2014 (4) TMI 1063 - HC - Indian Laws

Court clarifies NCSC's jurisdiction, admonishes unjustified actions, and deems certain recommendations impermissible.

Dr. Lalji Singh Versus. National Commission & others.

Dr. Lalji Singh Versus. National Commission & others. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC).2. Maintainability of complaints before the NCSC.3. Justification for issuing summons and warrants for the personal appearance of the Vice-Chancellor.Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC):The primary issue in the writ petitions was whether the NCSC had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaints made by various individuals, including Dr. Indu Choudhary. The duties of the NCSC under Article 338(5) of the Constitution include investigating and monitoring matters relating to safeguards for Scheduled Castes, inquiring into specific complaints of deprivation of rights, and making recommendations to the President. The Commission is empowered to regulate its own procedure under Article 338(4). However, the Court noted that many of the complaints, such as those relating to administrative and disciplinary matters, did not fall within the jurisdiction of the NCSC as they did not involve deprivation of rights or safeguards specific to Scheduled Castes. The Court emphasized that the Commission must apply its mind to determine whether a complaint falls within its jurisdiction before proceeding.2. Maintainability of Complaints Before the NCSC:The Court examined the maintainability of various complaints filed with the NCSC. For instance, Dr. Indu Choudhary's complaint about her eviction from the guest house and subsequent disciplinary proceedings was found to be barred by Rule 7.4.1 (e), (f), and (g) of the Rules of Procedures of the NCSC, as it involved administrative matters and was subjudice. Similarly, complaints by other individuals, such as those alleging irregularities in appointments and non-implementation of reservation policies, were scrutinized. The Court found that some complaints lacked specific allegations of caste-based harassment or deprivation of rights and were therefore not maintainable. The Court stressed that the NCSC should not entertain vexatious complaints made with oblique motives and should ensure that complaints are substantiated with supporting documents and relevant legal provisions.3. Justification for Issuing Summons and Warrants for Personal Appearance of the Vice-Chancellor:The Court addressed whether the NCSC was justified in insisting on the personal appearance of the Vice-Chancellor. The NCSC has the power to summon individuals under Article 338(8) for the purpose of facilitating investigations and inquiries. However, the Court noted that this power should be exercised judiciously and not mechanically. The Vice-Chancellor was neither a witness to any incident nor had personal knowledge of the matters in question. The University had already submitted detailed replies and relevant records to the NCSC. The Court found that the repeated summons and warrants for the Vice-Chancellor's personal appearance were unjustified and issued without proper application of mind. The Court emphasized that the NCSC should specify the reasons and purpose for summoning individuals and should rely on the material already provided by the University.Conclusion:The Court concluded that the NCSC had entertained some complaints without due consideration of its jurisdiction and the maintainability of the complaints. The insistence on the personal appearance of the Vice-Chancellor was found to be unjustified. The Court also took exception to certain recommendations made by the NCSC in its report, which were deemed impermissible and contemptuous. The writ petitions were disposed of with observations, noting that the summons and warrants had lost their relevance as the NCSC had already submitted its report to the Government of India.