The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) cannot adjudicate upon the veracity of an FIR or declare it false, given its limited advisory and recommendatory role under Article 338 of the Constitution.

Article 338 of the Constitution provides for the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and empowers it to investigate and inquire into matters concerning safeguards for Scheduled Castes and report on their implementation.

In addition, Rule 7.4(f) of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes Rules of Procedure, 1931, further provides that cases pending before courts or cases in which a final verdict has been delivered may not be taken up afresh by the Commission.

The Court made the observations while setting aside the Commission's proceedings, in which it concluded that the police had registered a false FIR against a complainant and recommended constituting a Joint Committee to take necessary steps for withdrawal of the cases filed against him

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati observed:

“The Supreme Court of India has consistently reaffirmed that the National Commissioner for Scheduled Castes is an advisory and recommendatory body under Article 338 of the Constitution of India, and it lacks adjudicatory or judicial powers. The Commission cannot act like a civil or criminal court. It has no jurisdiction to formally judge, quash, or declare an active criminal case or FIR to be false or fabricated.

In the instant case though the Commission recommended that a Joint Committee be constituted, comprising the Collector and the Commissioner of Police and to take necessary steps for withdrawal of the false case filed against respondent no.5, however it had came to a conclusion that the police had registered a false FIR against respondent no.5. The Commission being only an advisory and recommendatory body, lacks such adjudicatory or judicial powers.”

The proceedings originated from a complaint filed before the Commission. Following an inquiry, it concluded that the police had registered a false FIR against the complainant and recommended constituting a Joint Committee comprising the Collector and District Magistrate and the Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam, to take necessary steps for withdrawal of the cases filed against him.

Aggrieved by the proceedings, a Visakhapatnam-based businessman filed a writ petition in the nature of prohibition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking to restrain the Commission from undertaking any further inquiry or action in the matter.

The petitioner contended that the Commission had exceeded its authority by entertaining the complaint and initiating an inquiry despite multiple civil and criminal proceedings pending before competent courts. Relying on Rules 7.4(e) and (f) of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes Rules of Procedure, 1931, he argued that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

Opposing this contention, the Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Commission submitted that it had merely recommended constituting a Joint Committee to take necessary steps for withdrawal of the cases, if any.

Counsel for the complainant also submitted that the Commission had only given recommendations and therefore, there is neither overstepping nor an overreach of the constitutional authority conferred upon the National Commission.

Upon considering the submissions, the High Court reiterated that the Commission, being an advisory and recommendatory body, lacked the adjudicatory or judicial powers to conclude that the police had registered a false FIR.

The Court further noted that the Commission had disregarded Rule 7.4(f) despite the pendency of legal proceedings, recommending the constitution of a Joint Committee to take necessary steps for withdrawal of the case it had determined to be false.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the Commission's proceedings and disposed of the writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ajay Kumar Kanaparthi.

Counsel for the Respondents: Government Pleader for Home; Government Pleader for Revenue; V. Surya Kiran Kumar; and Y.V. Anil Kumar, Central Government Counsel.