Allahabad High Court Criticises National Minorities Commission For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction, Summoning Officers Without Reason

The Allahabad High Court has strongly deprecated the adjudication of civil disputes by the National Commission for Minorities and its State counterpart as it is beyond the scope of the powers given to them under the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992 and the U.P. Commission for Minorities Act, 1994.

A bench comprising Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Prashant Kumar held,

“We strongly deprecate such practice adopted by the National Commission for Minorities to adjudicate disputes and proceed to adjudicate matters, as if they are Courts and also to summon the officers without any rhyme or reason in continuance of such adjudication or to pressurize officers to pass any order. We further request the Members or Chairpersons of the Commission for Minorities of the State of U.P. and also the National Commission for Minorities, not to function or adjudicate any dispute as a Court for which they are not empowered under the Act to do so.”

The Court further observed that if the Commissions for Minorities continues to act beyond their jurisdiction, “such abuse of position would render Member/Chairperson’s continuance in the Office detrimental to the public interest and can invite removal of such Member/Chairperson.”

Factual Background

Petitioner-Divine Faith Fellowship Church, Sambhal, an NGO claiming to be working for betterment of Christian Community. It was claimed that they have 17 shops around Church area, which is property of the Church. Land grabbers had illegally taken possession of one of the shops. An application was moved before UP Commission for Minorities who summoned the Nayab Tehsildar. Based on the hearing, UP Commission for Minorities concluded that one Kamal had illegally taken possession of the shop leased out Mr. Amit. UP Commission directed that action be taken against both the tenant and Mr. Kamal.

As the order passed by UP Commission was not complied with, petitioner approached the National Commission for Minorities, Government of India at New Delhi. After hearing the petitioners and the Sub Divisional Magistrate, National Commission directed that District Administration should help petitioner to get possession of the shop. Petitioner approached the High Court for compliance of the order of the National Commission.

Counsel for the State argued that though the Commissions had been set up for a purpose, they had been acting beyond their jurisdiction by pressurizing and summoning officers.

Thus, the issue before the Court was whether the Commission for Minorities as established under the 1992 Act is a ‘Court’ or not or can it adjudicate the issues between the parties.

High Court Verdict

Perusing the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992 and the U.P. Commission for Minorities Act, 1994, the Court observed the Commissions have been set up to safeguard the minorities. Section 9(4) of the Acts provides that the Commission has the powers of a civil court trying a suit and could enforce attendance of any person. However, they do not have the power to direct eviction for resolution of a property dispute.

“The U.P. Commission cannot usurp the power of civil court for resolving property disputes, such as dispute of evicting a person from a shop owned by the Church. The power of the Commission is confined to Section 9(1)(a), (b) and (d) of the 1992 Act, under which they can summon an officer or have the power of civil court. They cannot usurp the power which has not been granted to them under the Statute.”

The Court relied on various judgements of the Supreme Court and Allahabad High Court, wherein it has been held the Commission only has the power to make recommendations to the State Government. Any recommendations made by the Commission are not binding on the Government.

“It has become a normal practice by the National Commission for Minorities and the U.P. Commission for Minorities to keep summoning the officers and try to pressurize them to pass orders which is beyond their jurisdiction,” held the Court.

Further, reliance was placed by the Court on State of U.P. and others vs. Dr. Manoj Kumar Sharma, wherein the Apex Court deprecated the practice by the High Courts summoning officers without any “solid reason”. Accordingly, the Court held that Commission being no better than a High Court cannot summon officers, especially when the power to adjudicate disputes lies with the civil court.

The Court held that the petitioner should have approached the civil court for eviction of the tenant as neither the National Commission for Minorities nor its State counterpart had the jurisdiction summon the officers and to order eviction of the tenant.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Case Title: Divine Faith Fellowship Church And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 367

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 367

Appearances: Ms. Akanksha Mishra, for petitioners and Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

Click Here To Read/Download Order