Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the matter of Collector, Bilaspur v. Ajit P.K. Jogi and others3 considered the duty of National Commission for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes provided under Article 338(5) of the Constitution of India and held that the Commission cannot determine/adjudicate the caste or tribe status of any particular individual. Relevant extract of report states as under:-

"17. 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 of 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 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 the State Government requiring effective implementation of the safeguards and measures for the protection and welfare and socio- economic development of the 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.

3 (2011) 10 SCC 357 In fact, as there was no effective mechanism to verify the caste/tribe certificates issued to individuals, this Court in Madhuri Patil v. Commr., Tribal Development4 directed constitution of scrutiny committees.

23. 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 338-A (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."

12. The Delhi High Court in the matter of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Lal Chand and others6 while considering sub-clause (a) of clause (5) of Article 338 of the Constitution of India held that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes has no adjudicatory power and it can deal with the complaint only where the complaint relates to a specific incident of depriving a 5 (1996) 6 SCC 606 person of the rights conferred upon and safeguards provided for the persons, who as a class belong to Scheduled Castes. In paragraph 10, the Delhi High Court held as under: -