, to

speak in behalf of, to present as one's advice or choice or

as having one's approval, to commit to, to commit to

another's care, confidence, or acceptance, with favouring

representations, to consign, to give in charge, to offer with

favourable representations.

Ordinarily it involves the idea that another has the final

decision although it is sometimes used in an a imperative

sense.

"Recommend" has been held synonymous with, or

equivalent to, "desire".

CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 38

"Recommendation": The act of one person in giving to

another a favourable account of the character,

responsibility, or skill of a third, the act of recommending

or commending a person or thing to notice, use,

confidence, or civility of another, favourable

representation, mere suggestion as to the desirability of a

certain course of action to be pursued, that word is also

defined as meaning a note commending a person to favour.

"Recommendation": has been held equivalent to, or

synonymous with, "certificate" and "reference", and has

been compared with, or distinguished form, "decision" and

"instruction".

27. In Chambers 21st Century Dictionary (Revised Edition) also,

Recommend has been described to mean to suggest as being

suitable to be accepted, chosen etc. to commend."

39. After observing the above, the Division Bench of this Court

finally concluded that the word “recommendation” necessarily means “to

suggest” and such suggestion cannot be treated to be a decision capable of

execution or enforcement.

FINAL ORDER

40. On the anvil of the above legal propositions and judicial

precedents, this Court finds that the Commission has exceeded its

jurisdiction while issuing the impugned directions. The directions of the

Commission for initiation of appropriate action against the accused, could

at best, be considered only as a recommendation or information by

Commission of a cognizable offence, as is apparent from Rule 7.5.1.

(already extracted hereinabove).

41. Nonetheless, s ince FIR has already been registered against

the petitioners, hence it would not be appropriate for this Court to, in the

CWP-14576-2022 AND CWP-13768-2022 39

instant proceedings, comment upon the veracity of allegations. Therefore,

this Court refrains from quashing the FIR. However, liberty is reserved to

the petitioners to, in case, they have any grievance with regard to

registration of the FIR, file an apt motion before the competent

forum/court of law.

42. Needless to say, the investigating officer shall complete the

investigation of the FIR in question strictly in accordance with law. The

Commission does not have any jurisdiction to interfere with the ongoing

investigation. As already explained above, the Commission can only

make recommendation to the State, in case it finds any lapse in the

investigation.

43. Disposed of accordingly.

44. A photocopy of this order be placed on file of connected

case.

(KULDEEP TIWARI)

July 08, 2025 JUDGE

devinder

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether Reportable : Yes/No