Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(iii) Whether there was any violation of principles of natural justice on the part of the Commission as held by the High Court?

(iv) Whether the High Court was justified in holding that the proceedings before the Commission at the instance of sixth respondent were politically motivated?

Re : Question (i)

8. Article 338 of the Constitution of India mandates the constitution of a National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Article 338A mandates the constitution of a National Commission for Scheduled Tribes. At the relevant point of time, that is in the year 2001, Article 338A was not in existence and the unamended Article 338 provided for a National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Clause (5) of unamended Article 338 enumerated the duties of the Commission, relevant portions of which are extracted below :

Commission on all major policy matters affecting and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 
     xxxxxx                   xxxxxxx"

                                                                                 (emphasis supplied)
10. The appellants and the Commission relied upon sub-clause (b) of clause (5) of Article 338 which provided that it shall be the duty of the Commission to enquire into specific complaints with respect to deprivation of rights and safeguards to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, as the source of power to the Commission to enquire into and decide upon the caste status of any individual claiming to belong to a scheduled tribe. It was submitted that if persons not belonging to scheduled tribes falsely claim the status of scheduled tribes, they would thereby be depriving the rights and benefits available to genuine scheduled tribes and consequently, when a specific complaint is received alleging that any particular person had made a false claim of being a person belonging to a scheduled tribe, the Commission was duty bond to enquire into the such specific complaint as it related to deprivation of rights and safeguards of scheduled tribes. It was further argued that it had examined and decided upon the caste status of the first respondent, after examining the material collected by it and after giving an opportunity to the first respondent to prove that he belonged to a scheduled tribe, and it had come to a conclusion that the first respondent had fraudulently claimed that he belonged to the scheduled tribe of Kanwar and had obtained false certificate to that effect; and that the first respondent was a Christian, who did not belong to a scheduled tribe and therefore, not eligible to enjoy the reservation and other benefits extended to scheduled tribes. It was also pointed out that the Commission had ultimately directed the State Government to conduct the verification of the genuineness of the ST certificate obtained by the first respondent and initiate action for cancellation of his ST certificate and consequently, initiate criminal action in accordance with law.

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.

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.