The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the State Women Commission, though empowered to receive complaints concerning deprivation of the rights of women, cannot issue binding directions affecting the service conditions of an employee. The Court observed that the jurisdiction of the Commission is recommendatory and facilitative in nature and cannot be enlarged to confer upon it a power which has not been vested in it by the statute.

Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad was hearing a writ petition filed by a principal of a government school, challenging the proceedings and recommendation dated July 6, 2026 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Women Commission, whereby the Commission recommended his transfer from his present place of posting to another Block. The case arose out of allegations made by an Assistant Teacher working under the petitioner's administrative control.

The petitioner contended that Respondent No. 3 has exercised powers not vested in it under the applicable statutory framework and has thereby acted wholly without jurisdiction and in excess of the authority conferred upon it by law. The impugned action, being an unauthorized interference with the petitioner's service rights and having been passed without lawful authority, is therefore liable to be set aside.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women, wherein it was observed that the State Commission is empowered to receive complaints and take up the grievances with the concerned authorities for appropriate remedial measures. The Supreme Court had further observed that no power or authority had been given to the State Commission to adjudicate or determine the rights of the parties.

The Court observed that while the State Women Commission is empowered to receive complaints concerning deprivation of the rights of women and take up such grievances with the concerned authorities for appropriate remedial measures, such power does not extend to adjudicating the rights of the parties.

“… the State Women Commission is empowered to receive complaints concerning deprivation of the rights of women… such power does not extend to adjudicating the rights of the parties or issuing binding directions affecting the service conditions of an employee. The jurisdiction of the Commission is recommendatory and facilitative in nature and cannot be enlarged to confer upon it a power which has not been vested in it by the statute,” the Court remarked.

The Court held that the impugned recommendation could not be sustained merely because it was described as a recommendation, as the substance and effect of the direction had to be considered. Since the Commission had recommended a specific coercive service action and fixed a time limit for the competent authority to carry it out, such action required statutory sanction.

The Court accordingly held the proceedings and recommendation dated July 6, 2026 to be without jurisdiction, and allowed the writ petition.

Case Title: Digree Lal Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh [WPC No. 4136 of 2026]

Click Here To Read/Download Order